minidisc
Jeffrey Christopher Dunson
Gabe M Wiener
>Minidisc will overtake CD as the music format of the masses.
No it won't.
--
Gabe Wiener -- gm...@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu -- N2GPZ
Sound engineering, recording, and digital mastering for classical music
"I am terrified at the thought that so much hideous and bad music
will be put on records forever." --Sir Arthur Sullivan
Sandy Santra
: In article <1993May30....@leland.Stanford.EDU> dun...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jeffrey Christopher Dunson) writes:
: >Minidisc will overtake CD as the music format of the masses.
: No it won't.
I don't mind people forecasting their predictions, but jeez, could we have
some arguments or evidence here? Sure would make for more interesting
reading!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
sandy santra _\/_ tre...@netcom.com
berkeley, california /\ tre...@well.sf.ca.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gabe M Wiener
>: >Minidisc will overtake CD as the music format of the masses.
>: No it won't.
>
>I don't mind people forecasting their predictions, but jeez, could we have
>some arguments or evidence here? Sure would make for more interesting
>reading!
Minidisc, in my opinion, will not succeed in the consumer market for
essentially the same reason that DAT failed.
a) 90% of the consumer marketplace doesn't care about its sonic
superiority over cassettes.
b) It has no backward compatibility of any sort
c) It is too expensive.
d) There is no clear-cut consumer notion of what it is.
Why did the CD overtake the LP, you ask? Well, when the CD came out,
it *looked* different. It behaved differently. It offered a whole
plethora of features that had been unavailable until that point. For
the first time, you could scan, you could program, you could repeat
a favorite song, and, of course, the CD sounded significantly better
than the average consumer's cheap turntable.
It also had no maintenance. No cartridges to replace, no arms to
mess with. The quintessential "plug and play" audio system. But a
significant factor in the CD's success was its good looks. Those
shiny discs are _cool_.
In order for a medium to succeed, it must gain mass appeal. That
does not mean audiophiles and engineers, nor does it mean the
technically-aware people who read the net. It means the folks out
in Podunk. It means the boom box crowd. The average consumer sees
DCC or MD (or DAT) and sees a format totally incompatible with
what they have. It doesn't have the visceral appeal of the CD, nor
does it have any new features that they find unique. "But it records!"
I hear you cry. Most people are content with their cassette decks.
Just ask a salesman how many people asked "Will it play all my old
tapes?" when he tried to sell someone a DAT.
Erik M Alvar
>Minidisc, in my opinion, will not succeed in the consumer market for
>essentially the same reason that DAT failed.
Since when has DAT failed? It's players are still being made, improved
upon, and being used by many for many reasons. Just being the lower end of
the audio market lacks the appreciation or understands the possibilities
doesn't reflect a failure.
>a) 90% of the consumer marketplace doesn't care about its sonic
> superiority over cassettes.
90% of the consumer marketplace doesn't know what sonic superiority means.
>b) It has no backward compatibility of any sort
Neither did CD.
>c) It is too expensive.
CD was far more expensive and was looked at with the same skepticism.
Prices come down, technology gets better, and more people become part of the
great things that happen. Just watch!
>d) There is no clear-cut consumer notion of what it is.
Do you read any audio magazine?? Sony has had a very successful tour of
the U.S. promoting it's product, and has placed very easy to read
advertisements that any audio novice could understand. To prove my point, I
asked my girlfriend (who has no audio equipment or extensive knowledge) to
read the ad and tell me what she thought it meant. Although she didn't
understand all of the more technical jargon, she knew it meant being able to
record a CD at near-CD quality.
>Why did the CD overtake the LP, you ask? Well, when the CD came out,
>it *looked* different. It behaved differently. It offered a whole
>plethora of features that had been unavailable until that point. For
>the first time, you could scan, you could program, you could repeat
>a favorite song, and, of course, the CD sounded significantly better
>than the average consumer's cheap turntable.
>It also had no maintenance. No cartridges to replace, no arms to
>mess with. The quintessential "plug and play" audio system. But a
>significant factor in the CD's success was its good looks. Those
>shiny discs are _cool_.
I believe you are simplifying, and thus insulting, the mind-set of the
average music listener. They don't buy things because it looks cool. They
don't buy things because it looks different. They buy because they know it
can do something for them. The portability of mini-disc, durability,
recordability, ease of use, and the strong new technology it represents,
whether you're an audiophile, or an audio-idiot is undeniably significant and
apparent.
>In order for a medium to succeed, it must gain mass appeal. That
>does not mean audiophiles and engineers, nor does it mean the
>technically-aware people who read the net. It means the folks out
>in Podunk. It means the boom box crowd. The average consumer sees
>DCC or MD (or DAT) and sees a format totally incompatible with
>what they have. It doesn't have the visceral appeal of the CD, nor
>does it have any new features that they find unique. "But it records!"
>I hear you cry. Most people are content with their cassette decks.
>Just ask a salesman how many people asked "Will it play all my old
>tapes?" when he tried to sell someone a DAT.
DCC is compatible with analog cassettes my friend, is less expensive than
MD and sounds better than MD. Those are the facts, and while that may be a
reason for MD to fail (as did BETA v. VHS), you greatly underestimate the
audio public.
DAT is making a comeback as well. It's players are becoming better,
cheaper, and the cassettes are less expensive as well. Personally I would
purchase DAT over the other "Perceptual Coding" rivals. Tapes cost from
$6-$10 and you can record a friend's CD at CD-quality for less than the CD
itself. Plus it's portable! Of course recording your friend's CD is illegal
so I wouldn't recommend it. (Duh!)
John Hoford
>Why did the CD overtake the LP, you ask? Well, when the CD came out,
> nor
>does it have any new features that they find unique.
The main unique feature that they should push is the file
system. I would pay for a system where I I could efectively
reuse my reacordings. With tapes I have to alaways be making
new ones as I tire of a few of the sounds on the tape.
If I could by a md I would record A CD then delete the
tracks I dont like. Add some new tracks from my latest CDs
delete some more and so on.
I could get by with about 4-8 blank MDs. And the time
I spend in recording them would be much less becaus I
can record then delete. where as now I dont record I
just carry my 12 of my CDs.
For me the audio quality is NOT a factor. in a plain,
in a car, at work, when working out etc..
To bad they cost so much.
Gabe M Wiener
>gm...@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>>Minidisc, in my opinion, will not succeed in the consumer market for
>>essentially the same reason that DAT failed.
>
> Since when has DAT failed? It's players are still being made, improved
>upon, and being used by many for many reasons. Just being the lower end of
>the audio market lacks the appreciation or understands the possibilities
>doesn't reflect a failure.
DAT has been nothing short of a resounding flop in the consumer market.
It has taken off in the professional fields, but as a consumer medium?
Dead as a doornail. A few consumer models still creep out, but these
do not have mass appeal.
>>a) 90% of the consumer marketplace doesn't care about its sonic
>> superiority over cassettes.
>
> 90% of the consumer marketplace doesn't know what sonic superiority means.
My point exactly.
>>b) It has no backward compatibility of any sort
>
> Neither did CD.
But for CD it didn't matter. The public views DAT as "just another tape
that's not compatible with everything I own." CD wasn't viewed this way.
>>c) It is too expensive.
>
> CD was far more expensive and was looked at with the same skepticism.
>Prices come down, technology gets better, and more people become part of the
>great things that happen. Just watch!
This happened _because_ of consumer interest, not in spite of it. The
consumer marketplace has not embraced digital recording.
>>d) There is no clear-cut consumer notion of what it is.
>
> Do you read any audio magazine??
Quite a few. I've written for several as well.
> Sony has had a very successful tour of
>the U.S. promoting it's product, and has placed very easy to read
>advertisements that any audio novice could understand. To prove my point, I
>asked my girlfriend (who has no audio equipment or extensive knowledge) to
>read the ad and tell me what she thought it meant. Although she didn't
>understand all of the more technical jargon, she knew it meant being able to
>record a CD at near-CD quality.
What they understand isn't at issue. It's what they _buy_. CD was taken
in by the public even when it was hideously overpriced. Even with cheap
DAT machines now available, how many people are buying them?
So your girlfriend understood a Sony ad. Ask her when she's planning to
buy a minidisc machine.
>>Why did the CD overtake the LP, you ask? Well, when the CD came out,
>>it *looked* different. It behaved differently. It offered a whole
>>plethora of features that had been unavailable until that point. For
>>the first time, you could scan, you could program, you could repeat
>>a favorite song, and, of course, the CD sounded significantly better
>>than the average consumer's cheap turntable.
>>It also had no maintenance. No cartridges to replace, no arms to
>>mess with. The quintessential "plug and play" audio system. But a
>>significant factor in the CD's success was its good looks. Those
>>shiny discs are _cool_.
>
> I believe you are simplifying, and thus insulting, the mind-set of the
>average music listener. They don't buy things because it looks cool. They
>don't buy things because it looks different. They buy because they know it
>can do something for them. The portability of mini-disc, durability,
>recordability, ease of use, and the strong new technology it represents,
>whether you're an audiophile, or an audio-idiot is undeniably significant and
>apparent.
Wrong. Superior technology doesn't mean that something will sell. Look
at beta. I am not oversimplifying anything. People invest in new
technology when they perceive a definite advantage in owning it. For
the CD it was easy. Anyone could see that it was "cool." No set up,
instant track access, a high-tech look, a remote control, etc. These
factors caused the American public to gobble up the format even when
it was more expensive than it ought to have been.
It is a known fact that the public is generally unconcerned with sound
quality. Thus we have such monstrosities as the pre-recorded cassette.
To that end, MD represents some "new kind of CD" that won't play their
old stuff, and offers no _perceived_ advantage.
>>In order for a medium to succeed, it must gain mass appeal. That
>>does not mean audiophiles and engineers, nor does it mean the
>>technically-aware people who read the net. It means the folks out
>>in Podunk. It means the boom box crowd. The average consumer sees
>>DCC or MD (or DAT) and sees a format totally incompatible with
>>what they have. It doesn't have the visceral appeal of the CD, nor
>>does it have any new features that they find unique. "But it records!"
>>I hear you cry. Most people are content with their cassette decks.
>>Just ask a salesman how many people asked "Will it play all my old
>>tapes?" when he tried to sell someone a DAT.
>
> DCC is compatible with analog cassettes my friend, is less expensive than
>MD and sounds better than MD.
DCC is play-only compatible, and that little fact is causing no small
amount of consumer confusion. "It's a cassette machine, right?" "Yes."
"So I can play all my old tapes, right?" "Yup." "So I can make tapes
for my friends on it, right?" "No, you can't do that. Not unless
your friends have one of thes"
I'm also curious on how you came to your last assertion, that DCC sounds
"better" than MD. Please furnish some studies you have performed or
taken part in.
> Those are the facts,
Those are your opinions. You are entitled to them.
> and while that may be a
>reason for MD to fail (as did BETA v. VHS), you greatly underestimate the
>audio public.
Hardly. History repeats itself.
--
Gabe Wiener -- gm...@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu -- N2GPZ
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
Right now minidisc players are almost as large as CD players,
several times more expensive, incompatible, and don't sound
any better.
Is it possible to improve the minidisc's sound without
changing the format????
A minidisc player the size of a cassette Walkman would help.
Improvements in the sound and cost would help.
A consumer priced CD recorder would NOT HELP minidisc.
--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD Portland OR 97231 503-621-3406
Erik M Alvar
Perceptual coding can always be adjusted, and it's safe to assume that Sony
is working hard on decreasing perceptible differences between CD and catch up
with the DCC PASC system. Sony's spent too much to let MD lose anytime soon.
VCR's got smaller, CD players, you name it. It's just a matter of time.
Since recordable CD decks cost from $7000 dollars for the players and $50
for a blank CD, I think the technology is too expensive to be
consumer-directed any time soon.
Thanks you for your incredible contributions to the computer world. You're
a legend of sorts and I'm glad to be able to read the same newsgroup as you.
Thanks.
Erik
Erik M Alvar
>> Since when has DAT failed? It's players are still being made, improved
The quality of DAT, and the affordability will ensure that it never dies
and only blossoms. It may never become the favorite of the average person,
but the middle to high end user will always be the key market anyway. It's
not intended for the masses, although there will be overlapping as it
continues to become more affordable and easier to use.
>>>a) 90% of the consumer marketplace doesn't care about its sonic
>>> superiority over cassettes.
>> 90% of the consumer marketplace doesn't know what sonic superiority means.
>My point exactly.
They know what sounds good, however, and the ability to record tracks,
label them, easily replace them, along with all of the other options that MD
has will appeal to people. It's incredible to just go to an audio store and
listen to the questions people have. They may not know much about perceptual
coding, etc. but they're not stupid!! They understand the potential of MD!
As do most knowledgable audiophiles. I'm glad not everyone is so set in their
ways!
>>>b) It has no backward compatibility of any sort
>> Neither did CD.
>But for CD it didn't matter. The public views DAT as "just another tape
>that's not compatible with everything I own." CD wasn't viewed this way.
I was discussing MD. One does not dictate the future of the other.
>>>c) It is too expensive.
>> >> CD was far more expensive and was looked at with the same
skepticism.
>>Prices come down, technology gets better, and more people become part of the
>>great things that happen. Just watch!
>This happened _because_ of consumer interest, not in spite of it. The
>consumer marketplace has not embraced digital recording.
I hear people asking about "what about a recordable CD?" all of the time.
MD's portability lends itself to compliment CD, not immediately replace it.
>>>d) There is no clear-cut consumer notion of what it is.
>> Do you read any audio magazine??
>Quite a few. I've written for several as well.
It's still very young. I think Sony has done well to promote it. Second
generation players/recorders will only improve, become less expensive and more
popular.
>> Sony has had a very successful tour of
>>the U.S. promoting it's product, and has placed very easy to read
>>advertisements that any audio novice could understand. To prove my point, I
>>asked my girlfriend (who has no audio equipment or extensive knowledge) to
>>read the ad and tell me what she thought it meant. Although she didn't
>>understand all of the more technical jargon, she knew it meant being able to
>>record a CD at near-CD quality.
>What they understand isn't at issue. It's what they _buy_. CD was taken
>in by the public even when it was hideously overpriced. Even with cheap
>DAT machines now available, how many people are buying them?
>So your girlfriend understood a Sony ad. Ask her when she's planning to
>buy a minidisc machine.
You said there was no clear consumer notion of what it was. There is,
and people aren't stupid.
>>>Why did the CD overtake the LP, you ask? Well, when the CD came out,
>>>it *looked* different. It behaved differently. It offered a whole
>>>significant factor in the CD's success was its good looks. Those
>>>shiny discs are _cool_.
>> I believe you are simplifying, and thus insulting, the mind-set of the
>>average music listener. They don't buy things because it looks cool. They
>>don't buy things because it looks different. They buy because they know it
>>can do something for them. The portability of mini-disc, durability,
>>recordability, ease of use, and the strong new technology it represents,
>>whether you're an audiophile, or an audio-idiot is undeniably significant and
>>apparent.
>Wrong. Superior technology doesn't mean that something will sell. Look
>at beta. I am not oversimplifying anything. People invest in new
>technology when they perceive a definite advantage in owning it. For
>the CD it was easy. Anyone could see that it was "cool." No set up,
>instant track access, a high-tech look, a remote control, etc. These
>factors caused the American public to gobble up the format even when
>it was more expensive than it ought to have been.
More reason to take a look at MD. It's got more than an analog cassette
ever did!
>It is a known fact that the public is generally unconcerned with sound
>quality. Thus we have such monstrosities as the pre-recorded cassette.
>To that end, MD represents some "new kind of CD" that won't play their
>old stuff, and offers no _perceived_ advantage.
Is that why home theater, surround sound, and other ambience enhancement
products now among the leading sellers in audio equipment?? Or is that not an
improvement in sound quality?
>>>In order for a medium to succeed, it must gain mass appeal. That
>>>does not mean audiophiles and engineers, nor does it mean the
>>>in Podunk. It means the boom box crowd. The average consumer sees
>>>DCC or MD (or DAT) and sees a format totally incompatible with
>>>what they have. It doesn't have the visceral appeal of the CD, nor
>>>does it have any new features that they find unique. "But it records!"
>>>I hear you cry. Most people are content with their cassette decks.
>>>Just ask a salesman how many people asked "Will it play all my old
>>>tapes?" when he tried to sell someone a DAT.
Where do you think I started out?? I'm hardly out of my teens and I have
a pretty good grasp on what I like and don't like. Perhaps my mind is more
flexible than yours. You sound resistant to technology. Perhaps a vinyl
freak?
>> DCC is compatible with analog cassettes my friend, is less expensive than
>>MD and sounds better than MD.
>DCC is play-only compatible, and that little fact is causing no small
It's only a matter of time before an extra write head is added. It's not
an impossibility, and just as I've said before... these are first generation
players/recorders!!! They can only get better!
>I'm also curious on how you came to your last assertion, that DCC sounds
>"better" than MD. Please furnish some studies you have performed or
>taken part in.
In the magazine Sound and Image there were comparisons between DCC and MD
with CD as a reference. In one hundred trials 52 correctly identified DCC,
which is essentially 1 out of 2... simply guessing. MD on the other hand was
identified 73% of the time... definitely different (and according to
listeners, less desirable) sound. Clearly this means that the perceptual
coding system of DCC (PASC) is superior.
>> Those are the facts,
>Those are your opinions. You are entitled to them.
Thanks for your approval.
>> and while that may be a
>>reason for MD to fail (as did BETA v. VHS), you greatly underestimate the
>>audio public.
>Hardly. History repeats itself.
We'll see! :)
> Gabe Wiener -- gm...@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu -- N2GPZ
I'm curious what publications you've written for.
Erik
Gabe M Wiener
>gm...@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>>> Since when has DAT failed? It's players are still being made, improved
>>DAT has been nothing short of a resounding flop in the consumer market.
>
> The quality of DAT, and the affordability will ensure that it never dies
>and only blossoms. It may never become the favorite of the average person,
>but the middle to high end user will always be the key market anyway. It's
>not intended for the masses, although there will be overlapping as it
>continues to become more affordable and easier to use.
It appears that the thrust of my previous message. DAT has been embraced
by the professional world, somewhat taken in by the high-end world, and
has been an utter failure in the consumer marketplace. This will not
change any time soon. The history of the consumer electronics industry
has proven again and again that quality and affordabikity don't always
translate to consumer acce
Easier to use? As if DAT was ever hard to use.
>>>>a) 90% of the consumer marketplace doesn't care about its sonic
>>>> superiority over cassettes.
>>> 90% of the consumer marketplace doesn't know what sonic superiority means.
>>My point exactly.
>
> They know what sounds good, however, and the ability to record tracks,
>label them, easily replace them, along with all of the other options that MD
>has will appeal to people. It's incredible to just go to an audio store and
>listen to the questions people have. They may not know much about perceptual
>coding, etc. but they're not stupid!! They understand the potential of MD!
>As do most knowledgable audiophiles. I'm glad not everyone is so set in their>ways!
Once again, you miss the point. For any format to be successful, it must
be embraced by the very people who have no interest in understand{ng its
benefits. The high-end video people clamored about beta's superiority
for years. Why did beta fail? Not because it was overpriced or inferior,
but because it was poorly marketed and lacked the record time of VHS.
People didn't care about picture quality. People still don't. How many
people do *you* know who record on SP?
In a very real sense, high-tech consumer electronic products, if they
are to succeed, have to do so _in spite_ of themselves. In other
words, they have to succeed not on technical excellence, but on
consumer acceptance based on compatibility, aesthetics, surface
features, and price.
>>But for CD it didn't matter. The public views DAT as "just another tape
>>that's not compatible with everything I own." CD wasn't viewed this way.
>
> I was discussing MD. One does not dictate the future of the other.
No, but the DAT fiasco is testimony to how people shop for electronics.
~r
>>>>c) It is too expensive.
>>> >> CD was far more expensive and was looked at with the same
>skepticism.
>>>Prices come down, technology gets better, and more people become part of the
>>>great things that happen. Just watch!
>>This happened _because_ of consumer interest, not in spite of it. The
>>consumer marketplace has not embraced digital recording.
>
> I hear people asking about "what about a recordable CD?" all of the time.
Wake up and smell the coffee. OF COURSE a recordable CD would be embraced.
Why? Because it would be compatible with everything hertofore. Go into
a store sometime and listen to the first question anyone asks about MD.
"Will it play all my CD's?" Watch their face when they are told no.
People would embrace a recordable CD not because it's digital or it sounds
good, but because they could play it back on the hardware they have.
Prices of $5K-$12K for recording decks make this impractical right now.
Oh, you were in error by the way. Blank disks are not $50 ea. I get
DIC-74's for $29 ea.
> MD's portability lends itself to compliment CD, not immediately replace it.
To compliment it? Oh, how nice you are, Mr. CD!
^
Oh, you meant to complement it! Well, maybe. But people have to buy
it first, and they ain't doin' that yet.
>>>>d) There is no clear-cut consumer notion of what it is.
>>> Do you read any audio magazine??
>>Quite a few. I've written for several as well.
>
> It's still very young. I think Sony has done well to promote it. Second
>generation players/recorders will only improve, become less expensive and more
>popular.
Less expensive, maybe. But on what are you basing your assertion that it
will become more popular? I don't see any evidence of it yet.
>>What they understand isn't at issue. It's what they _buy_. CD was taken
>>in by the public even when it was hideously overpriced. Even with cheap
>>DAT machines now available, how many people are buying them?
>>So your girlfriend understood a Sony ad. Ask her when she's planning to
>>buy a minidisc machine.
>
> You said there was no clear consumer notion of what it was. There is,
>and people aren't stupid.
The majority of the public does not understand what MD is at core, nor
do they have to. The test will be whether or not they buy it.
>>Wrong. Superior technology doesn't mean that something will sell. Look
>>at beta. I am not oversimplifying anything. People invest in new
>>technology when they perceive a definite advantage in owning it. For
>>the CD it was easy. Anyone could see that it was "cool." No set up,
>>instant track access, a high-tech look, a remote control, etc. These
>>factors caused the American public to gobble up the format even when
>>it was more expensive than it ought to have been.
>
> More reason to take a look at MD. It's got more than an analog cassette
>ever did!
...except the ability to play back any extant format, which is the first
concern of any mass-market buyer.
>>It is a known fact that the public is generally unconcerned with sound
>>quality. Thus we have such monstrosities as the pre-recorded cassette.
>>To that end, MD represents some "new kind of CD" that won't play their
>>old stuff, and offers no _perceived_ advantage.
>
> Is that why home theater, surround sound, and other ambience enhancement >products now among the leading sellers in audio equipment?? Or is that not an
>improvement in sound quality?
Home theater has nothing to do with the compatibility issue. Home theater
is an add-on to enhance people's existing hardware. And while MD might
be viewed this way, people don't generally do that. As I said, go and
listen to any tyro looking at MD. Listen to the first question, the one
about compatibility, and look at the disappointment at the answer.
> Where do you think I started out?? I'm hardly out of my teens and I have
>a pretty good grasp on what I like and don't like. Perhaps my mind is more
>flexible than yours. You sound resistant to technology. Perhaps a vinyl
>freak?
Perhaps a recording engineer who loves technology and makes his living
using it.
The fact that you understand the technology, are obviously adept at using
computers, etc. put you above the majority of audio consumers. We are not
talking about people like me, or people like you. We are talking about
people with rotary-dial phones who are scared of computers, who had to have
their nephews come over and install the VCR and CD player. These are the
people who made VHS and CD take off. The masses of consumers who have no
interest in understanding a format.
There are known buying patterns in the consumer electronics industry and
unless Sony does something surprising in their marketing of MD, it will
not succeed.
> It's only a matter of time before an extra write head is added. It's not
>an impossibility, and just as I've said before... these are first generation
>players/recorders!!! They can only get better!
BZZZT. Strike out. Normal cassette decks use the same head for play
and record. The decision to eliminate recording of analog cassettes
was, as I understand it, a deliberate act. Think about it. They want
you to buy blank DCC's, not to record analog audio.
>>I'm also curious on how you came to your last assertion, that DCC sounds
>>"better" than MD. Please furnish some studies you have performed or
>>taken part in.
>
> In the magazine Sound and Image there were comparisons between DCC and MD
>with CD as a reference. In one hundred trials 52 correctly identified DCC,
>which is essentially 1 out of 2... simply guessing. MD on the other hand was
>identified 73% of the time... definitely different (and according to
>listeners, less desirable) sound. Clearly this means that the perceptual
>coding system of DCC (PASC) is superior.
I never argued that. I was just curious the basis of your assertions.
I was interested to know if you were stating your own opinion based on
listening tests, or if you were citing a source.
>>Hardly. History repeats itself.
> We'll see! :)
Indeed we shall. It shall be fun.
--
Gabe Wiener -- gm...@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu -- N2GPZ
Erik M Alvar
>> The quality of DAT, and the affordability will ensure that it never dies
>>and only blossoms. It may never become the favorite of the average person,
>>but the middle to high end user will always be the key market anyway. It's
>>not intended for the masses, although there will be overlapping as it
>>continues to become more affordable and easier to use.
