2009/8/13 James Tomaschke <ja...@orcasystems.com>: > Devon H. O'Dell wrote: >> 2009/8/13 James Tomaschke <ja...@orcasystems.com>: >>> Rather, your suggestion of forcing a single format, prevents my >>> applications from using other formats, and it requires I implement >>> conversions. This is because you limit freedom by placing a simple >>> interface into kernelspace. >> >> This is the silliest thing I've seen posted in this thread. No offense >> intended, but if you choose the highest available sample size and bit >> rate available to the card, you are not limiting anybody: the >> limitation becomes the hardware. If that's an issue, get really >> ridiculously high quality analog devices, and stop being so anal about >> your perfect ears. > > How can an application select a higher sample size if the interface to > the driver only supports signed 16-bit samples?
You're distorting what I'm saying. You choose the highest sample size local to the card. If you have a 2...@96khz file, and your card only supports playback at 1...@44.1, you resample to 1...@44.1. If your card supports 2...@96, and you're playing 1...@44.1, you don't resample at all, because it makes no sense. I don't see what's so difficult about this. > "the limitation becomes the hardware" > Music App 24...@192khz -> #audio 16bit -> Hardware 24...@192khz. I think you misunderstand. #A bit/sample limited by hardware If hardware is 2...@192, #A is 2...@192, unless what you're playing is lower than that, in which case upconverting makes no sense. I really don't understand why this isn't obvious. We're all smart here, why would you think we would suggest something that dumb? --dho
