From: Stainless Steel Rat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: MD-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2000 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: MD: Sony's new Internet Audio Recording Interface
> * "Magic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sun, 05 Mar 2000
> | No, you'd simply have the option to send either "ATRAC Encoded" or
"SPDIF"
> | down the line. This would make it compatible with external CD-Rs etc
too.
>
> But you cannot do that, without encapsulating the SPDIF signal in the same
> fashion as SCSI over USB... which is pig-slow, and requires yet another
> kind of data converter in the USB tail. This also assumes that your
system
> is fast enough to convert audio to SPDIF in real time.
Encoding SPDIF is incredibly simple. The USB tail need be nothing more than
a simple output module. All it needs to do is buffer a small amount of data
being sent to it and regardless of format, output it via an LED.
> [...]
> | You expect me to believe that a P200 can emulate an entire playstation
> | system with software emulation but not handle something as simple as
ATRAC?
>
> You assume ATRAC is simple when it is infinitely more complex than a
> PlayStation console. See my previous post for more.
You are underestimating the complexity of the PSX. Granted the main CPU is
only 33MHz, but there are also dedicated sound chips, video hardware, memory
re-mapping, fpu emulation, emulation of controllers and interfaces of which
the 33MHz CPU emulation is just a very small part. A 100MHz 486 can emulate
te 33MHz CPU of the PSX in real time without any problem, but that is
virtually useless without emulating the additional hardware. Open up a PSX -
there's substantially more in there than a CPU and power supply.
What we are talking about is emulating one chip which is not overly complex
compared to a good few others. There is also no requirement to emulate the
MD processor - we're not running "MinidiscOS" or anything, we're talking
about emulating the *process* which is different. There is no reason why you
couldn't write an ATRAC encoder that is 100% compatible with the chip-based
version and have it run on a computer system.
I think your main problem with seeing the possibilities here is that you
think the PC should be emulating the ATRAC chip itself, whereas I am
suggesting that all you do is produce a program that gives the same end
result by whatever means. If you were writing a calculator program, would
you try and write a program to emulate all the chips in the calculator, or
would you just use the much faster functions built into your computers CPU?
I know which I would do....
Magic
--
"Creativity is more a birthright than an acquisition, and the power of sound
is wisdom and understanding applied to the power of vibration."
Location : Portsmouth, England, UK
Homepage : http://www.mattnet.freeserve.co.uk
EMail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
