On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 17:14 -0800, snarlydwarf wrote: > highdudgeon Wrote: > > Having said THAT, there are some formats -- notably some things on DVD > > (not DVD-A) that take advantage of 24/96. Could I tell the difference > > if that file is "compressed" by the SB3 to 44.1? Who knows; probably > > not. Still, the nerd in me would like to check it out. > > Wouldn't converting 96 to 48 be better than to 44.1?
The DVD-Audio spec is very flexible. It can do 96K or 88.2K Also two, four, five, and more channels. > (Not because "48>44.1" but because the 96 is a nice multiple of 48 and > would lead to a lot less artifacts in the conversion.) The way most systems do it is more of a re-sampling rather than just throwing away samples. Or you can over-sample it to really high rates and decimate it back down. Going from 48 to 44.1 without brains is not recommended. the 48 rate was selected for DAT tapes, which were supposed to replace cassette tapes. But the record companies were so terrified of DAT that the format never took off, except in very small volumes. The early 90s saw a flurry of ADAT machines, mostly for semi-pro studios, which usually used 48K, they were the first widely available and affordable multi-track recording setups. ADAT has been totally replaced in studios by direct to hard disk DAW systems. You occasionally see ADAT for location or portable systems. I think, that part of why they used 48K instead of the RedBook 44.1K was to make it harder to copy commercially recorded material. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
