Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hound.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!hound!rfg From: rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Re: CD Reflections-Question, Mr. Simpkins... Message-ID: <849@hound.UUCP> Date: Fri, 18-Jan-85 12:37:22 EST Article-I.D.: hound.849 Posted: Fri Jan 18 12:37:22 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 19-Jan-85 01:20:18 EST References: <15100001@hpfcmp.UUCP> <3411@mit-eddie.UUCP> <1420@hplabs.UUCP>, <77@vice.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ Lines: 17 [?] Sounds like someone who knows what he is talking about, so perhaps you can comment on a concern I have: Assuming theresomething to the argument that brick-wall filters mess up the sound audibly so that oversampling is beneficial, what about the brick-wall filter the signal is put through in the recording (encoding) process? a) I assume there is one. b) I assume it's brick-wall. c) Doesn't it mess up the phase in the same way that similar filters are alleged to in the decoding process? d) Is there anyway to undo those effects? e) is there any alternative? e.g., can oversampling or something be used at the encoding end with similar alleged benefits (still retaining the 44.1 rate on the disc)? Breathlessly awaiting enlightenment. -- "It's the thought, if any, that counts!" Dick Grantges hound!rfg