Re: MP3 Vs ATRAC : Which is worse ?

Thread View: rec.audio.tech

1 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

1 total messages Started by Kit-pui Wong Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:00

#1014

Author: Kit-pui Wong
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:00

33 lines
2647 bytes

Well, we already have TONS of discussion on "MP3 vs CD" 
and "MD(ATRAC) vs CD" but there is **not** even a SINGLE 
direct comparison on "MP3 vs MD(ATRAC)".

Is it so difficult to compare MP3 vs MD (ATRAC), 
I wonder ?

: "John Busenitz" <busenitz@earthlink.net> wrote:

: >Pascal wrote in message <369A4971.D050DBD3@usa.net>...
: >
: >>I know I am going to get BLASTED for that but... imagine this :
: >>
: >>You copy 256kbps .mp3's on a CD-R and play them back through your
: >>hyper-noise PC house and through the S/PDIF output of your Sound Blaster
: >>card... to your external DAC... and you get equal or better results than
: >>your CD Transport with alumnium CDs to your DAC...
: >
: >
: >Well, this is impossible. Not because audiophile transports make a
: >difference, but because an MP3 is itself WORSE than a CD, by definition.
: >It is lossy, it CANNOT be better. Maybe sound the same with certain
: >types of signals, but NOT better.

: WRONG, The human ear can only hear so much, and CD's contain
: information that we can't here. So, mp3 at 128kbps 44khz is supposed
: to give you all the audible data you get from a cd (1200kbps). Now if
: you take a 256k 44khz, this means that in theory this will retain
: audible data from a 2400kbps cd sample. 256kbps mp3's are proven by
: experts to be indestinguishable from cd's. So then what happens if you
: have a 384kbps mp3? (if 128 or 256 just isn't isn't good enough for
: your ears).

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads