In Reply to: Re: Some more points . . . posted by Christine Tham on October 26, 2004 at 06:08:22:
Firstly, I note that you’ve declined to contest my other points about low-cost DVD-A hardware, hirez digital link evolution, and HD-DVD backwards compatibility.Now:-
>> ***Actually, DVD-A’s MLP makes it quite difficult to copy the audio. ***How so? i can assure you, the MLP tracks on DVD-As without CPPM are very copyable.<<MLP is not like any other form of packing, as it uses 3 different techniques to reduce filesizes, not just one as others do, plus it does not need to be decoded before playing — all the complexity is in the encoder, and the files can be played back in real time by a suitably equipped player. Sure, without CPPM, you can copy the AOB file, but the difficulty arises in extracting the six streams of original, uncompressed, editable LPCM (unless you have some sort of dubious contraption to intercept and hack the PCM from inside the player).
>> *** Couple with this techniques like "muxing" — separating out different elements of the program into separate files *** what has this to do with MLP? *** CPPM encryption *** Watermarking.
These "measures" have nothing to do with MLP whatsoever.<<
Well, not according to your definition. But DVD-A combines all these together (as does the hirez portion of DualDisc). Therefore they are associated. i.e. Together they form a product called "DVD-Audio" (which has not been hacked when all these "measures" are combined). So I don’t feel it is fair to say that they "have nothing to do with each other".
>> I totally fail to see how DualDisc will provide any sort of gateway to "future audio/video hardware and software" <<That is your sequence of words, not mine.
.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Some more points . . . - Martin419 07:26:51 10/26/04 (7)
- Re: Some more points . . . - Christine Tham 13:03:18 10/26/04 (6)
- Re: iLink - John Kotches 10:53:16 10/27/04 (3)
- 2 is 1 short of a minimum of 3 - but i acknowledge your point ... - Christine Tham 13:35:03 10/27/04 (2)
- Re: 2 is 1 short of a minimum of 3 - but i acknowledge your point ... - Martin419 04:51:18 10/28/04 (0)
- Re: 2 is 1 short of a minimum of 3 - but i acknowledge your point ... - John Kotches 14:34:16 10/27/04 (0)
- Re: Some more points . . . - Martin419 16:15:09 10/26/04 (1)
- OK, let's leave it at that - we do appear to be substantially agreeing so it's just semantics (nt) - Christine Tham 16:19:34 10/26/04 (0)