>It appears that the thrust of my previous message. DAT has been embraced
>by the professional world, somewhat taken in by the high-end world, and
>has been an utter failure in the consumer marketplace. This will not
>change any time soon. The history of the consumer electronics industry
>has proven again and again that quality and affordabikity don't always
>translate to consumer acce
It seems as if we are arguing the same point here. It's not strictly for
professional, semi-professional applications, or even high-end audiophiles.
It hasn't been an utter failure, however. Perhaps a disappointment! If it
were an utter failure, then audio companies wouldn't still be creating this
equipment.
>>>But for CD it didn't matter. The public views DAT as "just another tape
>>>that's not compatible with everything I own." CD wasn't viewed this way.
>>
>> I was discussing MD. One does not dictate the future of the other.
>No, but the DAT fiasco is testimony to how people shop for electronics.
DAT was disappointing but more because of the SCMS garbage that prolonged
its public release than anything else.
>> I hear people asking about "what about a recordable CD?" all of the time.
>Wake up and smell the coffee. OF COURSE a recordable CD would be embraced.
>Why? Because it would be compatible with everything hertofore. Go into
>a store sometime and listen to the first question anyone asks about MD.
>"Will it play all my CD's?" Watch their face when they are told no.
>People would embrace a recordable CD not because it's digital or it sounds
>good, but because they could play it back on the hardware they have.
>Prices of $5K-$12K for recording decks make this impractical right now.
>Oh, you were in error by the way. Blank disks are not $50 ea. I get
>DIC-74's for $29 ea.
OH come on. You know as well as I do that there are blank CD's for around
$50. Perhaps you get them somewhere where they are cheaper, but this is a
stupid point.
>> MD's portability lends itself to compliment CD, not immediately replace it.
>To compliment it? Oh, how nice you are, Mr. CD!
> ^
>Oh, you meant to complement it! Well, maybe. But people have to buy
>it first, and they ain't doin' that yet.
So now you're sinking to name calling and pointing out the single
spelling error I may have made while typing this rather lengthy message. Grow
up. I truly respected your opinion until this crap.
>>>> Do you read any audio magazine??
>>>Quite a few. I've written for several as well.
>Less expensive, maybe. But on what are you basing your assertion that it
>will become more popular? I don't see any evidence of it yet.
The same reason you base your assertion that it won't. Neither of us know.
I'm an optimist and you aren't! I find psychoacoustics and perceptual coding
intriguing!!
>> You said there was no clear consumer notion of what it was. There is,
>>and people aren't stupid.
>The majority of the public does not understand what MD is at core, nor
>do they have to. The test will be whether or not they buy it.
True. I'm not going to argue that point since neither of us know what will
happen.
>> More reason to take a look at MD. It's got more than an analog cassette
>>ever did!
>...except the ability to play back any extant format, which is the first
>concern of any mass-market buyer.
Could analog play vinyl? Or eight track?? Could CD play any of these? I
think you're wrong. But I respect your opinion. I'm rather disappointed in
your treatment of my sound opinions, however.
>>>It is a known fact that the public is generally unconcerned with sound
>>>quality. Thus we have such monstrosities as the pre-recorded cassette.
>>>To that end, MD represents some "new kind of CD" that won't play their
>>>old stuff, and offers no _perceived_ advantage.
>> Is that why home theater, surround sound, and other ambience enhancement >products now among the leading sellers in audio equipment?? Or is that not an
>>improvement in sound quality?
>Home theater has nothing to do with the compatibility issue. Home theater
You said people are "generally unconcerned with sound quality". You're
wrong. People know the difference between CD and analog and vinyl and BS.
>> Where do you think I started out?? I'm hardly out of my teens and I have
>>a pretty good grasp on what I like and don't like. Perhaps my mind is more
>>flexible than yours. You sound resistant to technology. Perhaps a vinyl
>>freak?
>Perhaps a recording engineer who loves technology and makes his living
>using it.
>The fact that you understand the technology, are obviously adept at using
>computers, etc. put you above the majority of audio consumers. We are not
>talking about people like me, or people like you. We are talking about
>people with rotary-dial phones who are scared of computers, who had to have
>their nephews come over and install the VCR and CD player. These are the
>people who made VHS and CD take off. The masses of consumers who have no
>interest in understanding a format.
Don't talk down to me.
>There are known buying patterns in the consumer electronics industry and
>unless Sony does something surprising in their marketing of MD, it will
>not succeed.
>>>I'm also curious on how you came to your last assertion, that DCC sounds
>>>"better" than MD. Please furnish some studies you have performed or
>>>taken part in.
>> In the magazine Sound and Image there were comparisons between DCC and MD
>>with CD as a reference. In one hundred trials 52 correctly identified DCC,
>>which is essentially 1 out of 2... simply guessing. MD on the other hand was
>>identified 73% of the time... definitely different (and according to
>>listeners, less desirable) sound. Clearly this means that the perceptual
>>coding system of DCC (PASC) is superior.
>I never argued that. I was just curious the basis of your assertions.
>I was interested to know if you were stating your own opinion based on
>listening tests, or if you were citing a source.
Well, I'm glad I made myself clear then.
>>>Hardly. History repeats itself.
>> We'll see! :)
>Indeed we shall. It shall be fun.
Yes, my friend it will.
Erik
Sandy Santra
Whew! This is quite a debate. Despite the fact that Erik's and Gabe's
tempers seem to be flaring a little, this is very informative reading.
It's making me think more deeply about this format war, for one thing.
DAT's history is strange, I think, because even though it never got going
in the consumer market, it still clings on in the mid-high range market
(unlike 8-track, which eventually died). Sony just released a new DAT
portable in fact--the D-7.
I've tried the D-7 and the MD MZ-1 in the store. They're close in price
but that's about the only similarity. The D-7 is much smaller and runs
about twice as long on batteries. The MZ-1 can rearrange and delete
tracks, tho. Wish I had the money to buy both.
Gabe M Wiener
> DAT was disappointing but more because of the SCMS garbage that prolonged
>its public release than anything else.
This argument has been advanced many times and it has yet to persuade.
Most people interested in digital recording aren't interested in it so
as to copy their friends' CD's. The cost of blank media plus the time
involved usually makes this not worth it (and besides, you don't get
the liner notes). Most consumers who are interested in digital
recording are interested because they want to make their own mixes.
SCMS doesn't prohibit that. As for the delayed release, DAT isn't
doing all that much better in countries where it was available
earlier.
>>Oh, you were in error by the way. Blank disks are not $50 ea. I get
>>DIC-74's for $29 ea.
>
> OH come on. You know as well as I do that there are blank CD's for around
>$50. Perhaps you get them somewhere where they are cheaper, but this is a
>stupid point.
No, I don't. I've never in my life seen them for $50. I've seen them
for $35, and I get 'em for $29. But anyway, it's not an arguable
point until they're about $4, which I don't see happening soon.
>>> MD's portability lends itself to compliment CD, not immediately replace it.
>
>>To compliment it? Oh, how nice you are, Mr. CD!
>> ^
>>Oh, you meant to complement it! Well, maybe. But people have to buy
>>it first, and they ain't doin' that yet.
>
> So now you're sinking to name calling and pointing out the single
>spelling error I may have made while typing this rather lengthy message. Grow
>up. I truly respected your opinion until this crap.
No, I was making a JOKE. I'm not using typos as an argument. Gimme a
break. We all make typos, myself included. Yours was just a bit too
poignant not to point out. If you can't see the humor in that, then it
is you, not I, who needs to grow up.
>>Less expensive, maybe. But on what are you basing your assertion that it
>>will become more popular? I don't see any evidence of it yet.
>
> The same reason you base your assertion that it won't. Neither of us know.
No, neither of us knows, but I'm making a prediction based on documented
trends in the consumer electronics industry, particularly in the area of
digital audio products.
> I'm an optimist and you aren't! I find psychoacoustics and perceptual coding
>intriguing!!
So do I, but whether you or I find it intriguing has nothing to do
with whether or not they sell. And to tell you the truth, my making a
reasonable preduction that minidisc will not find a market niche in
the consumer audio world doesn't make me a pessimist.
> Could analog play vinyl? Or eight track?? Could CD play any of these? I
>think you're wrong. But I respect your opinion. I'm rather disappointed in
>your treatment of my sound opinions, however.
I have no problem with your *sound* opinions. I respect your opinions
on perceptual coding, etc. I have problems with your *business* opinions.
No, analog (I assume you mean cassette) could not play vinyl. But
that was never an issue. People bought cassette machines to make
their own tapes, make mixes, etc. People bought CD's because of the
features they offered and for their convenience. I say that people
are concerned about compatibility here because they _are_. That's
what they're asking. Go and check it out in an audio store. I really
mean it.
Look at Laserdisc: technically superior in every possible way to
consumer-grade videotape. It teetered on the brink of extinction
until something came along to give it a boost....home theater and the
compact disc. Only when people knew about CD's could they make the
analogy that LV is to VHS as CD is to cassette. It is only through
the perseverence of Pioneer that LV stuck it out. And that only
happened because of the times. In today's market, it might have
happened very differently.
>>The fact that you understand the technology, are obviously adept at using
>>computers, etc. put you above the majority of audio consumers. We are not
>>talking about people like me, or people like you. We are talking about
>>people with rotary-dial phones who are scared of computers, who had to have
>>their nephews come over and install the VCR and CD player. These are the
>>people who made VHS and CD take off. The masses of consumers who have no
>>interest in understanding a format.
>
> Don't talk down to me.
Errrr....I'd be very interested to see _where_ in that paragraph you
find I'm talking down to you. I just got finished saying that you are
obviously *above* the average audio consumer, since you are able to
have this discussion. If that's talking down to you, then you should
either get your eyes checked or else go straight to hell. This I
need like a hole in the head.
Bill Vermillion
In article <1993May31.1...@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n914...@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Erik M Alvar) writes:
>gm...@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>>>>But for CD it didn't matter. The public views DAT as "just another tape
>>>>that's not compatible with everything I own." CD wasn't viewed this way.
>>> I was discussing MD. One does not dictate the future of the other.
>>No, but the DAT fiasco is testimony to how people shop for electronics.
> DAT was disappointing but more because of the SCMS garbage that prolonged
>its public release than anything else.
I remember when the CD was first introduced to the world - at an AES in
NYC. I think it might have been about 1979.
A few demo disks were on the wall - maybe 6 or 8 titles total. This
was a technology introduction. Production units were still a couple
of years away.
When CD was first introduced there were a total of 50 titles.
The DAT technology was also being pushed forward as fast as possible.
There was a very strong push by the CD people for market penetration.
They felt that if they did NOT have 5% of the market by the time DAT
was introduced that the CD would die. They based their feeling a lot
upon the fact that cars were one of the significant factors in the
cassette sales, and that a DAT tape would be an easy sell.
However they felt that if they could get over 5% by the time the DAT
appeared they had a chance to be competitive and take a portion of the
market.
It took DAT longer to get into production - SCMS notwithstanding - and
the CD took the world by storm. No one had ANY idea the impact on the
public would be as great as it was. Only radio, in the last '20's
and early '30s grabbed the public's attention and dollars as fast.
The CD was truly revolutionary, while DAT was evolutionary. Too often
revolutionary items die a quick death.
So the unexpected growth of CD, and the lateness to market of ANY DAT
was a prime factor - by that time it was too late for the public to
decide for/against either format in open competition. I had a CD
player in my car long before the first DAT was avaiable. It's been in
the dash for 6 years now - and it needs to be replaced as the Florida
heat is getting to it's shock mounts.
If DAT had been out at the same time as CD - it might have taken over.
I remember hearing many people - including some audio engineers at that
time - make comments like "I won't by a CD, because you can't record on
it!".
The public had grown so used to being able to make their own tapes for
their cars (or bootleg LP copies from their friends) that to have
something that did NOT record didn't make much sense. But as the CD
sales grew, and people noticed that it sounded much better than their
LP system (and many people taped their LPs so as to be able to have
quiet (ha!) cassette copies) the taping issue just sort of evaporated.
The big 'fiasco' in DAT, was that is was too late to the market - and
the CD people sweated that one - because they could envision millions
of cars with DAT players in them. The lack of success of previous
disk based playback systems in automotive environments probably didn't
give them the 'warm fuzzies' either. In dash units weren't talked of
in the early days but DATs in cars were. Probably short sightedness -
like Sony couldn't envision digital audio disks - because they couldn't
seem to think of anything smaller than 12" across and they could see no
market for something that would play for 10-12 hours straight. It took
Philips idea of a small disk to get things moving.
Too often the forest hides the trees.
--
Bill Vermillion - bi...@bilver.uucp
Michael Golan
>The quality of DAT, and the affordability will ensure that it never dies
^^^^^
Gimme a break ...
