Re:How CD Pregaps Gained Their Hidden Track Superpowers
by barrkel on Wednesday July 10, 2024 @05:26AM
(#40925147)
The writing is not good; I gave up part way through. It's weirdly elliptic and almost autistic in its focus on details and an almost complete absence of a big picture. It could do with some kind of proper context-setting introduction, at the very least.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:How CD Pregaps Gained Their Hidden Track Superpowers
by WarOnPrivacy on Wednesday July 10, 2024 @09:54AM
(#40926943)
This mirrors my experience. It's good content but I'd barely land on one splainer before being segueded into the next one. I kept thinking I missed the part they delved into hidden tracks.
Re:How CD Pregaps Gained Their Hidden Track Superpowers
by nayuki on Wednesday July 10, 2024 @12:14PM
(#40928470)
A CD audio frame is defined as exactly 1/75th of a second (588 samples per channel). I don't know why the article waffles around with these poor wordings (emphasis mine):
> These albums all had a pregap of either 32 or 33 “frames,” with a frame representing a length of about 1/75th of a second, per Hydrogen Audio’s Wiki.
> To offer a small correction to the original question now that we know we’re talking about 74 frames per second rather than 60 or 100
It's needlessly confusing and undermines my confidence of the entire article.