I guess what I am asking here is to do with specific combinations. I 
must admit that this is something I have never questioned. It has been 
my assumption that analogue audio enters one side of the AD converter 
(soundcard/audio interface) and the digital audio produced is 
represented through the software GUI - that the software does not change 
the digital content during capture and more importantly that different 
software does not alter the digital content, it merely represents the 
same content through a different GUI. However it seems that what is 
being said here is that different software will not only visually 
represent the same audio capture differently, but will also 
fundamentally alter or misrepresent the data part of the wav file.

Of course different software and indeed different versions of the same 
software will perform differently according to the algorithms and 
esoteric architecture of the filters used, but I am disturbed to find 
that I have been so naive as to assume that it is not only the AD 
converter that can influence the quality of sound captured. To be blunt, 
a good soundcard can be let down by poor software.

If this is the case, I would be interested to hear what experiences 
forum members have had with good and bad software/hardware combinations

Charles Lawson wrote:
> Mike Hirst <[log in to unmask]>:
>> However, reading Goran Finnberg's comments re the work dome by George 
>> Blood, I am surprised to find that different combinations of software 
>> and hardware can produce different results.
> 
> I am stunned by this statement.
> 
> This is *not* to be interpreted as a slam against Mike Hirst or anyone
> else who does not know how different software/hardware combinations can
> produce wildly different results.  It is merely an expression of shock
> that such knowledge isn't common in the field and apparently isn't
> imparted from day one of study.  The idea that
> digital-is-digital-(is-perfect) could not be further from the truth.  The
> first test any system should undergo is whether or not bits pass
> unmolested (if no deliberate processing is applied) from input to output
> back to input.  You will be amazed how many "high-end" systems fail this
> test.  One of the reasons that I still regularly use a twelve-year-old
> editing system for much final assembly of my work is that I can be sure
> that the data are not being altered unless I specifically *tell* the
> software to do it.
> 
> Maybe I do need to write that book, after all.  I never envisioned myself
> as a crotchety old guy keeping the young whippersnappers on the
> straight-and-narrow but I am evolving in that direction.  ;-)
> 
> --
> Charles Lawson <[log in to unmask]>
> Professional Audio for CD, DVD, Broadcast & Internet
> 
> 

-- 
Mike Hirst
Managing Director
DAS-360°
16 Ocean View
Whitley Bay
Tyne & Wear
NE26 1AL

tel: 0191 289 3186
email: [log in to unmask]
web: http://www.das360.net