Eric Woudenberg wrote: > I don't understand why you say you disagree. Simon says that if all > errors are corrected there is no difference. You say that there may be > differences if there are more errors than can be corrected. The ACIRC > error correction algorithm for MD is a fixed procedure, manufacturers > don't have "better" or "worse" versions. The nature of the algorithm > is that if the BLER (block error rate) is less than 220, the original > data can be fully reconstructed. Agreed.... what I was trying to say was that in circumstances where the BLER is >220 the sound will deteriorate. I still maintain this is more likely to occur on some of the cheaper brand disks. I have had experience of this happening on some Memorex blanks which developed large error rates after only a few weeks use. > No one here is discussing the audible quality of discs with > uncorrectable errors. We're discussing whether there can be audible > differences in discs with BLER well within the "fully correctable" > threshold. Sorry, I assumed we were discussing the effect or error rates on sound quality generally, I did not realise it was restricted to 0<BLER<220. > I find it irritating that Sony tries to make a marketing case for > "better" sounding discs when they know the only problem, if any, is to > be found in players with noisy electronics. I agree entirely. [ In response to comment on MO] > Please pardon me, but this sounds like pure conjecture. May I ask > whether you know anything about the physics of MO recording? I'm not qualified in that area, but I do have some understanding of the technology yes, and I have observed many expreiments with MO at the local university. I found the tests they were doing on the durability of MO quite fascinating. [In response to better discs = last longer] > More conjecture? No, based on experience. The better quality discs I have outlast the cheaper ones. There are 1 or two exceptions but generally this seems to ring true. > Again, you seem to ignore the error correction threshold. Discs with a > BLER less than or equal to 220 will all carry their digital payload > identically. As I said earlier, I did not realise we were restricting this to a 0<BLER<220 scenario. Sorry. > What? The disc's bit errors are either fully correctable or they > aren't. If they are, there is no basis for a quality difference. If > they aren't, you've somehow got a bad MD and you should toss it or > perhaps return it for a refund. Or perhaps (as in the case of the several Memorex discs I have had) they just develop faults very quickly when used extensively. I would like to know how I can test the BLER on these discs, as they have deteriorated so much that you *can* hear an audible difference between them and a new disc. -- Magic Location : Portsmouth, England, UK Homepage : http://www.mattnet.freeserve.co.uk EMail : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------------------------------- To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
