28 Jan
2006
28 Jan
'06
3:44 p.m.
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 at 11:27 -0800, Mike Taht wrote:
1) Surround sound: If you have 5:1 surround sound,
somehow that gets
encoded into the same sample rate as 2 channel sound, and there must
be some corresponding quality loss overall. So it strikes me that if
you want higher fidelity surround, the end output needs to have more
bits than nyquist dictates.
I'm sorry, I don't understand this. Can you
elaborate? If you have 5:1,
that means you have six channels, right? How does that relate to sample
rate?
My point was that you (typically, today) do a surround mix into a
encoder that crunches it down then plays back at the same rate as a
"normal" mix, while being decoded...
If I do a surround mix at 96k will it sound better than than a
surround mix at 44k is my question?
For all I know that may be changing and a "surround mix" in the future
may well be 5 or more pure XKhz streams supplied by the device...
On 1/28/06, Hans Fugal <hans(a)fugal.net> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 at 11:27 -0800, Mike Taht wrote:
--
Mike Taht
PostCards From the Bleeding Edge
http://the-edge.blogspot.com
1) Surround sound: If you have 5:1 surround
sound, somehow that gets
encoded into the same sample rate as 2 channel sound, and there must
be some corresponding quality loss overall. So it strikes me that if
you want higher fidelity surround, the end output needs to have more
bits than nyquist dictates.
I'm sorry, I don't understand this. Can you elaborate? If you have 5:1,
that means you have six channels, right? How does that relate to sample
rate?
--
Hans Fugal ; http://hans.fugal.net
There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the
right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach