===================================================
= NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please =
= be more selective when quoting text =
===================================================
Dave Hooper wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Charles Redell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 8:23 PM
> Subject: Re: MD: sound quality difference in blanks?
>
> > I don't understand why there isn't a differnece in sound quality between
> > blanks (If that is really the case)? I mean, why are some more expensive
> tha
> > others? Are some not made better/easier for the laser to read/smoother
> > inoperation or something akin to all of that?
>
> Yes ... Smoother in operation means better for your MiniDisc player - I
> guess a cheap badly-made MiniDisc could present unnecessary resistance to
> the motor or cause the head to scrape or scratch on something and your
> MiniDisc player to break down. Easier for the laser to read simply means the
> laser won't 'fail' to read the disk as often
>
> The laser failing to read the disc is simply a bit error which the ECC
> (error correcting code) used by the
> MiniDisc can recover. I can't remember the exact figures but the ECC used
> can allow something like 1 bit out of
> every 200 to be corrupted with no (literally ZERO) difference in audio
> quality
>
I have sold MD gear. It is as close as impossible as you can get to receive a
defective disc that will deliver an error count in excess of 200. Even if that
was the problem, it would not be the sound quality that would be effected, you
would either get a disc that would not play at all or skip and drop out.
Larry
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
