On 10/31/01, The Compulsive Splicer quoth:
>What you've described is not compression; it is endemic to
>digital recording. Even if you increase the sampling rate and the
>bitrate, they still won't be infinite. It's still not compression, and
>it's certainly not lossy (degrading) compression.
Okay, I tried to stay out of this, but I have to jump in with a small
bit of (mis)information. My understanding of "compression" as it
relates to music has to do with clipping the top and bottom off the
frequency to limit the amount of information being stored/played. I
have a compression pedal for my guitar that eliminates some of the
hum and squeal. It's very analog. With an oscilloscope you can see
what it does. Waves are flattened slightly. So therefore, compression
in this case is nothing to do with sampling rate or file size, merely
what portion of the audible (and inaudible) frequencies are sampled.
My understanding is that CD's use a higher "compression" rate than
old analog sources, therefore you're losing a few harmonics that are
out of the normal range of hearing. I've tested this, with an old
MoFi vinyl record and a cd of same record. There were slight
differences. Both are "compressed", but that's another story, really.
I can dig out my copy of The Physics of Music that I bought after
having my head bent the last time this thread came up and find some
exact quotes if you like. Ask me off list.
So, anyone use this Newton device much? It's really swank.
later,
-- ben. onefishtwofish_at_mac.comNewton Connections: Obsessive Newton News http://newted.dyndns.org/users/1f2frfbf/ In less than optimum circumstances, creativity becomes all the more important.
-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Nov 01 2001 - 10:02:58 EST