[Free-sklyarov-uk] Article on The Register
Jim Peters
jim at uazu.net
Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:10:57 +0000
Darren Grant wrote:
> The Register seems to be following this, which is a good thing as
> they have a massive readership.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22917.html
Here are a few more links to articles related to the Natalie Imbruglia
CD situation that have been pointed out to me:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7922576.html?tag=mn_hd
http://www.go2mac.com/story.lasso?newsID=8674
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/18/0457230&mode=thread
In the slashdot article, someone pointed out Midbar's US Patent:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='6208598'.WKU.&OS=PN/6208598&RS=PN/6208598
And quoted a couple of bits (with added emphasis):
During duplication the CD encoding circuitry merely sets the
P-channel=0 while recording to the data are, and therefore the
P-channel setting of portion 60 is ignored. Thus, during playback,
the substituted audio data portion 58 is provided to the
digital-to-analog converter as normal data, resulting in audio
distortion and POTENTIALLY DAMAGING THE OUTPUT CIRCUITRY.
:::
Thus, the substitute audio data portion 58 of FIG. 4B is ignored,
and instead an interpolation, SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT to the
original portion 50 of FIG. 4A, is output, thus resulting in LITTLE
OR NO NET DIFFERENCE IN AUDIO QUALITY between the corresponding
track port 44 and 52 of FIGS. 4A and 4B
The point of the first bit is that they make the damage aspect sound
like a design goal, and the point of the second is that "substantially
equivalent" is not `exactly the same'. Someone else pointed out the
significant effect of even single-sample errors on audio quality, and
doubted that Midbar's scheme would really work as well as they hoped.
Jim
--
Jim Peters (_)/=\~/_(_) Uazú
(_) /=\ ~/_ (_)
jim@ (_) /=\ ~/_ (_) www.
uazu.net (_) ____ /=\ ____ ~/_ ____ (_) uazu.net