On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:17 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
Charles Henry wrote:
So, I would favor an optional creation argument for specifying an interpolation method in place of the zero-interleaving step.
this is already there. you can specify via creation args to in/outlets which "interpolation" you want: currently only zero-interleaving and sample and hold are inplemented.
I see now. This might be the first time I've looked at the help page for inlet~. Also, linear interpolation is listed there.
as far as i understand miller (in previous posts), he doesn't really like this approach, as all future resampling methods would have to go into Pd's core rather than being available as externals.
by now i can agree to this (despite my original idea that has made it into the code). as you say, the only thing needed would be a complete description of the signal-properties (resampling factor, overlap factor) made available for externals. then they could figure out themselves what they need. (well, this works if you have an upsampled subpatched; i guess it is a bit more clumsy if you have a downsampled subpatch (e.g. you do the upsampling outside).
I see. Rather than a single variable to determine the interpolation, you need to know the ratio between sub-patches. It's probably better to leave the parameters up to the user.
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).
Chuck