On 09.04.2025 16:25, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
Am 9. April 2025 13:07:35 MESZ schrieb Christof Ressiinfo@christofressi.com:
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
pd-list@lists.iem.at - the Pure Data mailinglist https://lists.iem.at/hyperkitty/list/pd-list@lists.iem.at/message/IIMH434XKD...
To unsubscribe send an email topd-list-leave@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->https://lists.iem.at/