🚀 go-pugleaf

Adam Fuller wrote:
> 
> Pascal <pdurocher@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:369A4971.D050DBD3@usa.net...
> >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. :)
> 
> I wouldn't go that far...but I will state for the record one of the main
> reasons I sold my MD deck was the ATRAC artifacting. I found it particularly
> noticeable and irritating in the upper range of the audible frequency
> spectrum. 

Mmm... could I ask which particular MD deck you used to use ?  Any idea
of the ATRAC version employed ?  

Without wishing to give the impression that I'll pounce on any anti-MD
rhetoric with all the evangelical zeal of a recent convert, I must say I
find your comments (and those of Pascal) quite surprising.  I have a
relatively modest Sharp 702 portable and I'm getting quite exceptionally
good results with digital recordings.  The relatively subtle differences
that I can ascertain between the MD copies and the CD originals I tend
to put down to the (surely) superior DAC/filter/output circuitry in my
Copland, rather than any shortcomings in the compression algorithm.

But then, I haven't spent *that* long making A/B comparisons as yet...
perhaps my enthusiasm will wane.  

I have yet to venture into the world of MP3, so I can't comment there...

Mike.