Article View: comp.dsp
Article #1988Re: 48k to 44.1k sample rate conversion
From: Rodentia
Date: Wed, 29 May 1991 20:40
Date: Wed, 29 May 1991 20:40
44 lines
3148 bytes
3148 bytes
I have been following this discussion for some time, and I have a few
comments and questions. Warning: I am not a DSP engineer by trade, but
I suspect there are many readers with my level of expertise.
1) How bad is interpolation? Clearly, the signal probably did not look
like the linear interpolation of the samples (I know, look is not
important; hear or dB is), but it seems to be a "reasonable"
approximation. Roughly how much dB or % distortion is added?
I have read here that a linear interpolation is a special form of
low pass filter. Is its problem that it doesn't have high or band
pass characteristics as well?
2) How good is digital filtering? Does the filtered signal actually
include the sample points, or can the filter turn a V into a U
(imagine a U that doesn't go down as far) at a high frequency
area? Is this considered distortion or just a loss of amplitude
(that can be compensated by rescaling)?
3) It appears that a filters instantaneous response is based on its
current internal state (charge on the capacitors, etc.) and the
input signal. It seems that it should be possible to construct
equations that continuously reflect the output of a filter between
samples. It also seems that these equations would be exponential
or perhaps 2nd-order or greater.
I know that this would involve more complex math and perhaps numeric
errors (underflow, etc.), but it seems to have the advantage of
generating only those samples needed (as opposed to a high i
intermediate frequency). Has anyone compared this more mathematical
approach to the current number-crunching mac (multipy-accumulate)
approach? Is the theoretical distortion any different? Are computers
just so much better at the simpler math (with the increased possibilty
of pipelining) that the more mathematical approach has been discarded
for the time being?
Sorry if that dragged on a bit. Please respond by followup as I truly
believe this to be of interest, for historical reasons if nothing else
(you see, I have reinvented some of the greatest solutions to problems
of all times, and this is probably just another of them ;-{) ).
--
Thomas Roden | tom@syssoft.com
Systems and Software, Inc. | Voice: (714) 833-1700 x454
"If the Beagle had sailed here, Darwin would have | FAX: (714) 833-1900
come up with a different theory altogether." - me |
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1991May29.204046.12494@syssoft.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!peregrine!ccicpg!legs!ssi!tomReferences:
<5826@media-lab.media.mit.edu.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <457@valid.valid.com> <42200@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <498@valid.valid.com> <42250@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <502@valid.valid.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!peregrine!ccicpg!legs!ssi!tom From: tom@syssoft.com (Rodentia) Newsgroups: comp.dsp Subject: Re: 48k to 44.1k sample rate conversion Message-ID: <1991May29.204046.12494@syssoft.com> Date: 29 May 91 20:40:46 GMT References: <5826@media-lab.media.mit.edu.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <457@valid.valid.com> <42200@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <498@valid.valid.com> <42250@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <502@valid.valid.com> Reply-To: tom@syssoft.com (Rodentia) Organization: Systems & Software, Inc., Irvine, CA Lines: 44