From alsa-devel-owner@alsa.jcu.cz  Wed Jan 13 01:01:01 1999
Received: from soma.interzone.org ([209.181.227.108])
	by marvin.jcu.cz (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA01412
	for <alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz>; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 00:59:20 +0100
Received: from localhost (meme@localhost)
	by soma.interzone.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA22696
	for <alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz>; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:59:13 -0600
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:59:13 -0600 (EST)
From: meme <meme@interzone.org>
To: alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz
Subject: Re: Suggestions 
In-Reply-To: <199901122033.PAA28411@renoir.op.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9901121755250.22694-100000@soma.interzone.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz
Sender: alsa-devel-owner@alsa.jcu.cz
Precedence: list


The previous poster was correct in that 32 bits are used to preseve extra
data that gets mashed as it passes through processing.  In professional
audio recording, however, the bitdeapth of the signal path should always
be as high as possible.  When recording, that might mean doing A/D
conversion to 32 bits, saving that track to the drive while doing an AUX
Send to a compressor , getting that signal back, etc.  When you talk about
the human ear, I think 24bit/96Khz is basically as good as analog.  You
can presently record in that format and distribute it on audio DVD's to
play on compatible players.



On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Paul Barton-Davis wrote:

> [ re 20/24/32 bit soundcards ]
> 
> i've read that 20 bits gives more resolution than the human ear by
> quite some factor. 24 is way more, and 32 is almost unimaginably more.
> the human ear is so far from being able to hear 2^32 distinct sound
> levels that the processing work/storage space to support 32 bit sound
> seems dubious, from what i've read ...
> 
> anyone care to enlighten me ?
> 
> --p
> ------
> To unsubscribe from <alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz> mailing list send message
> 'unsubscribe' in the body of message to <alsa-devel-request@alsa.jcu.cz>.
> 


