Re: [ProgSoc] I want my MP3...

[jedd <jedd@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au>]

On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Christian Kent wrote:

 ] >  Has anyone actually used a Rio here?  They go up to 64Mb, yeah?
 ] >  Seems a bit small, to my thinking.  I mean, it would scale badly,
 ] >  in physical volume, to a minidisc player and a couple of discs, say.
 ] 
 ] Are you worried about the size of RAM chips, is that it?  Their next model
 ] can easily be 128MB and use the same case, surely.

 I haven't even seen how big the RIO is -- I was, as you suspected,
 commenting on the logical size of the storage.

 Even 128Mb isn't much.  It's two hours of music, at 'near CD quality'.

 My rinky little Tecra (which isn't little) is doubling as my stereo at
 the moment.  Right now I have about 550Mb set aside for MP3's,
 and I'm already bored with most.  I have a couple of CD's packed
 with MP3s, also, that I carry with me.  It's barely enough.

 120 minutes of music would simply be a tease.

 I think the Rio is a nice idea, but the technology has yet to get
 to a point where this kind of device is practical {imho}.

 I was, earlier, making the observation that for minimal physical
 size, a Minidisc player with a half-dozen discs probably remains
 the best option.

 Or maybe something like a Libretto -- which has better storage
 and wider functionality -- the only downside is it can't handle
 an external CDROM.  *  Oh, and you wouldn't want to go jogging
 with one.

 ] I mean, I've got heaps of "MP3" audio stored on my collection of VideoCD
 ] discs, but nobody mentions that anymore  :)   That was back in the days
 ] when MP3 was a curious side-effect of MPEG video.  ("MP what-video?")

 I've started storing my MP3's to tape . . .  albeit DDS2.  At the moment
 it's more convenient to do that, than to re-collate entire CD's worth
 of the things from the originals (and do all the file-naming that goes
 with it).

 ] Yeah I bet that doing the actual encryption is a nice secret the
 ] manufacturers will keep to themselves.  Then in ten years they can start
 ] selling overpriced encoders to the semi-professional market.
 ] 
 ] In theory  :)

 As Telford points out, though, the nature of music is that at
 some stage it needs to come out as an audio or bit stream ..
 and at that point, you can capture it.  There really isn't any
 way that I can see, either, of preventing people illegally
 copying music.  (I really dislike the misuse of the word 
 'pirate' in these instances.)

 ] <shrug>  Put some credit where it's due.  Using the "but for" test is
 ] always shonky, but it lets you determine a chain of events.  So you could
 ] say that "but for" Apple, we wouldn't be using mice (as we are today).

 I disagree.

 That'd be analogous to suggesting that without the insight of
 Mr Bic and Mr Hoover, we wouldn't be using ballpoints and
 vacuum cleaners (as we are today).

 Actually, a much nicer analogy would be to suggest that
 without Canon, we wouldn't be doing any photocopying ...
 yes .. that's much better, since Xerox invented both things.

 I think even without the benefit of Steve & Steve, someone
 else would have popularized the device invented by Xerox,
 heck, it might even have been Jay Miner . . .  (the timing was
 remarkably close , particularly if you consider the design
 phase rather than just the visible retail phase).

 ] >  Unlike 8-tracks, 45's, compact casettes, vinyl, etc ... CD's are
 ] >  as good as you get (for stereo sound through a stereo speaker set).
 ] >  Minidisc isn't the same quality, no matter what anyone tells you,
 ] 
 ] Bollocks.  I tell you it's the same as CD.  Our brains aren't good enough
 ] to pick up the decompressed difference.

 I disagree.  I can pick up the difference between my original
 CD and an MP3 I copied from it, and also from a minidisc also
 copied from it.

 Consider that I [used to] play these through a fairly pleasant
 NAD / Richter combination, not some rinky Philips midi system.

 And before you observe it's the dodgy quality of the delivery
 mechanism -- the differences between the first two were still
 audible when both were played via the SB.

