Re: Boomerang: sample time vs. sample rate

[mgsam@wave.net]

>I wish sound quality were as simple as sample rates.  Unfortunately,
>it ain't.  Lots of PCM devices have very low sampling rates, but sound
>terrific (like the EH16 and the old DeltaLab delays).  Other devices
>have high sampling rates and good specs, but sound like cold wet sand
>packed in your ears (anything by ART).  And older Lexicon stuff like
>the Vortex and LXP-5 sound great, despite mediocre specs and sampling
>rate.
>
>It isn't just sampling rate, it's the overall quality of the A/D and
>D/A sections, and the digitizing technology used.
>
>Now, if the Boomerang actually *sounds* bad, that's one thing.  But if
>it's just bad on paper, who cares?
>
>-dave
>
>By "beauty," I mean that which seems complete.
>Obversely, that the incomplete, or the mutilated, is the ugly.
>Venus De Milo.
>To a child she is ugly.       /* dstagner@icarus.net */
>   -Charles Fort