The A/D-converters and analog sections in a standard mac is far from=20
perfect. You may consider buying an SPDIF -> USB interface (Edirol has=20
one for about 120 euros, there may be cheaper products) and then do a=20
sample-rate-conversion with some well-designed software-application.
The Sony DAT works with the professional balanced AES digital-outs=20
(XLR-plugs) but it almost always is o.k. to just use a conversion=20
cable to the unbalanced RCA plugs used by SPDIF. There are some status=20
bits that differ between AES-digital and SPDIF but they can mostly just =
be ignored.
Regarding the difference between MD and DAT. Well. Yes, I think MD lose =
some quality. But the real question is if its good enough for most=20
cases. And I think it is, especially if you consider cost. An=20
interesting question regarding ATRAC and other lossy-compression=20
formats is what happens next. If your lossy algo has removed 70% of the =
information while recording and then the consumer encode with MP3,=20
DAB/MP2, MD, AAC, AC3 etc. and remove 70-90% of those remaining 30%=20
.... well, I dont have an answer to that - its just an interesting=20
question ;=3D)
/JL.
fredagen den 15 augusti 2003 kl 02.56 skrev Vicki Powys:
>
> There must be something in this compression argument, especially for=20
> the
> sorts of sounds that Rich Peet describes as "fast attack sounds". For =
> the
> first time I have noticed a difference, not between MD and DAT, but=20
> simply
> between the 48 kHz recording rate of my Sony Pro DAT and the 44.1 kHz
> CD-compatible rate that my computer uses.
>
> My DAT records at 48 kHz so I need to convert this to 44.1 kHz in=20
> order to
> process the sounds on my computer. To do the conversion I simply feed =
> the
> sounds from the DAT to my iMac via analogue inputs, where the sound is
> automatically taken up by the computer at 44.1 kHz. Up till now I've =
> not
> noticed any difference in sound quality between sounds heard directly =
> from
> the DAT compared to the same sound once it has been fed into in the
> computer.
>
> But there is a particular species of frog here in Australia, the=20
> Striped
> Marsh Frog (Limnodynastes peronii) that gives a loud 'tok' call, a bit =
> like
> the sound of a tennis ball being hit. I have a nice stereo recording =
> of
> these frogs, tok-ing away happily, and it sounds great on the DAT,=20
> each tok
> has a beginning a middle and an end, even if such a short note. But=20
> when
> reduced to 44.1, the call is less pleasing and rather sharper, and=20
> better
> listened to at a lower volume. There isn't a lot of difference, but=20
> you can
> hear it.
>
> I thought it worthwhile to report on this perceived effect. Perhaps=20
> the
> Striped Marsh Frog would make a good 'test subject' for further=20
> compression
> tests!
>
> Vicki Powys
> Australia
>
>
>
>
>
> on 14/8/03 8:56 AM, Rich Peet at wrote:
>
>> From the low end point of view.
>>
>> Having heard a sound example where a very slight difference could be
>> heard in my good headphones I tried to repeat the failure. The
>> weakness in atrac is suppose to be best heard in fast attack sounds
>> that are broad in freq.
>>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor=20
> ---------------------~-->
> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
> Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US &=20
> Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=3D5511
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LIdGAA/qnsNAA/PMYolB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to=20
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|