It seems to me that the "versus" in the subject is problematic.
Maybe MD and / or DAT would be a better approach to the issues.
There are clear reasons why they have different attributes.
The rationale for lossy compression (e.g. ATRAC used by MiniDiscs) is
to reduce the data rate in certain applications. It came about for
use in fields where storage and/or transmission rates will
(currently) not permit broadband signals (linear PCM) - things such
as digital radio broadcasting. High quality sound recording is not,
by definition, one of these applications.
There may be compelling pragmatic reasons to use lossy compression
when recording, but any suggestion that one might expect results
equivalent to linear PCM is problematic.
I recently came across this sentence, which succinctly expresses a
fundamental paradox facing audio professionals.
"While nothing in the recording or playback chain is accurate,
accuracy is the only worthwhile objective."
John Campbell
>I was gone for the weekend, so I didn't get to stop all this silliness
>before it was propagated. This list is now message-moderated. I'll be
>reading all messages before they are distributed. Prior to today messages
>were allowed to be distributed without my OK, but I can't let this continu=
e
>- it's just too detrimental to the list. Messages containing ad-hominem
>attacks or other personal references that I feel may be inflammatory will
>be stopped before they are posted.
>
>Let's move on so I don't have to do this forever - it's a chore that I
>neither relish nor appreciate.
>
>Doug
>Doug Von Gausig
>Clarkdale, Arizona, USA
>Moderator
>Nature Recordists e-mail group
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|