 As to the Minidisc .. {sigh}  .. well, it's had its quality intentionally
 degraded -- from memory it talks at 43.5kHz .. something just out
 of sync with your normal (CD) digital stream.  The compression
 algorithm on those is, apparently, remarkably similar (but not the
 same) as MP3, from my understanding.   I think those discs have
 a capacity around 100Mb.  To suggest that there would be *no*
 loss at all in the compression would be to beg contradiction.

 ] I recommend MD to anyone thinking about it out there.  The random access
 ] is the most underrated feature.

 Yes.  I quite agree.  I bought the top of the line portable Minidisc player
 NYC in March96,  and two years later the same player was considered
 top of the line in Sydney, and was being retailed at the same price I'd
 payed for it!

 It comes with analog in and out, of course .. and a digital / fibre optic
 port, but I forget whether that was input or output.  Either way, using
 the device to transport/transfer lossless quality music is not feasible.

 But you're right -- the random access is very pleasant, and the
 ability to label tracks is nice, and the re-writable nature is nice,
 and the battery life is getting better, and the discs are a convenient
 size, but both players are consumables are still horribly overpriced,
 and Sony still doesn't seem to be able to make up its mind about
 where it's going with the technology -- and the two (?) companies
 that have franchised Minidisc aren't pushing it very hard, either.

 For the life of me, I really can't understand why.  It is quite a superb
 system -- not least because it actually exists right now.

 ] If you have one, you'll be fine because it plays the old Philips compact
 ] cassette.  But it mostly competed with DAT for any serious buyers, and
 ] now, DAT, that kicks serious butt.  Hit rewind for one second and you jump
 ] three minutes or something scary  :)

 The ability to label tracks, too, was nice.  But although it could read
 compact cassettes, it couldn't write them -- so you were forced
 into several [expensive] paths -- upgrade your car stereo too
 (if you could find someone to sell you a car DCC unit), keep two
 casette decks in your HiFi .. etc.  I haven't owned a phono or casette
 system since 1991.  They're as dead as vinyl, DCC, and flared pants.

 ] The shame of it all, is that if you want to record 4 or 5 or 10 hours on
 ] one tape (in batch mode, if you will), then you've got to resort to HiFi
 ] VHS tape, believe it or not.  Despite the fact you're wasting >80% of your
 ] tracks, it's the only medium that can manage it -- and is a wide standard.

 I've done this before.  VCR's are also unique amongst hi-fi equipment
 as being time-programmable, which is odd (it's odd that it's unique).

 Nerds, of course, would stream straight to hdd, and convert on the
 way through . . .   but we can't all be nerds.  :)

 ] They haven't even come up with a feasible compression algorithm.  That's
 ] why MP3 is such an obvious choice.

 What about that big launch, uhm, say 6-ish months back?  MS was
 pushing it big time.  a2b or something, I think it was called.  It seemed
 to die a quiet death, but these things sometimes come back to haunt.

 ] To see what I mean, consider that Microsoft is jumping onto MP3 for all
 ] its streaming solutions.  Which means, as soon as it becomes too
 ] widespread, you can't simply retract and introduce an encrypted standard.

 MS are jumping into everything, though .. they're jumping into
 real-audio for the same reasons (high-compression, streaming),
 plus better -- it's a proprietary standard that has the blessing of
 the music industry.  Well, more of a blessing.   All is relative.

 Jedd.


 * New models might, and I concede that I am 
   discounting SCSI PCMCIA CDROM's.

-- 
 jedd == jedd at progsoc dot uts dot edu dot au
 "Beware the advice of successful people; 
  they do not seek company" -- Dogbert.

--
You are subscribed to the progsoc mailing list. To unsubscribe, send a
message containing "unsubscribe" to progsoc-request@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au.
If you are having trouble, ask owner-progsoc@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au for help.

This list is archived at <http://www.progsoc.uts.edu.au/lists/progsoc/>