On Wednesday 14 June 2006 15:44, Gustin Johnson wrote: > Perceived quality. To the average person it "sounds better". Kind of > like the vinyl vs CD debate. If Joe and Jane Average *think* that Skype > is better, than that is what they will use and evangelize. > > Though having said that, I am not sure if skype is really stereo or it > just splits the output into 2 separate channels. > > Curtis Sloan wrote: > > On Wednesday 14 June 2006 14:40, Jon wrote: > >> Gizmo is mono and SKype is stereo. > > > > Why would you want to double your bitrate for a monophonic sound source > > (i.e. voice)? The only use for this I can think of for stereo is mixing > > a conference call to relative positions in the stereo field. Am I > > missing something? > > > > Curtis S.
Well, to be honest I did think of that as the other reason they might do it. I just think it's ridiculous (but that's me being a music/audio nerd). > Though having said that, I am not sure if skype is really stereo or it > just splits the output into 2 separate channels. If that's the case, I might end up going on an Aaron Seigo-type rant about closed products. One could take a high fidelity mono track and process it to add the stereo effects with better results than Skype would built-in. Maybe it's because I'm thinking of it from a hobbyist's perspective. The LAU/LAD folks tend to be as well versed in hacking the kernel as recording engineer and musicianship. So to have Skype doing a poor job of it for me simply for their own marketing doesn't excite me to use their product. Hopefully I am just jumping to conclusions. Curtis S. _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
