Subject: | Re: Sampling rate conversion |
---|---|
From: | Dan Dugan <> |
Date: | Wed, 8 Dec 2004 10:50:58 -0800 |
Hakon Soreide, you wrote, >On the same subject, I also noticed a website that stated that human >hearing is actually able to pick up on differences in sound of 1 >microsecond, meaning that a bitrate higher than 1000KHz does not add >any discernible quality to recorded sound... But making equipment >for recording, processing and listening to such high bitrates sounds >like it might be a ridiculously expensive venture, and for >differences that I guess most people cannot really hear. There are a lot of misconceptions about digital audio, and some of them come from sources that appear to be authoritative. -Dan Dugan ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: Sampling rate conversion, Dan Dugan |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: Sampling rate conversion, grantfinlay |
Previous by Thread: | Re: Sampling rate conversion, Dan Dugan |
Next by Thread: | Re: Sampling rate conversion, grantfinlay |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU