> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Tom P.D. Daniels
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 10:41 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: MD: MD inferior to MP3: it's not computer-literate
>
> At 17:11 3-8-01 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >"Tom P.D. Daniels" wrote:
> >If I were able to double the bit rate of ATRAC I would get half the
> >storage space
> >but " create MDs equivalent to cd-quality" that even " 'golden ear'
> >people" might
> >not be able to "detect the difference in a blind listening test"
>
> But you aren't (thanks to sony...). That's one of the pre's of
> mp3 over md.
Having rejoined this list from a lengthy absence, I'm amused to see you all
discussing the merits of mp3-v-MD... To carry along the lines of Las's
previous post and his argument above re doubling the bit rate of ATRAC, and
Tom saying "but you aren't"...
With ATRAC, you *don't* *need* to up the bit rate... Thanks to the likes of
Sony et al, they have slightly a better idea of what bitrates achieve the
best sounds that Joe Bloggs on the street.
Unfortunately for MP3, there are *way* *too* *many* muppets out there
creating nasty sounding MP3 files cuz they simply do not have a clue what
they are doing - there are too many variables involved in creating an MP3
file. I'm not saying you are a muppet Tom, merely Joe Bloggs who thinks
it's hip'n'trendy to have an MP3 player but not understand the "mechanics"
of creating a proper MP3 file in the first instance...
The widespread use of Napster proved that hands down... gigabytes upon
gigabytes of low bitrate song files :| With ATRAC you do not have an option
to record poorly...
I'm sure this "discussion" will go on and on and on...
--
Jason Aspinall J111 KAT icq 2193928
http://www.pumapeople.com Ford Puma Pages.
http://www.sugarline.co.uk/ South Wales' newest Pop/Rock band!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
