As you can read in this month's "Industry Update" (pp.35 & 37), the two conglomerates who hitherto seemed driven to offer the world two competing standards for the forthcoming Digital Video Disc came to their senses. Instead of consumers being offered Toshiba/Warner/Matsushita's SD and Sony/Philips's MCD, there will be just one high-density 4.75" disc to take both video and audio data storage into the 21st century.
There's still one area of the proposed standard that sucks big-time, however: the multi-channel surround-sound audio soundtracks for DVD's MPEG-2-encoded digital movies will still be squeezed down to a rate of a few hundred kilobits/second using a lossy compression algorithm, most probably Dolby's AC-3. Every piece of Home Theater market research indicates that the improvement in sound quality drives purchases (that and the ability to watch live sports (footnote 1) with enhanced picture quality). Play a movie with better sound, and everyone thinks the picture quality has been improved. Yet the video and cinema industries appear to think it a good idea to level down the sound quality on DVD in order to free up data space for multiple-language soundtracks.
Is lossy audio data compression really that bad? As I write these words, I've just returned from the 99th Audio Engineering Society Convention, held at New York's Jacob Javits Center last October (full report next month). Over and over again, the message at the Convention from engineers who have been evaluating lossy data-reduction algorithms in rigorous listening tests was that not one was audibly transparent! Sure, there were some kinds of music or sound in which listeners couldn't detect any degradation—but every algorithm failed most of the time to pass the transparency test, and every one failed catastrophically on some signals.
In one AES workshop, for instance, we were played one such example: the sound of a pitch pipe. Because of the simple nature of the signal—three tones accompanied by wind noise—there was no psychoacoustic masking, and all the compression artifacts were gloriously audible. Complex film soundtracks are kinder, in that there are plenty of places for the compression nasties to hide, but the worry is that what one sensitive person might hear now, everyone will hear in five years' time.
The irony is, you wouldn't need to steal much bandwidth from the DVD's video data to vastly improve the prospects for audio, perhaps even making possible the use of a lossless algorithm. But am I alone in thinking that for the consumer electronics industry to lock into a standard featuring a lossy audio algorithm with audibly demonstrable flaws is madness?
Regarding the High Quality Audio Disc prospects for DVD, things look more promising. As Peter Mitchell writes in this month's "Update," the most exciting prospect for HQAD is that the one disc would carry every quality option. At its most basic level, a music HQAD would include some kind of data-reduced music signal in order to be compatible with video DVD players. The next step up in quality would be "Red-Book CD Standard" two-channel data, and this would be encoded on just one of the data layers, allowing HQADs to be played back on conventional CD players. The ultimate quality signal—multi-channel, 24-bit-precision, with perhaps a 96kHz sampling rate—would coexist with the other two formats on the same disc, but would need a new player to be accessible.
I find this idea the work of genius. As well as offering premium-quality sound, the one medium would replace both analog cassette and CD. Not only would the record retailer be able to stock just a single inventory; also, the "Super CD" would offer customers something they haven't seen to any great extent since LPs' heyday: freedom of choice when it comes to quality.
Every HQAD purchaser could have the level of audio quality they're prepared to pay for. And should someone decide at a later date to upgrade their playback system, their investment in software wouldn't have been wasted. All they'd need to access the better sound is a new player. This combination of backward compatibility with CD and forward upgradeability maximizes the HQAD's commercial prospects—unless some mouth-breathing corporate knuckle-draggers decide against it. Or if the days of purchasing a physical item are over, and we'll all be downloading our digital music from the Internet instead.
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1295awsi/
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Bits is Bits, Right?
"Never explain, never apologize." But in this month's "As We See It," I intend to do both. First, the apology:
To all those who ordered our Concert double-CD set and had to wait a long time to receive it: we're sorry about the delay. This project was described in the November 1994 issue of Stereophile; at the time of writing, I didn't imagine that we would have problems after the digital masters had been edited and sent off to the CD-pressing plant. Little did I know!
When I transferred the original analog tapes to digital, I used the Manley 20-bit ADC to feed our Sonic Solutions hard-disk editor, which can store up to 24-bit words. I did all the editing and master assembly at 20-bit resolution, then experimented with the various redithering/noise-shaping algorithms offered by the Meridian 618 processor to preserve as much as possible of the 20-bit quality when the word length was reduced to 16 bits on the CD master.
When I sent the master Concert CD-Rs off to the CD plant, therefore, I requested that the mastering engineer who was going to add the track'n'timing PQ subcodes do nothing to my data. In particular, I requested that he not remove DC offset (I had hand-trimmed the ADC for every transfer), not re-equalize, not change levels, etc. Most important, I requested that he not go to analog for any reason. The carefully prepared 16-bit words on my master were the ones I wanted to appear on the commercial CD.
Incidentally, an A/B comparison between the 20-bit data and the same data truncated to 16 bits—the four Least Significant Bits (LSBs) are simply chopped off—reveals the difference to be not at all subtle. If not quite, in the words of Ivan Berger of Audio, such a "gross" difference that my mother would immediately notice it, truncation nevertheless seems to be relatively easily identifiable—in short, like "traditional," "fatiguing" CD sound.
It's also interesting to note that the fact that my original had been analog tape with a noise floor higher than that of the 16-bit system wasn't a factor in these comparisons. Although many observers hold that analog noise ahead of the A/D converter effectively dithers it, this is not necessarily true. The noise is treated as part of the original signal, and is encoded as accurately or as inaccurately as the ADC allows. (The correct use of dither at the LSB level is a different issue.)
When I received test CD-Rs from the mastering engineer, who awaited my approval of them before starting the plant's presses rolling, I was horrified to find that the CD-Rs sounded different from my masters. In fact, before I even did any comparisons, I noticed that the CD-Rs sounded like the truncated samples of the Chopin Waltz I had used in my listening tests. I asked others at Stereophile to compare one of the CD-Rs with one I'd made when I did the original reduction to 16-bit word lengths. They heard the same difference. I then compared the pressing plant's CD-R against a DAT I had copied from the 16-bit master. Surprisingly, there was less of an audible difference, probably because my DAT recorder has high measured levels of datastream jitter; but the DAT still sounded fundamentally like what I'd intended the sound to be—in Linn terminology, it "played tunes"; the production CD-Rs didn't.
