Walt, you wrote,
>Different world. One more or less assumes that analog recording methods
>don't throw away data, a infinite amount of data points in and a
>infinite amount out. But it may store it imperfectly. I suppose you
>might could come up with something, since analog is a infinite amount of
>data it would be some percentage of infinity.
There are papers about the visual parallel of this being written by
people working in digital cinema...just how much data is in a
photograph?
>And you are shooting at one of my original favorite recording methods.
>Really hated it when cassette pushed reel to reel aside. I'm not
>surprised by your statement, however.
Oboy, me too. I really hate it how when younger people say "tape,"
they mean cassette. I'm so happy to see cassette on the way out. It
was amazing how much quality we were able to squeeze out of it. But
it was never stable or consistent machine-to-machine. I still have to
output edited music for ice skaters on cassette, yeech.
I'm happy to see DAT going away, too. The quality was unquestionable
(I did digital subtraction tests when I got my studio DAT deck,
verified bit-perfect transfers) but the DAT recording system could
never be reliable, due to its spinning heads and microscopic track
size on fragile tape.
>...ATRAC manages to describe all of a sound's samples in
>just 20% of the space the samples occupy.
An excellent way to put it!
-Dan Dugan
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|