| Subject: | 2. Re: 24 bit vs. 16 bit |
|---|---|
| From: | "Walter Knapp" waltknapp |
| Date: | Tue May 15, 2007 6:58 am ((PDT)) |
Posted by: "Raimund Specht" > But that would probably open another can > of worms, which could further damage a few more illusions on the > latest developments in audio technology. So, I should better shut up > for now ;-) Yep I get the impression that folks don't want anybody to tell them the emperor is wearing no clothes. Best leave them with their illusions ;-) Walt |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | 1. Re: 24 bit vs. 16 bit, Rob Danielson |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | 3. Re: 24 bit vs. 16 bit, david briggs |
| Previous by Thread: | 1. Re: 24 bit vs. 16 bit, Rob Danielson |
| Next by Thread: | 2. Re: 24 bit vs. 16 bit, Walter Knapp |
| 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