Re: [Audacity-devel] Fwd: SoX resampling
A free multi-track audio editor and recorder
Brought to you by:
aosiniao
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2012-09-24 17:07:57
|
| From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> | Mon, 24 Sep 2012 01:05:46 +0100 | Subject: [Audacity-devel] Fwd: SoX resampling > On 23 September 2012 23:55, Martyn Shaw <mar...@gm...> wrote: > > Wow! I hadn't seen that. > > > > I don't understand why Audacity 1.3.9 is showing as being much better than > > 2.0, or what 'Best' and 'Medium' mean for 1.3.9 - I don't see those settings > > here. > > http://src.infinitewave.ca does not specify whether Audacity was built > with libresample or libsamplerate. > Libsamplerate has the following options: > Linear Interpolator > ZOH Interpolator > Fastest Sinc Interpolator > Medium Sinc Interpolator > Best Sinc Interpolator > > My guess is that the 1.3.9 (Best) results used libsamplerates "Best > Sinc Interpolator". > > Steve I would further assume that the results for Audacity 2.0 which look much worse are using libresample (which has a "High-quality" option). It should be noted that libsamplerate "best" is extremely slow on less capable machines. Gale > > Also, setting the range of our Spectrogram out to 180dB, to match the > > http://src.infinitewave.ca/ analysis, both their float test signal and a > > generated signal in Audacity don't look great. Is that a limitation/feature > > of our Spectrogram code, a limitation of the 'float' nature of the signals, > > or something else? > > > > TTFN > > Martyn |