I'll bet you $1000 that in twenty years you will not be able to find DAT tapes.
Technology is advancing to the point were 100 times more data could be
stored on the same space long before 20 years pass. This will change music
so much, no one can predict what is going to happen, really. But "never dies"?!
even LPs died ... [sorry couldn't resist. ok many people still use'em]
All these predictions regarding minidiscs are kind'a useless.
Sony has clearly spent lots of money on them hoping to make even more. They
clearly did a lot of market research to figure out if people will buy it.
Philips' marketing thinks differently, and, e.g., JVC, is sitting on the
fence, their marketing guys don't have a clue.
So you think a bunch of net audio hackers opinions are going to decide on this
issue? This is already starting to sounds like the CD vs LP argument, although
it is far more civilized (for now :-)
What is clear is that the biggest problem of MD is quality.
I'll bet (but not $1k :-) that if Sony already thought about filing etc.,
they also allowed for upgrade compatibility and that quality is going to
improve once they get 2x bits off the same disk. If MD survives until then,
it will likely survive longer.
I'll also add that the future is going to be extremely dynamic (:-) Once
music on demand is in (from the telephone companies), and storing a whole CD
on your a disk is cheap, you can expect:
1) many more small labels that only sell their music electronically;
this will include many small artists working with people like Gabe...
2) all material being online, including almost any recording to ever existed
3) ability to sample works for cheap, on demand, and buy the whole thing later.
4) ability to access many of the pre-mixed direct recordings and use your
fancy DSP "intelligent" computer to remix it the way you like it; expect
independent "mixes" to exist as well (they can just sell the program to
put together the original tapes in a certain way. You will be able to
get the recordings of the best performers mixed and edited by the best
engineers ("Ultradisk" style, but much much more common and cheaper.)
5) lots more fun :-)
This should happen when I'm still around. Too bad I won't be as young.
-- Michael
--
Michael Golan | Duel, an addon to gdb, allows "x[..100] >? 0" to
m...@cs.princeton.edu | show the positive elements of x in the debugger.
| annon ftp ftp.cs.princeton.edu:/duel or send me mail!
Sandy Santra
: I'll also add that the future is going to be extremely dynamic (:-) Once
: music on demand is in (from the telephone companies), and storing a whole CD
: on your a disk is cheap, you can expect:
: 2) all material being online, including almost any recording to ever existed
I doubt it. You know why? Because that's an implicit promise of the CD
market right now--there are *tons* of people running around now who
maintain, "Oh, everything is on CD!"--but it is not. Only what can sell
has come out. I can name two releases right off the top of my head (and
there are dozens, hundreds more) by *major recording artists* which have
not been released on CD: "Sweetnighter" by Weather Report (Columbia) and
"Crossings" by Herbie Hancock (Warner Brothers). I believe that the
sound-library-on-a-chip will come to pass, yes, but I think that the
availability of albums will still be controlled by those who own the
rights (mega-corporations who put their wallets before artistic integrity
and consumer interest). If they don't think it'll sell, they won't put it
on a chip (or into the modem subscription data bank)--just watch.
Andre T. Yew
>What is clear is that the biggest problem of MD is quality.
>I'll bet (but not $1k :-) that if Sony already thought about filing etc.,
>they also allowed for upgrade compatibility and that quality is going to
>improve once they get 2x bits off the same disk. If MD survives until then,
>it will likely survive longer.
The interesting thing about both DCC and MD (and probably
the MPEG thing) is that the psychoacoustic model can be easily
updated while retaining compatibility with all machines since
decoding of the signal remains the same. What changes is how
the bits are allocated in the recorder. So, assuming that either
subband coding (DCC) or subband and transform coding (MD), and
the data transfer rates of each medium are not limiting quality,
we'll probably be hearing better machines in the future.
I wonder if jj (or anyone else in the know) is still reading
rec.audio --- I'd really like to know if there's been any research
done on how much of a perceptual difference there is between
different coding schemes. That is, which method does best with
respect to a human. Most papers I've read (not much, I admit) seem
to say that since humans listen with critical bands, we'll just
somehow chop up the audio spectrum into little pieces that might
or might not match critical bands. For example, PASC (DCC's scheme)
splits the audio spectrum into 32 bands because of engineering
convenience, while Dolby's AC-2 does try to match some kind of human
hearing model. Does it really matter?
In my personal view, I hope that MD wins, since DCC seems to
be frustratingly slow in accessing different tracks.
--Andre
--
Andre Yew and...@cco.caltech.edu (131.215.139.2)
carl.w.muhlhausen
As long as we're all crystal ball gazing into the future, I have to
disagree with Sandy's prediction. The profit margins on the
CD have made a lot of marginal music available and I don't see why
this wouldn't happen with other digital media.
I like different types of ethnic folk music (in small doses). When I
first got hooked on CDs, I held out little hope that I'd be able to
find much of a selection. Now there's all sorts of wild and weird
music available on CD.
My local CD shop went from essentially no music of this type to a
whole section of it. I think it's Music New Hampshire that sells all
sorts of independent labels, some with really good sound quality.
For classical music, there's all sorts of small labels cropping up.
Sure not every piece of recorded music will eventually appear on
in a digital format, but I think the future holds a lot of promise
for the niche markets.
The large labels will control the "major" artists, but that still
leaves room for the little guys.
Carl
Carl Muhlhausen
att!taz!ledzep
John Hoford
>What is clear is that the biggest problem of MD is quality.
I don't think this is clear.
The general public will not notice/care.
For the applications I want to use it for I dont care.
I think some one should do a in a car test of the diffrence
between CD and MD or light weight headphone test.
For the home I will make recordings for when I want to
play something with out paying attention to it.
If all I want to do is sit and listen to
music I will play a cd.
I dont know if I would be able to tell the diffrence betewn
CD and MD when programing, I know I wont care.
Do you guys listen to FM? You don't hear much talk from the
general public to improve FM. At least not like the need to
improve cable.
I think write now the biggest problem of MD is price and availability.
Until it comes in line with a portable cd player. People simply can't
afford it.
What percent of the homes have any electronic item costing $700.
John D. Hoford
Scott Hankin
When introduced, it was backward-compatible with nothing.
Audiophiles complained that the quality was inferior to reel-to-reel.
Further, any improvements in technology would be equally applicable to
reel-to-reel, allowing it to maintain its technical superiority.
Mass consumers, however, decided otherwise. Compact cassettes are still
quite popular.
Undoubtably, minidiscs will improve with technology. They will go down
in price. They will get smaller. There will be greater variety of
machines, and an increase in availability of prerecorded discs.
Possibly even recording density will improve. There may even come a
time when compression will be optional at record time.
But they will indeed survive and flourish, for the same reason the
compact cassette did.
Have you ever tried to stick a CD in your shirt pocket?
- Scott
--
Scott Hankin (han...@osf.org)
Open Software Foundation
11 Cambridge Center
Cambridge, MA 02142
Erik M Alvar
> Consider the compact cassette.
> When introduced, it was backward-compatible with nothing.
> Mass consumers, however, decided otherwise. Compact cassettes are still
> quite popular.
All the more reason to give DCC the nod.
> Undoubtably, minidiscs will improve with technology. They will go down
> in price. They will get smaller. There will be greater variety of
> machines, and an increase in availability of prerecorded discs.
> Possibly even recording density will improve. There may even come a
> time when compression will be optional at record time.
I've seen at least one study that shows DCC to be almost indistinguishable
from CD. MD was clearly picked out and didn't sound as good.
> But they will indeed survive and flourish, for the same reason the
> compact cassette did.
I'd give that point to DCC.
>- Scott
>--
Erik
Kerry Shetline
gm...@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) wrote:
> Look at Laserdisc: technically superior in every possible way to
> consumer-grade videotape. It teetered on the brink of extinction
> until something came along to give it a boost....home theater and the
> compact disc. Only when people knew about CD's could they make the
> analogy that LV is to VHS as CD is to cassette. It is only through
> the perseverence of Pioneer that LV stuck it out. And that only
> happened because of the times. In today's market, it might have
> happened very differently.
I would think that LD survived because of Pioneers perseverance combined
with the support that LD received from professional applications. There is
something of a parallel between this situation and DAT which gives me some
slight optimism that DAT could still break out into the consumer market --
not at any great level of market penetration, but at least enough so that
more choices of equipment would be more readily available.
-Kerry
PS: Just give me blue-laser MD without the ATRAC compression! Then I'll be
a happy camper!
Gabe M Wiener
> Consider the compact cassette.
Okay.
> When introduced, it was backward-compatible with nothing.
When introduced in 1961, it was sold as a cost-effective dictation
system. It was never intended for music.
> Audiophiles complained that the quality was inferior to reel-to-reel.
> Further, any improvements in technology would be equally applicable to
> reel-to-reel, allowing it to maintain its technical superiority.
Audiophiles didn't care about cassettes. Most audiophiles still don't
care about cassettes. Most professionals don't care about cassettes
because cassettes are not a hi-fi medium. Only when you record and
play them with great care can they approach being good.
Cassettes have hung on because they're cheap, and serve a functional
purpose.
> Undoubtably, minidiscs will improve with technology.
Undoubtedly my foot. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. I suspect
they'll be superseded in the not-too-far-off future.
> They will go down
> in price. They will get smaller. There will be greater variety of
> machines, and an increase in availability of prerecorded discs.
> Possibly even recording density will improve.
What are you basing these assessments on? So far we have seen no
market evidence that MD will survive until next week, let alone into
another generation of players.
> There may even come a
> time when compression will be optional at record time.
Not if they want to maintain compatibility with the current generation
of machines. That's sort of like saying "There may even come a time when
CD's won't need digital quantization or anti-imaging filters."
> But they will indeed survive and flourish, for the same reason the
> compact cassette did.
No.
The compact cassette survived and flourished because it was cheap. Even
ten years ago they were cheap. 20 years ago they were still relatively
cheap. Compact cassettes flourished because of the economics involved.
The format has no merits other than that.
They cought on at first because for the average consumer, the compact
cassette was a whole hell of a lot easier to use than a reel-to-reel
machine.
For the person not dissatisfied with cassettes (and, surprise, most
people aren't dissatisfied with cassettes for their cars, walkmans, etc),
MD appears as another weird format that is useless to them.
> Have you ever tried to stick a CD in your shirt pocket?
Not recently. Why, have you?
I'm the first one who would love to see a digital format, either MD or
DCC, supersede the cassette as the prominent format for home
recording, car, and portable use. However, as someone who has
followed the trends in consumer electronics consumerism for a while,
I do not see it happening any time soon, and not with either of these
two formats, especially with both of them being in the market at the
same time.
Ya know, I've sat here for several days, explaining why I believe
this, giving historical references, etc. and all anyone who disagrees
with me has done is make an argument that boils down to "MD will be a
flourishing success because I like it." If you disagree with me, at
least take more than 30 seconds to present a convincing argument. I
certainly would *like* to be proven wrong, but so far, all the
arguments I've seen have either assumed their conclusions, or have had
no base at all.
So far I've been right about beta, CD, and DAT. I'd like to be wrong
about MD and DCC, but I don't think I will be.
Janik Joire
an MD copy of songs from various of my CDs, while some of you are predicting
the doom of the medium! Ironic, is it not?
I just wanted to point out that the second generation MD machines
are already out in Japan (from Aiwa, Sanyo and Sharp) and that more are on
their way (from Denon, Mitsubishi, Pioneer and Sony of course).
If MD fails, it will not happen that soon... At least I will have
enjoyed it while it last! And if it happens, I still have my DAT machine :-)
For ruggedness and portable use MD is, in my opinion, the winner right now.
The only problems right now are the size of the portable units (too
large for my taste) and the short battery life. Obviously, prices are still
high, but all these obstacles will be resolved sooner than you think.
Janik
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Janik Joire The University of Western Ontario, Canada
Programmer / Systems maintenance Faculty of Engineering
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Hoford
>han...@sauron.osf.org (Scott Hankin) writes:
>
>> Consider the compact cassette.
>> When introduced, it was backward-compatible with nothing.
>> Mass consumers, however, decided otherwise. Compact cassettes are still
>> quite popular.
>
> All the more reason to give DCC the nod.
>
>> Undoubtably, minidiscs will improve with technology. They will go down
>> in price. They will get smaller. There will be greater variety of
>> machines, and an increase in availability of prerecorded discs.
>> Possibly even recording density will improve. There may even come a
>> time when compression will be optional at record time.
>
> I've seen at least one study that shows DCC to be almost indistinguishable
>from CD. MD was clearly picked out and didn't sound as good.
People keep comming back to the audio quality. But I dont see people
buying based on audio quality. I like audio quality up to apoint
it is not my only factor. Features are also a factor.
