🚀 go-pugleaf

Pascal heeft geschreven in bericht <369A4971.D050DBD3@usa.net>...
>Well... ATRAC is known to suck real badly with it's 4:1 compression (is
>this the one?).

Yes, it's the one (4.9-1 to be exact). Where do you base your opinion on?

>It is not using a psychoacoustic model like the MPEG
>Layer 3 standard.

Isn't it? ATRAC stand for Adaptive TRansform Acoustic Coding. In an article
that expains the workings of ATRAC it is said: ATRAC uses, just like PASC, a
form of acoustic masking. Now the funny thing is that PASC actually is Mpeg
Layer 1 and it can be compared to ATRAC. So it is using a psychoacoustic
model.

>But honestly, technically speaking, I don't know much
>about the ATRAC standard other than it sucks. :)


What recorder did you use and how long ago is it. What did you record and
what was the version of the ATRAC encoder used. I can't hear any difference
between a DAT recording and a MD recording most of the time. Sometimes the
MD recording sounds even better, other times the DAT sounds better.
Differences are small to say the least; using a cheap MDS-JE510 and a pretty
expensive DAT.

>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.


Same goes for MD. You probably have bad experience with one of the first MD
players (they did sound awfully harsh).

Andr� Huisman
New Line licht & geluid
newline@usa.net
http://www.xs4all.nl/~newline/
--- pardon my French, I'm Dutch ---