Michael Hoffman wrote:
> Your points will not be valid for very long at all. We're about to be hit by
> a tidal wave of MP3-capable CD players and related combinations of
> technologies and features.
Michael, with all do respect. once again you are making statements
without
specific references to what you are claiming. It would be like my
saying that
Sony is about to release Net MD and plans to spend millions of dollars
promoting
it. It also plans to drastically drop the price of hardware so that it
will be
almost impossible to pass it up.
But I have no facts to make that claim, so I'm not making it.
> MP3 is hypothetically capable of portable recording just as much as ATRAC is.
If that were true, there would already be portable recorders out there.
Even the
most advanced Pocket PC, the Compaq ipaq 3650/3670 is only capable of
playing MP3
files.
>
> There is nothing stopping development of an MP3-based line of products that
> does everything MD does. What is the near-future potential of MP3 and the
> near-future potential of ATRAC or MD?
So far MP3 seems to have reached a certain amount of popularity and is
leveling
off. Without a good source, MP3 took a hit. The shutting down of
Napster
certainly didn't help. And Morpheus is only a shadow of what Napster
was. I'm
still waiting to see how long they get away with with they are doing.
> Remember, Sony's Bic-lighter-sized solid-state player plays ATRAC, with no MD,
> and Real Audio is now starting to transmit ATRAC online, with no MD.
First off, that only proves that ATRAC is just as viable an encoding
system as
MP3. As far as solid state goes, it may offer fast transfer rates, but
what do
you do once you have used up all of your kbs? Buy "Sticks" at $100
each?
> Dissolve "MD" into its features and subcomponents, and do the same for MP3
> technologies, and we can see many new combinations. -- ideally, it can be
> used in a self-contained system like an MD portable recorder, but also, if you
> choose to hook it up to a computer, you can fully take advantage of the
> immense potential of GUI and computer power.
This statement can just as easily be turned around to say that any audio
storage
should be capable of independent, portable recording and playback. I
don't see
any stand alone portable music CD recorders, let alone one that will
store music
in MP3 on a CD. I'm not saying they can't be made. But if they can,
why hasn't
someone come out with a prototype by now? Right now you have to have a
computer.
In spite of their popularity, I'm sure that I'm sure that the number of
households that have some kind of musical
playback unit is much higher than the number that have a computer.
Michael stated:
"One of my main points is that any new technology must be fully computer
literate"
How do you define "new technology"? Is it something brand new that has
never
existed before, such as a Time Machine? Or is it advancements in
existing
technology, like a new car with all kinds of never before offered
features or tiny
digital cell phones?
If you subscribe to the "Time Machine" definition, then the PC is not a
new
technology. When MDs came out most PCs still had tiny speakers in
them. Many
without sound cards. So the PC that we have today would not be a "new
technology", but a continuing advancement of existing technology. This
would
invalidate your entire "main point" because for one it would depend upon
the age
of your computer.
Since the computer is constantly evolving, we could reach a point where
new
computers no longer were capable of handling MP3s. Don't laugh, unless
you have a
very old computer, try reading from a 5 1/4 inch floppy disk! I have a
fairly new
scanner that I can not use with my new computer because it uses an ISA
SCSI card
and my new computer only accepts PCI cards.
As GUI operating systems continue on to the next version, each new
version does
not make drivers for all older hardware. So something "computer
literate" today
may not be computer literate in as little as a year (lets see what
drivers are not
available for Windows XP) making your "new 3 years ago technology"
obsolete.
I have thousands of dollars worth of programs written for Windows 3.11
that are no
longer usable. There are Windows 95 programs that will not run under
Windows 98
(and that is only 3 years).
If, however if you subscribe to my second definition of "new
technology"
(advancements in existing technology) then even things that YOU would
have
considered "new technology must be fully computer literate", may no
longer be
computer literate.
Are brand new cars no good because they are not "fully computer
literate"? You
can't plug a cable from your car to a PC and have them "talk to each
other". Does
that mean that we have to start making cars with such capability or cars
are in
your opinion, obsolete?
They now have a new technology (by the "Time Machine" definition) called
the Ionic
Breeze. It cleans the air with out the use of filters. But it is not
computer
literate, so it's no good in your book, right? But the fact remains
that if they
wanted to they could make MD units that worked with computers. They
don't because
that is not what MD is designed for, just like the Ionic Breeze.
> Actually there is a greater diversity of choices for MP3 playback than for
> MD -- many different approaches for portable MP3 players. Don't assume that
> the solid-state Rio is the only approach out there now. There are Mini CDR
> players, CDR players, microdrive players, compact flash players, and others.
And all of these could be designed to take advantage of ATRAC too. You
keep
making the mistake of comparing MD to MP3 instead of MP3 to ATRAC.
The fact is really that there are only two viable sources for the
portable storage of MP3
files. CDs and solid state. Compact Flash is just a memory chip that
allows you
to take it out of the Diamond Rio type device, while in cheap MP3
players that
chip is not removable. But, whether it is built in, Compact Flash
Cards, Smart
Cards, or the Stick, they are all really the same thing. As for
microdrives, come
on. How many people do you know that know what a microdrive is, let
alone have
one?
> >There is one car receive that I am aware of (there may be more, but they are
> not very common). It is expensive.
>
> Those points are valid for about the next ten minutes. We're about to be hit
> with a tidal wave of MP3-literate CD players for home, car, and portable use.
You keep saying that, but have no factual information to back it up.
Give me the
manufacture and model numbers of these units that are going to be
released in "10
minutes". They must have them made or how are they going to be able to
release
them in 10 minutes?
> With MP3 players, we see a much greater diversity of approaches -- MP3 player
> makers are more diversely imaginative or experimental than MD player
> designers.
I don't see much more diversity. After all there are MD data drives, MD
digital
still and video cameras, audio MD recorders MDLP recorders......
> That is merely a criticism of 1st-generation technology, and doesn't carry
> much weight for the near-future 2-year timeframe.
Now you are predicting the future. Again, you have no factual knowledge
about
what will be in two years. I never expected to see MDLP. I thought
that Sony had
moved on and largely abandoned MD. But all of a sudden they offer a
long play
mode that is capable of creating MDs that sound as good as the standard
mode.
> Your points are valid for yesterday's technology -- but what about two years
> from now? The products coming out will make you look like you lack vision.
Again, having vision is one thing. Predicting the future is another.
Did you
know 2 years ago that Sony was going to come out with a long play MD?
Was this a
lack of vision on your part? Or is merely that you, like any mortal
human can
only make educated guesses about the future?
> >But this discussion is pointless from another aspect. I think that most
> people will agree that MP3s burned on to CDs have problems. Depending upon
> the type of player you have and the method that you used to copy the MP3
> files, it may be impossible for some CD/MP3 players to play your CDs.
>
> That point will not be as valid in a year or two.
There goes your crystal ball again.
> >So we really have to compare only solid state storage to MDs, since at this
> time considering size, availability of players etc., the only reliable and
> readily available and truly portable means of listening to MP3s is on solid
> state.
>
> You're talking about the past, as far as I'm concerned.
OK, since we can not predict the future, do you know of any means of
recording MP3
files on a small portable today?? That's not the past. That's the here
and now!
CDs are, IMHO, too large. Besides even the mini CDs need a computer.
So we can't
consider them. I don't see any other small medium that can record MP3
files,
unless some manufacture decides to modify MD players so that they can
record MP3
files.
Forget Zip drives, too big and given Iomega's track record of
manufacturing
products that simply do not work, I am amazed that they are still in
business and
that people are dumb enough to buy anything with their name on it.
> What about the Mini CD-R players now being manufactured? In a month you can
> burn your own 3" CD-R full of MP3s (I've done this) and play them on a mini CD
> portable. This direction invalidates your point. A Mini CDR blank is now
> $0.67 and should become $0.25, for 180 MB.
I already mentioned this. CD-Rs can only be recorded on once. I know
of many
CD-Rs that end up in the garbage because something went wrong in the
writing
process. You can't edit them. Only delete tracks. And as I stated
before, you
need a computer.
> MD needs to get better, which is why Sony is working hard on making it more
> computer-literate. Compared to the MP3 way of doing things, MD stores audio
> too slowly, often requires entering trackmarks manually, and requires manual
> titling.
>
> Any new compressed-music technology must be fully computer literate --
> ideally, it can be used in a self-contained system like an MD portable
> recorder, but also, if you choose to hook it up to a computer, you can fully
> take advantage of the immense potential of GUI and computer power.
>
> Once again you are making the mistake of comparing MD to MP3. Why do you keep
> doing this???? MD is a storage media, like solid state and CDs. MP3 is a
> compression scheme. If you have vision, why can't you invision a new
> compression scheme coming out within the next two years that will compress audio
> files by say 10X but be completely lossless?? Did you invision them coming out
> with linear stereo video tapes? Then inventing HIFI video? Then Dolby
> Surround, Dolby Prologic then Dolby Digital then DTS, most of which are
> incompatable with each other and require special hardware and software.
If DVDs did not continue to encode Dolby Surround but only Dolby
Digital, all of
those people that still have only Dolby Surround or Prologic would not
be able to
hear the sound on the DVD.
Now the new compression scheme that I picture would put an end to both
ATRAC and
MP3. Remember, you have to compare MP3 to ATRAC, not to the MD as you
seem so
insistent on doing. I'm sure they could just as well write a program
that will be
computer literate that would use the ATRAC bitwise reduction scheme for
Windows
and Mac OS.
If you have criticism with ATRAC as opposed to MP3 that is one thing (if
you can
present facts to back up your criticism). But for the FINAL time,
please stop
comparing MP3 to MDs. One is a compression scheme and the other merely
a storage
medium. If you can store ATRAC on min discs, you can store it on solid
state and
CDs too.
Michael wrote:
"I hope people are visionaries about the potential for various
combinations of
compressed-music technology for the 1-2 year timeframe."
I have some predictions (or visions) that are possible and they do not
include MP3
but a brand new virtually lossless compressed music technology. I think
it can be
done. Maybe both MP3 and ATRAC are 20th century technology created by
20th
century minds and someone with a 21st Century mind will forget the
notion that you
can't make a compression scheme that is lossless.
They said we couldn't fly until someone proved them wrong. They said
that no
airplane could move as fast as the speed of sound until someone made
one. They
say that it is physically impossible to move at the speed of light, but
maybe in
the 21st century someone will disprove that too.
LAS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
