In Reply to: Re: Anybody read "The Death of Dynamic Range" webpage? posted by George Mann on November 23, 2006 at 14:37:52:
HowdyI understand that, and I think others will agree that it's a little more clear than your first statement.
Don't get me wrong I'm not a digital apologist (I understand it too well for that) but it's still a leap to your conclusion about dynamic range from just that statement. There are plenty of recording systems that use higher precision than just 16 bits and hence can ameliorate the effects of any particular sampling reference.
-Ted
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Anybody read "The Death of Dynamic Range" webpage? - Ted Smith 19:19:14 11/23/06 (9)
- Re: Anybody read "The Death of Dynamic Range" webpage? - Werner 23:54:24 11/23/06 (8)
- Sorry folks, I failed to clarify my position in a way you can relate to. - George Mann 02:21:28 11/24/06 (7)
- Re: Sorry folks, I failed to clarify my position in a way you can relate to. - Werner 02:51:34 11/24/06 (6)
- You people are hopeless, and I never should have expected you to understand! - George Mann 03:01:49 11/24/06 (5)
- Nope, we know that it isn't perfect - Ted Smith 09:22:30 11/24/06 (4)
- And I'm afraid you never will. nt. - George Mann 11:25:09 11/24/06 (3)
- We know the standard technology and terminology, why do you give up so easily? [nt] - Ted Smith 11:31:46 11/24/06 (2)
- It would be best just to drop the subject. Here's why... - George Mann 12:06:49 11/24/06 (1)
- You might get some respect if you showed others some... - Ted Smith 12:47:13 11/24/06 (0)