Jeremy Minns wrote:
> I 've just started recording with my new Portadisc and am very pleased with
> it. I had been loath to move from DAT because in spite of all the postings
> in favour of MD I still had a niggling fear that the quality might not be
> as good as DAT.
Keep recording and keep listening, I bet you like the Portadisc and it's
recordings.
> Walter posted a detailed blind comparison of MD v. CD a year or two ago,
> which showed no audible difference, but since then a few people have again
> raised doubts as to a possible loss of audio quality due to MD's ATRAC
> 'compression' . On their web site Cornell write 'recent claims that Sony's
> ATRAC 3.5 & 4.5 coding versions are considered by some professionals to be
> indistinguishable from, or even better than a CD remains to be proven.' I
> thought that as I have both types of recorder I would make a
> small contribution towards resolving the question.
Just to set the record clear, the blind test I provided was of ATRAC 4.0
(Sony MXD-D3, also same as a MZ-R30, a version that's now over 7 years
old). The group did no better than chance at listening to tell which was
ATRAC. And only slightly better than chance even if allowed to analyze
the sound. I also provided a few samples of the same material recorded
with the Portadisc, though no blind test.
This was well over two years ago, October 2000 or thereabouts.
On with the nitpicking...
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|