🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <bUpf2.1195$S7.1520@news.flash.net>,
"Arny Kr�ger" <arnyk@flash.net> wrote:
>
>Even I've been surprised with how much trouble people have hearing the
>difference that reducing 44/16 to 44/10 creates. I fully expected people to
>hear clearly audible differences at 12 bits.

It's not so surprising when you consider the following...
In the UK, the nationally networked FM radio programming is carried from the
studio to the transmission sites in digital form. The general opinion of the
"golden ears" brigade is that it sounds quite good, and apart from the 15
KHz bandwidth limit is quite close to CD sound if you have a good tuner
(Sequerra etc). But what many of the listeners fail to appreciate is that
the digital data stream is actually encoded as 35 KHz sampling rate, 10 of
14 bit audio (NICAM). That is, only the 10 most significant bits of any
sample are transmitted.
(Actually, 32 samples are blocked together, the biggest sample in the block
is found, and the 10-bit wide "sliding window" is adjusted to fit that
sample then applied to all of the samples in the block. The block of samples
is then transmitted, along with the position of the sliding window.)
The net result is that high-level sounds lose resolution due to having one
or more of their significant bits truncated.

When you made the low-bit versions for the CD, did you simply truncate the
bits or did you also add the correct amount of dither?

--
Don Hills      (donhills at ibmdotnet)     Wellington, New Zealand