🚀 go-pugleaf

lucifersam wrote:
>
> ...<SNIP>
> 
> 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. MD started at about 85-90%
> of cds sound quality and now by in the 4th gen most reviewers say it
> is equal to cds.
>  MD is one of the only formats that is so upgradeable without software
> change.Like most who diss MD you are an unimformed participant in this
> debate which nulifies any credibility you thought you had.
> 

Three things:

- assuming the same raw data input rate, a lossy compression encoding
format is, by definition, inferior to a lossless format.  If the lossy
device is able to reproduce the original signal more accurately than the
lossless device, it'll still end up having to save more data on the
medium, however one cuts it.  Having written that, such arguments are
hollow as the lossy compression techniques are more about human
psychoacoustics than they are about signal accuracy.  Ever seen a
noise/frequency graph on a MD device?  From a technical spec.
standpoint, it's terrible.

- How on earth can one come up with a percentage number WRT to sound
quality?  What is the metric?

- I have edited most of your response for reasons of space.  However,
your unpleasantly aggresive stance does your credibility no good.  Did
the other gentleman insult you or call you names?  From what I read, he
was giving his opinion in a polite manner.

> ...<SNIP>

-- 
Cheers,

Chris. Broadbent ( KC5VQL )

NOTE: My email address in this post is modified to prevent spam.  Just
remove the '.nospam' from the end of it if you wish to email me.  It
sucks that I must do this, but the amount of unsolicited crap I'm
receiving now makes it necessary.