Re: Best Recordable Port'MD Player? (Clarification)

Article View: rec.audio.misc

Article #30

#30

From: lucifersam
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 00:00

24 lines
2444 bytes

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.

Oh wait you did misunderstand me by 5 or 6 generation I meant of the
atrac chip not the MD recording itself. As in the current atrac chip
is atrac 4, by 5 or 6 it will sound better than cds and dats
considering the improvments made on each generation of the chip.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <32de0f35.54358887@nntp.ix.netcom.com>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail

References:

<Pine.OSF.3.91.970110151227.22197G-100000@godiva> <32d8399a.2908168@news.uwa.edu.au> <32d8866d.86394698@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <32dadd06.6281113@news.uwa.edu.au> <32DCFA98.7038@grenoble.rxrc.xerox.com> <32dd7783.4147936@news.uwa.edu.au> <32dde765.44165444@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <32DDFC94.7183@grenoble.rxrc.xerox.com>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f749a,4a56868ab364f8db
X-Google-Attributes: gidf749a,public
X-Google-Thread: 109f11,4a56868ab364f8db
X-Google-Attributes: gid109f11,public
X-Google-Thread: 108c0a,4a56868ab364f8db
X-Google-Attributes: gid108c0a,public
X-Google-Thread: 10238b,4a56868ab364f8db
X-Google-Attributes: gid10238b,public
X-Google-Thread: fb1f8,4a56868ab364f8db
X-Google-Attributes: gidfb1f8,public
X-Google-Thread: 147b40,4a56868ab364f8db
X-Google-Attributes: gid147b40,public
From: lucifersam@ix.netcom.com (lucifersam)
Subject: Re: Best Recordable Port'MD Player? (Clarification)
Date: 1997/01/16
Message-ID: <32de0f35.54358887@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
X-Deja-AN: 210185586
references: <Pine.OSF.3.91.970110151227.22197G-100000@godiva> <32d8399a.2908168@news.uwa.edu.au> <32d8866d.86394698@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <32dadd06.6281113@news.uwa.edu.au> <32DCFA98.7038@grenoble.rxrc.xerox.com> <32dd7783.4147936@news.uwa.edu.au> <32dde765.44165444@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <32DDFC94.7183@grenoble.rxrc.xerox.com>
organization: Netcom
x-netcom-date: Thu Jan 16  5:27:33 AM CST 1997
reply-to: lucifersam@ix.netcom.com
newsgroups: rec.audio.misc,no.audio,fj.rec.av,aus.hi-fi,red.audio.hight-end,rec.audio.tech

Reply to Parent Message