> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:15:41 -0700
> From: Marvin Humphrey <>
>Subject: Re: ATRAC compression
>
>KACastelein and DJLauten:
>
>> While it might be true that ATRAC is not a problem in "our" field,
>> is it really not a problem in any other field?
>
>It is my understanding that it perceptually encoded material presents a
>problem for broadcasters who perform perceptual encoding somewhere in the
>broadcast chain, and that the broadcasters (the ones who care about quality)
>complain. While one stage of perceptual encoding generally passes
>unnoticed, especially something good like ATRAC or the AAC in MP4, cascading
>codecs is a big no-no. That's all over the literature, it's not some crazy
>theory.
Thanks for the post, Marvin.
That all makes sense to me. Considering getting an MD recorder as a
convenient and light weight way of picking up chance stuff on walks.
Write to CD as an AIFF for archiving.
Otherwise I'll stick with DAT till solid state becomes affordable.
Currently I don't use MD. But species recordings on MD that people have
sent me for productions have always been very good and matched up to
uncompressed DAT recordings very well. But for my own recordings, even
when doing species work, I like to get some context of distant ambience
to the 'soloist'. I've always been suspicious of a how a system like
ATRAC would deal with it. How can it work out what's redundant in that
low level mix of maybe a little wind/water, distant reverberations of
calls, etc. that merges with the noise floor in the electronics?
I use an MS set-up - I like the directional picture from this method. How
will the system affect the directional information in the low level
signal? Equally across the 2 stereo channels?
Nice to hear a bit about entropy in nature recording.
Regards, Geoff.
Geoff Sample
Northumberland
..............
www.wildsong.co.uk
__________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|