My new digital camera

[MRT144]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Compressed bitrate != sampling rate.

Samples contain 16*2 bits of information on a CD

so adding smileys proves your point about what now?

anywho, i made my point and you can go eat a dick

[KrazyHorse]

You don't even understand the terms you're using. The Nyquist theorem doesn't allow you to assign a maximum bitrate without knowledge of the sample size in addition to sampling frequency.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


What the **** are you on about?

The Nyquist theorem is not at question.

Do you understand that there are two components to a CD's bitrate? There's the number of samples and the number of bits per sample. 44.1 kbps != 44.1 kHz sampling. Not even close. ALL YOUR AMPLITUDE INFORMATION IS LOST. All frequency components can only be given a single bit of information at that rate: on or off.

where did i say 44.1 kbps!!! where?! i said 44.1khz sampling rate. amplitude information is where hte bits come in. 2^16 possible combinations! WOOWOO! ROUND AND ROUND WE GO!

[KrazyHorse]

According to you I can model 32 data streams with the same number of parameters as a single data stream at the same sampling rate.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MRT144


where did i say 44.1 kbps!!! where?! i said 44.1khz sampling rate. amplitude information is where hte bits come in. 2^16 possible combinations! WOOWOO! ROUND AND ROUND WE GO!

So what does the 44.1 kHz have to do with asking why we use MP3s with higher bitrates than 96 kbps?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MRT144
its the same reason we record music at 96k and above. subtleties lost by technology arent always lost by humans.

Where are we recording at greater than 96k then, son?

Are we somehow putting 96 kHz samples on CDs which are only sampled by CD players at 44.1? And somehow that adds to music quality?

[KrazyHorse]

Admit that you confused bitrate with sampling rate and we can move on.

[MRT144]

non sequitar, i didnt make a point about that. you did.

[KrazyHorse]

Huh?

What did your "96k" figure have to do with then?

[KrazyHorse]

BTW, if you're talking about recording music on a different format than CDs at sampling rates of greater than 96kHz, then your point about CD players being a bottleneck is the nonsequitur. CD players can't be a bottleneck if you're playing using a different DAC

[MRT144]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Where are we recording at greater than 96k then, son?

Are we somehow putting 96 kHz samples on CDs which are only sampled by CD players at 44.1? And somehow that adds to music quality?

it had to do with recording. and why people record at 96khz 24 bit in professional music requirements enviroments. to capture more audio data per second and yield a higher resolution of sound.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
BTW, if you're talking about recording music on a different format than CDs at sampling rates of greater than 96kHz, then your point about CD players being a bottleneck is the nonsequitur. CD players can't be a bottleneck if you're playing using a different DAC

well until dvda becomes the standard for audio then what measure do we have?

[KrazyHorse]

It's very simple: unless you're interested in outputting to a device with greater resolution than the resolution of your recording device then complaining about the resolution of your recording device is ridiculous.

Of course human hearing can't be simply modelled as hearing nothing above 20 kHz. There are other effects. But if there's a bottleneck in your DAC at 44.1 kHz then recording above 44.1 kHZ is ridiculous.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MRT144


it had to do with recording. and why people record at 96khz 24 bit in professional music requirements enviroments. to capture more audio data per second and yield a higher resolution of sound.

If they then put it on a CD then the extra info is useless

If you've got a better DAC then it's not necessarily useless.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Where are we recording at greater than 96k then, son?

Are we somehow putting 96 kHz samples on CDs which are only sampled by CD players at 44.1? And somehow that adds to music quality?

you know just as well as i do there are algorhythms that convert from 96k to 44.1. but im telling you from experience, that recording at a higher sampling rate makes a difference in the intelligability of what you hear.

like i said, you rely on numbers to say whats wrong, i rely on experience to say whats right.