On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:48:29 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


If that's the case then it would make sense to use the 48 KHz output and let
the standalone DAC handle the resampling, would it not?

Rather than all that re-sampling, it would make sense to output
analogue, if you want to listen to it, or burn a CD on the computer if
you wanted to store it.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:02:02 +0000, Le Artiste
wrote:

That's not strictly true, because the side effects of the compression
format can have in some circumstances.

I should say, I thought the context was compression using acoustic
masking techniques.. MP3, AAC, ATRAC etc

So which compression system do you recommend, in what circumstances,
and why?

I use .wav, or .mp3 if you want them smaller.

Yeah. But which one has "beneficial consequences", and in what
circumstances?

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 23:38:53 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:

If that's the case then it would make sense to use the 48 KHz output
and let the standalone DAC handle the resampling, would it not?

According to Stewart P (no idea if hes right) the SBlive! manages to
balls up even 48:48 resampling.

Probably. They're not very nice cards.

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:48:29 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


If that's the case then it would make sense to use the 48 KHz output and
let
the standalone DAC handle the resampling, would it not?

Rather than all that re-sampling, it would make sense to output
analogue, if you want to listen to it, or burn a CD on the computer if
you wanted to store it.


OK, it's gone full circle and it looks like I'll have to decide between
'dacced digital' and analogue output for best sound by a simple listening
comparison and save WAVs at 16/44.1 for possible future burning.

One last question:

'Default Template' in SoundForge is described as "Render 44,100 Hz, 16-bit,
Stereo PCM audio wave file" or there is a setting described as "Single
Stereo, 44,100 Hz, 16 bit PCM wave file." Is there any significant
difference here?

(Sorry to be such a numpty in 'digital' matters.....)

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 23:38:53 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:48:29 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

If that's the case then it would make sense to use the 48 KHz output
and let the standalone DAC handle the resampling, would it not?

According to Stewart P (no idea if hes right) the SBlive! manages to
balls up even 48:48 resampling.

You may be thinlking of some other poster, I don't recall ever having
made such a comment. I have an Audigy in my PC.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:00:50 +0000, Laurence Payne
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:02:02 +0000, Le Artiste
wrote:

That's not strictly true, because the side effects of the compression
format can have in some circumstances.

I should say, I thought the context was compression using acoustic
masking techniques.. MP3, AAC, ATRAC etc

So which compression system do you recommend, in what circumstances,
and why?

I use .wav, or .mp3 if you want them smaller.

Yeah. But which one has "beneficial consequences", and in what
circumstances?

For starters, .wav files are not compressed..............

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:53:40 +0000, Laurence Payne
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:12:31 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

Good point. The 'signal in' is, of course, analogue. SoundForge saves WAVs
as 16/44.1 so I guess that's answered my question ain't it?

If you have a soundcard that offers other bit-rates and sample
frequencies, SoundForge will happily record and save at higher (or,
indeed, lower) resolutions.

It's questionable whether a higher sample frequency is worth it. 24
bits certainly are, if recording music with any dynamic range. Maybe
not from vinyl though? What's the practical dynamic range off vinyl?

About 13 bits, from unplayed perfectly clean top-class vinyl.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Laurence Payne" wrote in
message
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 23:38:53 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:

If that's the case then it would make sense to use the 48 KHz output
and let the standalone DAC handle the resampling, would it not?

According to Stewart P (no idea if hes right) the SBlive! manages to
balls up even 48:48 resampling.

Probably. They're not very nice cards.

Certainly.

Objective tests:

http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/live!/index.htm

Listening tests:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/ct4830/index.htm

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 08:07:52 +0000 (UTC)
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

According to Stewart P (no idea if hes right) the SBlive! manages to
balls up even 48:48 resampling.

You may be thinlking of some other poster, I don't recall ever having
made such a comment. I have an Audigy in my PC.

Sorry, it was Arny.

--

Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:23:51 +0000
Le Artiste wrote:

I have noted mportant sound quality
enhancements incurred in the implementation of new driver iterations
on several sound cards, but, note, the information Mr Krueger presents
on his website and relies on in informal argument is typically very
out of date, and based on early driver releases.

Interesting...

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.