[PD] Scope of [block~] and [switch~]

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

Charles Henry wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:17 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig <zmoelnig at iem.at> wrote:

> I think linear upsampling is a bit more intuitive for users than a
> zero-interleaved upsampling as a default behavior.  For most scenarios
> I can think of involving upsampling (filtering), there's only
> "incompatibility" by having a gain factor of the upsampling ratio
> (using default of linear interpolation instead of zero-interleaving).

my main argument when using zero-padding as default was to force users 
to think about what they are doing rather than providing non-optimal 
defaults.
i think that the actual resampling/filtering algorithm is very specific 
to your application, so i wouldn't come up with clock-burning defaults 
that don't fit the needs of a user anyhow.
and anything more sophisticated would have introduced additional delays, 
which i wanted to avoid at all cost: it's easy to do filtering, gain 
adjustment whatever - but it is still impossible to go back in time....

using a semi-good approach (like linear interpolation) might also give 
you acceptable results with cheap laptop speakers and then give you big 
surprise on a good PA. (note that the whole re-sampling thing made it 
into Pd in 2001)


maybe i had other thoughts as well

fgmar
IOhannes