Jan L., you wrote,
>As you say. There is no denying that ATRAC can do a very good job. And
>there is no idea in denying that the job of ATRAC (and MP3 and AAC and
>AC3 ....) involves removing stuff in order to lower the bit-rate. And
>it is a good deal of stuff that gets removed.
>
>If you are unsecure about this then do your own test very simply.
>
>Use a couple of different tracks of material recorded with PCM. Some
>soundscape, some birds, some frogs. Make a digital ATRAC-copy of each.
>
>Then make a digital transfer back from ATRAC to PCM (a minidisc with
>digital output).
>
>Now you make a CDR with three cd-tracks per original track. The first
>is always the original as reference. The other two are the original and
>the ATRAC always in random order.
>
>Now you can distribute the CDR and people can listen on their own
>well-known reference system and try to pick the ATRAC.
I did a test like that with high-rate MP3 several years ago. For
source material I used a piece from one of Gordon Hempton's superb
environments. I made a DAT tape with ten repetitions, randomly chosen
(really random, not "looks like random"). I recently had my
23-year-old intern take the test, could he label which was which.
Came out with a score around 50% correct--same as guessing.
-Dan Dugan
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|