Dave Bradley wrote:
>> Another question...
>> When you use "16-bit sample," do you mean that the value is
>> represented by a 16-"digit" binary number, and can thus have any of
>> 65,536 values (from 0 to 65,535)...right? So that means that the
>> value of the step (say 30000) actually represents an analog value
>> that could be anything from 29999.50..1 to 30000.49..9, which makes
>> the maximum inaccuracy 1/(65536/2)...is right?
> Ok, assuming that your math is accurate, which I have taken as a given
> rather than working it out myself, yes, a possible error of 1 point
> would give that range of 29,999.50.... to 30,000.49.... SO, what
> would a 14 point error give instead? And again, I ask which is more
> acceptable? The difference that one point in value will give or the
> difference that 14 points will give?
> I'm not claiming that digital is in any way perfect, but when it's
> provable mathematically that you can have such a large error vs such a
> small error, why accept the large error simply because it's digital
> which means it's inaccurate to start with?
> Your argument certainly tells me that I'd never hire you to digitize
> anything of any archival importance for me, nor would I ever
> sub-contract work out to someone willing to take that approach.
Why do you keep bringing up a 1 point error versus 14 point error? If
the original transfer had been done in 24 bit instead of 16 bits we
wouldn't be having this discussion and everyone would be happy.
And even though you weren't aiming that last remark at me, I find it
wholly and completely offensive. Especially for it to be posted on a
highly-regarded board as the ARCLIST. There are many who could make
snide comments about your work, but no one has because that's not what
this board is all about.
Just because I don't agree with you, and someone else is asking
questions about your math (and hasn't made one derogatory comment in the
process) is no reason to go off the deep end.
So let's all act like adults and play nice, okay?
Fort Lee, NJ