18 May
2010
18 May
'10
10:34 a.m.
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Brian Lanning <brianlanning at gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Liam Proven
<lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
True, and I did consider that - after all, it apparently worked fine.
But somehow seems subtly /wrong/ to me. It /ought/ to be uncompressed.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
Also, FWIW, I'm slightly surprised they'd
use an MP3. I would have
thought the compression would do no good at all to the digital signal
encoded on the original tape. I'd have gone for something lossless,
myself. Although come to that, I wouldn't be surprised if the iPad was
so closed-off to the outside world that it couldn't play FLAC.
I was thinking the same thing. ?But I figure the sampling rates with
MP3s are far higher than whatever the baud rate of the recording turns
out to be. ?I doubt the tape is faster than a 300 or 1200 baud modem.