It's difficult to separate quality from playability. Just where
along the continuum of quality one decides if a media is playable is
a standard that seems to be left to the discretion of the
manufactures. It would seem that publishing spec.s for recording
media would be in order. Otherwise professional users are left to
trial and error/word of mouth to determine the quality of the media.
Regarding the storage of less demanding program material, I don't
think anyone can accurately anticipate the needs of future users. 33
1/3 lp users are continuing to discover subtle sounds that have
remained buried under the noise floor of replay equipment, which
(even when inaudible) influence the playback and adds to the
listener's enjoyment. While this may not seem relevant to recording
of say, the spoken word, these weren't recorded in a vacuum.
Somewhere in those recordings are the acoustic imprints of the hall.
And digitally mapping famous acoustics have become important to
recording studios recently. Of course, this is just a wild guess on
my part. But I hope you can see my point.
Here's an interesting link to examples of acoustic sampling called
Speakerphone. The video tour is fun, try it with headphones.
On Jan 5, 2008, at 7:39 AM, David Lennick wrote:
> Incidentally, the original question re 90-minute CDs was from
> someone who wanted to put 90-minute radio programs (downloaded) on
> them for convenience. Audio quality may not be an issue, but
> reliability and playability I presume are the issues, no? Either
> they play or they don't.
> Howard Friedman wrote:
>> I thought the point was, can one get 90 minutes or more audio on a
>> CD, which one can with a Jukedisc. As to quality, that's a whole
>> different ball game! As for myself, everything I put to jukediscs
>> are 78s from 1900 to 1950, so quality becomes a rather personal