Re: Question about upsampling methods
Christof Ressi <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.multimedia.puredata.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 09.04.2025 16:25, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote: > Am 9. April 2025 13:07:35 MESZ schrieb Christof Ressi<[email protected]>: >> In my understanding, a zero-padded signal *must* be filtered, while an unfiltered ZOH signal may be acceptable for many use cases. Is this correct? @Miller: Is this maybe also the reason why Pd 0.44 has switched from "pad" to "hold" as the default upsample method in [inlet~]? > miller already answered why the default method has changed. > > but here's my reasoning why I picked zero-padding in the original implementation: Do you mean that you actually implemented the different upsampling methods? Or the upsampling mechnism itself? When was this? And what was the initial upsampling method? > I wanted the user to be aware that the signal *will* need filtering in most cases. > if ZOH is acceptable, it should be a conscious decision, rather than a > default, that results in everybody complaining that the Pd's appalling is "somewhat shitty". I see. But then again, ZOH is apparently good enough for many (most?) use cases and most people don't even think about it. I can totally see both points. > (so it's one of my dubious pedagogical devices) :) > > > mfg.sfg.jfd > IOhannes > --- > [email protected] - the Pure Data mailinglist > https://lists.iem.at/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/IIMH434XKDIARLWHLBSKD56AEH7GYTZL/ > > To unsubscribe send an email [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->https://lists.iem.at/ --- [email protected] - the Pure Data mailinglist https://lists.iem.at/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/MRIMAE6ZXGQP2GSYN5MPFRUU36H6PUKE/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.iem.at/