Xref: utzoo rec.audio:15194 rec.music.cd:4458 gnu.misc.discuss:257
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!usc!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!ifi!ketil
From: ketil@ifi.uio.no (Ketil Kirkerud)
Newsgroups: rec.audio,rec.music.cd,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: DAT copy protection
Message-ID: <2013@ifi.uio.no>
Date: 13 Sep 89 16:00:32 GMT
References: <sZ3O9Ae00WB_B0829S@andrew.cmu.edu>
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
Lines: 26
In-reply-to: yh0a+@andrew.cmu.edu's message of 13 Sep 89 00:41:48 GMT


In article <sZ3O9Ae00WB_B0829S@andrew.cmu.edu> yh0a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Yary Richard Phillip Hluchan) writes:

   I think it makes more sense for the DAT copy-protection to work like this:

   DAT can take 44.1 kHz data ==> 48 kHz
                              ^^^

This takes quite a bit of signal processing to do, and would raise the price
of DAT decks a LOT..

   DAT will not take 48 kHz data

   44.1 kHz is the rate CD's are recorded at, 48 kHz is the DAT rate.
   Of course, this method would not let you make DAT-to-DAT tapes of your
   daughters first glockenspiel recital, but the record companies don't care
   about that!

This, of course, will be the largest problem : My main use for DAT 
(when I get hold of one...) will be for music recording/mastering :
Not being able to make (digital) copies would seriously cripple 
the usefulness of the system : There is always som editing, etc
to be done.. 


---Ketil