This subject of whether it's better to half the sampling rate (88.2 -
> 44.1) or not (96 -> 44.1) leads to some very long 'conversations'
on the internet I find!
All full of intelligent people arguing either side and none of them
coming to any conclusion :) As ever an elegant mathematical solution
is never a guarantee of anything and ears win out.
s
On 14 Feb 2009, at 19:08, Lou Judson wrote:
> Uh, Oriyoki, I have read (don't know for a fact) amongst digital
> system designers that "throwing away every other sample" is a myth,
> and that complex math must be performed for every SRC conversion -
> logic might imply you just drop every other sample, but I think the
> real digital world does not work that way. I am vague about the
> details, but I recall people whom I respect saying it just isn't
> simpler, only different math. Do you know factually? Would it be
> worth me quoting sources? Is this too far off topic? "Some people
> think..." applies to many areas beyond our personal expertises!
> (Especially mine.)
>
> Lou
> Lou Judson =95 Intuitive Audio
> 415-883-2689
>
>
> On Feb 14, 2009, at 10:54 AM, oryoki2000 wrote:
>
>> Most audio files are distributed on CD or DVD in a 44.1 kHz, 16 bit
>> WAV format. Making the original recording with 88.2 kHz means the
>> reduction to 44.1 is simpler (just throw out every other sample)
>> than,
>> say, the conversion from 96 kHz to 44.1 kHz. Some people think this
>> helps preserve the sound of the original recording.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> "While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
> sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie
> Krause
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
|