• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Quality of CoreAudio SRC
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Quality of CoreAudio SRC


  • Subject: Re: Quality of CoreAudio SRC
  • From: Jeff Moore <email@hidden>
  • Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:01:51 -0800

Basically, what Stephen is saying is something we've been saying since Day 0 of Core Audio and OS X. The hardware settings belong to the user. They should not be changed by applications. Rather, applications should be adapting to the settings of the hardware including responding to dynamic state changes.

The basic reason why is that the audio system on OS X is designed to be shared amongst all applications on the system. No application knows enough to say with any certainty what is going in other applications. Doing something like changing the sample rate can have serious consequences to other applications on the system ranging from causing a glitch in playback/capture or outright failure of some process due to the interruption or temporary loss of synch. In a badly coded application, it can cause a crash (see the recent thread about the bug in HALLab for an example). In fact, I could go on about the bad things that can happen to other applications when one app thinks it owns the hardware and makes unwarranted changes to settings.

On Jan 31, 2008, at 2:30 PM, Mikael Hakman wrote:

On January 31, 2008 Stephen Davis wrote:

IMHO, it is bad form to be changing the audio hardware's sample rate
for each track.  If you're gunning for the absolute highest quality
output then maybe it's okay but it's pretty obnoxious to the rest of
the system and should be clearly communicated to the user.

Would you or other knowledgeable member on this thread kindly explain why rate-following would be bad, in absence of other rate- locking signals such as digital input or word clock etc., please?


Why couldn't e.g. iTunes send the actual sample rate information down the chain of software layers until it arrives to the hardware (DAC)? The sample rate would need to be changed only when the rate used by the actual track is different from previous. I have been discussing this with few audio interface vendors. While they agree that not doing SRC would be the best, they blame on application and operating system vendors for not providing sample rate information to their drivers/hardware.

For a user it is difficult if not impossible to keep track of what sample rate a selected media is in, then use a control panel or Preferences or both to change the rate, and first then to play the track. Many users want to simply select a track, perhaps in Front Row using a remote control from the couch, and play it, or even play a number of randomly selected tracks. Why can't we give even these users the best audio quality available on the system?



--

Jeff Moore
Core Audio
Apple


_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Coreaudio-api mailing list (email@hidden) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: This email sent to email@hidden
References: 
 >Quality of CoreAudio SRC (From: Brian Willoughby <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Quality of CoreAudio SRC (From: Stephen Davis <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Quality of CoreAudio SRC (From: "Mikael Hakman" <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Quality of CoreAudio SRC
  • Next by Date: Re: Quality of CoreAudio SRC
  • Previous by thread: Re: Quality of CoreAudio SRC
  • Next by thread: Re: Quality of CoreAudio SRC
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread