> Well, in that video he is reproducing inputs with only modest frequency complexity.
Monty is making them with a signal generator, so that you can easily see what's going on and (if you have suitable gear) you can reproduce the results. The exact same phenomenon would happen for some hypothetical complicated analogue signal. Notice that Monty also demonstrates a square wave, which is in fact the maximum possible "frequency complexity" because of how audio is defined, even though chances are you're still thinking about it as very simple.
> Won't the compute burden depend on the frequency domain complexity of the input signal?
No, it's just resampling, the same way you would to go from say 44.1kHz (from a CD) to 48kHz (typical modern fixed rate DAC in a cheap PC), except you're maybe going from 40 samples to 1000 pixels if you've zoomed in that far. It'd use a windowed sinc function.
If the software renders the output shown on the scope, fine! That is what people will get.
How useful is that?
The case you made, which is to beat back misconceptions about what the output will be, is a good one. I do not disagree. Then again, just sharing that video does a very similar thing.
I do however think that display and UX would / could be more complex and would not actually get anyone anything new.
In my case, after learning the things presented in that video, I first used my scope, which is actually very similar, if not identical to the one in the video, to play with some signals and explore performance on various devices,circuits and code I found of interest.
Then what?
From an audio editing POV?
Nothing, other than I understand where seeing sample data breaks down in terms of what will be output and heard. That is nice, and seeing it would be nice too, but unnecessary.
Now, when building my own stuff, knowing what to expect is just as nice. I can hook up a scope and validate it.
It does make me wonder about the inverse questions! My square wave is a mess!
Despite fancy rendering and interpolation we may well be back to sharing the video.
Monty is making them with a signal generator, so that you can easily see what's going on and (if you have suitable gear) you can reproduce the results. The exact same phenomenon would happen for some hypothetical complicated analogue signal. Notice that Monty also demonstrates a square wave, which is in fact the maximum possible "frequency complexity" because of how audio is defined, even though chances are you're still thinking about it as very simple.
> Won't the compute burden depend on the frequency domain complexity of the input signal?
No, it's just resampling, the same way you would to go from say 44.1kHz (from a CD) to 48kHz (typical modern fixed rate DAC in a cheap PC), except you're maybe going from 40 samples to 1000 pixels if you've zoomed in that far. It'd use a windowed sinc function.