2 ms·
"Humans can manipulate their tongue, breath, and fingers only so fast, so in theory we shouldn't really have to measure the music many thousands of times a seco
by tel 19y ago
"Humans can manipulate their tongue, breath, and fingers only so fast, so in theory we shouldn't really have to measure the music many thousands of times a second like we do on a CD."
This seems widely flawed. Changes in play are limited by the dexterity of the player (and upper bounded by the dexterity of a body), but choices and timings aren't so mechanical.
The exact timing (feel, even) of, say, a swung eighth requires quite a lot of resolution before it's done right. I'd love to see them, even after they get tonguing "down", do a double blind study in Jazz.
- dhimes 19y agoI'm thinking, April Fools! (it's a 1 April release)
- dhimes 19y agoI stand corrected. They have now posted that it's not an April Fool's joke.
- jcl 19y agoI think their point is not that the resolution of human data is lower (although I expect it is quite a bit lower than 44k Hz). Instead, I think they are pointing out that fewer data points are necessary. If your jazz drummer plays eight notes in a second, the timing alone can be represented in eight floating point numbers (a higher resolution than CD audio); the data is 8 * 8 bytes -- much smaller than the 44k * 4 bytes of raw audio samples that would be needed for a second of stereo CD audio. (I realize a drummer's performance encompasses several other variables, but these data points are similarly sparse relative to CD audio.)