Thanks Roman! Claude was right, my way is too complicated. But I'm happy to know the specifics.
Cheers! D. Roman Haefeli wrote: > On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 12:24 +0200, Derek Holzer wrote: >> Wow. OK, I guess I never tried it the "wrong" way.... ;-) just to >> satisfy curiosity... would downsample/upsample cause aliasing errors or not? >> >> best, >> d. > > let's say: > - you record at 24k, aiming for a result at 48k > - all time variables (metro, delay, etc) are doubled > - all frequencies are halved, respectively 12 is subtracted > from all pitches. > then you wouldn't even have to resample the result, but it would be > sufficient to simply change the samplerate field in the header from > 24'000 to 48'000. you wouldn't have any artifacts at all in this case. > > if you simply record at 24k without all the modifications in your patch > as described above and if you resample the rendered result to 48k, you > probably would have a bit artefacts, but what is much worse: you cannot > increase the quality of your recording by upsampling it. it will still > sound the same (as with the lower samplerate) and it would be lacking > all frequencies above 12k. so: yeah, it is definitely recommended, > whenever possible, to do offline rendering in pd, even if it uses more > than 100% cpu. > > roman > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de > > -- derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl ::: http://blog.myspace.com/macumbista ---Oblique Strategy # 2: "A line has two sides" _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
