🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <369A4971.D050DBD3@usa.net>, Pascal <pdurocher@usa.net> wrote:

> Well... ATRAC is known to suck real badly with it's 4:1 compression (is
> this the one?). It is not using a psychoacoustic model like the MPEG
> Layer 3 standard. But honestly, technically speaking, I don't know much
> about the ATRAC standard other than it sucks. :)

Wrong.  ATRAC does everything but suck, and it's based on the same general
concepts as MPEG.  Please listen to an MD player before posting next time.
Most 128kb MP3s are compressed at a 12:1 ratio compared to ATRAC's 5:1.  ATRAC
is sonically superior to MP3 until you get to bitrates of 256kb, where it
becomes hard to tell them apart, but I give the edge to ATRAC with its 292kb
bitrate.  The bitrate alone doesn't tell the whole story of course.  It has a
lot to do with the cleverness put into bit allocation, etc..

160kb MP3s are the minimum that qualify as "hi-fi" in my opinion.  128kb MP3s
(the kind found all over the Net) generally use a system called "joint stereo"
where the highs from L&R get merged and you get a watery effect that's easy to
spot when you listen for it.

> About the MP3 standard, well... you have total control over how much
> compression you get. The "internet standard" of 128kbps will sound okay
> but it is known not to sound right on a good system (I couldn't try it
> myself). You can compress at 160kbps, 192, 256 and 384kbps (or lower
> than 128kbps) for example. At 256kbps experts CAN'T distinguish between
> the original signal and the compressed one.

You're right about the above, but please don't discuss ATRAC until you
understand it.  There is too much hearsay floating around already.

MDF

http://members.tripod.com/~mdf1/minidisc.html

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own