Irene McC wrote:
quoted 8 lines On 22 Apr 98, Jon Drukman wrote
>
> On 22 Apr 98, Jon Drukman wrote
>
> > there is nothing "cut up" or "separated" about digital. if you had
> > the faintest idea of how sampling works you'd understand.
>
> You are suggesting that I don't have the "faintest idea". That's
> fairly patronising and condescending. Pity about that.
i apologize for the patronizing tone. after years of pointless
digital-vs-analog debates i get a little trigger happy.
quoted 3 lines As you know, at a sample rate of 44,1 kHz, the highest frequency
> As you know, at a sample rate of 44,1 kHz, the highest frequency
> possible would be half of that (ie. 22 kHz) to avoid aliasing. Thus
> - there go your high harmonics.
you are quite correct. however, show me anyone these days who can hear
much over 16kHz. especially if you've gone to a bunch of loud shows
without earplugs.
quoted 5 lines The fact is George Massenberg - designer of the parametric
> The fact is George Massenberg - designer of the parametric
> equalizer, and he has Goldern Ears :-) states that his *minimum* set
> up for digital sampling to give the same kind of quality as the best
> analogue systems available would be a sampling rate of 96 kHz and
> 24-bits. And he is not alone.
yeah yeah i'm sure but i think most of these people have more dollars
than sense, if you get my drift. also note your use of the term "best
analog systems".... wanna bet how much a "best analog system" costs
comparable to a digital one? i know i just got slated for spending
$1600 on a reverb but that's nothing compared to the cost of a decent
analog deck and the maintenance & upkeep on it.
obIDM: jhno - kwno. yet another friend of mine (sorry rob). an
extremely talented jazz keyboardist in addition to a total tech-head.
http://www.sirius.com/~ear for samples and ordering info.
--
Jon Drukman jsd@gamespot.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plan: Eat right, exercise regularly, die anyway.