Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sunybcs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!decwrl!decvax!genrad!wjh12!harvard!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!sunybcs!charles
From: charles@sunybcs.UUCP (Charles E. Pearson)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Tubes, CDs, sq waves, nonscience (the bleat goes on)
Message-ID: <83@sunybcs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 29-Jun-84 13:16:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: sunybcs.83
Posted: Fri Jun 29 13:16:56 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 27-Jul-84 05:33:33 EDT
References: <579@opus.UUCP>
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science
Lines: 42

Gee... Maybe I should have called it time-slicing.
       Multi-plexing is a computer term.  The concept easily
extrapolates to its use in other fields.
 
Since it is too complex an idea, maybe I had better explain it.
 
Time x, sample only channel a.
Time x+1, sample only channel b.
Time x+2, sample only channel a.
Time x+3, sample only channel b.
 .
 .
 .
Time x+n, sample only channel a.
Time x+n+1, sample only channel b.
 
This clearly reduces the effective sample rate by dividing it by 2.
At any given time Z, sound is only coming from channel Q.
Rather simple an idea... multi-plexed mono.
The hope is that the time-slicing between the 2 channels will be 
in-audible, but still very effectively reduces the sample rate of
re-production from any (every) standard CD with this logic.
 
But then you say, double the speed of the reading/processing and you
recover the loss... If so, it would also make reasonable the
doubling of the sample rate of all other units operating in true
dual channel mode, or the doubling of the resolution.
 
Not bloody likely.

 
                                    Charles E. Pearson

UUCP:		{allegra, seismo}!rochester!rocksvax!sunybcs!charles
		decvax!watmath!sunybcs!charles
ARPA & CSNET:	charles.buffalo@rand-relay
Physical:       University Computing Services
                4250 Ridge Lea Road
                room 28
		SUNY Center at Buffalo
		Amherst, NY  14226