on 31-10-2001 8:22, The Compulsive Splicer at splicer_at_paroxysm.com wrote:
> Please source this claim. I find it very difficult to believe that "the
> industry" could have kept this part of the CD (what is it, Red Book?)
> specification secret all these years. I don't have special inside
> knowledge, but I do know a number of developers who have worked with
> CD-Audio and I think this tidbit would have been hard to get past them.
> Unless of course they are part of the vast CD industry conspiracy...
>
> Put that together with the fact that I perceive absolutely no need for
> compression to fit the amount of music onto a CD, and I find this claim
> incredible. (Try it sometime--burn a CD-R with uncompressed WAV or AIFF
> files of songs from your favorite CD and I think you'll find they fit).
Yes, and it will sound worse compared to the original.
Not as bad as MP3 though.
> Even with lossless compression, you could easily fit 2-3 full hours of
> music onto one CD, and we haven't seen that from the record companies or
> had the capacity on our CD burners.
>
> So I'm really curious. Where did this come from?
Got it from a local Newspaper clipping, been looking for it since and it
seems gone, so no technical backup apart from the fact that the majority of
people listening to SACD in blind tests easily pick it out as superior to
CD, if everything is on a CD, than why the difference ?
Robert Benschop
-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Nov 01 2001 - 10:02:57 EST