>
>
> My assessment of the sounds is same as before, and Walt's magic files
> sounded poor, compared with the original 48kHz. Interesting that none of=
us
> agree on this!=20=20
>
> Vicki Powys
> Australia
As I suffer from hearing impairment I haven't listened to any of the
samples on offer, but I can't resist any longer from putting in my 2 cents
worth ... even if overpriced at 2 cents! :-)
For getting hearing aids one listens for threshold amplitudes at specific
frequencies over the normal hearing range, and the hearing aid is designed
according to the results. I surmise that even with those with apparently
normal hearing there can be differences in hearing sensitivity at various
frequencies. If so, surely two people listening to the same sound at the
same time, may hear it differently.
Walter takes a sound, manipulates it with computer technology, and posts th=
e
results on a web site. This is sent, digitally, I assume, via satellite
technology, around the world then down Vicki's phone-line to her iMac, whic=
h
converts digital to analogue, and the analogue signal is interpreted by som=
e
sound-producing device which vibrates the air, eventually causing pressure
variations in Vicki's ear-hole.
Ditto, with other naturerecordists.
To me, Mozart sounds better than Messiaen.
I'd be surprised if everyone did agree on which samples sound the best!
Syd
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|