At 04:58 PM 11/4/99 +0000, PAW wrote:
>Just trying to decide what this has to do with MD's? Oh yeah ATRAC was
>mentioned, I also remember hearing that some units sounded better then
>others on play back, but I have no proof for that.
Oh, it was on topic, give me a break. You're the one that mentioned Linux
and Windows software. I was talking about audio decoders in general (and
these are kind of central to the MD application).
That some MD units sound better than others has to do with many factors. It
is my understanding that all hardware ATRAC decoders are capable of doing
perfect reproduction in real time. So any difference must be in the
electronics which generates the analogue signal from the compressed digital
stream and delivers it to your ear. Or the ATRAC encoder which produced the
digital stream (and these do differ in quality with ATRAC version).
That MP3 decoders don't (assuming your evidence is true) is a reflection of
the fact they are imperfectly programmed, and aren't efficient enough to
deliver the stream in real time without sacrificing quality. I doubt any
hardware decoders are in this boat.
>But I do [have proof] for the MP3 ;). [which I snipped]
Proof and subjective opinion are different things. :-)
Look, I'm not about to argue, but it is my understanding of the MPEG audio
layer 3 audio format that perfect reproduction of the sound-as-encoded
should be possible, given a reasonable amount of time on fairly baseline
hardware, to do the decoding in software or on a well-constructed hardware
decoder in real-time. That WinAmp sound like crap (taking your word for it)
is probably because the code is inefficient and therefore has to further
reduce the number of frequency components it renders in order to keep up.
But I'm guessing.
--
Archer
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/6413/
End.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
