francini@argus.DEC (This Space Available for Rent or Lease) (10/01/85)
>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. >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 Why not? Since when is it 'piracy' to strive for accuracy in recording? Why should some one be forced to put up with the losses that are undoubtably going to be incurred when the sound is run through the CD player's DAC and filters as well as the recorder's? Suppose, like a lot of people, I would want to make tapes consisting of bits and pieces of different CDs? What do I do then? The copy made through the above process will have phase distortion, frequency aberrations, and God knows what else that it wouldn't have if it were a straight bit-for-bit copy. As any computer person should know, a digital copy, as long as there are no uncorrectable data errors, is exactly the same as the original. I find it amazing that the response to my original posting is running along the lines of the above, especially as this newsgroup is supposedly devoted to the pursuit of audio perfection. Various people complain about tape hiss, distortion, and a myriad other problems that beset analog dubs of CDs. I would have thought that the concept of direct digital copying would bring tears of joy (perhaps being a little melodramatic) to the audiophile's eyes (and ears). And people wonder why audio technology is years behind the state of the art... John Francini ...decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-argus!francini
notes@isucs1.UUCP (10/14/85)
For those who may be interested... I recall seeing an article in a recent issue of Audio(?) that those who talk about such things as setting the standards for the digital tape machine were considering making the sampling rate different than a multiple of 44.1K. According to the article, this would prevent "exact <bit for bit> digital copies" of CDs. Hmmmmm. As for the original note, at least I am excited about the prosepcts of digital tape machines. Although it is easier to just pop in a disk, tapes offer the ability to arrange songs (from any disk) as you would. Also, it would be nice to record an analog album and have a "perfect" tape copy of it, rather than wearing down the albums! ($1000+ t-table owners, please dont flame ! :-} ) Dave Jobusch at Iowa State University CSNET : jobusch@iowa-state USENET/UUCP : isucs1!jobusch "...or is it just involuntary pelvic contractions?..." - Frankie GTH And they think the Boss is a lyricist...