[Davesrose]

And I supported that argument by quoting Sony themselves who stated they had: “to develop a brand new way to directly record the digital audio signal onto an optical disc, instead of using a video signal from a video recording format.”!

And if people read the article, they'll see you're cherry picking!! The whole paragraph says that was one of three options for improving on the previously developed PCM-1. From that article:

"Encouraged by Nakajima's enthusiasm, Toshitada Doi and his colleagues joined the development team and began work on constructing a smaller and cheaper recorder. One of the group members, Akira Iga, had an inspiration. The frequency band used to reproduce video images was more than 200 to 300 times the frequency band of analog audio. Theoretically, this would be sufficient to record the large amounts of information necessary for digital audio. Iga wondered what would happen if he tried to make a digital audio recording using the Betamax home-use VCR, launched in 1975. Nakajima had him try immediately.

Nakajima and his team designed a PCM circuit that would perform large-scale signal processing in order to allow Betamax to record and play back digital sound rather than video images. This was called a PCM Processor, and it appeared to hold great promise. A VCR and a PCM processor used in combination constituted a digital audio tape recording system. This system was displayed at the 1976 Audio Fair and attracted considerable interest."

No I’m not! I’m clearly saying a CD standard was required that was as low as possible but above 44kHz, so even if TV broadcast standards or videotape had never been invented, the standard would have been set around 44.1kHz anyway but due to the fact in the wiki article YOU posted “44,100 is the product of the squares of the first four prime numbers (

) and hence has many useful integer factors.” and also that it’s the max supported rate by the PAL TV broadcast standard, it’s an obvious/sensible choice.

G

And you're still skating around the content of the Wikipedia article that says 44.1kHz became the basis of CD due to early PCM encoders recording on videotape (it's the second paragaph). If 44.1kHz is always the obvious choice for a digital audio format, then I guess all those other formats you listed that weren't 44.1kHz, or that the DAT standard also supports 48kHz, was all for giggles.

I think you now denying that you didn't say video standards were a factor for 44.1kHz is a good example of how you're so tied up with arguing for argument sake. Usually it's semantics, now it seems to be circular reasoning. People would read video formats being a factor when you say: "The obvious choice would be one of the two most common TV broadcast formats." (BTW, it's 2 of 3 video formats)

And with that, I'm finished with this flame war.

 

[bigshot]

I just got a player that plays 44.*2*. Even my wife can hear the difference!

 

[gregorio]

And if people read the article, they'll see you're cherry picking!!

Of course I am, I’m cherry picking the relevant facts. You on the other hand a cherry picking irrelevant facts because:

The whole paragraph says that was one of three options for improving on the previously developed PCM-1. From that article: …

No it did NOT, didn’t you even read it? It clearly states there were three decisions made, NOT one of three options. And what you quoted was true but irrelevant because after your two quoted paragraphs, the videotape PCM processor would not work with optical disk so they had to design a completely new system, unrelated to the videotape system!

If 44.1kHz is always the obvious choice for a digital audio format, then I guess all those other formats you listed that weren't 44.1kHz, or that the DAT standard also supports 48kHz, was all for giggles.

But your guess is nonsense because 44.1 was NOT the obvious choice for digital audio. In fact the obvious choice was 50kHz and that’s the choice several others took. 44.1kHz was the obvious choice for optical disk recording however. How many times do you need the obvious facts repeated?

I think you now denying that you didn't say video standards were a factor for 44.1kHz is a good example of how you're so tied up with arguing for argument sake.

1. Of course I’m denying that I said “video standards”, I because I didn’t. Show me where I stated video standards!

2. I’m arguing because your assertion that CD was based on videotape is false! You on the other hand are arguing because either you don’t like being proven incorrect or don’t even realise what you are arguing! Video tape recorders could only record a video signal, what Sony (and some others) did to start with was to convert the digital audio into a video signal and record that on a VCR. Others did not take that line of development and Sony themselves dropped it when it could not be implemented with optical disk. So CD was not and could not be based on videotape technology!!!

And with that, I'm finished with this flame war.

That’s late but still wise because there is no rational response when Sony themselves state they had to design a different system, unrelated to video signals/tape!

G

 

[bigshot]

Just let him think he won.

(You two can figure out which one I'm referring to.)