naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: ATRAC don't get no respect

Subject: Re: ATRAC don't get no respect
From: John Campbell <>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:15:33 +1000
Walter Knapp wrote:

>oryoki2000 wrote:
>[edit]
> > 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.


Maybe the reason you have to keep preaching this gospel is due to 
your wilful mis-reading of other's comments.  The original statement, 
and those preceding it, are figurative - you are being literal (or 
trying to be, at least).  You seem determined to hide from the fact 
that ATRAC and other audio data reduction systems are not called 
lossy compression for nothing.

John



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU