I must have missed your post regarding this (has this been going on for
a month?!). If I'm not mistaken digital rounding is exactly the bad
thing I was describing could happen, i.e. the quantization of low
bit-rate information? This may be a semantic difference, but I don't
consider that damage -- you're simply mapping what little bit
information you have to a 16bit depth, making the low resolution more
apparent. Is there something else going on here that I'm missing?
Incidentally, doesn't this discussion support a move to 24bit depth?=20
I'm very skeptical of the need to go above 48k, but I've noticed
greatly improved resolution at low volume with 24bit depth. It I'm not
mistaken, this also greatly reduces the effect of digital rounding,
which can happen at any stage of processing...
On Sunday, June 29, 2003, at 01:59 PM, evertveldhuis wrote:
> In that case I say : I disagree.
> I have already explained why in the beginning of this month (digital
> I am not against normalizing, but saying that it is totally harmless
> isn't right. I can proof it too!
> Regards, Evert
> --- In Clifford Caruthers
> <> wrote:
> > I'll make this point again and see if anyone disagrees...=A0 There is
> > damage done to a file when you normalize.=A0
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]