===================================================
= NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please =
= be more selective when quoting text =
===================================================
> Mike Burger wrote:
>
>> But isn't there some compression involved there? If so, what's
>> being
>> lost?
>
I'm not sure that we are talking about compression. Encoding and
Decoding. This is slightly over the top for me, so here are some links:
<http://www.rotel.com/html/hdcd.html>
<http://www.hdcd.com/>
> HDCD (which stands for High Definition Compatable Digital- not High
> Definition CDs, like I thought ) borrows from the technology used in
> DVDs.
>
>> Compression upon compression doesn't work to improve the quality of
>> anything.
>
> But you made the assumption that compress was involved.
>
>> I'm sure that there are a few people who can...unfortunately, there
>> are
>> a heck of a lot more that would like to think that they can, a great
>>
>> number that have deluded themselves into thinking that they can.
>> And then,
>> there are those of us who realize that inaudible frequencies are
>> inaudible, no matter what we'd like to think.
>>
>> Guess what...it's a pretty fair guess that at least 99% of the human
>>
>> population fall into the last category.
>
> I even thought that the original ATRAC (even using analog recording)
> was still good compared to any cassette recorder in the same price
> range as the MZ-1. First of all my the acute hearing that I had in my
> twenties just isn't so acute (neither is my once near " x ray
> vision-that's the one that bothers me the most-if I had nothing else
> going for me I had great vision).
I am quite sure that I could live with rest of my life listening to
digitally copied MDs and if I never heard another CD it would be fine
with me.
> Now video is different. 240 lines of resolution sucks!! Especially
> on a large screen TV. There is a noticable difference between a VHS
> tape and a DVD on my old rear projection TV.
Digital TV is even more noticeable (that's not even getting into HDTV).
> The really high end cassette records cost over a grand in the 60's!
>
>>
>> If MD manufacturers were really going to look for an alternative to
>> ATRAC
>> compression (or any lossy compression method), perhaps the work
>> should be
>> focused on increasing the physical capacity of the discs, so that
>> compression wouldn't be necessary.
>
I'm not sure that one has anything to do with the other. SCMS is
encoded onto MDs but has nothing to do with compression.
If you are interested and read the links (or care to research it further
on the net), you may find that it would be a way to improve MDs and
still use ATRAC for compression.
The part I really don't understand is how even on your current CD player
the sound will be better (even thought it hasn't past through a
decoder)?
Larry
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