To make a long story short: I uploaded the production CD-R data into the Sonic Solutions and tried to null it against my original 16-bit data, which had been archived to 8mm Exabyte tape. As described by Bob Katz last December (Vol.17 No.12, pp.81-83), you feed the outputs of the two pairs of stereo digital tracks to the Sonic's digital mixer, then slide one pair of tracks backward and forward in time with respect to the other until you get sample synchronization, then flip that pair's polarity. If the data are the same, you get total—and I mean total—cancellation/silence. If not, the nature of the residue tells you where differences have been introduced. (I'm currently developing this technique as a much more meaningful version of the Hafler/Carver/Walker nulling test for amplifiers.)
Both my CD-R master and the DAT clone I'd made of it nulled totally against the 16-bit archive data, revealing that I had not made an error in the master preparation. However, not only could I not null the production data against the archive, the production master was longer by one video frame (1/30 of a second) every 20 minutes of program. This appears to show that the mastering engineer either a) used a sample-rate converter, or b) converted my carefully prepared data to analog, then reconverted it to digital using a 16-bit ADC with a sample clock running very slightly slower than mine (by just 1.2Hz!). What was incontrovertible was that all my careful work to preserve as much as possible of the 20-bit original's quality had been for naught.
Already having accepted that this would delay our customers receiving their discs, there was only one thing I could do. (Please note that we do not process credit-card orders or cash checks until the day we actually put product in the mail.) I prepared new 16-bit masters, sent them off this time to Digital Brothers in Costa Mesa, CA to have the PQ subcode data inserted, and instructed the pressing plant again to do nothing to the data. This time, when I received the test CDs, they nulled perfectly against the archived masters!
How common among CD-mastering engineers is the practice of changing the data when there's no reason for them to do so? Linn Products' Brian Drummond mentioned on CompuServe's CEAUDIO forum that, in the early days of CD, Linn Records sent off a digital master tape to the mastering plant and got back a CD with different numbers on it. "We did a bit-by-bit comparison against the master—they weren't the same."
A conversation I had with Reference Recordings' Keith Johnson at last November's AES Convention (see the report in this issue's "Industry Update") revealed that he initially had the same problem with his HDCD®-encoded recordings. In these, the additional high-resolution data are encrypted in the LSBs in a proprietary manner. Any DSP, even level-changing, will change the words and therefore destroy the encoding.
Keith related to me that the first test disc cut from his HDCD masters not only sounded wrong, it wouldn't illuminate the HDCD LED on his prototype decoder. In fact, it was no longer an HDCD recording. It turned out that that particular mastering engineer routinely converted every digital master to analog, then back to digital! Other mastering engineers never switch off the default input DSP options on their hard-disk editors, not realizing that, with 16-bit data, this will reintroduce quantizing noise. No wonder so many CDs sound bad!
As well as indicating the dangers of entrusting your work to the hands of others with different agendas, this story is interesting in that all the changes made to my data were at such a low level—30dB or more below the analog tape hiss—that proponents of "bits is bits" would argue that, whatever the mastering engineer had done, the differences introduced should have been inaudible. Yet what had alerted me to the fact that the data had been changed was a significant change in the quality of the sound—a degradation that I heard even without having the originals on hand for an A/B comparison!
Those who continually point out in Stereophile's "Letters" column that the differences in sound quality discussed by our writers are imaginary and probably due to the placebo effect should note that I had huge emotional and financial investments in wanting the production CD-Rs to sound the same as the originals. If I were to hear any difference, it would both cost Stereophile quite a lot of money to have the project remastered and delay our customers receiving their Concert CDs. In fact, it took time to work through the cognitive dissonance to recognize that I was hearing a difference when I expected—and wanted to hear—none.
"Bits is bits"? In theory, yes. In practice? Yeah, right!
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/372/
To all those who ordered our Concert double-CD set and had to wait a long time to receive it: we're sorry about the delay. This project was described in the November 1994 issue of Stereophile; at the time of writing, I didn't imagine that we would have problems after the digital masters had been edited and sent off to the CD-pressing plant. Little did I know!
When I transferred the original analog tapes to digital, I used the Manley 20-bit ADC to feed our Sonic Solutions hard-disk editor, which can store up to 24-bit words. I did all the editing and master assembly at 20-bit resolution, then experimented with the various redithering/noise-shaping algorithms offered by the Meridian 618 processor to preserve as much as possible of the 20-bit quality when the word length was reduced to 16 bits on the CD master.
When I sent the master Concert CD-Rs off to the CD plant, therefore, I requested that the mastering engineer who was going to add the track'n'timing PQ subcodes do nothing to my data. In particular, I requested that he not remove DC offset (I had hand-trimmed the ADC for every transfer), not re-equalize, not change levels, etc. Most important, I requested that he not go to analog for any reason. The carefully prepared 16-bit words on my master were the ones I wanted to appear on the commercial CD.
Incidentally, an A/B comparison between the 20-bit data and the same data truncated to 16 bits—the four Least Significant Bits (LSBs) are simply chopped off—reveals the difference to be not at all subtle. If not quite, in the words of Ivan Berger of Audio, such a "gross" difference that my mother would immediately notice it, truncation nevertheless seems to be relatively easily identifiable—in short, like "traditional," "fatiguing" CD sound.
It's also interesting to note that the fact that my original had been analog tape with a noise floor higher than that of the 16-bit system wasn't a factor in these comparisons. Although many observers hold that analog noise ahead of the A/D converter effectively dithers it, this is not necessarily true. The noise is treated as part of the original signal, and is encoded as accurately or as inaccurately as the ADC allows. (The correct use of dither at the LSB level is a different issue.)
When I received test CD-Rs from the mastering engineer, who awaited my approval of them before starting the plant's presses rolling, I was horrified to find that the CD-Rs sounded different from my masters. In fact, before I even did any comparisons, I noticed that the CD-Rs sounded like the truncated samples of the Chopin Waltz I had used in my listening tests. I asked others at Stereophile to compare one of the CD-Rs with one I'd made when I did the original reduction to 16-bit word lengths. They heard the same difference. I then compared the pressing plant's CD-R against a DAT I had copied from the 16-bit master. Surprisingly, there was less of an audible difference, probably because my DAT recorder has high measured levels of datastream jitter; but the DAT still sounded fundamentally like what I'd intended the sound to be—in Linn terminology, it "played tunes"; the production CD-Rs didn't.
To make a long story short: I uploaded the production CD-R data into the Sonic Solutions and tried to null it against my original 16-bit data, which had been archived to 8mm Exabyte tape. As described by Bob Katz last December (Vol.17 No.12, pp.81-83), you feed the outputs of the two pairs of stereo digital tracks to the Sonic's digital mixer, then slide one pair of tracks backward and forward in time with respect to the other until you get sample synchronization, then flip that pair's polarity. If the data are the same, you get total—and I mean total—cancellation/silence. If not, the nature of the residue tells you where differences have been introduced. (I'm currently developing this technique as a much more meaningful version of the Hafler/Carver/Walker nulling test for amplifiers.)
Both my CD-R master and the DAT clone I'd made of it nulled totally against the 16-bit archive data, revealing that I had not made an error in the master preparation. However, not only could I not null the production data against the archive, the production master was longer by one video frame (1/30 of a second) every 20 minutes of program. This appears to show that the mastering engineer either a) used a sample-rate converter, or b) converted my carefully prepared data to analog, then reconverted it to digital using a 16-bit ADC with a sample clock running very slightly slower than mine (by just 1.2Hz!). What was incontrovertible was that all my careful work to preserve as much as possible of the 20-bit original's quality had been for naught.
Already having accepted that this would delay our customers receiving their discs, there was only one thing I could do. (Please note that we do not process credit-card orders or cash checks until the day we actually put product in the mail.) I prepared new 16-bit masters, sent them off this time to Digital Brothers in Costa Mesa, CA to have the PQ subcode data inserted, and instructed the pressing plant again to do nothing to the data. This time, when I received the test CDs, they nulled perfectly against the archived masters!
How common among CD-mastering engineers is the practice of changing the data when there's no reason for them to do so? Linn Products' Brian Drummond mentioned on CompuServe's CEAUDIO forum that, in the early days of CD, Linn Records sent off a digital master tape to the mastering plant and got back a CD with different numbers on it. "We did a bit-by-bit comparison against the master—they weren't the same."
A conversation I had with Reference Recordings' Keith Johnson at last November's AES Convention (see the report in this issue's "Industry Update") revealed that he initially had the same problem with his HDCD®-encoded recordings. In these, the additional high-resolution data are encrypted in the LSBs in a proprietary manner. Any DSP, even level-changing, will change the words and therefore destroy the encoding.
Keith related to me that the first test disc cut from his HDCD masters not only sounded wrong, it wouldn't illuminate the HDCD LED on his prototype decoder. In fact, it was no longer an HDCD recording. It turned out that that particular mastering engineer routinely converted every digital master to analog, then back to digital! Other mastering engineers never switch off the default input DSP options on their hard-disk editors, not realizing that, with 16-bit data, this will reintroduce quantizing noise. No wonder so many CDs sound bad!
As well as indicating the dangers of entrusting your work to the hands of others with different agendas, this story is interesting in that all the changes made to my data were at such a low level—30dB or more below the analog tape hiss—that proponents of "bits is bits" would argue that, whatever the mastering engineer had done, the differences introduced should have been inaudible. Yet what had alerted me to the fact that the data had been changed was a significant change in the quality of the sound—a degradation that I heard even without having the originals on hand for an A/B comparison!
Those who continually point out in Stereophile's "Letters" column that the differences in sound quality discussed by our writers are imaginary and probably due to the placebo effect should note that I had huge emotional and financial investments in wanting the production CD-Rs to sound the same as the originals. If I were to hear any difference, it would both cost Stereophile quite a lot of money to have the project remastered and delay our customers receiving their Concert CDs. In fact, it took time to work through the cognitive dissonance to recognize that I was hearing a difference when I expected—and wanted to hear—none.
"Bits is bits"? In theory, yes. In practice? Yeah, right!
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/372/
Monday, June 4, 2007
Hi-Rez Media: When Will They Learn?
No!"
I was somewhat surprised by my lack of equivocation. The time was January 2005, the scene was the International Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, and I had just been asked by a high-end audio company if they should devote their engineering resources to developing a Super Audio CD player.
My response was perhaps even more puzzling because, the day before I flew out to Las Vegas, I had turned in the report on the dCS Verona Master Clock that appears in this issue (p.115). That review turned out significantly longer than I'd expected because I ended up including a "Follow-Up" on the complete dCS SACD playback system. As you can read, I felt that SACDs played back on this $45,000, four-box rig produced the finest sound I have experienced in my system. So why did I not hesitate to answer "No!"?
A writer was once asked what he thought about something. "I don't know," he reportedly replied. "I haven't written about it yet." His point was that the act of writing forces opinions to crystallize from an undigested soup of ideas and experiences. Similarly, while I had been absorbing data on the state of SACD and DVD-Audio over the past months, it was the manufacturer's direct question that "collapsed the wave function" and forced me to integrate those data into a single-word answer.
Five years after the launch of SACD and four after that of DVD-A (originally scheduled for 1999, the DVD-A launch was delayed by a Norwegian teenager's hacking of the CSS copy-protection code used by DVD), the hi-rez media are showing many signs of health. Almost 250 record labels have offered a total of almost 3000 titles on SACD, and more than 110 labels offer DVD-As. (The number of DVD-A titles is hard to determine, but appears to be around half the number of SACD releases.) The advent of low-cost DVD-A burning programs, such as Minnetonka Software's Discwelder Bronze program for PCs and Macs (see "Letters," p.11), and the introduction of new SACD mastering systems at last November's AES Convention are also welcome portents.
Recent major releases from modern mainstream artists are appearing on the hi-rez media—Jamie Cullum, Diana Krall, Tierney Sutton, Alicia Keyes—but so are significant numbers of back-catalog titles. Obscure rock artists such as Nick Drake are now available on SACD, the Grateful Dead can be found on DVD-A, and even the Carpenters' Singles 1969–1981 has been released on SACD. Classical music lovers are enjoying the release of the RCA Living Stereo, Mercury Living Presence, and Philips (Pentatone) catalogs on SACD, and the Nimbus catalog on DVD-A. Jazz lovers can browse the Concord, Vanguard, Fantasy, and Groove Note catalogs on SACD. And Classic Records continues to promote DVD-Video as a carrier for hi-rez music with its post-CES release of that audiophile favorite, the Casino Royale soundtrack, in both 24-bit/96kHz and 24/192 formats.
