![]() |
Digital Drive Upsamplers, DACs, jitter, shakes and analogue withdrawals, this is it. |
Register / Login
|
In Reply to: Re: Oh, we could be zeroes, just for one day ... posted by Todd Krieger on February 28, 2007 at 10:52:10:
*** Because no standard criteria was ever established to define "correct" in this regard. ***Check out the link provided below, which is a pretty comprehensive evaluation of various professional resampling algorithms using a variety of tests.
A "correct" SRC algorithm should have a "perfect" passband, and "infinite" attenuation past the passband. In addition, there should be no additional harmonic distortion generated.
The criteria is simple, but very difficult to achieve. As you can see from the link provided, very few SRC algorithms perform well. I was shocked at how bad the resamplers built into well regarded software such as Pro Tools, Pyramix, SaDiE, etc. are.
I would imagine hardware/silicon based SRC would be even worse, due to limited computation power and precision.
Although the examples used in the link provided are based on downsampling 96kHz to 44.1kHz, I have discovered through my own tests that the artefacts generated by upsampling are very similar.
So basically whenever someone gushes about how good "upsampling" sounds, it's conceivable what they are hearing are artefacts generated by SRC.
So I think we are all agreeing (you, me, Ted, Werner, etc.) that theoretically there should be nothing wrong with SRC (ASRC, SSRC, etc.) but practical implementations leave much to be desired, notwithstanding that sometimes the results may be euphonic.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- You might be interested in this ... - Christine Tham 14:32:14 02/28/07 (10)
- Re: You might be interested in this ... - Werner 23:28:55 02/28/07 (9)
- Re: You might be interested in this ... - Christine Tham 23:48:47 02/28/07 (8)
- Re: You might be interested in this ... - Werner 03:18:08 03/01/07 (7)
- Re: You might be interested in this ... - Christine Tham 13:26:53 03/01/07 (6)
- Re: You might be interested in this ... - Werner 00:07:15 03/02/07 (5)
- Re: You might be interested in this ... - Christine Tham 16:58:49 03/02/07 (4)
- Re: You might be interested in this ... - Werner 00:31:32 03/05/07 (3)
- 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)