Marco Mailand wrote:
>The "compression" is obvious: there is no infinite amount of values
>recorded, it is limited to "only" 44100 data points per second and "only"
>65536 different amplitude values at all. Any other much higher
>digitalization compresses the analog stream of information into a discrete
>amount of digital numbers. The compression is finally done in the CD player
>which interpolates the values between two recorded discrete values by a
>linear or spline curve.
>
No argument there so long as you continue to put the word "compression"
in quotes. What you've described is not compression; it is endemic to
digital recording. Even if you increase the sampling rate and the
bitrate, they still won't be infinite. It's still not compression, and
it's certainly not lossy (degrading) compression. If you make a copy of
a copy of a copy of a copy, that fourth-generation copy will be as good
as the first copy, even if they are all inferior to the original source.
>I've tried what happens with a AIFF file burned in Audio format but with
>lower sampling rate (in my case 22.05kHz) in a normal CD player. It simply
>plays as twice as fast and is not useable. But it is feasable to slightly
>change the sampling rate from 44.1kHz to e.g. 43.5kHz in order to squeeze
>out a minute or two. I've tried this too but I got a distortion with the
>difference frequency of 600Hz on all songs, which made the whole try
>worthless. The distortion was very likely caused by imperfections of my
>audio hardware (not perfect anti-aliasing filters of the built-in Macintosh
>audio chip).
>
Well, have you tried it *without* significantly altering the data?
You're describing something *very* different than just burning the files
in an uncompressed format onto a CD-R.
Steve
-- 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