On TechRepublic: 12 tech terms that make you sound old
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 1 of 3:
Next »
CD Audio Techinical Correction
Great article, I think I might want to try this out myself....but, I do have a correction in the way you refer to CD Audio and compare it to compressed audio.

It starts with this quote here: "In fact, even though CD quality music is created at rates of 16 kbps (data) and 44.1 KHz (sampling),"

It looks to me like you are using language to describe compressed audio and applying it to uncompressed audio. When quantifying audio, you have a time and an amplitude measurement. 16 kbps stands for 16 kilobits per second (time domain, right?). 44.1 KHz means 44,100 samples per second (also time domain). See the problem yet? In actuality, CD quality audio is recorded and played back at 16-bits (amplitude)per sample * 44,100 (time)would equal over 700 kbp/s.

There also really isn't any "tucking" involved in the mastering process unless you start with something like a 24-bit/192KHz file. Reducing the quality down to 16-bit/44.1KHz could produce artifacts.

If you want better quality, you might want to look at some of Beachtek's products. They might actually allow you to connect better mics to the H320. I can't promise that though.

Best of Luck

MB
Posted by: Meterbridge   Posted on: 04/15/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

CD Audio Techinical Correction  Meterbridge | 04/15/05
Forgot one thing...  charliecharliecharlie | 11/05/05
Rockbox  psi_ | 01/09/06

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement