francini@argus.DEC (This Space Available for Rent or Lease) (09/22/85)
I happened to read somewhere (the latest Digital Audio, I think) that the EIAJ is working on wrapping up the design of a standard for digital audio cassettes. While they have yet to decide whether the system is going to be helical-scan or linear, one thing they HAVE decided is the sampling rate. 48 kHz. This was set DELIBERATELY in order to prevent direct digital copying of CDs, with their 44.1 kHz sampling rate. The bloody bastards. John J. Francini ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-argus!francini
dhs@iddic.UUCP (David H. Straayer) (09/24/85)
In article <523@decwrl.UUCP> francini@argus.DEC writes: >..., one thing they HAVE decided is the sampling rate. 48 kHz. >This was set DELIBERATELY in order to prevent direct digital copying of >CDs, with their 44.1 kHz sampling rate. The bloody bastards. I would like to offer another point of view. I personally hope that NO widely available mechanism for faithful reproduction of CDs comes too soon. Why, you ask? For the first time since I got involved in quality audio many years ago, I can now buy source material for reasonable cost which is convenient to use and of comparable quality to the rest of my system. As long as CD quality is less bother/expense to buy than copy, the record companies have incentive to provide me with a (not quite yet) ample supply of quality music. Inexpensive/convenient copy systems will erode that incentive. I'm happy buying CD for the moment, thanks! Dave Straayer
rmd@hpcnof.UUCP (09/24/85)
I would think that someone would simply develop a low-cost chip set to do sampling rate conversion and sell it to all the consumers who want to copy CD's. Of course, most CD players don't have digital outputs and the digital cassette recorders may not have digital inputs either. Rick Dow hpfcla!r_dow
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (09/24/85)
[discussion of potential digital audio cassettes] Punch line--sampled at: > > 48 kHz. > > This was set DELIBERATELY in order to prevent direct digital copying of > CDs, with their 44.1 kHz sampling rate. Wait. Unless you have a CD player with direct digital outputs (unlikely but not impossible because people have use for digital output), and you also expect that some manufacturer is going to give you a digital audio cassette deck with a direct digital input (very unlikely--why build a product that few people can feed?), why does it matter? If you have a means of making the direct digital connection, you've probably got the wherewithal to buy (or build, or contract for) a converter. After all, it's possible to do the conversion (even if it IS messy). Actually, the strange part is that if they choose a different sampling rate, they lose a lot of what's already been done for the CD format, such as: - all the filtering circuitry work, ICs, etc. - all the digitizing of existing material, which will have to be redone starting from the (usually analog) masters again. This spells expensive. It also spells slow-to-market. Can they afford that? Are they betting that strongly against a writable CD? -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...If you plant ice, you're gonna harvest wind.
schley@mmm.UUCP (Steve Schley) (09/24/85)
In article <523@decwrl.UUCP> francini@argus.DEC writes: >I happened to read somewhere (the latest Digital Audio, I think) that the >EIAJ is working on wrapping up the design of a standard for digital audio >cassettes. While they have yet to decide whether the system is going to be >helical-scan or linear, one thing they HAVE decided is the sampling rate. > >48 kHz. > >This was set DELIBERATELY in order to prevent direct digital copying of >CDs, with their 44.1 kHz sampling rate. > >The bloody bastards. I would like to know why anyone would want to do direct, digital copying of CDs to tape. Seems to me that any such activity would be blatant violation of the copyright laws. If that is what you're after, say so plainly. Say PIRACY, not "direct digital copying". If you don't think it's piracy, let's hear why not. -- Steve Schley ihnp4!mmm!schley
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (09/30/85)
>I would like to know why anyone would want to do direct, digital >copying of CDs to tape. > >Seems to me that any such activity would be blatant violation of the >copyright laws. If that is what you're after, say so plainly. Say >PIRACY, not "direct digital copying". > >If you don't think it's piracy, let's hear why not. > Steve, Why is this piracy anymore than making tapes from records? Or making tapes from CDs (but including the D/A)? We've already dealt with these issues here, I don't think we need to go into them again. Peter B
schley@mmm.UUCP (Steve Schley) (10/01/85)
