3 ms·

Ah, I see, sorry for the confusion. I've always personally used terms like re-encode because the end product is still a digital encoding. I suppose a lot of pe

Ah, I see, sorry for the confusion. I've always personally used terms like re-encode because the end product is still a digital encoding. I suppose a lot of people in the music world would prefer to call it bouncing. I think all these terms are valid.

derefr 8y ago
> the end product is still a digital encoding A digital encoding of Nyquist samples, though—meaning that you've got something which, at that point, is a lossless description of the equivalent analogue intensities that would be cut into a depth groove. (Provided that none of the data is above the Nyquist frequency, which is usually true-by-design in the kind of chiptune audio being discussed here.) There isn't really any difference between holding onto the digital data after rendering it, and holding onto an (ideal, lossless) recording medium containing the analogue waveform you got by putting that digital data through a DAC. There's a bijection—you can always recover one from the other. So why not think of PCM audio as an "analogue medium"—just one that requires a blob of digital logic to turn it into a signal on a wire, rather than a stylus?