<<22050 was a bit of an exaggeration on my part. But, I'm talking about tak=
ing a file that was already matrix'd into stereo (LR) from MS to derive the=
original MS raw tracks. You have a finite set of bits per channel. When yo=
u apply other bits you lose bits of information. It may not be enough loss =
to be audible. But you have less information than you had or would have had=
before the audio was matrix'd.>>
You're confusing word length with bit rate here. There is absolutely no alt=
eration of bit rate or its attendant audio bandwidth brought about by any s=
ort of post processing, editing, EQ-ing, image manipulation or other effect=
s. What is lost in processing is resolution at the LSB, which is why 24bit =
is preferred over 16bit, but this is an entirely different matter than anyt=
hing to do with sampling rates.
Scott Fraser
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|