In article <1191@vax1.fluke.UUCP> tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) writes: >>I would like to know why anyone would want to do direct, digital >>copying of CDs to tape. >> >>Seems to me that any such activity would be blatant violation of the >>copyright laws. If that is what you're after, say so plainly. Say >>PIRACY, not "direct digital copying". >> >>If you don't think it's piracy, let's hear why not. >> >Steve, > >Why is this piracy anymore than making tapes from records? Or making >tapes from CDs (but including the D/A)? > >We've already dealt with these issues here, I don't think we need to go >into them again. > >Peter B There is, I think, a new issue of importance here. Photocopying is self-stifling, since I can't simply put a book in a machine and get a bound book out. Taping LPs to cassettes has been self-limiting, due to raw tape costs and the quality degradation in the analog recording process. Taping CDs to analog tapes will probably be just as self-limiting. But bit-copiers (in the computer software arena, and soon in the audio arena) produce clones -- much closer to the original than photocopies or analog cassettes. Lessons learned in the computer software market show us that, more than ever before, these copies will compete with the real thing. I doubt if photocopy or analog tape cut into even 20% of the affected markets. But bit-copies of software are said to have a tremendous impact -- I don't have figures handy, but it's far greater than 20%, and in some cases, the industry talks of multiple pirate copies in use for each legitimate one. If this happens in music publishing, we're looking at a major impact. I see the decision to make the sampling rates unique differently than John Francini. Rather than a decision to limit our freedoms, I think the industry is trying to avoid real problems that mass-market audio bit-copiers would create. That is not to say that I agree with this decision. I, too, would love to make digital copies of my CDs for use in the car, or my other audio system upstairs. I might not be able to, though, and I can understand why not. -- Steve Schley ihnp4!mmm!schley
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (10/02/85)
In article <190@mmm.UUCP> schley@mmm.UUCP (Steve Schley) writes: >In article <523@decwrl.UUCP> francini@argus.DEC writes: >>I happened to read somewhere (the latest Digital Audio, I think) that the >>EIAJ is working on wrapping up the design of a standard for digital audio >>cassettes. While they have yet to decide whether the system is going to be >>helical-scan or linear, one thing they HAVE decided is the sampling rate. >> >>48 kHz. >> >>This was set DELIBERATELY in order to prevent direct digital copying of >>CDs, with their 44.1 kHz sampling rate. >> >>The bloody bastards. > >I would like to know why anyone would want to do direct, digital >copying of CDs to tape. > >Seems to me that any such activity would be blatant violation of the >copyright laws. If that is what you're after, say so plainly. Say >PIRACY, not "direct digital copying". > >If you don't think it's piracy, let's hear why not. > >-- Most people don't consider it piracy to make a backup copy of the software they buy. That is what the person wants to copy -- the digital audio software that he has purchased. The courts uphold this interpretation of copyrights (i.e. an individual has a right to make copies of music/books etc for their own purposes). If this type of copying was illegal the courts would have found in favor of Disney and against Sony in the big VCR battle.
tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (10/02/85)
> I would like to know why anyone would want to do direct, digital > copying of CDs to tape. Assuming that digital cassettes will be the same size as standard audio cassettes, Walkman-style digital tape players can probably be made much smaller than Walkman-style CD players. If one has both a CD player for home use and a Walkman-style digital tape player for portable use, there is an obvious cost advantage to [Buying CD; buying blank tape; recording CD onto blank tape] versus [Buying CD; buying same album again on tape]. Furthermore, it is perfectly legal to save money via this route -- while the record companies may want you to buy the same album twice, they have no right to force you to do so. > Seems to me that any such activity would be blatant violation of the > copyright laws. If that is what you're after, say so plainly. Say > PIRACY, not "direct digital copying". > > If you don't think it's piracy, let's hear why not. If you own the CD, and make a copy for yourself, it's not a violation of the copyright laws. If you don't own the CD, or if you give away/sell the resulting tape without also giving away/selling the CD and all your other copies of the album, it is a violation of the copyright laws. Clearly, any system that allows copying will allow piracy. But any system that doesn't allow copying will prevent LEGAL copying as well. -- Thomas Newton
wagner@uw-june (Dave Wagner) (10/04/85)
