>From: "Graham M Smith" <>
> >
> > One web site that did concern me was
> > http://www.avisoft-saslab.com/compression/compression.htm
>
>That's Raimond's attempt at analyzing on paper something he's no
>experience with. He heavily overstates his case. And he uses a
>contrived test with sounds no animal or group of animals would ever
>produce. Testing mp3 compression as if it was ATRAC. Kind of like saying
>Fords and Chevys are exactly the same, something that might get you shot
>around these parts.
>
>Walt
>
There are two assertions here which I'd like to comment on. (There
are also some contentious points of a personal nature which are
probably best ignored.)
First, the so-called "contrived test". The first soundfile on the
web-site reminded me of sections of some Weddell Seal recordings I've
heard. Not that the web-site implies that this test signal in any
way represents sound produced by an animal - in fact, it is
specifically noted that it is a synthetically generated signal. The
second example, we are told but do not get to hear, is a synthesized
mouse call. Many signals used in audio testing are synthetic, of
course. And why not? The more tests that are performed, the more
likely we are to get some answers.
Second, the web-site identifies source files as being either MPEG or
ATRAC. It is not true to say that MPEG was tested "as if it was
ATRAC".
John
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|