<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Tilghman Lesher <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tilghman@meg.abyt.es">tilghman@meg.abyt.es</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5">On Wednesday 09 February 2011 03:50:51 Sherwood McGowan wrote:<br>
> Tilghman,<br>
><br>
> When you say "reformat the audio", do you mean sample rate and bits per<br>
> sample, etc...or do you mean the format in which each packet of data is<br>
> structured ? I just want to make sure I know which one I'd be dealing<br>
> with if recording a call that was using one of the higher quality<br>
> codecs that was metioned earlier.<br>
><br>
> I *think* you mean just the "structure" version of the format options I<br>
> presented, because for example: Microsoft PCM (wav) files can be of<br>
> varying "quality" levels (192Khz, 256Khz..8bit 16 bit 24...32)..This is<br>
> true (as you know, I'm more than sure) of almost every audio file<br>
> format...<br>
><br>
> So, is it "Structure of data/packets" or "sample rate, bitrate, etc' ?<br>
<br>
</div></div>That would be structure of data stored in the file. At the point where the<br>
file format comes into play, the samples are already in their final stage<br>
of computation. The only thing that remains is how the samples are wrapped<br>
for storage.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
--<br>
Tilghman<br></div></div></blockquote></div><br>thanks for confirming!<br>