mcduman wrote: > actually, everything about cd format was kind of arbitrary in order to > fit Beethoven's 9th in one single portable cd. > (https://www.classicfm.com/discover-music/why-is-a-cd-74-minutes/). it > could have been 14 or 20 bits depending on how much fit in one cd. i am > sure all the engineers from sony and philips from those days are > surprised that whatever they came up with 40 years ago are still the > high watermark of audio technology today. i am, for sure. > > more of every thing in technology from cpu power to screen resolution is > good, whether you need it or not. but when it comes to audio resolution, > less is good. how can this be true?
I worked as an engineer at Philips CD Lab from 1985-1990 and I can reassure you that the 74 minutes requirement only directed the choice for the diameter of the disc (otherwise it would have been a bit smaller to only handle 60mins of audio like a C60 cassette tape). The desire to comfortably encode frequencies audible to humans was what drove the choice for bit-depth and sampling rates, with a little extra headroom for good measure. The bits/sec put on the actual disc is substantially higher due to clever techniques like interleaving data and adding redundancy checksums and such so that errors due to normal scratches can be completely eradicated. Its not that less is good, its that enough is enough. Armstrong didnt have to shave himself the morning he stepped on the moon because we couldnt see his stubble from earth when looking up at the moon with our naked eyes anyway... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ philchillbill's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=68920 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=114009
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
