Re: MP3 Vs ATRAC : Which is worse ?

Article View: rec.audio.tech

Article #1031

#1031

From: davatar
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 00:00

15 lines
1531 bytes

kpwong@psy.cuhk.edu.hk (Kit-pui Wong) wrote:

What rate on the mp3? you could have 320kbps 48khz, or 128kbps 44khz
(which is considered cd-quality), so mp3's can have very good sound.
Afaik atrac is proprietary, and I don't know of any compressor for it
(other than md recorders)

>ATRAC (for MD) and MP3 are both irreversible data "compression"
>algorithms. 
>Which one loses more data during "compression" ? 
>Which one gives worse audio result, theoretically and/or 
>practically ??    
>
>Thanks in advance !

Technical Details

Message-ID: <369bc177.4128813@nntp.wpi.edu>

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

References: <77bvje$q3o$3@justice.csc.cuhk.edu.hk>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 109f11,8f9482d021558bd9
X-Google-Attributes: gid109f11,public
X-Google-Thread: 10d85e,8f9482d021558bd9
X-Google-Attributes: gid10d85e,public
X-Google-Thread: f6728,8f9482d021558bd9
X-Google-Attributes: gidf6728,public
X-Google-Thread: fb1f8,8f9482d021558bd9
X-Google-Attributes: gidfb1f8,public
X-Google-Thread: 10ff83,8f9482d021558bd9
X-Google-Attributes: gid10ff83,public
X-Google-Thread: 105a81,8f9482d021558bd9
X-Google-Attributes: gid105a81,public
From: davatar@nospam.org (davatar)
Subject: Re: MP3 Vs ATRAC : Which is worse ?
Date: 1999/01/11
Message-ID: <369bc177.4128813@nntp.wpi.edu>
X-Deja-AN: 431179522
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <77bvje$q3o$3@justice.csc.cuhk.edu.hk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc,hk.rec.audio-visual,uk.rec.audio,tw.bbs.rec.audiophile

Reply to Parent Message