Re: MIDI files on IIgs?

[spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector)]

In article edhel@bigfoot.com (Edhel Iaur, Esq.) writes...

>On 20 May 1997 22:04 -0500, spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector)
>wrote:
>
>>In article Eric Jacobs <no@no.no> writes...
>>
>>>The difference between 8-bit and 16-bit resolution in sampled sound
>>>is ALMOST NOTHING. What makes the difference in the quality of the
>....
>>    What utter rubbish and nonsense. Sound resolution directly affects
>>the quality of a digital recording, do you even understand the concept
>....
>
>I sure as heck can't distinguish 16 bit 44kHz from 8 bit 22kHz at all.
>Heck, I can't even tell that one of my sounds is 4 bit 22kHz.

    If you cannot distinguish between 4-bit and 16-bit sampling, then
perhaps you should get your hearing checked. ;-) I assume your using
something other than an Apple II to listen to 16-bit audio files, as
the highest resolution possible on a IIgs is 8-bit (and even lower on
the rest, the Apple III is 6-bit and the II+/e/c/c+ is 1-bit, but you
can push the speaker to 5-bit with some programming tricks).

>Is there a particular kind of sound that makes the quality differences
>more apparent?

    Well generally all sound is improved, the higher the sampling rate,
the greater the number of discrete levels used in the analog to digital
conversion. You can of course actually see it, if you look at a graphical
representation of the waveform with editing software (if you go really
low, your sample is going to turn into a squarewave more or less, rather
than a sinewave with more smooth curves).

    I suppose a good listening example would be the percussion sounds
in a music piece, like say the drums, cymbal-rides and high-hats in a 
jazz MIDI file (I can always pick that out, you get more crisp, sharp 
and percing sound). You do also know compact discs are digital 16-bit, 
44.1 kHz for sound, why they sound so clear.

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca