[ Follow Ups ] [ The Recording Website Message Board Archives (The Early Years) ] [ The Recording Forums ]

---

Posted by Puke on July 02, 2000 at 11:13:16:

In Reply to: Re: You left yourself wide open on this one. So I guess I'll burst your bubble and hope for the nasty response. posted by vomit on July 01, 2000 at 04:30:02:

Good converters have gotten cheaper in the last 9
years. BUT, THE FORMAT IS STILL THE SAMEAS IT WAS
WHEN LAZER DISKS FIRST CAME OUT IN THE EARLY 80S.
44.1 is STILL 44.1. YOU can never change
the limitations that are inherent in 44.1. Just
check it for yourself. If you've got an o'scope
see for youself. Record approaching 22k and then
slowly beyond.
When you get into the higher frequency ranges you at
first save the frequency itself (on digital) but
not the waveform (unless it's the "defalt" waveform
reproduced when you get that high). And when you pass 22k you basically
loose the frequency AND the waveform..which was
long gone already. I'm not quite sure what makes
that so hard to understand. I didn't finish my degree
in engineering but went on to something else. But
I swear if you plot a graph at22k and are allowed one
dot per cycle, you've got to see that when you pass
22K (or even approach it), things will become
non-representative very
quickly..
By the way, I don't have any studer stuff
but an old studer
2 track. Never did have their 2", although
we tracked on them quite a bid.
Oh, one more note in explanation of analog. If you
do the above with analog, you will notice
the signal becoming more db down the higher the
frequency is... but the wave form
stays the same with little or no distortion unless
you need to do an alignment or something.

---

Follow Ups:

• Re: 44.1 is the sampling freq. on cd's now. as it was 20 years ago on lazer disks.. lazer disc 16:51:38 7/02/00 (8)
  • try that again Silent Bob 02:58:40 7/03/00 (4)
    • Re: try that again looks worse than it is! 08:06:13 7/05/00 (0)
    • I actually didn't know the waveform goes to hell that soon. That's worse than I thought. Puke 09:58:53 7/03/00 (0)
    • I would have loved to do that post but am not good enough with my graphics program. Puke 09:56:25 7/03/00 (1)
      • that'll take me a while Silent Bob 14:33:37 7/03/00 (0)
  • check this out Silent Bob 02:55:56 7/03/00 (1)
    • don't read this one SB 02:59:55 7/03/00 (0)
  • You must have skipped some words while reading my post (or the webdude deleted something) Puke 23:48:17 7/02/00 (0)

---