Area Man wrote:
I think we all understand that you can't get good quality from a poor recording just because you use a certain codec. It does seem troll-like
... is there a point in going from lossy (mp3) to lossless anyway? you can just copy the file and save some time and space.
I suspect there are quite a few people out there with new 16:9 "hd ready" TVs that think they now have "high definition" TV: even if they are watching a 4:3 signal stretched to 16:9
(Not to say users of this forum would be fooled)
Area Man wrote:Btw, can you hear the difference between 33 vs 45 rpm analog record? The 45 stores more info than the 33, therefore even analog recordings are "lossy".
I'm too lazy to check. Yes, I realize "analog" formats are lossy. What is interesting is that with digital formats, lossless copying is possible;
even with a lossy codec.
Area Man wrote:Is there some audible sound that a 24-bit, 96 kHz digital recording can't reproduce (flac limits are 32 bits and 655.35 kHz) ? A 20 kHz dog whistle would be sampled almost 5 times.
Intuitively, I would expect some distortion with so few samples during the waveform, but you could filter the noise (would be at the frequency of the samples) out when you play it back.
I have made the point elsewhere that the 192kHz sample rate available for HD-DVD and Blu-ray is high enough to store a demodulated FM stereo broadcast: in each channel. It goes back to wanting higher quality for mastering (I assume).
Area Man wrote:Rip your CDs and DVDs to FLAC, recode to whatever your portable player supports if necessary.
Or just keep them in a climate-controlled vault
(stored upright of course)
Edited for correctness/qualifiers.