b0dhi
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Posts
- 2,070
- Likes
- 23
You're really making my night here, gregorio. I haven't laughed so hard in a while.
Thanks for that unrelated quote on dithering from Wikipedia. I'll repeat myself for the third time: -
Quote:
But if you want to quote Wikipedia, then have a squizz at this:
Quote:
(from Audio bit depth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Thanks for that unrelated quote on dithering from Wikipedia. I'll repeat myself for the third time: -
Quote:
Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hahahahahahahahahahaahaha. Sorry that is just hilarious. I'm well capable of understanding your "explanation", I just happen to know it's incorrect, which is why I'm asking you to supply a reference, because I know you won't be able to. Please - since you're a university lecturer who is aware of what the Harvard referencing system is (lol), you should have no problem finding some lecture notes stating that "the resolution of the audio is just as perfect [equal] at 16bit as it is at 24bit or indeed at any number of bits". Although I'm not sure how you will do that due to the fact that time-domain resolution depends directly on bit-depth (given enough distance from Fs/2), and you might also have some trouble convincing me that a 1-bit dithered stream has the same "resolution" (that word, by the way, you are confusing because it relates more to sampling rate than bit-depth, but I will assume you're talking about quantisation resolution) as a 16-bit dithered stream. |
But if you want to quote Wikipedia, then have a squizz at this:
Quote:
Bit depth directly corresponds to the resolution of each sample in a set of digital audio data. |
(from Audio bit depth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)