------ Original Message -----
From: Matt Anderson <655321@telus.net>
quoted 2 lines But... Isn't this debate stopped dead as soon as we are recording at a bit
> But... Isn't this debate stopped dead as soon as we are recording at a bit
> rate far past cd quality?
Not really. You can record your signal in at 24-bit, 96k and edit it as
that hi-fi audio. But in the end you have to dither it down to 16-bit to
hear it playback on a (regular) audio CD. Therefore all those extra bits
and frequencies are basically lost.
BUT, to all the digital-haters out there, remember that we can only
technically hear up to 20kHz. And with CD's sample frequency of 44.1 -
thats allows for 22.05kHz of frequency range...more than enough to
compensate for our hearing range. On contrary there are overtones that
exceed this 22.05kHz range and interact with others, making a difference
(negative) in CD quality. What we need is to change the audio CD standard.
DVD audio will hopefully do that for us...but that is a long way off.
Did I just prove and disprove myself all in one email? Guess so...ah, this
is the essence of the Digital vs. Analogue debate...same with the Mac vs. PC
one...circular discussions. Great fun for mailing lists! (Especially when
they're off-topic.)
I'll cease now.
Ed
:::::Funk and Fury of the Digital Variety:::::
::::::::
http://www.nubreaks.com ::::::::
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org