🚀 go-pugleaf

md_fan@usa.net wrote in message <79bfro$sma$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <F6LBJt.xB@research.att.com>, jj@research.att.com (jj,
curmudgeon
>and tiring philalethist) wrote:
>
>> Why not use MPEG-2 AAC, which is a new standard that provides, according
>> to properly executed DBT's, better performance at 96kb/s than MP3 does
>> at 128kb/s, and that has a performance at 128kb/s that is has a higher
>> mean than AC3 at 192 kb/s (not that AC3 is bad at that bitrate, please).
>> (To be clear, the AAC 128 and AC3 192 are NOT statistically
distinguishable
>> to 5%)
>
>If you're talking about VQF (and its cousins) I have to disagree, based on
my
>listening tests with VQF at least.

Well, you might well be alone. It has been reliably shown that AAC is more
transparent than MP3 (and AC-3), even when run at a LOWER bitrate than the
others.

>The highs are very good at 96kb but the
>bass lacks fullness and the soundstage has a narrowness to it.  I base
those
>opinions on tests with Winamp's VQF plugin and the K-jofol player with
about
>10 different files.  MP3s sound a lot better to me in the low end and with
>stereo separation.

Your subjective evaluation is all well and good, but it's not proof.
For the latter, try "Two-Channel Audio Codecs" in JAES Vol. 46 No. 3.

>Anyhow, my original point was that MD/ATRAC is an entire recording medium
and
>the others are just file formats.  You can use both of them together with
MD.


Theoretically, but the software (if not hardware) has to be written and
designed.
There are probably copyright issues with Sony as well. I hope that they will
either improve ATRAC or start using a better codec in the future, not to
mention
a medium with greater data density, like DVD.


--
John
busenitz@earthlink.net