> From: schley@mmm.UUCP (Steve Schley): > > There is, I think, a new issue of importance here. Photocopying is > self-stifling, since I can't simply put a book in a machine and get a > bound book out. Taping LPs to cassettes has been self-limiting, due to > raw tape costs and the quality degradation in the analog recording > process. Taping CDs to analog tapes will probably be just as > self-limiting. > > But bit-copiers (in the computer software arena, and soon in the audio > arena) produce clones -- much closer to the original than photocopies > or analog cassettes. Lessons learned in the computer software market > show us that, more than ever before, these copies will compete with the > real thing. The real question is, will these new recording machines have digital input/output on the back panel - because, if so, then the problem will still exist, except it will be confined to tape-tape copying. A more serious implication of these differing standards seems obvious to me: it's going to make the introduction of a purely digital music system next to impossible! Think of how nice it would be if your equalizer, ambience generator, preamp, etc. all operated on a stream of bits and output a different stream of bits. No signal degradation until you eventually convert it to analog to drive the speakers! This will never become a reality now..... *sigh* Dave Wagner University of Washington Comp Sci Department wagner@washington.arpa {ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!uw-beaver!uw-wally!wagner
eve@ssc-bee.UUCP (Michael Eve) (10/05/85)
> A more serious implication of these differing standards seems obvious > to me: it's going to make the introduction of a purely digital > music system next to impossible! Think of how nice it would be if > your equalizer, ambience generator, preamp, etc. all operated on a > stream of bits and output a different stream of bits. No signal > degradation until you eventually convert it to analog to drive the > speakers! This will never become a reality now..... > > Dave Wagner > University of Washington Comp Sci Department > wagner@washington.arpa > {ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!uw-beaver!uw-wally!wagner Not so! It just means that the digital equipment will need to be a little smarter (and more expensive). It will have to decide what the incoming data rate is and adjust its clocks/counters accordingly. I do agree that it would be much nicer and more aesthetic to have everything at the same rate. Maybe if people don't buy the digital cassettes they will have to be redesigned, or maybe someone will just introduce a digital cassette recorder with CD timing just to be different. -- Mike Eve Boeing Aerospace, Seattle ...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!eve
jbs@mit-eddie.UUCP (Jeff Siegal) (10/06/85)
In article <311@uw-june> wagner@uw-june (Dave Wagner) writes: >A more serious implication of these differing standards seems obvious >to me: it's going to make the introduction of a purely digital >music system next to impossible! Think of how nice it would be if >your equalizer, ambience generator, preamp, etc. all operated on a >stream of bits and output a different stream of bits. No signal >degradation until you eventually convert it to analog to drive the >speakers! This will never become a reality now..... What? What's the problem with being able to vary the sample rate on your "purely digital music system?" It will be a little more complex but I don't see any major technical problem with it. All you need is a digital pulse generator any you are in business. The processing of digital signals at x sample rate is the same as at y sample rate. Jeff Siegal
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (10/07/85)
What if someone comes out with a converter to let you make copies of
CDs onto digital cassettes? Since the cassettes have a higher sampling
rate than the CDs, it should be possible to make perfect copies. (I'm
not saying the converter is trivial, but it should be possible.) Would
it be legal? Why not?
--
Arthur Rudolph believed that technology is morally neutral and so,
therefore, are those who create it.
Phil Ngai +1 408 749-5720
UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPAdoug@primesun.uucp (10/13/85)
> I happened to read somewhere (the latest Digital Audio, I think) that the > EIAJ is working on wrapping up the design of a standard for digital audio > cassettes. While they have yet to decide whether the system is going to be > helical-scan or linear, one thing they HAVE decided is the sampling rate. > > 48 kHz. > > This was set DELIBERATELY in order to prevent direct digital copying of > CDs, with their 44.1 kHz sampling rate. > > The bloody bastards. > > John J. Francini > > > ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-argus!francini Sigh!!! It doesn't make any difference really... One can copy the analog signals and get very good copies. Anyone want to estimate the minimal (if any) increase in S/N, or degradation in freq. response or phase linearity.
spp@ucbvax.ARPA (Stephen P Pope) (10/18/85)
Shouldn't be too hard to interpolate the 44.1 KHz sampled digital output of a CD plaer up to the 48 KHz sample rate of the cassette player. Meanwhile, consider yourself lucky they upped the sample rate. 44.1 never satisfied a lot of audiophiles. steve