===================================================
= NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please =
= be more selective when quoting text =
===================================================
>There was only one case I heard of where a person could reliably tell
>whether the recording was from a Sharp or Sony ATRAC, and
>unfortunately we never substantiated that with outside experimenters.
>
>If the differences are in general as strong as you suggest, I think
>others would have picked them up by now too. In any case, would it be
>possible for you to post to a web page some short, 44.1khz, 16 bit PCM
>(i.e. CD audio) segments of recordings made with both the Sharp and
>Sony that clearly exhibit the differences so that we can all listen to
>them side by side?
>
>Thanks,
>Rick
>
>
> >Eric Woudenberg wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for the long article. It's well written and I like it, except
> >> for one thing: I think your MD-MS722 was defective. The differences
> >> between modern ATRAC encoders from the various makers are subtle,
> >> really. If you have a situation where the MD recording sounds like a
> >> bad 128kbps MP3, something is wrong. My suggestion: repeat the
> >> experiment with another Sharp unit (the Sharp MT83x, MT82x and MS72x
> >> all have Sharp ATRAC 6, the MS70x is Sharp ATRAC 5).
> >
> >Hmm, I don't know if I can do that. I bought it from minidisco.com and
> >they only have a 7 day return policy. I don't want to claim it's
> >defective and then look like a fool if my theory about Sharp ATRAC being
> >a lousy encoder is right. Maybe I can ask them if they can send me a
> >loaner unit to verify my suspicion? With the reliability of modern
> >electronics, I can't imagine anything being defective in such a subtle
> >way, though.. Then again, with all the UTOC errors people have been
> >complaining about with Sharps, who knows?
> >
> >Or maybe their ATRAC really isn't that great.. After all, it's subtle
> >enough that maybe nobody noticed. I haven't seen anyone say anything
> >other than "they both sound the same to me, but I don't have very good
> >hearing", or even worse, "Sharp's at version 6 and Sony's at version 4.5
> >so Sharp must be better!" Most importantly, I haven't seen anyone doing
> >serious double-blind tests between Sharp ATRAC and anything else.
> >
> >What if Sharp knows their encoder is no good but they see people are
> >still buying it? How many people can tell a bad 128kbps MP3 from the
> >original other than musicians with trained ears? For most people, the
> >quality loss is apparent at a subliminal level.. you might think that
> >128kbps MP3 sounds ok, but try playing low bitrate MP3's for 8 hours in
> >a row and then putting in an original CD, and the improvement is
> >stunning! Maybe that's the case here.
> >
In my experience with the Sharp portable units 702, 722 and 831, there is a
discernable instability in the high frequencies when it is played back
through the unit on speakers of a reasonable quality, sounding somewhat akin
to MP3 compression, i'd agree. Yet it is not noticeable on the sony 520
deck. I haven't yet had the opportunity to try the R55 sony portable
through speakers.
I'm not entirely certain it is to do with the encoding, because when you
play sharp recorded discs on the sony, you can't hear it, and when you play
sony recorded discs on the sharp you can. My conclusion therefore is that
it is either a) sharp ATRAC DEcoding, b) Sharp portable output stage (ie
headphone amp) or c) some filter that sony put over their output stage in
the decks.
At a guess, i'd say c) and/or b) because it's inaudible with the
sharp-provided earbuds, which are what the unit is primarily designed for
use with, so sharp may have cut some corners. but that is just a guess.
Christopher Spalding
Genius, generally excellent and gifted person.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
