🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 16 Jan 1997 11:01:56 +0100, Mike Glantz
<mike.glantz@grenoble.rxrc.xerox.com> wrote:

>lucifersam wrote:
>> Wrong again by the 5 or 6 gen of md it will easily surpass both cd and
>> dat because of drastically improved techniques in the atrac chip
>> possibly implamenting mpeg II or mpeg III.
>
>Um, I happen to be a MD fan, but let's keep the facts straight. ATRAC
>is still a lossy, perceptual coding algorithm with audible generation
>losses. At what point they become audible depends on the person and
>the material. Tests have been reported that *nobody* can hear
>differences
>on the 2rd generation on *any* material. Beyond that, I would make no
>claims, and I would certainly not advocate MD where multi-generation
>lossless processing is a requirement (which is the case in much
>recording work, but not all). After several generations, CD and DAT
>are simply going to win, by definition.
>
>On the technical side, while some of the mpeg audio compression
>algorithms are quite similar to ATRAC (and PASC used in DCC), they
>aren't identical. ATRAC is a Sony original, and not compatible
>with any of the mpeg algorithms.

Generational loss was not at the issue here. Yes it does get bad after
awhile but it is still better than audio cassettes and like you said
is up to judgement on how bad it gets within a reasonable amount of
gens.It is not likely that their will be many gens of an Md after 10
or so in regular use. But at original recording Mds do have the
potential to surpass cds and dat considering how upgradable the atrac
chip is without software changes. And mpeg II and III are being looked
into to be implemanted into MD future genrations using the same
software.

>> Check out this web page for more info on MD-------
>> http://www.connact.com/~eaw/minidisc.html
>
>Indeed the minidisc page maintained by Eric Woudenberg and
>others is an excellent source of MD info, particularly if one
>is looking for facts and has an open mind.

This is where this info came from