3 ms·
Hear Hear! Solidly agree. You'd be amazed how much can go into "simple" resampling... if you care about being accurate, anyway. Though... and I say this wi
by loxias 5y ago
Hear Hear! Solidly agree. You'd be amazed how much can go into "simple" resampling... if you care about being accurate, anyway.
Though... and I say this with a mischievous grin, as someone who writes signal processing code (specializing in audio) for both leisure and employment, I've been wanting to get Audacity squarely in my emacs, and just go nuts, with both mathematically cogent improvements and plenty of unnecessary petty stylistic refactoring, for YEARS (decades).
Now, perhaps I have some protective cover. ;-) (unless Monty beats me to it...)
- CharlesW 5y ago> You'd be amazed how much can go into "simple" resampling... if you care about being accurate, anyway. Audacity is "My First Audio Editor", and people use it primarily because it's free. Quality is not a concern. Audacity is a great entry point for people who are new to audio production, but those users eventually graduate to better, more fit-for-task audio tools.
- jaywalk 5y agoYou are correct about Audacity being used primarily because it's free, and it's certainly very far from professional audio software. But I think it's pretty unfair to say that quality isn't a concern, because I'm sure that the developers care very much about quality.