No High end person is going to listen at home to MD or DCC when
their is CD and DAT around. On most mid-fi systems the problem will
still be the speakers. Ffor portable playing MD is more than good
enough.
The only thing DCC has going for it is it plays tapes. MD has better
features DAT has better quality. All are priced about the same (to much).
Will playing old tapes be a big selling point?
Most likely if sony makes a MD for <= 350 I will buy it.
I will not consider buy a DCC till I can get a portable
that recordes digital. < 200.
John.
Michael Golan
> I said:
>>2) all material being online, including almost any recording to ever existed
>I doubt it. You know why? Because that's an implicit promise of the CD
>market right now--there are *tons* of people running around now who
>maintain, "Oh, everything is on CD!"--but it is not.
Of course it isn't. it cost big $$$ to store CDs, transfer them around, etc.
if a store can only have 20,000 CDs, and the labels have produced 100k
CDs, those CDs that aren't taken by any dealer go "out of print". Also CDs
suspected of this problem are never printed. As for people running around,
see Dick's 2nd law of audio.
>I believe that the sound-library-on-a-chip will come to pass, yes, but ...
You are missing the point. the transfer of music we be electronic.
The "cost" to publish recorded music would be to store it in the
label's big database. the storage cost will be SO LOW (it is already
far below $500 (mulit-tape robots) it will become $5 or less), that if
you sold it just <once> it still would be worth having online. Take a
look at some of the total junk available at existing ftp sites. Now
consider storage 100 times cheaper.
Yap, this means big video/audio software chains will go out of biz, or
serve in a totally different way. Same is true for books of course.
>I think that the availability of albums will still be controlled by those
>who own the rights (mega-corporations who put their wallets before artistic
>integrity and consumer interest). If they don't think it'll sell, they
>won't put it on a chip (or into the modem subscription data bank)-just watch.
I hate to ask, but what would you do if you were managing one of these
"mega-corporations"? Would you loose money in order to "support art"?
I don't know if you have any invested money, maybe in the future.
But when you have lots of invested money, chances are you will be holding
the stocks (directly or otherwise) of some of these "evil mega empires."
Hmm, why is it that I have a feeling you would like these stocks to
go as high as possible? Why do I have a feeling you would like the evil
empires to stop wasting your invested money on BS artists that don't sell
and loose money? Wake up. Democracy as we know it is based on capitalism,
and that in turn is based on optimzing profits. "mega corps" are just
following the (jungle) rules, like their owners want.
CDs will be online because online storage would be the cheapest way
to archive any material, anyway. And because it will be profitable even
if they sell 5-10 of them a year. (it is almost true today that for a
single backup, I can buy a 2nd disk instead of a backup tape device.)
-- Michael
ps. modem subscription data bank? I'm talking internet style full digital
optical network; electronic money; a society were people who can not
process data for a living might starve. (many of us do this already, e.g.,
programmers working based on incoming email and producing "code".)
Think it sounds like sci-fi BS? --- just watch :-)
Michael Golan
>>I wrote:
>>What is clear is that the biggest problem of MD is quality.
>I don't think this is clear.
[go on to discuss the quality being good enuf, etc.]
>The general public will not notice/care.
Often I hear such claims about the general public who can't tell, is an
idiot, etc.
This might be true, to some degree. But most often the "general public"
somehow gets a clue and choose the better product, the higher quality,
etc. This might not be because they are smart, but because they ARE dumb.
Dumb enough to trust "experts" to tell them what is better. From the guy
in the shop relying on the salesdroid, to the guy in the classical CD shop
taking the advice of the "helper" rather than looking it up in the
in-store readily available Penguin guide (just one example I noticed yesterday)
Often, these "experts" lie, tell BS, you name it.
But just as often, they do give good advice. From the Wiz guy suggesting
an Onkyo instead of Sharp receiver, to Stereo review saying that MD is not
as good as CD. [stereophile, etc., doesn't count, since it doesn't give
advice to uneducated consumers]
Look, most people will say Shakespeare is "the best", even though they
never read his work. Most people claim Mozart was a genius, even though they
heard maybe one or two of his pieces, and mostly like Madonna. Most people
never "test" or question things for themselves. They rely on expert opinions
to form their own opinions, political and religious believes, etc. Somehow,
society is moving forward; better products often win; yes, there are
plenty of exceptions aka VHS :-) It is indeed the perception of MD
as "worse than CD" that might fail it. After all, how many of those
people you claim not to hear/notice have ever compared/tested *any*
two pieces of audio equipment under conditions where some "expert"
didn't tell them the cost/quality/style beforehand?
>I think write now the biggest problem of MD is price and availability.
>Until it comes in line with a portable cd player. People simply can't
>afford it. What percent of the homes have any electronic item costing $700.
No, price can not writely [pun sic] be described as the biggest problem.
Sony is clearly trying to find the price that the market will bear.
It is clearly not a problem with the medium - recorders can certainly
be made cheaper, and the blanks should be pretty cheap to make if they can
afford selling pre-recorded ones for the same prices as CDs.)
Most successful consumer products have been introduced at $700 (at current
CPI) or more, including CDs. I think (but I surely be corrected if I am wrong)
that the list includes LD, VHS, SVHS, 3-way speaker, transistor amps, TVs, etc.
Matthew Hughes
A simple question; do the Rotel 855/955 CD players have a volume-controlled
line level out? I would like to hook one up directly to my power amp ...
Matt Hughes
ma...@jarthur.claremont.edu
Kerry Shetline
(Michael Golan) wrote:
> It is clearly not a problem with the medium - recorders can certainly
> be made cheaper, and the blanks should be pretty cheap to make if they can
> afford selling pre-recorded ones for the same prices as CDs.)
The last argument about MD media prices doesn't hold water. The
pre-recorded discs use the same optical disc technology as CDs. The
recordable discs are, however, magneto-optical, using some fairly esoteric
chemical coatings, and are more difficult to manufacture.
I'm not saying that the prices can't come down, just that the analogy to
CDs is flawed.
-Kerry
Scott Fisher
No, however, it's fairly easy to build an outboard one...not that I have any
"scematics" on hand.
Scott.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Scott Fisher [sc...@psy.uwa.oz.au] PH: Aus [61] Perth (9) Local (380 3272).
_--_|\ N
Department of Psychology / \ W + E
University of Western Australia. Perth [32S, 116E]--> *_.--._/ S
Nedlands, 6009. PERTH, W.A. v
Joy is a Jaguar XJ6 with a flat battery, a blown oil seal and an unsympathetic
wife, 9km outside of a small remote town, 3:15am on a cold wet winters morning.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Vermillion
>In article <trevorC7...@netcom.com> tre...@netcom.com (Sandy Santra) writes:
>>Michael Golan (m...@elan.Princeton.EDU) wrote:
>>: I'll also add that the future is going to be extremely dynamic (:-) Once
>>: music on demand is in (from the telephone companies), and storing a whole CD
>>: on your a disk is cheap, you can expect:
>>: 2) all material being online, including almost any recording to ever existed
>>I doubt it. You know why? Because that's an implicit promise of the CD
>>market right now--there are *tons* of people running around now who
>>maintain, "Oh, everything is on CD!"--but it is not. ...
>As long as we're all crystal ball gazing into the future, I have to
>disagree with Sandy's prediction. The profit margins on the
>CD have made a lot of marginal music available and I don't see why
>this wouldn't happen with other digital media.
>I like different types of ethnic folk music (in small doses). When I
>first got hooked on CDs, I held out little hope that I'd be able to
>find much of a selection. Now there's all sorts of wild and weird
>music available on CD.
Well some comments based on my many years of observation and work
within the industry.
There are a lot of CD's that no one expected to see light of day again.
Reissues of LP's that were long forgotten.
But this is not a new phenomenon.
In the early 1950's - when the LP was first making it's mark - there
were many LPs that were re-issues of 78's that were long forgotten.
It was fairly inexpensive to make an LP of an an older 78 album, and
warehouse it and expect to sell a few. The first 10" LPs had 6 cuts,
the same as the 78 rpm album. It took a lot less to ship in weight -
it took a lot less material in album and record content, and it was a
lot easier to warehouse, as 1 78rpm album took up the space of about 4
10" LPs.
After awhile the old re-issues stopped flowing like water.
But the early LPs started something that has re-surfaced in Video Laser
Disks. Since they were fairly easy to make, and you only had to store
2 stamper for a 10" lp as opposed to 6 for a 78 album, some of the
'catalog' product was pressed on demand.
I remember waiting for some things (I was a kid record collector when
most people didn't start until after they got out of college) for 2 or
3 months. The companies would take orders, and then press on demand.
Production of LP's is also a problem between production and purchasing.
You press an LP. But you also have to have artwork printed, fronts and
backs. Then those go to a fabricator who takes those and assembles a
jacket. Those are then shipped to the pressing plant or the pressing
plant ships to the fabricator where things are inserted.
Economies of scale being what they are, and storage costs not being
cheap, sometimes more records would be pressed than jackets, and then
jackets would be fabricated as needed - as the covers were typically
printed in a large amount to match the press run.
All that meant warehouse space, for disks, printed artwork, and
assembled product.
I also have one LP from Columbia's "5th Anniversary of the LP" year
that has a hand make silk-screened jacket. In low volume that was
cheaper than going to a 4-color press. I don't know if that was why,
but I have only seen a couple of silk-sceen jackets in my life. One
was a very limited band-demo - and silk-screen of a couple-hundred was
much cheaper than a 4-color press run.
The jewel box concept of the CD means that you only have to insert the
disk and a printed card. The shipping costs are much much lower.
And a stack of 500 or so CDs' - without jewel boxes - doesn't take up a
lot of room. So you assemble the product on demand - and your storage
doesnt' cost that much.
So the profit margins on CDs reflects and unseen savings in storage and
shipment. The 78's and LPs were so heavy that all of the major
companies had 3 pressing plants. East Coast, West Coast, and
Mid-America - the latter being typically in Indiana or Illinois. It's
economical to press CDs overseas and then just assemble when ready.
This means it's really possible for someone to start a small label and
package and ship themselves, and do it out of a closet in their house.
You could do LPs in a garage, but 78's - well you needed to rent space
it seemed. If we want to talk storage problems, how about the old
cylinder records :-)
>My local CD shop went from essentially no music of this type to a
>whole section of it. I think it's Music New Hampshire that sells all
>sorts of independent labels, some with really good sound quality.
>For classical music, there's all sorts of small labels cropping up.
>Sure not every piece of recorded music will eventually appear on
>in a digital format, but I think the future holds a lot of promise
>for the niche markets.
This same thing happened in the early LP days. But as times changed
the little labels went away.
Let's hope - for music's sake - that history doesn't repeat itself.
>The large labels will control the "major" artists, but that still
>leaves room for the little guys.
Bill Vermillion
> When introduced, it was backward-compatible with nothing.
When introduced the compact-cassette was used ONLY for portable voice
recording - sort of an audio notebook. Music for cassettes didn't come
for years. The first casettes machines were mono - but Philips wisely
devised a compatible tape layout that eventuallay included quad
cassettes - that played stereo on stereo only - and mono on mono only.
Eight tracks side by side on 1/8" tape was pushing technology however.
> Audiophiles complained that the quality was inferior to reel-to-reel.
> Further, any improvements in technology would be equally applicable to
> reel-to-reel, allowing it to maintain its technical superiority.
The audiophiles didn't like the 4-track, which was supplanted by the
8-track. Cassettes came alive when they got into the automobile market
replacing the 8-tracks.
It was several years before the cassette started to be looked upon as a
viable music medium.
> in price. They will get smaller. There will be greater variety of
> machines, and an increase in availability of prerecorded discs.
> Possibly even recording density will improve. There may even come a
> time when compression will be optional at record time.
> But they will indeed survive and flourish, for the same reason the
> compact cassette did.
But other formats didn't survive. The 4-track cartridge didn't. The
8-track cartridge didn't. The El-Cassette didn't. The 3M/Wollensak
tape cartrdige didn't. The Hip-Pocket records didn't.
There is no reason that the DCC or the MiniDisk won't follow some of
these formats into oblivion. There is also no reason why they couldn't
be popular. Only time and the fickle buying public will answer that
question. I won't make predictions - I've seen too many things fail -
things that looked really good - but died.
> Have you ever tried to stick a CD in your shirt pocket?
Wear bigger shirts. :-)
Michael Golan
I said:
>> the blanks should be pretty cheap to make if they can
>> afford selling pre-recorded ones for the same prices as CDs.)
>The last argument about MD media prices doesn't hold water. The
>pre-recorded discs use the same optical disc technology as CDs. The
>recordable discs are, however, magneto-optical, using some fairly esoteric
>chemical coatings, and are more difficult to manufacture.
