From: mig@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (Mohamed Gaffoor)
Subject: Re: MiniDiscs -- What Are They?
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 02:55:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.040340.1192@cs.mcgill.ca> narpet@cs.mcgill.ca (Greg WARD) writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.020926.24735@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> ramid@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rudy Amid) writes:
>>schweda@iastate.edu (Christopher Schweda) writes:
>>
>>>I apologize if this is a FAQ, but:
>>
>>  Ditto.
>>
>>>I was in my local university bookstore and saw a huge display for MiniDiscs.
>>>They were on sale for $11.99 and looked like little rectangular
>>>boxes a little thicker than CD jewelboxes. My queestion is this:
>>>What are MiniDiscs? Why are they cheaper than CDs (since they seem to
>>>have all the same titles as CDs -- this display had lots of stuff
>>>from Sony/Columbia -- Springsteen, Joplin, etc. etc.) How much do
>>>MiniDisc players cost?
>>
>>  I received my latest copy of Time Magazine, and Sony has this 6 page
>>insert of their new MiniDisc player.  It's looks like an amazing new
>>technology:
>>
>>- 2.5" Magneto Optical Disc, cased in hard plastic like that of a 3.5" computer
>>  floppy disk.
>
>The technology itself isn't particularly amazing -- monstrous-capacity
>magneto-optical drives and discs have been available for computers for
>some time now.  What Sony has done is to 1) miniaturize the disc (I
>*believe* computer MO discs are usually 5" or 12", just like CD's
>or LD's) and package it into a (presumably) convenient form, 2) make
>the hardware more affordable, and 3) compress the data.
>
>I really don't know how much "amazing new technology" is required; Sony
>just put it all together and will probably make a bundle.
>
>>
>>- 74 minutes, CD quality, and (get this) recordable!
>
>Don't assume the quality will be equal to CD in every case.  The data
>on a MD is compressed roughly 5:1 using a lossy compression scheme --
>that is, decompression does *not* equal data recovery.  It merely
>recovers an *approximation* to the original data, which SHOULD sound
>the same as the original.  If the psychoacoustic models used in
>devising the compression scheme are accurate enough, MD will probably
>have perfectly fine sound for the applications it's aimed at: car,
>walkman, boom-box, etc.  Let's face it -- do you REALLY notice all
>the dynamic subleties conveyed by a good CD when you're driving or 
>walking around?  In addition to the background noise, there're a helluva
>lot more distractions than when you're sitting in a quiet room at home
>with your main system.
>
>Seems to me that MD is a pretty good idea on these grounds (i.e. it 
>may not sound as good as CD, but who's gonna notice?), as well as 
>convenience (ever notice how awkward stuffing CD's into coat pockets
>is?), resistance to bumps and shocks (due largely to a 1 MB buffer
>in the player rather than vastly improved mechanical systems, I gather),
>and recordability.  *I'm* certainly not going to buy a player for
>$700, and I'll keep buying music on CD's as long as I can -- which will
>probably be a good long time.  However, I think a $150 or $200 portable
>MD player with a few custom-made discs of favourite tunes would beat
>the pants off trying to haul CD's and a portable CD player around.
>
>	Greg Ward (narpet@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca)


Newsgroups: rec.music.cd,rec.music.marketplace