One thing to make clear again: You can _not_ use the size of physical
media to determine relative compression. DVDs are the same size as CDs
but store massively more data. That doesn't make them inherently
"compressed". You can't compare the size of analog and digital data by
looking at any particular formats and comparing them. Compression is
something that you talk about in a physical media-independant sense. You
simply can not compare analog to digital size in the way that you are; I
believe that this is one of the sources of your confusion.
On Mon, 1 May 2000, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> * "Remko van der Vossen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 01 May 2000
> | I agree with you, there is a big difference between compression and
> | compression, you can compress air, and you can compress digital data. When
> | we're talking about compression in the Computer Science sense of the word we
> | are talking digitally, we are talking bitstreams, datagrams and all that.
>
> CD-DA is a means of compressing *ANALOG* data, not digital data.
Cite a source. Proof by assertion is getting rather tiring. I cited
lists of audio standards that listed the compression types used; CD-DA is
considered uncompressed. D to A and A to D conversion are _not_
considered compression because you can not measure the "size" of an analog
signal in a way to meaningfully compare it to a digital signal.
> [...]
> | ATRAC is a bitwise reduction as you are stating yourself, when there's a
> | way to get the original data back with a negligable or no data loss the
> | it is a compression by definition.
>
> This is my point: CD-DA sampling makes the data smaller, and you can get
> the data back with negligible loss (at least that is what most people
> think). By your own definition, CD-DA is a form of compression.
How big is the data coming along a microphone cable? I didn't realize it
had a size measurable in bits. In fact you can't measure it in bits
because it's not a digital signal. Area on the disk is _not_ a measure
of size because different disk standards have different capacities. If I
get a hard drive with more capacity that stores more data, do you then say
that it's compression? I hope not, because there are still just as many
bits.
> | ZIP is merely a bitwise reduction, it takes note of all data and try's to
> | remove all redundancy, ie merely a bitwise reduction...
>
> Well, no. ZIP transforms redundant data into a code. This is traditional
> data compression. ATRAC and MP3 remove what they perceive to be
> insignificant data. This is bitwise reduction.
ATRAC is lossy compression. ZIP is lossless compression. The designers
of the standard, most of them likely PhDs and specialists in their field,
feel that the term "compression" applies to ATRAC. If you want to disagree
with the designer of a standard over what it is technically called, might
I suggest you do more than keep saying, "I disagree"?
I've cited numerous sources in my previous e-mails; if you wish to
disagree with them, please cite contradictory sources? Or explain why you
believe that you are a better and more knowledgeable person than
specialists in the field?
gopi.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
