pvadbx;145798 Wrote: > why didn't cd manufacturers stick 20-30 megabytes of memory into their > machines and rebuffer and re-clock the bitstream to avoid all the sonic > problems associated with a mechanical transport? I can't believe what I'm reading in the responses in this thread.
Every CD player, since the year dot (ok, 1983, when CD players were introduced) has done precisely this. The data coming off the spinning disc is decoded and placed into a small buffer, from where it is clocked out by the master clock at the CD player's DAC. You don't need megabytes of buffering to do this, because the DAC's clock is also used to modulate the rate at which the disc is read. And I'm a little surprised by Sean's statement about how data should be distributed around the disc so that if a small area of the disc is obliterated the data can still be recovered, because this is exactly what is done on CDs, to a certain extent. Perhaps Sean was suggesting that the way it's done doesn't go far enough, but the way I read his post it seemed to imply it wasn't done at all. -- cliveb Performers -> dozens of mixers and effects -> clipped/hypercompressed mastering -> you think a few extra ps of jitter matters? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28621 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
