===================================================
= NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please =
= be more selective when quoting text =
===================================================
one more really quick comment about this, is this guy (and anyone else
comparing the formats) listening to the md via analog out or toslink out. I
find that an analog out(no matter what the quality of cord is) isn't
anywhere near as good as the digital out. also are the recordings he's
listening to from a digital source or is it again analog with a bad
generational loss? Since he didn't give enough details to figure on
anything i have to assume that he is recording from am radio to minidisc on
a mono setting and comparing it to a descent quality cd player etc... OK
that last part was a bit over the top, but he just didn't give enough info
to be able to tell if he's a complete idiot(which i would say he is) or if
he know's what he is talking about(not a million in one chanch)
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Frakes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: MDList <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: MD: Re: Circuit City Responds
>
> Enno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >That's exactly the point. Of course you can *measure* a difference
> >between CD an minidisc, because minidisc audio is compressed an CD
> >audio is not. But most of the people cannot *hear* that measurable
> >difference, because that's what psychoacoustic coding is all about -
> >to compress audio in a way we can't hear. And, in my opinion (and
> >that's all I need to know), ATRAC has done it's job exceptionally
> >well.
>
> AM radio sounds as good as FM Stereo... on a system that isn't good
> enough to reproduce the differences in sound quality.
>
> MP3's sound as good as MiniDisc... on a system that isn't good enough to
> reproduce the differences in sound quality.
>
> MiniDisc sounds as good as CD... you get where I'm going with this ;-)
>
>
> But to be honest, it doesn't take much to hear a noticeable difference
> between CD and MiniDisc. I have a Sony MRZ-50, and an old (1993)
> Realistic 3400 portable CD player. I should note that many people think
> the 3400 is one of the best-sounding portables ever, so maybe it's not a
> fair comparison, but listening to the same album through a pair of Grado
> SR60s ($59 headphones), there is an easily discernable difference in
> sound quality between the CD and MD.
>
> The basics of my relatively modest home stereo, averaging seven years old
> (it was bought one piece at a time), are the following: $200 speaker
> system (PSB), $300 amp (NAD), $250 CD player (NAD). That's a $750 system
> -- not a Circuit City shelf system, but it didn't cost a fortune by any
> means. Yet even my friends who aren't into audio can immediately hear the
> difference between a CD and an MD with the same album (played through my
> MZR-50's line out). I'm sure that the MD sound might be a little better
> if played through a dedicated component player, but not enough to offset
> the obvious differences in sound quality.
>
> Don't get me wrong -- I'm a huge MD fan. I use my MD player on a daily
> basis, and have pursuaded at least five friends and relatives to buy MD
> since last year. I just think that people should be realistic about the
> format. If you have a pretty good system or headphones, many people will
> hear a difference. But even if they do, it may not matter to them. On the
> other hand, if your equipment is average (or the average consumer
> system), you'll probably live in ignorant bliss of the differences in
> sound quality (which is often a good thing ;-)).
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
> "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
