On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 at 11:27 -0800, Mike Taht wrote: > 1) Surround sound: If you have 5:1 surround sound, somehow that gets > encoded into the same sample rate as 2 channel sound, and there must > be some corresponding quality loss overall. So it strikes me that if > you want higher fidelity surround, the end output needs to have more > bits than nyquist dictates. >I'm sorry, I don't understand this. Can you elaborate? If you have 5:1, >that means you have six channels, right? How does that relate to sample >rate? My point was that you (typically, today) do a surround mix into a encoder that crunches it down then plays back at the same rate as a "normal" mix, while being decoded... If I do a surround mix at 96k will it sound better than than a surround mix at 44k is my question? For all I know that may be changing and a "surround mix" in the future may well be 5 or more pure XKhz streams supplied by the device... On 1/28/06, Hans Fugal <hans@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 at 11:27 -0800, Mike Taht wrote: > > 1) Surround sound: If you have 5:1 surround sound, somehow that gets > > encoded into the same sample rate as 2 channel sound, and there must > > be some corresponding quality loss overall. So it strikes me that if > > you want higher fidelity surround, the end output needs to have more > > bits than nyquist dictates. > > I'm sorry, I don't understand this. Can you elaborate? If you have 5:1, > that means you have six channels, right? How does that relate to sample > rate? > > > -- > Hans Fugal ; http://hans.fugal.net > > There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the > right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself. > -- Johann Sebastian Bach > > -- Mike Taht PostCards From the Bleeding Edge http://the-edge.blogspot.com
