In Reply to: Re: You might be interested in this ... posted by Werner on March 5, 2007 at 00:31:32:
*** If you did so in 16 bit then indeed it is no wonder you got bad results. Now please try again in 32 bit. ***Again, please refer to the original context of this post - using ASRC to reduce jitter in a DAC. The signals usually being processed *are* 16-bit.
*** At least one such has been inexistence for more than four years now. ***
Details? And is it actually used as an ASRC in a DAC? Remember - the question of feasibility is in the context of reducing jitter in a DAC, mere existence is not sufficient proof.
*** the core of the problem: how to do SRC properly. ***
No - if you refer to the original context of the discussion - the problem is not "how to do SRC properly". This has never been the topic of discussion (and I thought we were all agreeing that theoretically there should be no issues with SRC done right) - the issue was ASRC as a method of reducing jitter. What is being traded off here is accuracy, as the ASRC needs to happen in real time, and in a way that doesn't inject too much noise back into the circuit. Not an easy problem to solve.
Some people believe that the penalty that is paid in terms of loss of accuracy through ASRC is too high to pay for the jitter reduction benefit. The examples on src.infinitewave.ca give an idea of the magnitude of potential inaccuracies.
Personally I can see both sides of the argument. Although I would prefer a "bit perfect" DAC - in reality, examples like the Benchmark DAC and the Lavry DAC show that the use of ASRC can result in good sound (hearsay - I haven't actually personally heard either of these).
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: You might be interested in this ... - Christine Tham 14:58:30 03/05/07 (2)
- Re: You might be interested in this ... - Werner 23:41:41 03/05/07 (1)
- Re: You might be interested in this ... - Christine Tham 14:10:30 03/06/07 (0)