philchillbill wrote: > I worked as an engineer at Philips CD Lab from 1985-1990 and I can > reassure you that the 74 minutes requirement only directed the choice > for the diameter of the disc (otherwise it would have been a bit smaller > to only handle 60mins of audio like a C60 cassette tape). The desire to > comfortably encode frequencies audible to humans was what drove the > choice for bit-depth and sampling rates, with a little extra headroom > for good measure. The bits/sec put on the actual disc is substantially > higher due to clever techniques like interleaving data and adding > redundancy checksums and such so that errors due to normal scratches can > be completely eradicated. > > Its not that less is good, its that enough is enough. Armstrong didnt > have to shave himself the morning he stepped on the moon because we > couldnt see his stubble from earth when looking up at the moon with our > naked eyes anyway...
hi philchillbill, i remember that even sony and philips recognized the shortcomings of the cd format and went on to introduce the sacd. why do you think that happened? anyways, i do not need to mention that i will upgrade to spotify hi-fi when it is available. i have respect for those who find happiness with 320k or lower, too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ mcduman's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66702 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=114009
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
