Re: arsclist CD-DA versus CD-Rom (.wav) for archiving (fwd)

[Michael Biel <m.biel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George Brock-Nannestad wrote:
> the Swedish record company BIS wanted to put separate mono
> programs out on the two channels of pressed audio CD's in the late
> 1980s but were prevented because this contravenes the red book.

Supposedly there was supposed to be a standard for discreet four
channel quad, but as far as I know there were never any machines
made that would accept this standard.  This was supposed to be an
automatic toggling that would enable special machines to read the
two rear channels, otherwise it would just be a shortened CD.  Is
this not true?  And if they had arranged for this, why would they
not have also arranged for two discreet mono programs.  Might it
have something to do with track numbering?  Cues for the first part
on the left channel would be different from the second part on the
right channel.

I suppose the Orange Book has neither of these provisions--quad or
dual mono.

> However, using CD-R does not prevent this. I use it for
> demonstrating AB comparison of treated/non-treated signal.

But this is not true mono in the way BIS wanted to use it--where the
two tracks are to be played first one and then the other with no
simultaneous relationship with each other.  Your use is for two
matched synchronized recordings, much like the Stockham tape of
Caruso demos.  In this case, why would there really be a Red Book
objection?

Mike Biel  m.biel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx