Yes the sample rate remains the same.=C2=A0 Yes the file size probably rema=
ins the same.=C2=A0 And yes the duration of the recording stays the same.=
=C2=A0 But I find it hard to believe that a twice edited digital file (L/R =
-> M/S -> L/R) is a bit for bit exact copy of the original(even if you excl=
ude the headers from the comparison).=C2=A0 Not that any differences are au=
dible to most people.=C2=A0 Or reproduce-able by a lot of cheap audio equip=
ment.
Of course the sample count is the same, you're saving out to a file of the =
same sample rate, same number of channels, and same duration.=C2=A0 Indepen=
dent of actual content.=C2=A0 Why would the count of bits change?=C2=A0 But=
is the CONTENT of the bits an EXACT match to the original after edits?=C2=
=A0 If you need to do other edits like noise reduction to S, that little bi=
t of irregularity can severely affect the effectiveness of the noise filter=
.=C2=A0
I suppose I'm going to have to come up with a script to prove my point.=C2=
=A0 Perhaps submit a proposal to myth busters.=C2=A0 But then again, what i=
s the point, that open source audio tools are flawed?=C2=A0 That 32 bit FPU=
's are inaccurate?=C2=A0 Analog rules /=C2=A0 Digital sucks?
- James
--- On Tue, 8/17/10, Rob Danielson <> wrote:
|