In Reply to: Re: It's nice to see posted by racerguy on September 7, 2005 at 09:19:57:
>> There was no question mark after I brought Ainlay's interview statements to your attention. Prior to that, it sure looked like you were attempting to advance the idea that BIA was somehow "pure" PCM, which, in your mind . . . . <<Nope. Not in my mind. But in your twisted one, evidently.
>> It's a nice idea in theory, but the reality is that the more sample rate conversions you do, the worse things can sound. <<
Hogwash. You know damn well that with LPCM, DSP operations are more transparent when processing at higher bit depths & sample rates. You are also deliberately ignoring the distinction between sample rates which are *** even *** multiples (i.e. 44.1 => 88.2 => 176.4), versus non-even ones (44.1 => 48) etc.
>> Isn't that your basic theoretical beef with PCM-sourced SACDs? <<
No. Its with DSD itself.
>> If so, I can't imagine why you would think multiple sample rate conversions would be of benefit in this case.<<
There’s a lot you can’t see.
>> BTW, we could have had an "intelligent, informed" discussion about this, but you decided several months ago to throw that out the window. You reap what you sow.<<
???
>> It's not necessarily that big of a problem, depending on how you look at it. There are some DSPs available that can remove digital pre-emphasis in the digital domain. << etc. etc.
But who are you trying to convince? Look Racer, I’m just telling you what actually happened with BIA. I didn’t mix it. But the folks who did mix it did what they did for the reasons I have stated. So, if you don’t agree with the "pre-emphasis" info I wrote, and if you think you know better, then go and whinge to the folks who engineered the BIA mix instead.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: It's nice to see - Martin419 09:53:23 09/07/05 (2)
- Not done thrashing about, I see - racerguy 10:15:59 09/07/05 (1)
- Weak. n.t. - Martin419 10:18:31 09/07/05 (0)