[LAU] edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?

[david]

Joe Hartley wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 15:43:02 -0500
> David Santamauro <david.santamauro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 1. Nobody could hear any difference between the original recordings,
>>> reproduced using the best equipment available, and the transcoded
>>> versions. 
>>>
>>> 2. Almost all listeners preferred the 'audiophile' recordings to
>>> other versions of the same music released on CD. 
>> I don't understand how the second question could even posed in relation
>> to the first.
>>
>> If there is no difference, there can be no preference, unless, of
>> course, they had other factors to consider besides music.
> 
> I had to read Fons' original message a couple of times before I got
> what his points were.
> 
> The first was that no one could tell the difference between the original
> audiophile recording and the transcoded version of the audiophile recording.
> 
> The second was that there was a big preference for the audiophile recording
> compared to the standard commercially released CD of the same music.
> 
> The second point indicates that listeners can tell when extra care is taken
> to make the finished product, but that it really doesn't matter what the 
> sample rate and sample bit size is for that product.

I work with 48-bit color TIF images, with color dynamic ranges way 
beyond any printer or monitor's ability to differentiate them. Sort of 
the equivalent (to me) of 96 or 192KHz sample rates.

The benefit of all those extra bits of color information in an image? 
Filters and other computer processing routines run on the image have 
more information available to them when processing a given pixel. 
Software processing routines don't have the same visual or audio 
processing limitations/requirements as people or printers or monitors, 
so I don't see anything wrong with recording at bit rates much higher 
than the end product will have.

-- 
David
gnome at hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community