Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 6 Dec 2012 10:19:40 +0100
From:      Thomas Zander <thomas.e.zander@googlemail.com>
To:        freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Why 24/192kHz sound is not a solution.
Message-ID:  <CAFU734wQ0YikLwhCE5%2Bhri7W5V1pHhZWk1tVgbhgD299wvi9Mw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA7C2qjCbe_yJMCpKFj67aXtSBiWC%2BGwHMkACcerUGB3bWo1pg@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <1354723094926-5766828.post@n5.nabble.com> <CAA7C2qjCbe_yJMCpKFj67aXtSBiWC%2BGwHMkACcerUGB3bWo1pg@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 6:47 PM, VDR User <user.vdr@gmail.com> wrote:

>> http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
>
> I don't know that using the mailing list to post links to articles is
> appropriate, but 24/192 does matter when it comes to processing.

Why should this be inappropriate? The article has a clear focus on the
24/192 topic and freebsd-multimedia@ is a place to discuss how FreeBSD
should deal with this. IMHO there is nothing wrong with that.
In my opinion there is one answer: If the sound chip accepts 24/192,
then our sound system should be able to use this capability.

Riggs



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFU734wQ0YikLwhCE5%2Bhri7W5V1pHhZWk1tVgbhgD299wvi9Mw>