On Sep 26, 2005, at 11:05 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
David W. Fenton / 2005/09/25 / 04:21 PM wrote:
http://www.dfenton.com/Midi/MozartK581Arr/MozartK581ArrA.mp3
http://www.dfenton.com/Midi/MozartK581Arr/MozartK581ArrA1.mp3
I put them in a spectragraph, averaged between 2"30' and 3"30'.
<http://a-no-ne.com/temp/128vs192.gif>
I guess I had too much free time this morning :-)
Got to work...
Hey, thanks! I was very interested to see the difference, or rather,
the lack of difference between the two encodings. Very surprising! A
bit more mid-register goosing in the economical encoding, and a tad
less high end at the very top (where I have all but ceased to hear
anything in any case) but not too much difference! All there would be
left to do is to compare them with the original (presumably sixteen-bit
digital.) I would suppose that the maximum of about 3 dB differences in
the mid-range wouldn't be very audible.
And despite David F.'s apparent lack of interest in the point that Kurt
made, I would be most interested to see how the spectrographs compared
when the source material was live instruments from a high-quality
recording. I suspect that the difference between the two encoding
systems would be more pronounced in that case, but I would be ecstatic
to be proved wrong!
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
