Re: MD: HDMD?
How much data can the new HDCD hold? The only issue with sound quality regarding MDs is due to the vact that ATRAC is a compression algorithm, and you always lose something in compression. A CD holds 650MB worth of data, uncompressed. An MD...only 160MB. I don't know what possible method anyone's going to use to get the same amount of data/music on an MD as they do on a CD, without using some sort of compression, which is inherently lossy. I really don't know what the big deal is. Personally, I don't know any people whose hearing rivals that of the dog, so nobody I know can really tell the difference between the CDs I own or the MDs I've copied them to, via the digital sound card in my PC. On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, las wrote: If there is such a debate over the difference in quality between a CD and it's MD copy, why don't they use the same technology for Md that they use for the new HDCD? Funny, I really never heard any complaints aobut the quality of CDs in recent years, yet they still felt that they should improve them even more. I'm told that you can hear the difference. If most people are happy with a regular CD then maybe an HDMD would provide the quality to end the "how much better is the original CD" debate? Larry - 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: HDMD?
--- las [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If there is such a debate over the difference in quality between a CD and it's MD copy, why don't they use the same technology for Md that they use for the new HDCD? Are you really talking about HDCD - the extension to the Red Book CD format developed by Pacific Microsonics - or the higher-resolution digital formats like 24/96 PCM and SACD? HDCD supposedly encodes additional information within a pattern of least-significant bits on the CD, which is unpacked by a suitable decoder (or not, if you've got a regular player). My HDCDs sound very good indeed, but whether this is to do with this '20 bits into 16 will go' method or just careful recording and mastering isn't clear. Funny, I really never heard any complaints aobut the quality of CDs in recent years, yet they still felt that they should improve them even more. I'm told that you can hear the difference. How much of this is politics and large companies trying to protect dwindling revenue streams, and how much is genuine 'progress' is unclear. DVD and its troublesome sibling DVD-A represents a major step towards high-fidelity multi-channel reproduction in the home (whether you want to go beyond stereo is another matter). SACD, to my cynical eyes, looks like Sony saying "hang on a minute", and trying to muscle in on the new money (those CD licences will expire soon) whilst responding to the calls of the music industry by deploying effective anti-piracy measures (doesn't SACD carry a physical watermark, at pit-level, whereas DVD-A's is buried in the data?). As for sound quality, the greater bandwidth and lower noisefloor of the new formats are something of a red herring (not entirely convinced I *need* playback over 25kHz, or dynamic range over 110dB), though they may well have genuinely beneficial side-effects like simpler filtering. The real deal is multi-channel from all that extra capacity. If most people are happy with a regular CD then maybe an HDMD would provide the quality to end the "how much better is the original CD" debate? Well, 650Mb re-writable storage on an MD-sized disc has been possible for some time now, hasn't it? So, you could have an MD with no lossy compression whatsoever. Or, you could have an ATRACed DVD feed onto such a disc - maybe preserving the discrete multi-channel info? Of course, such things wouldn't work in the many thousands of MD units already in circulation... Mike. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: HDMD?
How much data can the new HDCD hold? As far as I know the same as a regular CD. The only issue with sound quality regarding MDs is due to the vact that ATRAC is a compression algorithm, and you always lose something in compression. Yes, but if you can improve the over all sound quality the loss will become insignificant. A CD holds 650MB worth of data, uncompressed. An MD...only 160MB. I could be wrong, but I believe that it is 140MB. I really don't know what the big deal is. Personally, I don't know any people whose hearing rivals that of the dog, so nobody I know can really tell the difference between the CDs I own or the MDs I've copied them to, via the digital sound card in my PC. I agree fully, but many other people insist that they can hear the difference. Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: HDMD?
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, las wrote: How much data can the new HDCD hold? As far as I know the same as a regular CD. But isn't there some compression involved there? If so, what's being lost? The only issue with sound quality regarding MDs is due to the vact that ATRAC is a compression algorithm, and you always lose something in compression. Yes, but if you can improve the over all sound quality the loss will become insignificant. Compression upon compression doesn't work to improve the quality of anything. A CD holds 650MB worth of data, uncompressed. An MD...only 160MB. I could be wrong, but I believe that it is 140MB. Only when formatted for computer writing. The capacity for music in digital data format is 160MB. I really don't know what the big deal is. Personally, I don't know any people whose hearing rivals that of the dog, so nobody I know can really tell the difference between the CDs I own or the MDs I've copied them to, via the digital sound card in my PC. I agree fully, but many other people insist that they can hear the difference. 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. Personally, I can usually pick out one instrument in an orchestra that's just hit a bad note. That doesn't mean that I can detect the absence of frequencies that are already inaudible to the human ear. It's already established that MD isn't necessarily the medium for professional quality recording. I don't think anybody's trying to argue that point. We need to remember, however, that this medium is geared primarily for portable, personal use. Let's face it, personal, portable equipment, especially the headphones, isn't geared for the same use as professional, or even high end home audio equipment...and there's a reason that most people have CD changers attached to their high end home audio systems. 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. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: HDMD?
=== = 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]
Re: MD: HDMD?
Rodrigo Drupi Mansilla Jiménez wrote: Reply to Jimenez: Wow!! You really know your stuff about this!!! I just started reading about it this morning, having only hear about the technology Sat. night. So from what you say, although it would not be that simple to do, you could make an HDCD MD. The only problem is that the same people who complain about MDs not sounding as good as CDs , would now complain that HDCD MDs do not sound as good as HDCD CDs. There is no way you can win as long as ATRAC is involved. Thanks for the info, Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
