🚀 go-pugleaf

Michael Jones <mikewjones@mcmail.com> wrote in message
news:369A8E31.D11C02CE@mcmail.com...
>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 ?

Yes, I was the former owner of a Sony MDS-JE510 and an MZ-E40. Both employed
Sony ATRAC version 4.0. I am debating jumping back in with an MDS-JB920 or
MDS-JA20ES since both employ improved construction, electronics, and the
JA20ES has the variable coefficient digital filter which may be able to
address some of the shortcomings my ears detect with ATRAC. On the other
hand, I really have no good use for a digital recording format of any kind
other than as a conversation piece or occasional experimental tool.

>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 too was extremely taken with MD until I actually sat and focused on
comparing it to CD. I still think it kills any other format on a portability
vs. sound quality/durability/easy editing basis. My main beefs with the
artifacting

>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.

See, that's what I don't understand. My CD player is extremely modest (Sony
CDP-XA1ES, MSRP $350 USD, paid $200 used) and the MDS-JE510 has a 20-bit
ADAC whereas the XA1ES employs a single-bit DAC, albeit with 45-bit internal
processing and 20-bit outputs according to Sony's website.
The bottom line is that the DAC in my CD player is not leagues better than
that in the MD deck, so I expected the sound to be more comparable than it
was. However, I compared the XA1ES with the Cambridge Audio CD6 in my system
over the course of a weekend and found it acquitted itself well. I would
spend no more than $50 more for the CD6 after that listening experience. In
the end, the three main ATRAC artifacts I found myself noticing were:
sizzling cymbals, brittle mids, esp. on vocals, and a general graininess in
the material. On the other hand, MD quality murders any tape I have ever
heard, even when made and played back on the Dolby S deck I also used to
own.

>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...

MP3 is extremely good for it's compression abilities. I find well done MP3s
almost indistinguishable from CD material.

Adam