🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 16 Jan 1997 12:50:58 +0100, Mike Glantz
<mike.glantz@grenoble.rxrc.xerox.com> wrote:

>lucifersam wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Ah, ok, now I see what you meant. Sorry.
>
>OK, for the record, "ATRAC generation" is Sony's nomenclature
>for different generations of its chip sets, which implement
>the compression algorithm differently (and, presumably, still
>less than fully). There isn't any "official" generation where
>there are changes or improvements to the ATRAC algorithm itself.
>
>That being said, it is still true that it will never be possible
>for an ATRAC-compressed program to be more faithful than CD or
>DAT to the original. It may sound identical. It may, to some
>ears, sound better, if those ears can detect and happen to
>prefer the difference, but the MD will be unfaithful to the
>original, by definition.

Well yes but to me faithfull is not always better. Digital by
definition is not as faithfull as analog but alot prefer it. Noise
reduction isn't faithfull all time but on some things it does wonders
with lousy recordings. Noise reducing software used in remastering can
take some orginal bits of sound out but the over all effect is a
better sounding recording.  But I am not an audiophile in the purist
form. I do like things to not always sound faithfull but as good as
technology allows even if it is chaged from its original form. The
atrac chip is very upgradeable so we may very well see MDs in the
future even compressed that the average listener would say was better
than cds or dats.