Rich Peet wrote:
> From a guy checking out his new toys in playback I confirm that MD
is
> still a good way to go. I can not listen to mp3's played on the
> internet due to the ear fatigue from the artifacts on the highs
> without an eq to kill the highs. I do not experience that
listening
> to atrac 4+. I hope if they kill the format of the old atrac they
> will make the encode avail on pc platforms.
I'm not sure whether ATRAC 4+ is generally better than MP3. Note
that you had to compare to two formats at the same bit rate. On the
internet, MP3's are usually encoded at lowerer bit rates (e.g. 128
kbit/s =3D 10:1 compression) than ATRAC (282 kbit/s =3D 44.1 kHz * 2 * 2
* 8 / 5 =3D 5:1 compression). Low bit rate MP3's will therefore
introduce more artifacts than ATRAC with its relatively high (fixed)
bit rate.
At least the comparison between ATRAC 4.5 and the LAME MP3 encoder I
did a while back revealed that MP3 introduces less distortion than
ATRAC (based on spectrogram analysis). However, there are
differences between the various MP3 encoders and there might be MP3
implementations that are worse than ATRAC...
Raimund
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
"Microphones are not ears,
Loudspeakers are not birds,
A listening room is not nature."
Klas Strandberg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|