Talk:Pre-emphasis - Revision history

Mjb: clarify that the first part is a quote

2013-11-10T22:31:27Z

clarify that the first part is a quote

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:31, 10 November 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
			[the article says:]
	:So when you play a CD through your computer, or use CD ripping software to get the audio content, you're probably getting the ''pre-emphasized audio data''. Since it has not been de-emphasized, it will probably sound too "bright" and/or hissy (although your audio equipment or your damaged ears may keep you from noticing). Therefore you may want to do de-emphasis processing yourself.		:So when you play a CD through your computer, or use CD ripping software to get the audio content, you're probably getting the ''pre-emphasized audio data''. Since it has not been de-emphasized, it will probably sound too "bright" and/or hissy (although your audio equipment or your damaged ears may keep you from noticing). Therefore you may want to do de-emphasis processing yourself.

Mjb: +reply

2013-11-10T22:30:58Z

+reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:30, 10 November 2013
Line 2:		Line 2:

	If you got the pre-emphasized data, it would sound right, and you wouldn't want to de-emphasize it. Was the above supposed to say "you're probably getting the emphasized audio data"? Maybe the author was thinking 'pre-de-emphasized' and didn't properly cancel the negations. [[Special:Contributions/70.124.88.175\|70.124.88.175]] 21:46, 5 November 2013 (CET)		If you got the pre-emphasized data, it would sound right, and you wouldn't want to de-emphasize it. Was the above supposed to say "you're probably getting the emphasized audio data"? Maybe the author was thinking 'pre-de-emphasized' and didn't properly cancel the negations. [[Special:Contributions/70.124.88.175\|70.124.88.175]] 21:46, 5 November 2013 (CET)

			:The language of the CDDA spec simply refers to the audio on the CD being "with pre-emphasis" or "without pre-emphasis." If it's with the pre-emphasis, then no, it won't sound right unless the reverse EQ is applied. Regardless, I don't know why they call it "pre"-emphasis instead of just emphasis.
			:How we go about crafting the verb forms to explain this is up to us. If the audio on the CD is "with pre-emphasis," then I think it's reasonable to say that the audio is "pre-emphasized." It's just as reasonable to say it's "emphasized." But you're right in that "pre-emphasized" is inconsistent with the terminology we chose for the reversal of the process: "de-emphasis" and "de-emphasized" rather than "de-pre-emphasis" and "de-pre-emphasized."
			:I don't know. I'll go with the flow. If you want to change it, go ahead... —[[User:Mjb\|Mjb]] 23:30, 10 November 2013 (CET)

70.124.88.175: pre-emphasized, you mean emphasized?

2013-11-05T20:46:03Z

pre-emphasized, you mean emphasized?

New page

:So when you play a CD through your computer, or use CD ripping software to get the audio content, you're probably getting the ''pre-emphasized audio data''. Since it has not been de-emphasized, it will probably sound too "bright" and/or hissy (although your audio equipment or your damaged ears may keep you from noticing). Therefore you may want to do de-emphasis processing yourself.

If you got the pre-emphasized data, it would sound right, and you wouldn't want to de-emphasize it. Was the above supposed to say "you're probably getting the emphasized audio data"? Maybe the author was thinking 'pre-de-emphasized' and didn't properly cancel the negations. [[Special:Contributions/70.124.88.175|70.124.88.175]] 21:46, 5 November 2013 (CET)