Mark Oberle wrote:
>
> I think from other postings on the list, people could not tell any
> difference from a digital-to-analogue conversion and back. I can't hear a
> difference either, but given how much manipulation I sometimes have to do
> with some of my recordings, I have the notion that it is better to start
> with an unaltered original file. This may be superstition. Since I am
> publishing a CD-ROM, not an audio CD, the final product has variable
> sampling rates.
It's actually worse than that. Since what you 'hear' is not what your
ears actually picked up, but what your brain decides that the signal
your ears sent means. Along with everything else it factors in your
expectations of what you will hear. Your subconscious feelings too. Your
mood, etc. So what you 'hear' will vary, you only get filtered and
manipulated sound. Decide (even just in your subconscious) that one
sample will be better than another and your brain will happily oblige
and make it so.
So, whatever makes you think it's better is fine...
Do note to say digital or analogue is not to define sound quality. In
both methods there are wide variations in what you will get. There is no
automatic quality advantage to digital. And you will never, ever have a
pure digital system. Sound itself is analog. At least the input and
output end of any system you might have will have to be analog.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|