Klarinet Archive - Posting 000089.txt from 1994/12

From: Lorne G Buick - Music TA <lgbuick@-----.CA>
Subj: Re: digital recorders
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 13:10:14 -0500

Hi- I'll step in briefly here in case Cary's busy. I don't have specific
references here, but basically the quality of digital reproduction depends
on two factors: sampling rate and .... er ... the number of bits of
information per sample, whatever the technical word for that is (I'll just
call it "bits" for now). To make a digital recording, the machine measures
the sound a number of times per second (the sampling rate). CD's and DAT
use a 44 KHz sampling rate, ie they measure the sound 44,000 times per
second.

The other determinant of the accuracy of reproduction is the bits per
sample- this determines how precisely the measurement is taken each time.
I don't remember the numbers, but what I remember reading when minidiscs
were introduced is that a) they use fewer bits per sample, or b) they use
a lower sampling rate,in order to record more music with less digital info.
Either way the limitation is built into the recording system, there is no
question of a good minidisc recorder doing a better job than DAT.

I'm sure Cary can fill in the details, but you could find out yourself if
you have access to audio magazines; or if you have access to Usenet on
your system try the FAQ for rec.audio; or if you have access to the World
Wide Web there is a listing of FAQ's for many newsgroups out there too.

Personally I still prefer analog anyway... :-)

On Wed, 7 Dec 1994, OLIVER SEELY wrote:

> Cary,
> Can you back up your claim that the DAT is inherently better
> than the minidisc? I'd like to take a look at your references.
>
> Oliver