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
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|