Ah, I knew I might be screwing up on pre-recorded media. Thanks for the fix
and sorry for the misinfo.
However, I'd guess that making the actual disk and putting it into the
protective shell should be a substantial part of the manufacturing cost.
I would love to hear further info regarding the MD manufacturing, both
recorded and prerecorded. Do writeable-CDs use the same basic technology?
Given the size and resolution, I'd again guess that MDs are much easier
to make?
-- Michael
Struan Gray
Gabe M Wiener, gm...@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu writes:
> Ya know, I've sat here for several days, explaining why
> I believe this, giving historical references, etc. and all
> anyone who disagrees with me has done is make an argument
> that boils down to "MD will be a flourishing success because
> I like it." If you disagree with me, at least take more than 30
> seconds to present a convincing argument. I certainly would
> *like* to be proven wrong, but so far, all the arguments I've
> seen have either assumed their conclusions, or have had no
> base at all.
I cannot be dogmatic, since the answer lies in the actions of
the recording and electronics industries and the buying habits of
large numbers of people who are not called Struan Gray, neither of
which I can predict with accuracy; but I believe that MD can survive
because consumers have good reasons to buy it and manufacturers have
good reasons to sell it.
My own postition is that MD is attractive, but at present too
expensive. It is attractive because despite its compromised quality
it is a convenient thing to use, and as such should be seen as a
replacement for the cassette tape, not the CD. It retains all the
advantages of a cassette, whilst solving the worst problems. The
only real disadvantage is money: the current factor of ten
difference in the price of blank media disqualifies MD as a cassette
replacement for me, and I probably have more disposable income than
the consuming masses who will determine MD's future.
I use cassettes as a mobile medium. I love to have music
playing in the car, and my long in the tooth sports walkman has had
me tapping my toes in places that vary from the ridiculous of
Victoria Coach Station to the sublime of the Biafo Glacier. I like
the compact size of cassettes, I like the way they can be severly
abused and still played, and I like being able to make my own
programmes and share them with friends. I can put up with the
'poor' sound quality because it is good enough for my purposes - a
concept that many r.a readers seem to find hard to grasp.
What I do not like is the way that tapes age. Dropouts, print
through and self-assembling Gordian Knots drive me mad. MD seems to
cure this whilst retaining the features that I do like and supplying
the additional benefits of non-sequential access. I do not know if
an MD will survive sculling around on the floor of my car or the
interior of my rucksack, but if it were cheap enough I'd take the
risk. (Incidentally, DCC cures none of these problems, so for me
has already taken its dodo-like place in audio natural history.) It
is the price thing that is important: I believe that if MD were as
cheap as cassettes are today it would all be over bar the shouting.
Predicting the survival of the format is thus a question of trying
to guess whether the price will drop sufficiently quickly that MD
outpaces potential challengers such as recordable CDs.
The answer lies with the record companies and electronics
manufacturers, and in this case the two are to a certain extent
combined in Sony. I think that record companies are scared stiff of
the idea of a high quality digital recording medium as a consumer
item. They would love to see the establishment of a format which
allows home recording for time or space shifting of listening but
which is of noticeably poorer quality so that owning a CD original
is still attractive. I believe (and here I am touting personal
conviction, not fact) that this is one reason why the
technologically straightforward development of consumer grade
recordable CD has progressed so slowly. That the electronics
manufacturers which do not own record companies follow the lead set
by those which do has been amply demonstrated by the DAT saga.
I therefore see good reasons why MD might be sold hard and the
prices of media and drives pushed firmly downwards, as an attempt to
build an unassailably large user base before better recording
formats become available. Since the bulk of cassette listening is
done on relatively cheap walkmen and boomboxes, which are usually
replaced over a short timescale, such price reductions could easily
hasten the demise of cassette tape if they are extensive enough. If
the manufacturers wait too long, and try to recoup all their
development costs in the early days of the format by keeping the
price high, the real MD killer will appear: a disc-based machine
that plays existing pre-recorded CDs, but which can also record onto
blanks of various sizes with optional compression for extended play.
So, I think that MD *could* easily become the new cassette. I
do not think that consumers are crying out for a new format, but if
MD were available for a small premium over cassette tape I'm sure it
would sell well. Whether Sony and Friends want the format to
succeed enough to subsidise its introduction to the necessary extent
is a question only they can answer. If they do not bring the price
down, and quickly, MD will be dead in the water.
William Bradley Light
>ma...@jarthur.claremont.edu (Matthew Hughes) writes:
>
>
>>A simple question; do the Rotel 855/955 CD players have a volume-controlled
>>line level out? I would like to hook one up directly to my power amp ...
>> Matt Hughes
>> ma...@jarthur.claremont.edu
>
>No, however, it's fairly easy to build an outboard one...not that I have any
>"scematics" on hand.
Several years ago I put together a switchbox with volume control for just
this purpose. It works great for me! You do have to have suitable sources
and a suitable amp (most are suitable I think) and you have to be careful
about the cable capacitance, especially between the volume control and the
amp. I bought parts from Old Colony Sound in Peterborough, NH: a dB Systems
5-way switchbox kit and an Alps stereo volume pot. Mine is 50k but smaller
might be better. You have to be able to drill a big hole in the front panel
of the switchbox to add the volume pot. I have noticed since that Niles
sells a switchbox with volume control. This might be worth looking into.
It might not have the best pot or the best wiring but you could rebuild
it pretty easily if necessary. Good luck!
>
>Scott.
>_______________________________________________________________________________
>Scott Fisher [sc...@psy.uwa.oz.au] PH: Aus [61] Perth (9) Local (380 3272).
> _--_|\ N
>Department of Psychology / \ W + E
>University of Western Australia. Perth [32S, 116E]--> *_.--._/ S
>Nedlands, 6009. PERTH, W.A. v
>
>Joy is a Jaguar XJ6 with a flat battery, a blown oil seal and an unsympathetic
>wife, 9km outside of a small remote town, 3:15am on a cold wet winters morning.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W. Bradley Light ----------------- li...@euler.Berkeley.EDU
Scott Hankin
>In article <hankin.738953032@osf> han...@sauron.osf.org (Scott Hankin) writes:
>> Consider the compact cassette.
>> When introduced, it was backward-compatible with nothing.
>When introduced the compact-cassette was used ONLY for portable voice
>recording - sort of an audio notebook. Music for cassettes didn't come
>for years. The first casettes machines were mono - but Philips wisely
>devised a compatible tape layout that eventuallay included quad
>cassettes - that played stereo on stereo only - and mono on mono only.
>Eight tracks side by side on 1/8" tape was pushing technology however.
All true, but my point remains that compatibility with some existing
format is unnecessary for minidisc to succeed.
>> Audiophiles complained that the quality was inferior to reel-to-reel.
>> Further, any improvements in technology would be equally applicable to
>> reel-to-reel, allowing it to maintain its technical superiority.
>The audiophiles didn't like the 4-track, which was supplanted by the
>8-track. Cassettes came alive when they got into the automobile market
>replacing the 8-tracks.
Actually, audiophiles played a very small role in the success of the
cassette as a music medium. Joe consumer didn't even understand
4-track. 8-tracks were popular for a time, but cassettes won out
because of size and recordability. (8 track recorders did exist, but it
was never the default. When you bought an 8-track, you bought a
player.)
>It was several years before the cassette started to be looked upon as a
>viable music medium.
Certainly true.
>> in price. They will get smaller. There will be greater variety of
>> machines, and an increase in availability of prerecorded discs.
>> Possibly even recording density will improve. There may even come a
>> time when compression will be optional at record time.
>> But they will indeed survive and flourish, for the same reason the
>> compact cassette did.
>But other formats didn't survive. The 4-track cartridge didn't. The
>8-track cartridge didn't. The El-Cassette didn't. The 3M/Wollensak
>tape cartrdige didn't. The Hip-Pocket records didn't.
Other formats were too bulky - the shirt pocket factor.
>There is no reason that the DCC or the MiniDisk won't follow some of
>these formats into oblivion. There is also no reason why they couldn't
>be popular. Only time and the fickle buying public will answer that
>question. I won't make predictions - I've seen too many things fail -
>things that looked really good - but died.
Indeed, the outcome is anything but certain. It prices stay high, if
the number of manufacturers stay low, minidisc will probably fail.
You know, a lot of people (I admit to being one of them) felt that when
CD's came out, they were almost but not quite good enough. The sampling
rate was too low, high end turntables sounded better, etc. I think they
missed the point.
The buying public has a very different idea of what's good enough.
>> Have you ever tried to stick a CD in your shirt pocket?
>Wear bigger shirts. :-)
I *knew* there was a flaw in that argument. ;-}
>--
>Bill Vermillion - bi...@bilver.uucp
- Scott
Scott Hankin
>> When introduced, it was backward-compatible with nothing.
>When introduced in 1961, it was sold as a cost-effective dictation
>system. It was never intended for music.
Interesting fact. Also totally irrelevant to the point I made. Claims
that the minidisc will fail because it isn't compatible with CD (or any
other current medium) ignore the success of the cassette in consumer
audio.
>Cassettes have hung on because they're cheap, and serve a functional
>purpose.
When minidiscs go down in price, they will serve the same function as
cassettes.
>> Undoubtably, minidiscs will improve with technology.
>Undoubtedly my foot. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. I suspect
>they'll be superseded in the not-too-far-off future.
Perhaps - my question is whether what supercedes them will still be
called minidiscs.
>> They will go down
>> in price. They will get smaller. There will be greater variety of
>> machines, and an increase in availability of prerecorded discs.
>> Possibly even recording density will improve.
>What are you basing these assessments on? So far we have seen no
>market evidence that MD will survive until next week, let alone into
>another generation of players.
Extrapolation of the past. You don't have to go back very far - look at
the progression CD players made. As for survival, we have far more
evidence the minidisc will survive until next week than we have to the
contrary.
>> There may even come a
>> time when compression will be optional at record time.
>Not if they want to maintain compatibility with the current generation
>of machines. That's sort of like saying "There may even come a time when
>CD's won't need digital quantization or anti-imaging filters."
There are several versions of cassette audio processing available now.
Machines which use these features produce results which don't sound as
good on machines without them. It's a choice the user makes when
recording. These machines still record and playback non-processed
tapes. Minidiscs could be made to handle both as well.
>> But they will indeed survive and flourish, for the same reason the
>> compact cassette did.
>The compact cassette survived and flourished because it was cheap. Even
>ten years ago they were cheap. 20 years ago they were still relatively
>cheap. Compact cassettes flourished because of the economics involved.
>The format has no merits other than that.
Wrong, as you admit below. Cassettes are significantly more convenient
than reel-to-reel. They offer an advantage in portability and ease of
use.
>They cought on at first because for the average consumer, the compact
>cassette was a whole hell of a lot easier to use than a reel-to-reel
>machine.
>For the person not dissatisfied with cassettes (and, surprise, most
>people aren't dissatisfied with cassettes for their cars, walkmans, etc),
>MD appears as another weird format that is useless to them.
On the contrary, to users of cassettes, minidiscs appear smaller, don't
wear out, don't produce tape jams, and are "cool" - they're digital,
right?
>> Have you ever tried to stick a CD in your shirt pocket?
>Not recently. Why, have you?
Snappy comeback, that.
The issue comes down to this. Minidiscs offer all the advantages of
cassettes, plus several more (don't wear, no dropouts, etc). The only
barrier currently is cost. Can so many people have forgotten the price
tag on early CD players? On early CD's?
>I'm the first one who would love to see a digital format, either MD or
>DCC, supersede the cassette as the prominent format for home
>recording, car, and portable use. However, as someone who has
>followed the trends in consumer electronics consumerism for a while,
>I do not see it happening any time soon, and not with either of these
>two formats, especially with both of them being in the market at the
>same time.
I don't really see DCC as in the running. It offers only one advantage
over the existing cassette - improved sound. If CD only offered
improved sound, they wouldn't be where they are today.
>Ya know, I've sat here for several days, explaining why I believe
>this, giving historical references, etc. and all anyone who disagrees
>with me has done is make an argument that boils down to "MD will be a
>flourishing success because I like it." If you disagree with me, at
>least take more than 30 seconds to present a convincing argument. I
>certainly would *like* to be proven wrong, but so far, all the
>arguments I've seen have either assumed their conclusions, or have had
>no base at all.
Historical references are funny like that. You can point to any number
of areas of history and state things like "Never before has anyone done
<fill in the blank>" and you're right. That is, until you aren't. Then
the statistics go out the window.
I believe I've presented cogent reasons for the success of minidiscs.
