Even simply having enough bandwidth doesn't make something "CD quality" by consumer norms. I think the term is non-technical AND subjective. Not objective.Kmagrill said:I don't know why "CD quality analog audio" should be funny, per se. It happens to be true.
For example: any random layer3 encoder @ 128kbps stereo is "CD quality" according to ~all PMP marketing.
I took what you said literally (you're a freakin engineer man), as if you were burning CD-Rs and recording back to VCR or some other backward process. That would actually be "CD quality analog" objectively, and funny, I thought.
The punchline; the one thing we don't usually see the words "CD quality" used on is an actual CD player.
It looks like they got pretty close in some ways. To me; CD's lack of traditional non-linear distortion is what stomps tape as a storage media. Not that a spec would tell you how it reacts to audio at all.Kmagrill said:their goal was to meet or exceed CD specs
It's closer than most things that use the term. No question. But I still have to laugh when it's used in a professional engineering context.Kmagrill said:I still have a 20 year old Panasonic professional grade VCR with balanced audio. In Hi-Fi mode, it has a 20Hz to 21kHz audio passband (+ or - 0.1dB) and has an audio dynamic range of 94dB. I think that's close enough to count as CD quality.