On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:17 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Charles Henry wrote: >> So, I would favor an optional creation argument for specifying an >> interpolation method in place of the zero-interleaving step. > > this is already there. > you can specify via creation args to in/outlets which "interpolation" you > want: currently only zero-interleaving and sample and hold are inplemented.
I see now. This might be the first time I've looked at the help page for inlet~. Also, linear interpolation is listed there. > as far as i understand miller (in previous posts), he doesn't really like > this approach, as all future resampling methods would have to go into Pd's > core rather than being available as externals. > > by now i can agree to this (despite my original idea that has made it into > the code). > as you say, the only thing needed would be a complete description of the > signal-properties (resampling factor, overlap factor) made available for > externals. then they could figure out themselves what they need. > (well, this works if you have an upsampled subpatched; i guess it is a bit > more clumsy if you have a downsampled subpatch (e.g. you do the upsampling > outside). I see. Rather than a single variable to determine the interpolation, you need to know the ratio between sub-patches. It's probably better to leave the parameters up to the user. I think linear upsampling is a bit more intuitive for users than a zero-interleaved upsampling as a default behavior. For most scenarios I can think of involving upsampling (filtering), there's only "incompatibility" by having a gain factor of the upsampling ratio (using default of linear interpolation instead of zero-interleaving). Chuck _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