Saying it is not a convincing argument really boils down to the fact
that you aren't convinced. Your privilege - but by that definition you
haven't presented any convincing arguments either, as I remain
unconvinced. I wouldn't say your arguments are unfounded or unreasoned,
however.
By the way, I don't particularly like minidisc. I don't like lossy
compression. I don't particularly like VHS either, but I recognize
the factors which make it popular.
>So far I've been right about beta, CD, and DAT. I'd like to be wrong
>about MD and DCC, but I don't think I will be.
This, coupled with the paragraph which preceded it, sounds suspiciously
like, "I'm always right - why do people bother arguing with me?"
The factors which will make minidiscs the successor to cassettes have
little to do with technical superiority. They relate to durability,
portability and "digital/laser coolness." I believe these to be the
driving factors in mass appeal of minidiscs.
However, I am willing to admit that these are only my opinions. How
about you?
>--
> Gabe Wiener -- gm...@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu -- N2GPZ
> Sound engineering, recording, and digital mastering for classical music
> "I am terrified at the thought that so much hideous and bad music
> will be put on records forever." --Sir Arthur Sullivan
- Scott
John Thomson
: In article <1993Jun1.1...@news.columbia.edu>:
<lots deleted>
: The answer lies with the record companies and electronics
: manufacturers, and in this case the two are to a certain extent
: combined in Sony. I think that record companies are scared stiff of
: the idea of a high quality digital recording medium as a consumer
: item. They would love to see the establishment of a format which
: allows home recording for time or space shifting of listening but
: which is of noticeably poorer quality so that owning a CD original
: is still attractive. I believe (and here I am touting personal
: conviction, not fact) that this is one reason why the
: technologically straightforward development of consumer grade
: recordable CD has progressed so slowly. That the electronics
: manufacturers which do not own record companies follow the lead set
: by those which do has been amply demonstrated by the DAT saga.
This arguement is probably more true than you think. Look at Sony; they
not only manufacture audio equipment, but they also own Columbia records. Thus
they would love to see everyone own a CD original (and a CD player), and a
portable MD player/recorder. Not only would Sony make money on selling two
copies of the same album, but they would also make money on selling two pieces
of audio hardware which essentially do the same thing (play music).
As I recall, this sort of arguement (CD vs MD vs DCC vs...) occurred about 10
years ago when the CD first hit the streets. Only then, the arguement was
CD vs LP vs Cassette. LPs went from being the dominant format to obscurity in
little over 5-6 years, when people were predicting that CDs would only be a
flash in the pan. Personally, I like seeing a large selection of formats. Each
has their advantages and disadvantages. But in terms of predicting whether
MD will kill cassettes or whether DCC will kill DAT etc etc, only time will
tell. The "best" format may not necessarily win out (look at Beta vs VHS). But
it is sure going to be fun watching the fireworks in the meantime!
Greggo...
-----
Greg Moffatt mof...@bnr.ca
Bell-Northern Research Inc., Ottawa Canada
"My opinions; not BNR's"
Gabe M Wiener
>In rec.audio you write:
>
> Interesting fact. Also totally irrelevant to the point I made. Claims
> that the minidisc will fail because it isn't compatible with CD (or any
> other current medium) ignore the success of the cassette in consumer
> audio.
Hardly irrelevant. The cassette had a chance to evolve in a
completely different field (dictation) until it reached the point that
someone in marketing decided to sell it as a music medium. By the
time cassette become viable as a consumer recording and delivery
format, it had already undergone multiple revisions.
> When minidiscs go down in price, they will serve the same function as
> cassettes.
But they can't go down in price without consumer acceptance, and they won't
get consumer acceptance until they go down in price. Why won't they get
consumer acceptance until they go down in price? Because the average
consumer is happy with cassettes, and won't see a need or a desire to buy
into a new technology until it is cost effective.
> Extrapolation of the past. You don't have to go back very far - look at
> the progression CD players made.
The hubbub about CD's began in the late 1970's and continued until it
came to the market. CD was eagerly embraced by the public even when
it was overpriced. Nearly everyone acknowledged its advantages
immediately. Minidisc has been greeted heretofore with a rather
ho-hum attitude, which in this market, can be a knell for a new
product.
>>Not if they want to maintain compatibility with the current generation
>>of machines. That's sort of like saying "There may even come a time when
>>CD's won't need digital quantization or anti-imaging filters."
>
> There are several versions of cassette audio processing available now.
> Machines which use these features produce results which don't sound as
> good on machines without them. It's a choice the user makes when
> recording. These machines still record and playback non-processed
> tapes. Minidiscs could be made to handle both as well.
You don't sweem to have a firm grasp on what "cassette audio
processing" is. Cassette processing such as Dolby B, C, and S are
dynamic companding systems, and equalization schemes. They have
nothing whatsoever to do with the digital compression used in
minidisc. To record a minidisc in any format other than the current
one would render it totally unplayable on today's MD equipment. This
is not a disputable point.
The hardware manufactuers have made a decision in favor of perceptual
coding methods for consumer recordable audio, and I don't see it
changing any time soon. Even if it does, it will mandate a new format
with more storage, one that will be different altogether from MD. MD
players of today cannot play uncompressed audio, and that's that.
>>For the person not dissatisfied with cassettes (and, surprise, most
>>people aren't dissatisfied with cassettes for their cars, walkmans, etc),
>>MD appears as another weird format that is useless to them.
>
> On the contrary, to users of cassettes, minidiscs appear smaller, don't
> wear out, don't produce tape jams, and are "cool" - they're digital,
> right?
But no one is buying them. It doesn't matter how "cool" it is if
people aren't interested enough to buy it. They're not.
>>> Have you ever tried to stick a CD in your shirt pocket?
>
>>Not recently. Why, have you?
>
> Snappy comeback, that.
Snqppy question, that.
> The issue comes down to this. Minidiscs offer all the advantages of
> cassettes, plus several more (don't wear, no dropouts, etc). The only
> barrier currently is cost. Can so many people have forgotten the price
> tag on early CD players? On early CD's?
But people bought those early CD players and overpriced discs. MD
will die and be forgotten unless Sony makes them cost-competitive with
cassettes. Consumers aren't interested in expensive digital recording
formats, a la the DAT saga. They want cheap solutions, especially in
today's economy. If the new technology is cheap, they'll buy it. If
it happens to be digital, so much the better. If it is still
overpriced, they'll go to the store, see the demo, say "cool!" and be
on their way, listening to their cassette walkmen without stopping to
think.
> I don't really see DCC as in the running. It offers only one advantage
> over the existing cassette - improved sound.
They also offer backward-compatibility to a point, but that isn't a
consumer-saleable point. MD has a much better shot at consumer
success, if Sony gets its act together and knocks the cost down a lot.
>If CD only offered
>improved sound, they wouldn't be where they are today.
A pointless comment. Improved sound over what? Vinyl? There are so
many factors that went into the CD's success that it isn't even worth
answering this one. The market of today is nothing like the market
of 1983.
> Historical references are funny like that. You can point to any number
> of areas of history and state things like "Never before has anyone done
> <fill in the blank>" and you're right. That is, until you aren't. Then
> the statistics go out the window.
I'm still waiting for them to go out the window. People aren't gobbling
up expensive MD's the way they gobbled up expensive CD's. People don't
really care, and they won't at the current prices. Not a chance.
> I believe I've presented cogent reasons for the success of minidiscs.
> Saying it is not a convincing argument really boils down to the fact
> that you aren't convinced. Your privilege - but by that definition you
> haven't presented any convincing arguments either, as I remain
> unconvinced. I wouldn't say your arguments are unfounded or unreasoned,
> however.
The most convincing argument I have on my side is the current sales
of minidiscs.
>>So far I've been right about beta, CD, and DAT. I'd like to be wrong
>>about MD and DCC, but I don't think I will be.
>
> This, coupled with the paragraph which preceded it, sounds suspiciously
> like, "I'm always right - why do people bother arguing with me?"
No, it just means that there _are_ predictable trends in the consumer
electronics industry which repeat themselves. CD succeeded because of
a particular set of consumer demands and economics that were in play at
the time.
> The factors which will make minidiscs the successor to cassettes have
> little to do with technical superiority. They relate to durability,
> portability and "digital/laser coolness." I believe these to be the
> driving factors in mass appeal of minidiscs.
No, they refer to *price* and that's it. Only when the price is right
will the other factrs of "digital/laser coolness" (which is, I agree,
a big part of MD's appeal to the public) have a shot at convincing
the buyers.
> However, I am willing to admit that these are only my opinions. How
> about you?
I never intimated otherwise.
Lionel Tun
> Since when has DAT failed? It's players are still being made, improved
>upon, and being used by many for many reasons. Just being the lower end of
>the audio market lacks the appreciation or understands the possibilities
>doesn't reflect a failure.
Well I can walk into Dixons (dragged in maybe) and buy a cheap cassette
deck and cheap tapes. I can't get a cheap DAT and cheap DAT tapes, altho
the engineering is surely easier on a DAT. Hence it has failed.
> DAT is making a comeback as well. It's players are becoming better,
>cheaper, and the cassettes are less expensive as well. Personally I would
>purchase DAT over the other "Perceptual Coding" rivals. Tapes cost from
We do need a good lossless digital recording medium, but I don't
like tapes. I wonder if the Recordable CD will exist soon (mass
market existence I mean).
--
________ Lionel Tun, lio...@cs.city.ac.uk ________
/ /_ __/\ Computer Vision Group /\ \__ _\
/___/_/_/\/ City University, London EC1V 0HB \ \___\_\_\
\___\_\_\/ 071-477 8000 ext 3889 \/___/_/_/
Lionel Tun
>It is a known fact that the public is generally unconcerned with sound
>quality. Thus we have such monstrosities as the pre-recorded cassette.
>To that end, MD represents some "new kind of CD" that won't play their
>old stuff, and offers no _perceived_ advantage.
Hhhmm. I think MD will succeed if
1. Its hailed as a replacement for the audio tape not the CD.
2. The format is adopted for personal computer use.
Unknown
dun...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jeffrey Christopher Dunson) wrote:
>
> Minidisc will overtake CD as the music format of the masses.
I was talking to a rep from Sony at the CES show in Los Vagas this year and
he statedthat the Minidisc will take the place of tapse but not replace
discs. Their feeling is that minidisc and cds will be a match like vinil
and tape was.
Joe Peterson
: minidisc. To record a minidisc in any format other than the current
: one would render it totally unplayable on today's MD equipment. This
: is not a disputable point.
: The hardware manufactuers have made a decision in favor of perceptual
: coding methods for consumer recordable audio, and I don't see it
: changing any time soon. Even if it does, it will mandate a new format
: with more storage, one that will be different altogether from MD. MD
: players of today cannot play uncompressed audio, and that's that.
Hmmm, how do you know this? Maybe there is some "hidden code" in the
MD software that would recognize an uncompressed format and play it.
Just because there is no way to make an uncomrpessed recording (i.e.
no switch to throw) on today's MD units doesn't mean there is not a reserved
code or "magic number" that would tell a player (even a current one) to
switch to that mode.
I'm not saying this is probable, but only Sony really knows what hidden
features are there. Also, future players might (most likely will) be able
to record with different ATRAC methdods (or none). Maybe you won't be able
to play the disc on an old unit, but the MD itself doesn't have to change.
Joe
Sandy Santra
Nobody has talked about HEAT (or very little). The MZ-1 gets really *hot*
when it's recording (and even warm when it's playing). It's a runner-up
for the Pentium, really. :-) I'd be worried about the thing exploding.
I'm leaning more toward the small, compact Sony DAT D-7 these days. It's
heavy, costs $600~, but 4 hours of battery life and a 6 hour tape sound
wonderful.
***************************************************************************
* Sandy Santra _\/_ tre...@netcom.com *
* Berkeley, California /\ tre...@well.sf.ca.us *
* Ambiguous subject header/anonymous postings not read. *
***************************************************************************
Scott Fisher
>But people bought those early CD players and overpriced discs. MD
>will die and be forgotten unless Sony makes them cost-competitive with
>cassettes. Consumers aren't interested in expensive digital recording
>formats, a la the DAT saga. They want cheap solutions, especially in
>today's economy. If the new technology is cheap, they'll buy it. If
>it happens to be digital, so much the better. If it is still
>overpriced, they'll go to the store, see the demo, say "cool!" and be
>on their way, listening to their cassette walkmen without stopping to
>think.
I agree with what you say, however MD has entered the market at about 1/2
the price DAT did. DAT was outrageously expensive until interest was killed
off, then people seemed to overlook it. Now that it's cheaper it's sales
are slowly growing. Given MD is about $700 at the minute and DAT was about
$1500 whe it was first released, I see that MD may have a chance with respect
to pricing. However, it still needs to fall.
