Re: [SurroundSound] Re: Can you tell the difference and find the original?

surround sound is more forgiving as you have less track density per channel, which gets you closer to the mastertape, although it doasn't always apply.
interesting comments about Grill's original I did raise the issue  about the smearing being present on the original and this being pronounced on the lossy versions.

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Britre <britre123@gmail.com> wrote:

This is very interesting discussion, please keep it up even if only on
the H.A. site. I was trying to also say there was a certain cutoff
frequency during playback of all digital material which does in effect
limit the reproduction of any material. Analog also has said cutoff
points but not as rigorous as digital does making for a more forgiving
listening experience. Lossy audio file reduction (not improved
reproduction) as discussed before eliminate information scientifically
we may or may not actually hear to reduce size for presentable media
sales and distribution which I think is the point of this whole
excercise, correct?

This of course with surround sound being so forgiving and sounding
better than the unforgiving stereo or mono format which in turn is
equalling a "identifiably sounds better" thoery?

On Mar 23, 6:00 pm, "Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> Knowing this helps evaluate the possibility that 2bdecided inadvertantly
> >> resampled to 48kHz during his mixdown, or that such downsampling
> >> happened
> >> during your conversions.
>
> > I'm not an audio expert at all but I'm not sure if the fact that an
> > audio sample has a 24 kHz cutoff definitely means that its effective
> > resolution is necessarily less than 96 kHz (eg. 48).
>
> A sharp cutoff at 24kHz is very much a sign that the filtering required
> for proper 48kHz sampling has been applied at some point. And I know it's
> counterintuitive, but 96kHz upsampling of that does not increase the
> 'resolution' within the 24kHz band, it just extends the bandwidth to up 48
> kHz -- and in this particular case the extra frequency *content* that may
> have originally existed has already been filtered out, so it's fairly
> pointless to use 96kHz as the delivery format.
>
> > Here are the detailed description of my DTS (24/96) conversion
> > process:
>
> Thanks!
>
> (Converting it from 24 bits to 32 bits wouldn't increase the 'effective
> resolution' either, even though bit depth is a better correlate of
> resolution.  You can't 'create' higher resolution once it's been fixed.
> You *can* use higher bit depths to avoid *decreasing* resolution when
> you're doing lots of digital processing on the signal)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound