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 there  something 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