On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Robert Benschop wrote:
> The next wave will probably be uncompressed CD's (can't remember the name of
Which will replace what we have now, which is....uncompressed CDs! That's
right, CDs are not compressed. Period.
> BTW, doubtful if this one will be popular, they want to put a water mark in
> the CD's as well so no illegal copies anymore.
What, make each and every one different, and track who buys it, and when
they sell it to somebody else?
> What I read from listening tests in magazines is that these give exactly
> what most CD's and players are missing (and yes, vinyl has) at the moment,
> depth.
Perhaps there are better CD formats. HIgher sampling rates, perhaps
greater bit depth. Those are incremental changes, just increasing the
rates of what we already have. They are not "uncompressed" or anything...
> I would like to add as well, that sorry, but all this doesn't only go for
> classical music, I might be the only lunatic on the list that has one of
> these ridiculous sound systems at home, but I hear the difference between an
> original Red Hot Chili Peppers CD and a burned copy, I'm not even mentioning
Then some part of your equipment is defective. A series of bits is a
series of bits, period. If they sound different, then either your copy is
not correctly burned or your CD player is having troulbe keeping the bit
error rate down when reading from a CD-R disk, which has a lower contrast
ratio between 0/1 bits. Poorly designed/defective equipment is the only
possible way two digital copies could be distinguished.
gopi.
******************************************
This NewtonTalk Message brought to you by:
EVOTE.COM, the ESPN of Politics on the
Internet. Visit EVOTE.COM for all the latest
news on Campaign 2000!
Visit http://www.evote.com today!
******************************************
Need Subscribe/Unsubscribe Info?
visit http://www.planetnewton.com
******************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 01 2000 - 00:00:07 CDT