Xref: utzoo comp.compression:421 alt.comp.compression:220 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!smsc.sony.com!dce From: dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) Newsgroups: comp.compression,alt.comp.compression Subject: Re: Compression of 16-bit sound files. Message-ID: <1991Apr21.163607.2175@smsc.sony.com> Date: 21 Apr 91 16:36:07 GMT References: <1991Apr21.002203.4414@nntp-server.caltech.edu> <1991Apr21.020231.8109@bmerh408.bnr.ca> Organization: Sony Microsystems Corp, San Jose, CA Lines: 21 In article <1991Apr21.020231.8109@bmerh408.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes: >I wonder why no compression was used? Certainly the IC technology at that time >was advanced enough to have made it a cheap proposition. The FIR (I guess...) >filters used to interpolate between samples in most CD players must take up at >least as much silicon as a delta-modulation decoder. Advanced enough, yes, but I doubt it was cheap and rugged enough. As it was, many people didn't buy CD players for years because of high cost and questionable reliability. Also, the goal wasn't to come up with a storage mechanism that would hold tons of data, but to come up with a good replacement for a vinyl record. All they had to do was to create a medium that would hold 35 minutes worth of music, and they went much further than that. As it stands, very few artists fill up CDs. At best, they add a few B-sides or EP songs to help justify the added cost. I haven't studied the data headers, but I suspect that there's no reason that a compressed audio CD standard couldn't be developed. It's just a question of whether there's a need.