[pulseaudio-discuss] Audiophile newbie reporting in
mike at cchtml.com
Wed Aug 3 08:20:33 PDT 2011
Maarten Bosmans wrote:
> What would you expect from such an area on the wiki?
It would have answered my questions without having to ask them here. I
will create a page soon with a summary of what we have discussed.
> Then you can set resample-method in daemon.conf to src-sinc-best-quality.
That's what I figured. Thanks.
> Indeed, Jack will not gain you anything over PA for this scenario.
I guess I should clarify. He wants to use Jack to have bit perfect
playback of even 44.1k streams. He hates upsampling that much.
> Probably not beneficial, but I'm not sure, honestly. The only way to
> know for sure is to listen and compare the difference. I mean, you
> audiophiles can talk for hours about what's the best way to setup
> things, but eventually it all comes down to what sounds best.
> Well do you even understand why 96 kHz is better than 48 kHz? For the
> same reason 192 is better than 96, be it with diminishing returns.
> Than reason has nothing to do with our ability to hear ultasonic
Yes, I know the definition of sample rate.
> Sure, resampling does something with the audio sampling, but I'm not
> quite sure what "averages samples" should mean.
Yep. I don't know what it means either. I think he has a personal
opinion that upsampling is evil.
> Pulse can only have fixed sample rate set for a sink. (There are some
> patches floating around to fix that, which sound like they would fix
> your single-source use case perfectly, but they land post 1.0 at the
> earliest) Given that, 96kHz is obviously a better choice for a fixed
> sample rate, as you'd rather upsample your CD-quality stuff than
> downsample the 96 kHz recordings.
Good to hear. Thanks for your comments.
If anyone has any other comments I will add them to the wiki page I will
More information about the pulseaudio-discuss