From Jon Drukman Sent Wed, Apr 22nd 1998, 19:40
From Jon Drukman Sent Wed, Apr 22nd 1998, 19:40
Irene McC wrote: > > On 22 Apr 98, Jon Drukman wrote > > > there is nothing "cut up" or "separated" about digital. if you had > > the faintest idea of how sampling works you'd understand. > > You are suggesting that I don't have the "faintest idea". That's > fairly patronising and condescending. Pity about that. i apologize for the patronizing tone. after years of pointless digital-vs-analog debates i get a little trigger happy. > As you know, at a sample rate of 44,1 kHz, the highest frequency > possible would be half of that (ie. 22 kHz) to avoid aliasing. Thus > - there go your high harmonics. you are quite correct. however, show me anyone these days who can hear much over 16kHz. especially if you've gone to a bunch of loud shows without earplugs. > The fact is George Massenberg - designer of the parametric > equalizer, and he has Goldern Ears :-) states that his *minimum* set > up for digital sampling to give the same kind of quality as the best > analogue systems available would be a sampling rate of 96 kHz and > 24-bits. And he is not alone. yeah yeah i'm sure but i think most of these people have more dollars than sense, if you get my drift. also note your use of the term "best analog systems".... wanna bet how much a "best analog system" costs comparable to a digital one? i know i just got slated for spending $1600 on a reverb but that's nothing compared to the cost of a decent analog deck and the maintenance & upkeep on it. obIDM: jhno - kwno. yet another friend of mine (sorry rob). an extremely talented jazz keyboardist in addition to a total tech-head. http://www.sirius.com/~ear for samples and ordering info. -- Jon Drukman xxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Plan: Eat right, exercise regularly, die anyway.