oryoki2000 wrote:
> ATRAC technology was developed
> to save disc storage and reduce
> bandwidth during data transmission,
> while maintaining a high degree of
> fidelity to the original source.
> ATRAC does a fine job meeting
> these criteria.
Actually, ATRAC was just for the disk storage. mp3 is the one developed
for data transmission. And for those keeping up, there is a replacement
for mp3 in the new mpeg standards. Which is called AAC. We can start
haggling over that now and avoid the rush.
> In some quarters, however, ATRAC will
> always be the Rodney Dangerfield of
> recording technologies:
> "I tell ya, I don't get no respect."
Sounds about right.
> This is because ATRAC will always be
> criticized for creating, by design,
> an approximation of the original source.
> Saying the result is "indistinguishable
> from the original" doesn't change the
> fact that 80% of the original digital
> material is discarded, and other data
> added, when creating the ATRAC version.
As I've noted it's a error to think ATRAC even keeps 20% of the original
data. The more I dug into it, the more it became clear that it should
rather be thought of as synthesizing a whole new set of data, and
storing instruction on how to do this. Yes, a approximation, but so is
anything that comes out of a A/D - D/A cycle.
> Some recordists will always prefer to
> work from the original digital material,
> rather than an approximation. When disc
> space is at a premium, these recordists
> choose to use "lossless" compression.
> The new DEVA recorders employ this approach,
> for example.
My own experience with lossless compression has been that it is often
easy to hear the changes it makes. Though I can hardly claim to have
tried all forms. And even at best these compression methods don't gain
much. I was unimpressed with those I tried. That was some time ago.
Maybe they have gotten it right this time. I've heard good things about
some of the newer versions.
It's actually worse as far as originals. There are still some who think
the original original is the only one to work with. Even for digital
recording.
I recently had to explain to one of the folks who's really behind that
my tape does not run at the "wrong speed", and is not even tape. He'd
decided that something was wrong with one of the recordings because the
calls were occurring a little slower interval than his mental image.
Several of us explained to him that one of the things about digital is
that's not really a issue. Or if it is your recorder is very, very sick.
The frogs just felt like calling a little slower that night. Not at all
unusual.
> ATRAC has proven to be an excellent and
> widely respected tool for recording.
> But it will always be criticized. Whether
> this matters or not is really the choice
> of the recordist.
What bothers me more is the attitude that somehow a recordist cares
less, or knows less because they use it. That they are less
"scientific", educated, or whatever. That their recordings are less
important or listened to less critically. That's hardly the case. If
anything those who use ATRAC probably know a lot more about it than
those who criticize. Having been bombarded with criticizm they have
taken the time to learn a little. And they certainly are the ones with
more experience with it.
Luckily, I don't depend on approval from the anti ATRAC crowd, the
people who receive my scientific recordings provide me and my recordings
with plenty of respect. And they know exactly what I record with. All
they ask for is more. If they worry it's that I might stop. These are
biologists who are extremely familiar with every nuance of frogcalls,
and they do listen to what I record very carefully.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|