===================================================
= NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please =
= be more selective when quoting text =
===================================================
Yes, you are both right! There is a lot I don't know about mini-disks and
haven't take the time to learn. I did assume that the data on mini-disks was
virtually uncompressed so that is why I mistakenly thought their capacity to
be the same as CDs. I should have thought it through but heck that is one of
the nice things about mailing list, that you can tap the resource for some
good knowledge. Thanks for all your helpful information!
Perhaps MDLP might be a great solution for audiobooks but may not be good
for music due to the quality loss. Currently, I have a lot of money invested
in the standard MD technology (car stereo MD player plus 3 portable ones),
so I won't re-invest in anything else anytime soon (unless it increases
capacity substantially without any quality loss). I think I have another
solution for my audiobooks, I have a COMPAQ iPaq and purchased several of my
favorites for that. And once I test this Voquette software I might have
another alternative as well...
Take care...
Bruce Preudhomme, the SYSOP of The Pursuit of Happiness!
...where the mind's eYe is always open!
URL: www.pcpursuits.com telnet: pcpursuits.com
PC Pursuits ~Bringing people, computers and software together!~
http://www.pcpursuits.com/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of David W. Tamkin
> Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 1:52 PM
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: MD: "jumping to" eighty-minute discs
>
>
>
> Larry wrote,
>
> | David, the problem is that Bruce is thinking in megs and
> computer files not
> | PCM.
>
> Or that he's thinking in PCM and not in ATRAC. In a later post he implied
> that he thought an MD stored 650 Mb of uncompressed audio (ergo his calcu-
> lation that one MD could hold ten hours of 128-kbps MP3s). MDs
> already hold
> compressed audio, and I think MDLP should pretty much satisfy his
> desire for
> smaller files at lower bit rates.
>
> | ... imagine what a song would sound like that had been
> compressed twice by
> | two different techniques?
>
> Pretty bad, probably, but not multiplicatively: dubbing a 12:1 MP3 file to
> MD and putting it through 5:1 ATRAC would not result in 60:1
> lossiness, be-
> cause most of what both discard is what's supposed to be
> psychoacoustically
> null, so the ATRAC discards are concentrated in the data extrapolated in
> playing back the MP3 file rather than in the data preserved during MP3 en-
> coding.
>
> | Compressing music 5 times is already pushing the envelope.
>
> An even lower bit rate has become the most common one for MP3 files, so it
> seems a lot of people can stand it even worse.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
> "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
