From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: questions on new digital formats
Date: 17 Dec 1992 18:31:32 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: stealth.intel.com

In article <1992Dec16.163348.1226@ll.mit.edu> rhoades@ll.mit.edu (Captain Chaos) writes:
>In article <lisfn9INNgm@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> drp@reed.Eng.Sun.COM (Darrell Parham) writes:
>>- The claim is that you can play analog cassettes in DCC
>>  machines. Can you also record analog cassettes in DCC
>>  machines? I would like the capability of recording
>>  cassettes for friends who might not have DCC yet?
>
>	I don't think so, though I would image that it could be added.

I hope you mean "recording from a CD"...

Kind of hard to get an ACC *and* a DCC into the tape slot
at the same time...

I'm planning on getting a 1-disc, low-end CD, a DCC, and a
1-tape, high-end ACC, thus covering my bases.

I prefer the DCC format because the outlook and mechanics
of *portable* players are much better than for MD or DAT,
and the outlook for the sound is much better than for ACC.

I'm certainly not deluded into thinking DCC is CD or DAT
quality, but then, I'm not deluded into thinking that CD or
DAT are "perfect" quality, either.

Perhaps if they used PASC to encode 4x the audio-data onto
CD/DAT rather than to encode 0.25x the digital-data onto a
DCC.  You could double the Nyquist frequency _and_ the
dynamic resolution, in one simple stroke.


>>- I am under the impression that a magnetic format like
>>  tape will degrade over time, while this isn't much of
>>  a problem with an optical format like CD's.

Why do you assume that optical tape is impossible?

I'm starting to understand all this wheedling people
are doing about having solid-state storage formats
(PROMs, EEROMs, Flash, etc.).

These are limited by the capacity of the technology, and
may remain that way for a long time, although someone
(IBM?) has demonstrated "stacking" technologies in which a
number of chips are sandwiched into cubes.

Motors suck in torqueing, jarring environments although
someone (HP? It's a good thing I'm up on the industry...)
is now making a 1.8" hard-drive that typically withstands
drops of 3-4ft while writing without any data errors (shit
like this makes my EE degree bleed on the wall :-/).

>	I think magnetic degradation, which I don't know a lot
>	about, is indeed more significant to analog recordings
>	than digital.  A weak bit equals a strong bit in the
>	eyes of a computer -- imagine if over time you lost
>	some of the information in a computer file!  With an

And with a multi-head system you cauld implement a
read-rewrite system that refreshes the data as you play it
(but there's probably a disclaimer involved in which you
are required to play your entire collection at least once
every 7500 years to ensure data integrity :-)).


[...description of MO technology deleted...]

Neat.  Too bad they wasted it by using a shitty encoding scheme.
Maybe they'll get a clue soon enough to save it from the heap.

>	Note that since this technology is complicate (ie expensive), Sony
>	went to the trouble of making an MD player capable of reading
>	conventional optical disks (pits and lands like a CD), so pre-recorded
>	stuff can be made cheaper.  Making a player which reads both, rather
>	different formats, was a bit of a trick.

Yeah, but if you've seen some of the all-optical-formats
players that take 12", 8", 5", and 3" disks (including the
one where the 5" tray can slide out by itself if you know
the right incantation and sequence of buttons), you know
that they really don't give a flock about having to perform
tricks.

There'll probably be some MO players that don't bother
with pits-and-lands stuff.

				--Blair
				  "Oops.  Enough fun.
				   Back to work."
From: kirk@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Kirk Lindstrom)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:01:44 GMT
Subject: Re: question on pre-amplifiers
Organization: Shredding the water of SF Bay, HP-OCD