Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!caen!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!info-high-audio-request
From: 09nilles%cuavax.dnet@netcon.cua.edu (Fiver Toadflax)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: re:data compression
Message-ID: <11954@uwm.edu>
Date: 8 May 91 12:48:05 GMT
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Lines: 27
Approved: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

> From: "William K. McFadden" <bill%thd.tv.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET>
> Subject: Re: What's up with RDAT?
> Date: Wed, 1 May 1991 18:35:45 GMT
>
> This isn't as irrational as you might think.  The problem with the DCC
> compression scheme is that signal degradation occurs with each
> encoding.

I haven't seen the details(algorithm) of the DCC compression scheme, but
if it is any decient, nothing will be lost.  Afterall, look at programs
such as PCZIP, UUencode, compress.  ALL of those programs take programs,
ASCII text files, etc and shrink them.  Some better then others.  But
no data is lost unless the file gets corrupted.  And there is no difference
between a CD with music recorded on it then the CD ROMS used by computers.
I mean that both are simply a long string of 1's and 0's.  So a well written
compression routine should not have, on the average any data loss.

                 Dave

+-----------------------------------------+
|      09nilles@cuavax.dnet.cua.edu       |
| Fiver.Toadflax@f329.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG |
+-----------------------------------------+

"NOTICE:  Due to the shortage of ROBOTS and COMPUTERS
 some of our workers are HUMAN and therefore will act
 unpredictably when abused."