Regards Scott.
Jim McKay
1.) I won't but either MD or DCC until it looks like one format will
be the standard for re-recordable media.
2.) For the applications I used analog casettes for now, they are
quite adequate.
3.) I will buy neither MD or DCC players until they cost significantly less.
4.) I perceive pre-recorded MD's as poor quality CDs. They're too much
like CDs for me to be interested in buying pre-recorded titles. I'd
rather replace my LPs with CDs or buy CDs new.
5.) I like the fact that DCC players can play ACC as well.
6.) I would rather see record companies use theri resources to put out
CD versions of LPs that are still unavailable on CD than put MDs and/or
DCCs of more popular Madonna records.
Gabe M Wiener
>Gabe M Wiener (gm...@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
>: The hardware manufactuers have made a decision in favor of perceptual
>: coding methods for consumer recordable audio, and I don't see it
>: changing any time soon. Even if it does, it will mandate a new format
>: with more storage, one that will be different altogether from MD. MD
>: players of today cannot play uncompressed audio, and that's that.
>
>Hmmm, how do you know this? Maybe there is some "hidden code" in the
>MD software that would recognize an uncompressed format and play it.
Even if there were, it wouldn't be very useful.
To store uncompressed audio of any appreciable length would require a
different read-head design and tracking method, and probably a new
higher-density media. These would in and of themselves render the
current hardware useless.
Kerry Shetline
gm...@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) wrote (to Scott Hankin):
> You don't sweem to have a firm grasp on what "cassette audio
> processing" is. Cassette processing such as Dolby B, C, and S are
> dynamic companding systems, and equalization schemes. They have
> nothing whatsoever to do with the digital compression used in
> minidisc. To record a minidisc in any format other than the current
> one would render it totally unplayable on today's MD equipment. This
> is not a disputable point.
Actually, I think there is a little room for dispute, although without the
specifics of ATRAC I can only argue theoretically.
It seems to me that if ATRAC encoding selectively assigns bit resolutions
to different frequency bands (including no bits at all) that the playback
of the encoded data should be independent of the *specific frequency band
assignments* made during compression. That is, you should be able to alter
the compressor, perhaps using an improved psychoacoustic model, so long as
the new choices that this compressor generates yields the same data and
uses the same encoding.
-Kerry
EILIF LIEN
>My own view on this:
>
>1.) I won't but either MD or DCC until it looks like one format will
>be the standard for re-recordable media.
Even if DCC becomes the standard, I will never, NEVER, buy it. It is tape,
it wears, it is drop-outs and infinite search times, it is lossy compression
and it is NOT that much better than quality analog tapes.
If MiniDisc went out of market (though not likely to happen) I would buy it
anyway, pluss a huge pile of MD's - enough to last the next twenty years.
The later would probably not be necessary, because blank MiniDiscs will be
around anyway, because of the convenience for data storage and related
things.
>2.) For the applications I used analog casettes for now, they are
>quite adequate.
Yes, they are almost as adequate as DCC.
>3.) I will buy neither MD or DCC players until they cost significantly less.
I am sick of this yelling about prices. MD and DCC are quite new systems, MD
with a *lot* of advantages. First generation items are still out. What do
you expect?
When TV was introduced _no_one_ could afford it. But it doesn't matter!!
When compact cassette was introduced, it was ment for dictating. CC wasn't
going to die just because the masses weren't going to buy it at that time.
It was bought and used for dictating and that was it. Later, when the prices
came down and quality up a bit, it became a mass product. Almost the same
will happen to MD or DCC: the price is high now, so only inovators will
buy. Later, LATER, the mass market will follow. This is typical for _any_
good product.
>4.) I perceive pre-recorded MD's as poor quality CDs. They're too much
>like CDs for me to be interested in buying pre-recorded titles. I'd
>rather replace my LPs with CDs or buy CDs new.
There is no point in buying pre-recorded MD's. As with pre-recorded compact
cassettes. But people still buy them. And again: MD is NEVER ment to replace
CD, just CC. I own a CC-player, but not a single pre-recorded tape (still am
not that weird).
>5.) I like the fact that DCC players can play ACC as well.
Why? What's the point? Pardon me, but I don't see the great advantage
claimed. Recordings may be done again, or copied over. Far better!
from Norway,
Eilif Lien
"Nuke the whales!"
Asaur Rahman
> It seems to me that if ATRAC encoding selectively assigns bit resolutions
> to different frequency bands (including no bits at all) that the playback
> of the encoded data should be independent of the *specific frequency band
> assignments* made during compression. That is, you should be able to alter
> the compressor, perhaps using an improved psychoacoustic model, so long as
> the new choices that this compressor generates yields the same data and
> uses the same encoding.
>
> -Kerry
(the Philips DCC method) allows modification at a later date.
---
Charles King
cha...@anat.ucl.ac.uk
George Lindholm
Both systems have fixed and loose algorithms. In the Sony model, the encoding
algorithm can be changed but the playback algorithm is frozen and vice-versa
with Philips. This means that Sony is able to change what is stored on the
disc as they improve their psychoacoustic model, whereas with Philips it
implies that they already have a "perfect" psychoacoustic model (not sure
why they think they can squeeze better sound out of the same bits in the
future?).
One thing I would like to see from Sony is the ability to vary the compression
ratio depending on what I'm recording. Not sure if the data cold be passed back
and forth through "bus" fast enough though?
George
--
George Lindholm phone: (604) 822-4375
University Computing Services, UBC fax: (604) 822-5116
6356 Agricultural Road, Vancouver, B.C., Canada internet: lind...@ucs.ubc.ca
V6T 1Z2 bitnet: USERGNL@UBCMTSG
--
George Lindholm phone: (604) 822-4375
University Computing Services, UBC fax: (604) 822-5116
6356 Agricultural Road, Vancouver, B.C., Canada internet: lind...@ucs.ubc.ca
V6T 1Z2 bitnet: USERGNL@UBCMTSG
Scott Hankin
>> Extrapolation of the past. You don't have to go back very far - look at
>> the progression CD players made.
>The hubbub about CD's began in the late 1970's and continued until it
>came to the market. CD was eagerly embraced by the public even when
>it was overpriced. Nearly everyone acknowledged its advantages
>immediately. Minidisc has been greeted heretofore with a rather
>ho-hum attitude, which in this market, can be a knell for a new
>product.
Numbers? When they came out, no one I knew was willing to blow the
grand needed to enter the game. Availability of expensive discs was
minimal. You must have traveled in different circles - I didn't see
anyone eagerly embracing them. Later, as the prices dropped, sure, more
folks joined in.
But you seem to be arguing that the price dropped on $1000+ CD players
because people bought scads of them. I think you've got the order
reversed.
>> There are several versions of cassette audio processing available now.
>> Machines which use these features produce results which don't sound as
>> good on machines without them. It's a choice the user makes when
>> recording. These machines still record and playback non-processed
>> tapes. Minidiscs could be made to handle both as well.
>>>For the person not dissatisfied with cassettes (and, surprise, most
>>>people aren't dissatisfied with cassettes for their cars, walkmans, etc),
>>>MD appears as another weird format that is useless to them.
>>
>> On the contrary, to users of cassettes, minidiscs appear smaller, don't
>> wear out, don't produce tape jams, and are "cool" - they're digital,
>> right?
>But no one is buying them. It doesn't matter how "cool" it is if
>people aren't interested enough to buy it. They're not.
You are absolutely right. Few people are buying $700 cassette
replacements. When there were only 3 CD players from a single company
on the market in the same price range (higher, actually) few people
bought them either. To say it's a bit early to judge is understatement
>> The issue comes down to this. Minidiscs offer all the advantages of
>> cassettes, plus several more (don't wear, no dropouts, etc). The only
>> barrier currently is cost. Can so many people have forgotten the price
>> tag on early CD players? On early CD's?
>But people bought those early CD players and overpriced discs. MD
>will die and be forgotten unless Sony makes them cost-competitive with
>cassettes. Consumers aren't interested in expensive digital recording
>formats, a la the DAT saga. They want cheap solutions, especially in
>today's economy. If the new technology is cheap, they'll buy it. If
>it happens to be digital, so much the better. If it is still
>overpriced, they'll go to the store, see the demo, say "cool!" and be
>on their way, listening to their cassette walkmen without stopping to
>think.
How many people? I maintain that the drop in price was unrelated to
market pressures by and large, and was in fact because people were not
buying them at the initial high prices. The manufacturers pushing CD's
took the long view, and recognized early that the price had to be lower
if the format was to succeed.
>I'm still waiting for them to go out the window. People aren't gobbling
>up expensive MD's the way they gobbled up expensive CD's. People don't
>really care, and they won't at the current prices. Not a chance.
This argument seems to be of the "repeat something often enough and it
will become fact" form. You have a very different definition of
"gobbling up expensive CD's" than I do.
I don't argue that the prices must drop if minidiscs are to succeed.
The question is whether a long view company like Sony, who makes both
the technology and the software, is willing to drop the price now to
make profits later.
>The most convincing argument I have on my side is the current sales
>of minidiscs.
I'd truly love to see some credible numbers stating that the sale of
minidiscs is significantly below the sale of CD's months after they were
introduced.
>No, it just means that there _are_ predictable trends in the consumer
>electronics industry which repeat themselves. CD succeeded because of
>a particular set of consumer demands and economics that were in play at
>the time.
People lose their shirts on Wall St. by trying to apply the past to the
present. Human mass behavior is not that predictable.
>No, they refer to *price* and that's it. Only when the price is right
>will the other factrs of "digital/laser coolness" (which is, I agree,
>a big part of MD's appeal to the public) have a shot at convincing
>the buyers.
Agreed again - the price must come down. I don't think I ever stated
otherwise (I smell a straw man here.) What we disagree on is whether
they will, and what the forces are that will cause it to happen.
Len Moskowitz
>I'm leaning more toward the small, compact Sony DAT D-7 these days. It's
>heavy, costs $600~, but 4 hours of battery life and a 6 hour tape sound
>wonderful.
Actually it's being sold for under $500.
--
Len Moskowitz
mosk...@panix.com
david gwinup
number of reasons. They offer near CD quality sound on a format that the
consumer himself can record on. DAT offers CD quality sound but it's not
random access from track to track. I'd settle for slightly worse sound
quality for the random access aspect any day.
Aldo G. Cugnini
>Wear bigger shirts. :-)
I *knew* there was a flaw in that argument. ;-}
***
Really, the story goes, when a certain (nameless) far-east electronics company
was feverishly working on a miniature transistor radio that could fit in your
pocket, they had special shirts made with larger pockets to ensure that the
radio fit.
:)
S S Sturrock
>>> Have you ever tried to stick a CD in your shirt pocket?
>
>>Wear bigger shirts. :-)
No no no! What you do, and this is an important hifi tip, is you take the
CD, carefully scour two lines at right angles across the disc playing side,
don't want to scratch the top surface of course, and then you snap the
buggers into four pieces, the CD will now easily fit your pocket, even
those tiny ones you keep your change in in your jeans.
Unfortunately, not many CD players error correction can cope with discs
treated in this way, but at least they take up less space!!!!
--
\. That is biological Captain! | Shane Sturrock, BRU, Darwin Building,
(}:-( -- Mr Sturrock | University of Edinburgh, Scotland,
/' | Untied Kingdom (Split now!) :-)
EILIF LIEN
Plus: DAT is tape, wear and tear, handle with extremely care, rotating
heads, lots of mechanics and more wear and tear. Nice in a studio or in an
audiophile's home, but _not_ for the masses.
Eilif
"Nuke the whales!"
Steve Green
writes:
>In article <1993Jun7.1...@philabs.philips.com>
a...@briar.Philabs.Com
>(Aldo G. Cugnini) writes:
>>>> Have you ever tried to stick a CD in your shirt pocket?
>>
>>>Wear bigger shirts. :-)
>
>No no no! What you do, and this is an important hifi tip, is you take
the
>CD, carefully scour two lines at right angles across the disc playing
side,
>don't want to scratch the top surface of course, and then you snap the
>buggers into four pieces, the CD will now easily fit your pocket, even
>those tiny ones you keep your change in in your jeans.
>
>Unfortunately, not many CD players error correction can cope with discs
>treated in this way, but at least they take up less space!!!!
Dont listen to Shane - He's a died in the wool Flat Earther! :-)
************************************************************************
* Steve Green * "Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit outa' my hat!"
*
* Comms Group * "That trick never works"
*
* ITS Branch * "Nothin' up my sleeve - PRESTO!"
*
* CSIRO Australia * "No doubt about it - I gotta get another hat"
*
************************************************************************
* >>>>>>>>>> The views expressed above are entirely my own <<<<<<<<<<<
*
************************************************************************