[pulseaudio-discuss] Audiophile newbie reporting in

Michael Cronenworth 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
> soundwaves.

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 mailing list