Things also look healthy on the hardware front. The 2005 CES witnessed new high-end SACD, DVD-A, and universal players from Ayre Acoustics, Conrad-Johnson, Cary, Denon, Esoteric, Meridian, and Sony Qualia. Musical Fidelity and dCS say they will introduce new SACD players later this year. And you'd think that the existence of something like the Pioneer DV-578A-S universal player, which I recently purchased from www.audioadvisor.com for just $129, could catalyze the acceptance of the new media by the mass market.
The underlying reality, however, is that neither SACD nor DVD-A has yet developed significant market traction. Despite the appeal to some listeners of the media's multichannel content, the public is voting with their wallets (when the record industry can persuade them to part with cold cash) for downloadable, data-compressed, two-channel music files.
The news last November that, in the first six months of 2004, deliveries to US record retailers of SACDs and DVD-As combined were lower than those of the supposedly obsolete LP gave me pause. Yes, there may be almost 3000 SACD titles available, but if the overall US shipments were 300,000 in January–June 2004, as claimed by the RIAA, that means that only 100 units, on average, of each title were offered to retail customers in that period. Even if you consider that the RIAA figures appear to omit hybrid SACDs, which are racked in record stores as regular CDs, and which account for half of all SACD titles, these statistics do not describe a market that has much to offer, other than engineering prestige, to an audio company thinking of offering a new SACD player.
The mystery, to me at least, is why Sony's own labels have not been more aggressive in promoting SACD. And as Jon Iverson wrote in this space in January, the DVD-Audio folks appear to be abandoning DVD-A in favor of DualDisc.With DVD-A or -V data on one side and CD on the other, the hope is that the DualDisc, like the hybrid SACD, will spread by stealth (footnote 1) (see "Letters," p.15 and "Update," p.17).
But, of course, that strategy does not take into account the forthcoming battle between two mutually incompatible disc media that use a blue-laser pickup, the 25GB Blu-ray format and the 15GB HD-DVD format (both figures refer to a single-sided, single-layer disc). As well as high-definition video, Blu-ray offers standard Dolby Digital and DTS-HD for audio, and is supported by Sony, Pioneer, and Panasonic, all of whom demonstrated Blu-ray players at CES. (There was no indication at CES whether the DSD encoding used on SACD will be used on Blu-ray.) HD-DVD, supported by Toshiba, Microsoft, and the DVD Forum, offers hi-def video and audio specifications similar to DVD-Audio, with MLP, DTS-HD, and Dolby Digital Plus, and is said to be coming to market later this year.
First we lived through VHS vs Beta, where there was a clear winner. Then we almost had a war of Toshiba-Warner-Matsushita's SD vs Sony-Philips' MCD, averted only when the two sides came to their senses in 1995 to collaborate on DVD. Then we lived through DVD-A vs SACD, with neither format winning. And now we have Blu-ray vs HD-DVD, which, as well as further confusing consumers, could well draw their progenitors' attention away from the current hi-rez audio battle.
When will they learn?
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/305awsi/
I was somewhat surprised by my lack of equivocation. The time was January 2005, the scene was the International Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, and I had just been asked by a high-end audio company if they should devote their engineering resources to developing a Super Audio CD player.
My response was perhaps even more puzzling because, the day before I flew out to Las Vegas, I had turned in the report on the dCS Verona Master Clock that appears in this issue (p.115). That review turned out significantly longer than I'd expected because I ended up including a "Follow-Up" on the complete dCS SACD playback system. As you can read, I felt that SACDs played back on this $45,000, four-box rig produced the finest sound I have experienced in my system. So why did I not hesitate to answer "No!"?
A writer was once asked what he thought about something. "I don't know," he reportedly replied. "I haven't written about it yet." His point was that the act of writing forces opinions to crystallize from an undigested soup of ideas and experiences. Similarly, while I had been absorbing data on the state of SACD and DVD-Audio over the past months, it was the manufacturer's direct question that "collapsed the wave function" and forced me to integrate those data into a single-word answer.
Five years after the launch of SACD and four after that of DVD-A (originally scheduled for 1999, the DVD-A launch was delayed by a Norwegian teenager's hacking of the CSS copy-protection code used by DVD), the hi-rez media are showing many signs of health. Almost 250 record labels have offered a total of almost 3000 titles on SACD, and more than 110 labels offer DVD-As. (The number of DVD-A titles is hard to determine, but appears to be around half the number of SACD releases.) The advent of low-cost DVD-A burning programs, such as Minnetonka Software's Discwelder Bronze program for PCs and Macs (see "Letters," p.11), and the introduction of new SACD mastering systems at last November's AES Convention are also welcome portents.
Recent major releases from modern mainstream artists are appearing on the hi-rez media—Jamie Cullum, Diana Krall, Tierney Sutton, Alicia Keyes—but so are significant numbers of back-catalog titles. Obscure rock artists such as Nick Drake are now available on SACD, the Grateful Dead can be found on DVD-A, and even the Carpenters' Singles 1969–1981 has been released on SACD. Classical music lovers are enjoying the release of the RCA Living Stereo, Mercury Living Presence, and Philips (Pentatone) catalogs on SACD, and the Nimbus catalog on DVD-A. Jazz lovers can browse the Concord, Vanguard, Fantasy, and Groove Note catalogs on SACD. And Classic Records continues to promote DVD-Video as a carrier for hi-rez music with its post-CES release of that audiophile favorite, the Casino Royale soundtrack, in both 24-bit/96kHz and 24/192 formats.
Things also look healthy on the hardware front. The 2005 CES witnessed new high-end SACD, DVD-A, and universal players from Ayre Acoustics, Conrad-Johnson, Cary, Denon, Esoteric, Meridian, and Sony Qualia. Musical Fidelity and dCS say they will introduce new SACD players later this year. And you'd think that the existence of something like the Pioneer DV-578A-S universal player, which I recently purchased from www.audioadvisor.com for just $129, could catalyze the acceptance of the new media by the mass market.
The underlying reality, however, is that neither SACD nor DVD-A has yet developed significant market traction. Despite the appeal to some listeners of the media's multichannel content, the public is voting with their wallets (when the record industry can persuade them to part with cold cash) for downloadable, data-compressed, two-channel music files.
The news last November that, in the first six months of 2004, deliveries to US record retailers of SACDs and DVD-As combined were lower than those of the supposedly obsolete LP gave me pause. Yes, there may be almost 3000 SACD titles available, but if the overall US shipments were 300,000 in January–June 2004, as claimed by the RIAA, that means that only 100 units, on average, of each title were offered to retail customers in that period. Even if you consider that the RIAA figures appear to omit hybrid SACDs, which are racked in record stores as regular CDs, and which account for half of all SACD titles, these statistics do not describe a market that has much to offer, other than engineering prestige, to an audio company thinking of offering a new SACD player.
The mystery, to me at least, is why Sony's own labels have not been more aggressive in promoting SACD. And as Jon Iverson wrote in this space in January, the DVD-Audio folks appear to be abandoning DVD-A in favor of DualDisc.With DVD-A or -V data on one side and CD on the other, the hope is that the DualDisc, like the hybrid SACD, will spread by stealth (footnote 1) (see "Letters," p.15 and "Update," p.17).
But, of course, that strategy does not take into account the forthcoming battle between two mutually incompatible disc media that use a blue-laser pickup, the 25GB Blu-ray format and the 15GB HD-DVD format (both figures refer to a single-sided, single-layer disc). As well as high-definition video, Blu-ray offers standard Dolby Digital and DTS-HD for audio, and is supported by Sony, Pioneer, and Panasonic, all of whom demonstrated Blu-ray players at CES. (There was no indication at CES whether the DSD encoding used on SACD will be used on Blu-ray.) HD-DVD, supported by Toshiba, Microsoft, and the DVD Forum, offers hi-def video and audio specifications similar to DVD-Audio, with MLP, DTS-HD, and Dolby Digital Plus, and is said to be coming to market later this year.
First we lived through VHS vs Beta, where there was a clear winner. Then we almost had a war of Toshiba-Warner-Matsushita's SD vs Sony-Philips' MCD, averted only when the two sides came to their senses in 1995 to collaborate on DVD. Then we lived through DVD-A vs SACD, with neither format winning. And now we have Blu-ray vs HD-DVD, which, as well as further confusing consumers, could well draw their progenitors' attention away from the current hi-rez audio battle.
When will they learn?
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/305awsi/
Sony halts production of CDs with copy-protection scheme
WASHINGTON — Stung by continuing criticism, the world's second-largest music label, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, promised Friday to temporarily suspend making music CDs with anti-piracy technology that can leave computers vulnerable to hackers.
Sony defended its right to prevent customers from illegally copying music but said it will halt manufacturing CDs with the "XCP" technology as a precautionary measure. "We also intend to re-examine all aspects of our content protection initiative to be sure that it continues to meet our goals of security and ease of consumer use," the company said in a statement.
The anti-piracy technology, which works only on Windows computers, prevents customers from making more than a few copies of the CD and prevents them from loading the CD's songs onto Apple Computer's popular iPod portable music players. Some other music players, which recognize Microsoft's proprietary music format, would work.
Sony's announcement came one day after leading security companies disclosed that hackers were distributing malicious programs over the Internet that exploited the anti-piracy technology's ability to avoid detection. Hackers discovered they can effectively render their programs invisible by using names for computer files similar to ones cloaked by the Sony technology.
Sony's program is included on about 20 popular music titles, including releases by Van Zant and The Bad Plus.
"This is a step they should have taken immediately," said Mark Russinovich, chief software architect at Internals Software who discovered the hidden copy-protection technology Oct. 31 and posted his findings on his Web log. He said Sony did not admit any wrongdoing, nor did it promise not to use similar techniques in the future.
Security researchers have described Sony's technology as "spyware," saying it is difficult to remove, transmits without warning details about what music is playing, and that Sony's notice to consumers about the technology was inadequate. Sony executives have rejected the description of their technology as spyware.
Some leading anti-virus companies updated their protective software this week to detect Sony's anti-piracy program, disable it and prevent it from reinstalling.
After Russinovich criticized Sony, it made available a software patch that removed the technology's ability to avoid detection. It also made more broadly available its instructions on how to remove the software permanently. Customers who remove the software are unable to listen to the music CD on their computer.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2005-11-11-sony-cds_x.htm
Sony defended its right to prevent customers from illegally copying music but said it will halt manufacturing CDs with the "XCP" technology as a precautionary measure. "We also intend to re-examine all aspects of our content protection initiative to be sure that it continues to meet our goals of security and ease of consumer use," the company said in a statement.
The anti-piracy technology, which works only on Windows computers, prevents customers from making more than a few copies of the CD and prevents them from loading the CD's songs onto Apple Computer's popular iPod portable music players. Some other music players, which recognize Microsoft's proprietary music format, would work.
Sony's announcement came one day after leading security companies disclosed that hackers were distributing malicious programs over the Internet that exploited the anti-piracy technology's ability to avoid detection. Hackers discovered they can effectively render their programs invisible by using names for computer files similar to ones cloaked by the Sony technology.
Sony's program is included on about 20 popular music titles, including releases by Van Zant and The Bad Plus.
"This is a step they should have taken immediately," said Mark Russinovich, chief software architect at Internals Software who discovered the hidden copy-protection technology Oct. 31 and posted his findings on his Web log. He said Sony did not admit any wrongdoing, nor did it promise not to use similar techniques in the future.
Security researchers have described Sony's technology as "spyware," saying it is difficult to remove, transmits without warning details about what music is playing, and that Sony's notice to consumers about the technology was inadequate. Sony executives have rejected the description of their technology as spyware.
Some leading anti-virus companies updated their protective software this week to detect Sony's anti-piracy program, disable it and prevent it from reinstalling.
After Russinovich criticized Sony, it made available a software patch that removed the technology's ability to avoid detection. It also made more broadly available its instructions on how to remove the software permanently. Customers who remove the software are unable to listen to the music CD on their computer.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2005-11-11-sony-cds_x.htm
Saturday, June 2, 2007
How to Fix Your CD Player
To start with, make sure that your CD player is suffering from the problem that this method is designed to fix. This method is designed to fix a misaligned CD read head. The common symptoms of this problem are:
1. You place a CD in the player, and it spins for a bit but never finds the list of tracks on the CD and returns some kind of error. This problem may occur regularly or intermittently.
2. CDs tend to skip frequently, even if they are clean and in good condition.
So if this sounds like your problem, then this method is for you. You should however bear the following in mind: only attempt to fix the CD player if the fault occurs frequently and is really annoying; i.e. if you are thinking of throwing the CD player away. To carry out the repair you will have to open the case. This will certainly render void any warranty the device might have, so if your player is still under warranty, don't open it. Simply return it to the retailer. Finally, for your safety and that of your equipment be sure to disconnect your CD player and remove any batteries at least a half hour before you start work. Finally, although I have had consistent success with this method, everything you do is at your own risk and is your own responsibility. I provide no guarantee of any nature regarding this method.
Your first job is to open up the case of your CD player. This will be more or less difficult depending on the type of device. If you are lucky and have a Hi-Fi separate type device then it will be pretty simple; if you have a mini or midi-system with a built in CD player this could be trickier. Fixing portable CD players (e.g. a Discman) is probably only for the uber-patient as it is likely to be very fiddly. The main thing required here is patience and a methodical approach. As you remove screws put them somewhere safe; line them up in the order in which you removed them, or make notes of what goes where. You may reach a point where you think you have taken all the screws out but you still can't get into the case. Here, patience is still the key. Check under stickers for hidden screws or clips. Try and work out where the case is held together. Use the minimum force possible at all times.
Now, assuming you have managed to get into the case successfully, and have got access to the CD player we can continue. By now you will probably be able to see the CD tray (the bit that holds the disk) and also some kind of arm which hovers over the disk when the tray is closed. There will usually be a small motor for moving the lens over the disk, and attached to this or nearby there is typically a small circuit board.
On this board, or in any case rather close to the read head there can usually be found a small potentiometer (sometimes referred to as a pot). This will usually be a small square component with a plastic disk on top, and this disk will have a slot which is designed to take a small flat head screwdriver. This is what we will be adjusting.
However, before doing this it is advisable to use an indelible marker pen (magic marker) to mark the current position of the Potentiometer, so that it can be returned to its original position if necessary. With this done then we are ready to start fixing your CD player.
This is essentially a trial and error process. You make a small adjustment to the position of the potentiometer, then try the CD player and see if it is improved. In my experience generally only small adjustments (less than plus/minus 30 degrees of rotation) are usually necessary.
Depending on how comfortable you are working with electrical devices there are different ways of going through this trial and error process. If you are unsure of yourself or particularly safety conscious then will probably want to put the case back on the CD player each time you test it because you will probably have to plug it in to do this. However, as you have probably guessed it is not necessary to put all the screws back in.
If you are a little more comfortable with electrical devices, e.g. you're the kind of person who never puts the sides on the case of their PC, then you may want to do the testing without putting the case back on the CD player. Obviously, this requires a good deal more caution, but it also makes the whole process quicker. While the device is plugged in, be sure to touch only the player's play and stop/eject buttons, unplugging the device again before making any adjustments. Be sure to keep hands and tools away from the player's power supply unit (PSU)/transformer (if you don't know how to identify this then you had better close the case between tries). Also be aware that the PSU can store power for some time, so it is advisable to leave the unit unplugged for a while between attempts, and not to touch the PSU.
After a few attempts it should be possible to find a position of the potentiometer (the little adjustable thing with the slot in the top) where the CD player recognises disks again and plays them without skipping. If, this is the case, then congratulations, you've fixed your CD player. Simply put the case back on and you are ready to rock.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/3/24/45212/6874
1. You place a CD in the player, and it spins for a bit but never finds the list of tracks on the CD and returns some kind of error. This problem may occur regularly or intermittently.
2. CDs tend to skip frequently, even if they are clean and in good condition.
So if this sounds like your problem, then this method is for you. You should however bear the following in mind: only attempt to fix the CD player if the fault occurs frequently and is really annoying; i.e. if you are thinking of throwing the CD player away. To carry out the repair you will have to open the case. This will certainly render void any warranty the device might have, so if your player is still under warranty, don't open it. Simply return it to the retailer. Finally, for your safety and that of your equipment be sure to disconnect your CD player and remove any batteries at least a half hour before you start work. Finally, although I have had consistent success with this method, everything you do is at your own risk and is your own responsibility. I provide no guarantee of any nature regarding this method.
Your first job is to open up the case of your CD player. This will be more or less difficult depending on the type of device. If you are lucky and have a Hi-Fi separate type device then it will be pretty simple; if you have a mini or midi-system with a built in CD player this could be trickier. Fixing portable CD players (e.g. a Discman) is probably only for the uber-patient as it is likely to be very fiddly. The main thing required here is patience and a methodical approach. As you remove screws put them somewhere safe; line them up in the order in which you removed them, or make notes of what goes where. You may reach a point where you think you have taken all the screws out but you still can't get into the case. Here, patience is still the key. Check under stickers for hidden screws or clips. Try and work out where the case is held together. Use the minimum force possible at all times.
Now, assuming you have managed to get into the case successfully, and have got access to the CD player we can continue. By now you will probably be able to see the CD tray (the bit that holds the disk) and also some kind of arm which hovers over the disk when the tray is closed. There will usually be a small motor for moving the lens over the disk, and attached to this or nearby there is typically a small circuit board.
On this board, or in any case rather close to the read head there can usually be found a small potentiometer (sometimes referred to as a pot). This will usually be a small square component with a plastic disk on top, and this disk will have a slot which is designed to take a small flat head screwdriver. This is what we will be adjusting.
However, before doing this it is advisable to use an indelible marker pen (magic marker) to mark the current position of the Potentiometer, so that it can be returned to its original position if necessary. With this done then we are ready to start fixing your CD player.
This is essentially a trial and error process. You make a small adjustment to the position of the potentiometer, then try the CD player and see if it is improved. In my experience generally only small adjustments (less than plus/minus 30 degrees of rotation) are usually necessary.
Depending on how comfortable you are working with electrical devices there are different ways of going through this trial and error process. If you are unsure of yourself or particularly safety conscious then will probably want to put the case back on the CD player each time you test it because you will probably have to plug it in to do this. However, as you have probably guessed it is not necessary to put all the screws back in.
If you are a little more comfortable with electrical devices, e.g. you're the kind of person who never puts the sides on the case of their PC, then you may want to do the testing without putting the case back on the CD player. Obviously, this requires a good deal more caution, but it also makes the whole process quicker. While the device is plugged in, be sure to touch only the player's play and stop/eject buttons, unplugging the device again before making any adjustments. Be sure to keep hands and tools away from the player's power supply unit (PSU)/transformer (if you don't know how to identify this then you had better close the case between tries). Also be aware that the PSU can store power for some time, so it is advisable to leave the unit unplugged for a while between attempts, and not to touch the PSU.
After a few attempts it should be possible to find a position of the potentiometer (the little adjustable thing with the slot in the top) where the CD player recognises disks again and plays them without skipping. If, this is the case, then congratulations, you've fixed your CD player. Simply put the case back on and you are ready to rock.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/3/24/45212/6874
Thursday, May 31, 2007
How to buy an MP3 player?
First there were vinyl record players or more popularly known as the gramophones, then came cassette players and then compact disc players or CD players. A few other devices, such as the MiniDisc players, never really caught on. But a MP3 is different from all this. Whether you want to groove while working or entertain yourself while on your way back home, a portable MP3 player could suit all your musical needs. MP3 players storing thousands of songs supplant the traditional walkman style cassette and CD players. But the dearth of names in the space often confuses buyers, but worry not as Buy-o-logy helps you on your way to getting best in the market.
Storage
MP3 players come in two basic varieties. There are hard-disk based and flash memory-based players. Hard disk players tend to be larger on size and are more susceptible to damage due to the fragile nature of parts within. But on a positive side they have a better storage capacity, from 256MB to 60GB depending on the hard drive technology. On the other hand, flash-based players come with a limited storage, which may later be extended by using external storage cards. In effect, they do not suffer the limitations that owners of hard drive-based players face, such as fears of dropping their player or fragmentation. Such players are commonly integrated into USB keydrives. Generally, about 5,000 songs fit into a 20GB MP3 player.
Types of playable files
This is one of the most important things to keep in mind when buying a MP3 player. Most MP3 players play most audio types. The Apple iPod, for instance, is compatible with AAC, WAV, AIFF alongwith playing the usual MP3 songs. Meanwhile, Sandisk’s Sansa series supports WAV, WMA apart from MP3. The series also comes with a FM radio player. Microsoft’s Zune is expected to support WAV, WMA, AAC along with MP3.
The video option
Recent times have seen a slew of video-enabled players. The iPod supports MPEG-4 format but not the AVI. Major video downloads come in the AVI format. It would be advisable that you check the number of formats that your player supports. It would be useful that the player has a large display and provides for a video output to play stored movies on TV. And if you want to view video or photos on the device, the quality of the screen is an even more critical consideration.
The market and the price
The iPod continues to be a favourite among Indian users in this category. There are other players available like the Sandisk Sansa, Creative and Samsung also have their series of MP3 players. Then there is Sony’s Walkman series and Transcend too. The iPod nano can cost you Rs 7,000-8,000 depending on the storage size. While its video-enabled range can cost over Rs 15,000. Meanwhile, iRiver’s ranges between Rs 2,000 to Rs 15,000.
Creative’s MP3 range is priced between Rs 3,000-27,000 while Samsung’s range starts from Rs 5,000 going up to Rs 15,00. Sony’s flash-based players ranges between Rs 5,900 and Rs 16,000 while it has 6GB MP3 player at Rs 9,900 and 20GB HDD MP3 for Rs 20,000.
Use and user interface:
Your decision also depends on how you are going to use the device. For instance, joggers or frequent users will want a lightweight, flash-memory-based device, since hard drives don’t react well to the shock; audio aficionados who want lots of music at their fingertips should keep their eyes on the highest-capacity hard-drive models. Also, pay attention to the user interface. There is no use buying a player where you cannot locate your favourite songs or artists easily.
Power options
Mind your power options always. While some flash-based portable players use replaceable alkaline batteries, others alongwith most hard drive-based units feature a built-in rechargeable battery that cannot be removed. While these devices can keep going for tens of hours, if you’re not somewhere near a power outlet or a computer with a USB port, you might find yourself out of juice.
Where to buy music
If you decide you want to buy songs online, then you need to decide what music store you want to use. This can very much dictate what player you get because these tracks are sold with Digital Rights Management, which limits what you can do with the song. For iPod, iTunes stores is a good place to buy songs, while there are also other outlets like the MusicMatch online store or the Microsoft’s MusicLibrary. There is one catch here — none of these sellers have Hindi or regional songs. For that, you will have to hunt down websites like coolgoose.com or access P2P softwares like Kazaa or Limewire.
Word of Caution though - downloading from such sites is illegal. So what’s the next best thing to do... buy a MP3 CD and rip its content to your player.
http://infotech.indiatimes.com/Personal_Tech/Digital_Home/How_to_buy_an_MP3_player/articleshow/msid-1751355,curpg-1.cms
Storage
MP3 players come in two basic varieties. There are hard-disk based and flash memory-based players. Hard disk players tend to be larger on size and are more susceptible to damage due to the fragile nature of parts within. But on a positive side they have a better storage capacity, from 256MB to 60GB depending on the hard drive technology. On the other hand, flash-based players come with a limited storage, which may later be extended by using external storage cards. In effect, they do not suffer the limitations that owners of hard drive-based players face, such as fears of dropping their player or fragmentation. Such players are commonly integrated into USB keydrives. Generally, about 5,000 songs fit into a 20GB MP3 player.
Types of playable files
This is one of the most important things to keep in mind when buying a MP3 player. Most MP3 players play most audio types. The Apple iPod, for instance, is compatible with AAC, WAV, AIFF alongwith playing the usual MP3 songs. Meanwhile, Sandisk’s Sansa series supports WAV, WMA apart from MP3. The series also comes with a FM radio player. Microsoft’s Zune is expected to support WAV, WMA, AAC along with MP3.
The video option
Recent times have seen a slew of video-enabled players. The iPod supports MPEG-4 format but not the AVI. Major video downloads come in the AVI format. It would be advisable that you check the number of formats that your player supports. It would be useful that the player has a large display and provides for a video output to play stored movies on TV. And if you want to view video or photos on the device, the quality of the screen is an even more critical consideration.
The market and the price
The iPod continues to be a favourite among Indian users in this category. There are other players available like the Sandisk Sansa, Creative and Samsung also have their series of MP3 players. Then there is Sony’s Walkman series and Transcend too. The iPod nano can cost you Rs 7,000-8,000 depending on the storage size. While its video-enabled range can cost over Rs 15,000. Meanwhile, iRiver’s ranges between Rs 2,000 to Rs 15,000.
Creative’s MP3 range is priced between Rs 3,000-27,000 while Samsung’s range starts from Rs 5,000 going up to Rs 15,00. Sony’s flash-based players ranges between Rs 5,900 and Rs 16,000 while it has 6GB MP3 player at Rs 9,900 and 20GB HDD MP3 for Rs 20,000.
Use and user interface:
Your decision also depends on how you are going to use the device. For instance, joggers or frequent users will want a lightweight, flash-memory-based device, since hard drives don’t react well to the shock; audio aficionados who want lots of music at their fingertips should keep their eyes on the highest-capacity hard-drive models. Also, pay attention to the user interface. There is no use buying a player where you cannot locate your favourite songs or artists easily.
Power options
Mind your power options always. While some flash-based portable players use replaceable alkaline batteries, others alongwith most hard drive-based units feature a built-in rechargeable battery that cannot be removed. While these devices can keep going for tens of hours, if you’re not somewhere near a power outlet or a computer with a USB port, you might find yourself out of juice.
Where to buy music
If you decide you want to buy songs online, then you need to decide what music store you want to use. This can very much dictate what player you get because these tracks are sold with Digital Rights Management, which limits what you can do with the song. For iPod, iTunes stores is a good place to buy songs, while there are also other outlets like the MusicMatch online store or the Microsoft’s MusicLibrary. There is one catch here — none of these sellers have Hindi or regional songs. For that, you will have to hunt down websites like coolgoose.com or access P2P softwares like Kazaa or Limewire.
Word of Caution though - downloading from such sites is illegal. So what’s the next best thing to do... buy a MP3 CD and rip its content to your player.
http://infotech.indiatimes.com/Personal_Tech/Digital_Home/How_to_buy_an_MP3_player/articleshow/msid-1751355,curpg-1.cms
Saving that disk!
What do you do when you pop an old CD or a DVD into the player and stare at fancy messages that essentially let you know your disc is bloody scratched?
Most people I know stare longingly at it for a while and then throw it away. I usually pull the offending disc out and use it as a coaster. But there are some blokes, like I discovered today, who will do anything to get it back to work. This is the story of one such bloke. Exasperated with damaged discs, he did some reading on how the thing is built. He finally figured that discs can be repaired if the scratches inflicted on its surface are filled with some substance. What it was, he wouldn’t know until he played around with a few options. To make things a little more difficult for himself, he set himself two conditions.
One, whatever method he hit upon, it ought to be executable in five minutes. Two, whatever it is that he eventually used, it ought to be commonly found at anybody’s home. Armed with these variables, he started experimenting.
The first thing he did was to burn music on five discs and scratch them with a scissor. Having done that, he took the first disc, poured water over it, and rubbed the disc gently with a piece of lint-free cloth to make sure the water embedded itself into the scratches. Didn’t work!
On the next attempt, he took a bottle of deodorant and sprayed it over the disc. The idea was simple. Deo contains isopropyl myristate dissolved in alcohol.
He was hoping that when the alcohol evaporated, the isopropyl myristate would find itself into the cracks. A cursory look at the disc two minutes later indicated it may work. It didn’t, again!
He looked around a bit and stumbled on lem-oil. This is something musicians use to protect wood surfaces on their instruments. It preserves the wood and tones down scratches and blemishes. After spraying the oil on the CD, he rubbed it vigorously with the lint-free cloth. Apparently, when he popped the CD into the player, it worked.
But the music didn’t sound right. In any case, lem-oil isn’t volatile enough to evaporate in five minutes. He dropped the idea and picked up toothpaste.
Now, the toothpaste method is something quite a few people have tried. It is a mild abrasive. So you take the tiniest bit of paste on the tip of your finger.
Without touching the CD itself with the finger, apply the toothpaste only around the scratched parts. Now put the CD under a thin stream of running water and tilt the CD. This way, the excess paste runs off and what remains gets into the CD. Apparently, his player spat the CD out.
A few other things later, he finally hit upon hair gel. Applied in much the same way toothpaste is, he followed up by rubbing it in and ran a thin stream of water on to loosen it up. This way, the excess gel was washed off. And the disc worked—perfectly.
http://infotech.indiatimes.com/Personal_Tech/Digital_Home/Saving_that_disk/articleshow/1979759.cms
Most people I know stare longingly at it for a while and then throw it away. I usually pull the offending disc out and use it as a coaster. But there are some blokes, like I discovered today, who will do anything to get it back to work. This is the story of one such bloke. Exasperated with damaged discs, he did some reading on how the thing is built. He finally figured that discs can be repaired if the scratches inflicted on its surface are filled with some substance. What it was, he wouldn’t know until he played around with a few options. To make things a little more difficult for himself, he set himself two conditions.
One, whatever method he hit upon, it ought to be executable in five minutes. Two, whatever it is that he eventually used, it ought to be commonly found at anybody’s home. Armed with these variables, he started experimenting.
The first thing he did was to burn music on five discs and scratch them with a scissor. Having done that, he took the first disc, poured water over it, and rubbed the disc gently with a piece of lint-free cloth to make sure the water embedded itself into the scratches. Didn’t work!
On the next attempt, he took a bottle of deodorant and sprayed it over the disc. The idea was simple. Deo contains isopropyl myristate dissolved in alcohol.
He was hoping that when the alcohol evaporated, the isopropyl myristate would find itself into the cracks. A cursory look at the disc two minutes later indicated it may work. It didn’t, again!
He looked around a bit and stumbled on lem-oil. This is something musicians use to protect wood surfaces on their instruments. It preserves the wood and tones down scratches and blemishes. After spraying the oil on the CD, he rubbed it vigorously with the lint-free cloth. Apparently, when he popped the CD into the player, it worked.
But the music didn’t sound right. In any case, lem-oil isn’t volatile enough to evaporate in five minutes. He dropped the idea and picked up toothpaste.
Now, the toothpaste method is something quite a few people have tried. It is a mild abrasive. So you take the tiniest bit of paste on the tip of your finger.
Without touching the CD itself with the finger, apply the toothpaste only around the scratched parts. Now put the CD under a thin stream of running water and tilt the CD. This way, the excess paste runs off and what remains gets into the CD. Apparently, his player spat the CD out.
A few other things later, he finally hit upon hair gel. Applied in much the same way toothpaste is, he followed up by rubbing it in and ran a thin stream of water on to loosen it up. This way, the excess gel was washed off. And the disc worked—perfectly.
http://infotech.indiatimes.com/Personal_Tech/Digital_Home/Saving_that_disk/articleshow/1979759.cms
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)