Re: [ARSCLIST] Cassette obsolescence - digitizing standards

[steven c <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Bradley" <db65@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> At 09:17 PM 2/21/2006, you wrote:
> >Now, just so I understand...
> >Do 1412 and 1426 represent a value which expresses the value of the 
> >height of that particular "step" when an analog sound file is 
> >converted to digital sound? So that there are 44,100 of those values 
> >in a second of a digital sound waveform...which more or less 
> >approximate the analog version of the waveform?
> 
> There are 44,100 of those values, of which any one of them could be 
> anywhere from 0 to 65,535. And while I get the dig that you're 
> implying about the inaccuracy of the digitization process, to say 
> that because it's not entirely accurate justifies leaving in other 
> large errors is an awfully big jump that I certainly wouldn't be 
> willing to make.
>
No dig intended...I just get lost trying to see in my own mind what is
happening when analog files are digitized, what with all the different
terms that are thrown around! My understanding is that, while a series
of steps can never be an exact duplicate of a curve (shades of calculus!),
there is a certain point where we poor analog(?) humans can't hear
any difference.

However, now I see that the 44.1 (or whatever) is the number of samples
taken, and the 16 bits are the number that evaluate to the "height" of
each step...so each one has something to say about how accurate the
stepwise picture is in comparison to the analog curve...

Steven C. Barr