 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: Please do so -- and I would be glad to forward it for further analysis . . . posted by racerguy on June 30, 2004 at 06:31:10:
. . . In case you didn't know, DVD players have "DECODERS" in them! Duh.And it's for "Dolby Digital" too:-
"The following companies are official Dolby Digital professional encoder licensees. Each of these companies manufactures at least one fully certified Dolby Digital professional encoder product."
Follow Ups:
I gave you several huge clues, including clearly stating that I was talking about ENCODER licensees, and clearly stating that the list didn't say what you were looking for, but you, blinded by your own brilliance, stumbled right past them as I predicted you would. I have, since that time, clearly stated SEVERAL TIMES that the list was EXACTLY AS I DESCRIBED, and that went right over your head too.
You see, such a simple thing would not have fooled anyone who really understands the technology, but you only pretend to understand so it was breathtakingly easy to grab your nose and make you follow where I wanted.Oh, and the list does cover MLP Lossless encoder licensees. If you truly understood the way things work with DVD-A and licensing, you would know that in order to be able to author DVD-As with MLP you must also have a license to author with Dolby Digital encoding.
As your pal ZS KEKL says: LOL!
Here's a reminder of what I said 4 days ago:
Racer, i thought you had some definitive information and was merely withholding it to tease Martin.But it now appears you are essentially perpetrating a cruel joke at Martin's expense.
No matter how much you disagree with Martin's views or the way he expresses them, this is a bit unkind. Shame on you.
Christine, you are correct. I realize that setting him up was cruel. Even though he has repeatedly attempted to get my goat by calling me a names or whatever silliness he could think of, one should not treat the disadvantaged in a heartless manner regardless.Martin, I apologize for manipulating you. I took advantage of your overenthusiasm and your lack of practical knowledge to, as Christine so aptly puts it, perpetrate a cruel joke.
I am going to continue to post responses if I see you posting what I believe to be errors of fact; however, I will endeavor to be less confrontational about it. Will you agree to try this as well? These seemingly endless threads are getting to be a bit tiresome, don't you think?
I accept your apology, thanks for that, however, I don’t accept that I "lack practical knowledge". No — I am not referring to operating studio equipment — indeed that is not my profession. Neither do I claim to have practical knowledge in building DACs and ADCs, nor do I have experience in designing laser optics, and likewise regarding optimising real-time algorithms for audio codecs. etc. etc. But then the exchange we had was not about any of these things.However, in the context of what we were discussing — i.e. who licenses MLP, I can certainly assure you that I’ve known that since I first had a DVD-A player some 2.5 years ago. I’ve also met with, and interviewed, both the head of Dolby Labs UK, and of Meridian.
Moreover, it is only logical that if an OEM makes a universal transport, they must have acquired the relevant decoder licenses and have access to the technology prior to making that device. And as for the existence or otherwise of a public list of MLP licensees, well here too, I was not incorrect in my judgement — i.e. that there was no such list. What neither of us seem to know, is whether that apparent Philips transport has silently made its way into production units, or not. Certainly an internet search does not reveal very much, and the OEM is saying nothing.
I suppose if there is a type of ‘practical experience’ where I am lacking, then it is in the area of designing and implementing jokes to lead people ‘up the garden path’, so to speak. And for that, I have no regrets. I am an engineering & business journalist (with a degree in engineering), and it is my job to follow-up every avenue of information presented to me, and not to mislead. You presented me with such ‘avenues’, and I "doggedly" — as you put it — followed them up, where others may have chosen not to. The other reason I did so was that I am sure there were some folks here who really did want to know whether there was a public MLP list or not, but were too afraid to question you in case they would be rebuked. And now they do know that there isn’t one, because I pursued the issue.
In fact, I do have considerable practical experience in the area of multichannel hirez audio. I have a pretty decent system by most peoples’ standard (especially people of my age!). Indeed, I was the very first ‘civilian’ in the UK to get their hands on the Denon DVD-5900/-A11 machine, direct from the OEM, several months before it appeared in any shops, either here or in the US. And as a beta tester, I figured-out all sorts of things which I consequently relayed to Denon technical support, who then implemented my suggestions into production units which people on this very forum are benefiting directly from. Can you show examples where you have done the same?
I also naturally have ‘practical’ experience in the effects of time-alignment and bass management. In fact, bass management on the DVD-5900 is markedly improved on that machine because of my feedback on the way it was implemented on the earlier DVD-3800 and DVD-2900 machines (of which I had similar practical experience and knowledge).I could go on, but I hope I’ve made my point.
As for you, well you do certainly have practical knowledge and I respect you for it. Moreover I don’t see the conflict. Your kit is indeed impressive, and maybe one day I will have something similar. But for now my multichannel separates system is fine. I could spend four times as much, and get maybe a 15 per cent improvement in sound quality, so for now I am happy with my ‘lot’.
Hi Martin - thanks for accepting my apology. As I said, I will endeavor to be less confrontational in our discussions, and it seems that you are willing to do the same. I appreciate that, and I'm sure others will too!I would like to address a few points you made in your post.
I don’t accept that I "lack practical knowledge". No — I am not referring to operating studio equipment — indeed that is not my profession.
It's clear that you have studied up on hi-rez and its many facets. I have never questioned that; I have questioned your conclusions (sometimes in a quite unfriendly fashion). You have studied a great deal of info, but I think you would agree that your knowledge in this area is academic, or theoretical, if you prefer. I suspect that in your engineering discipline what is implemented in the field is often vastly different than what was taught to you in engineering school, for practical or pragmatic reasons. Such is the case in recording and audio technology as well. This is why I said you lacked practical knowledge; you have read papers and such on the subject, but the implementers do not always follow what the theoreticians say.
Also, spending time doing gives one a familiarity with something to the point where seeing differences between encoder/decoder are not just an intellectual understanding, they are a way of life :-)
Moreover, it is only logical that if an OEM makes a universal transport, they must have acquired the relevant decoder licenses and have access to the technology prior to making that device.
This is not quite accurate. The decoder circuitry is not part of the mechanicals; decoder circuitry is mounted on a separate circuit board (or boards). Therefore Linn can buy a raw transport mechanism from Sony that simply spins and reads the raw data from a disc; it does not care how the data are encoded. Linn builds its own decoder circuitry that interprets the raw data. Sony does not need to license anything, they just need to build a mechanism with the proper laser wavelengths to read the physical media. There are some Philips-based players (most notably the Tri Vista SACD player) that have been shown to read DADs, thus indicating that the raw Philips transport used could serve as a "universal" transport like the Sony, but Musical Fidelity chose not to implement the decoder circuitry for MLP or video.
OTOH there are OEM kits for building "universal" players, which is where your theory may have come from. The most well-known of these kits are from Pioneer and Denon, but Linn also offers one. The kits aren't simply a transport - they are a transport coupled with logic boards containing the decoder circuitry for various audio formats and MPEG. These allow companies to build players based on a package. Pioneer and Denon could, if they chose, buy the mechanicals from Sony/Philips and just provide the electronics, as Linn does. Again, this does not mean that Sony/Philips are offering "universal" players or "universal" kits.
The other reason I did so was that I am sure there were some folks here who really did want to know whether there was a public MLP list or not, but were too afraid to question you in case they would be rebuked.
Well, I suspect that the primary reason no one got involved was because no one is really that interested in the rather dull and tiresome back-and-forth we've engaged in at times. ;-)
In fact, I do have considerable practical experience in the area of multichannel hirez audio.
Indeed. There is no doubt about that, and to the best of my recollection I have never questioned your knowledge or experience in that particular area. My complaints have been, as noted above and in the past, about your conclusions, and your clear bias toward one particular format and against all others.
I have a pretty decent system by most peoples’ standard (especially people of my age!).
Certainly. I have mentioned to you before that I have some similar equipment in my Home Theater, and I am well aware of its capabilities. I have stated that I consider my HT gear to be better kit than many peoples' "high end" music systems, and I would agree that yours fits into that category as well.
As for you, well you do certainly have practical knowledge and I respect you for it.
Thank you. Given our history, that was a very kind thing to say.
You're a true huckster indeed.
.
On June 28th Wilkes correctly said this:-
> > To make the player, you must be a licensee < <
Your follow-up post said this:> > There's absolutely no concrete data that indicates Philips is an MLP licensee. They do not appear on the public licensee list. < <
(clearly in reference to the licenses required for making DVD players and their associated decoders.) Therefore at that time you did not know what you were talking about.
Later you realised your folly. Hence your truly bizarre, but weak get-out 'strategy'. Indeed, it's plain for anybody to see why you did not want me to pursue you and force you to reveal the irrelevant 'list'.
The Huckster Racer will not be believed again. You need a new moniker. But we’d smell you out soon enough. Best thing for you would be to not to come back at all.
.
.
.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
