naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re: MD v. DAT

Subject: Re: Re: MD v. DAT
From: Jeremy Minns <>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:54:56 -0300
Raimund started this discussion by writing

>I agree, that the your samples are nearly identical. However, when I
>listen to MDtest2.wav via headphones, I can clearly hear an artifact
>(a harsh transient) at t =3D 6.3 sec, which is not audible at the
>corresponding DAT recording at t=3D 16.4 sec. The spectrograms of both
>sections reveal the (to my mind) relatively strong distortion:

I have just  listened with headphones to the original recordings that went=

into MDtest2, as played back by the recorders. The harsh transient referred=

to by Raimund is audible in the Portadisc recording but not in the DAT
recording. If the artifact was not produced by ATRAC, where did it come fro=
m?

Let me say, however, that the difference between the two recordings as a
whole is very small, certainly not enough to invalidate MD for my purposes.

Finally, I think the personal attacks that have been made during the
discussion are uncalled for and are unworthy of this list.

Jeremy




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

<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