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.