Re: HDF/HDF5
Doing two channels at 192KS/s, that has to be binary.
Did you look at .wav format? Can play that back directly
too.
Are you at 24 bits per sample, or only 16?
- Robert -
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 18:45:02 -0400
Kenneth Jacker <khj@be.cs.appstate.edu> wrote:
> jdr> I also agree that the ascii is more 'portable',
> but another
> jdr> possible advantage of binary is a more compact
> file size.
>
> Another advantage to me of using a binary file format is
> saving the
> time needed to translate between ASCII and binary
> representations
> (both in writing and reading files).
>
> I am working with single channel, audio data sets sampled
> at 44.1kHz
> for periods of up to a minute or so. That translates to
> over 2.6
> million values per file.
>
> Though I agree that ASCII is more much more convenient
> and portable,
> considerable time would be necessary to convert the
> samples back to
> binary (e.g., for playback through a DAC).
>
>
> I thought using HDF was the "right way" to do it, but
> most likely it
> is overkill. Oh well ...
>
> Thanks for everyone's comments!
>
> -Kenneth
>
Reply to: