Re: MD: "jumping to" eighty-minute discs
Bruce Preudhomme wrote: 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! I wouldn't consider using 74 (actually 75 minutes because it's 74 minutes and 59 seconds-this is the first time I ever remember a product being understated!!). Seventy five or 80 minutes is a decent chunk of time for music. After all you don't want to have too many albums on one disc. Probably if they could make 100 minute discs it would then cover all bases. The 75s will handle long CDs and the 100s can handle 2 average size albums. I doubt that there is any way to encode an MD (without further compression and without losing total compatibility with existing units) that would be 100 minutes long. Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: "jumping to" eighty-minute discs
Bruce Preudhomme wrote: 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! I wouldn't consider using 74 (actually 75 minutes because it's 74 minutes and 59 seconds-this is the first time I ever remember a product being understated!!). Seventy five or 80 minutes is a decent chunk of time for music. After all you don't want to have too many albums on one disc. Probably if they could make 100 minute discs it would then cover all bases. The 75s will handle long CDs and the 100s can handle 2 average size albums. I doubt that there is any way to encode an MD (without further compression and without losing total computability with existing units) that would be 100 minutes long. Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: "jumping to" eighty-minute discs
I still have some 60 minutes discs "David W. Tamkin" wrote: > > Bruce wrote, > > | I am happy with 74 minute mini-disks but am curious as to what if anything > | out there is going on to dramatically increase playing time (hence the > | reason behind asking questions 1 and 5 earlier). I am familiar with the 80 > | minute mini-disks but not overly excited about jumping to them for an > | extract 6 minutes. > > What's with "jumping"? Bruce, you don't have to stop using 74-minute discs > and copy all your 74-minute collections onto 80-minute discs the moment you > buy a single 80. You can have some 74s and some 80s, and all your MD equip- > ment will play both. > > - > To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word > "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jim Coon Not just another pretty mandolin picker. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: "jumping to" eighty-minute discs
=== = 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]
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]
Re: MD: "jumping to" eighty-minute discs
"David W. Tamkin" wrote: How do you figure that? 128-kbps MP3's take almost a meg per minute, David, the problem is that Bruce is thinking in megs and computer files not PCM. If the MD could store MP3 files and then further compress them through ATRAC he would get the length of music that he thought. But first of all, as you know MDs can only deal with uncompressed analog or digital (PCM) music. Second of all even if it could store computer files and compress them 5 to 1, imagine what a song would sound like that had been compressed twice by two different techniques? In saying compressing compressed files, not decompressing MP3 and them encoding them to ATRAC. But that's nuts to even think about doing. Compressing music 5 times is already pushing the envelop. I do have a question though. MP3 files have a bit rate of 128 and under ideal conditions it has been argued that MP3 files sound as good as ATRAC. Lets just accept for the moment that under ideal conditions that is true. If Sony wanted too get as much time out of an MD as possible why did they choose such a high bit rate in the first place? It's kind of hard to really tell using things like Napster because the quality of the MP3s can vary depending upon the source that you are getting them from, but in my experience, MP3 with a bit rate of 160 and the the "standard" 128 sound exactly the same too me. I doubt that even listening to those files with real high bit rates would do any more than just take up more megs. Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: "jumping to" eighty-minute discs
Bruce explained, | ... my CD-R doesn't handle 80 minute CD-Rs ... That's unusual AFAIK. Are you sure it's your CDR hardware and not just your burning software? In either case, nothing comparable applies to MD units: they all handle 80-minute discs. | If and when there is a mini-disk player that plays/records MP3s, then I | will spend the money because that would be going from 74 minutes to 600 | minutes. How do you figure that? 128-kbps MP3's take almost a meg per minute, so you would get around 2 1/4 hours per MD, less than mono SP ATRAC. 132-kbps ATRAC3 LP2 gets 2 1/2 hours per MD, so maybe I'm underestimating a little, but ten hours is four times that, so the bitrate would have to be about 32 kbps, and that would not sound good at all. Would you really want to hear ten hours or even ten minutes of that? Right now there is a very easy way to have ten hours of music available to play on an MD: take eight discs with you instead of one (or record in mono or LP2 and carry only four discs). | Are you familiar with the Voquette software? No, but others here are. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: "jumping to" eighty-minute discs
Well, I don't have anything against the 80 minute mini-disks, its just that to me 74 vs. 80 minutes is maybe one more song. I have a system as explained earlier where I copy my collections onto CD before cutting to mini-disks and my CD-R doesn't handle 80 minute CD-Rs so it isn't worth buying a new CD-R for just one song. If and when there is a mini-disk player that plays/records MP3s, then I will spend the money because that would be going from 74 minutes to 600 minutes. I may buy the 80 minute mini-disks for my audio books, once I get that problem worked out and tested. Are you familiar with the Voquette software? 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: Saturday, October 28, 2000 9:25 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: MD: "jumping to" eighty-minute discs > > > > Bruce wrote, > > | I am happy with 74 minute mini-disks but am curious as to what > if anything > | out there is going on to dramatically increase playing time (hence the > | reason behind asking questions 1 and 5 earlier). I am familiar > with the 80 > | minute mini-disks but not overly excited about jumping to them for an > | extract 6 minutes. > > What's with "jumping"? Bruce, you don't have to stop using > 74-minute discs > and copy all your 74-minute collections onto 80-minute discs the > moment you > buy a single 80. You can have some 74s and some 80s, and all > your MD equip- > ment will play both. > > - > 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]
MD: "jumping to" eighty-minute discs
Bruce wrote, | I am happy with 74 minute mini-disks but am curious as to what if anything | out there is going on to dramatically increase playing time (hence the | reason behind asking questions 1 and 5 earlier). I am familiar with the 80 | minute mini-disks but not overly excited about jumping to them for an | extract 6 minutes. What's with "jumping"? Bruce, you don't have to stop using 74-minute discs and copy all your 74-minute collections onto 80-minute discs the moment you buy a single 80. You can have some 74s and some 80s, and all your MD equip- ment will play both. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
