Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site opus.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!amd!vecpyr!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!hao!nbires!opus!rcd From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Re: Digital Audio Cassettes... Message-ID: <72@opus.UUCP> Date: Tue, 24-Sep-85 02:14:40 EDT Article-I.D.: opus.72 Posted: Tue Sep 24 02:14:40 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 27-Sep-85 07:25:22 EDT References: <523@decwrl.UUCP> Organization: NBI,Inc, Boulder CO Lines: 27 [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. Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com