Richard Lang wrote,
L> A couple of observations though - first we're going to have to be careful
L> discussing ATRAC versions once this takes hold since "ATRAC 3" could be
L> interpreted as "ATRAC 3 (LP) version 1" or "ATRAC (1) (SP) version 3" (i.e.
L> older players and recorders). And really I suppose there's "ATRAC 3 LP 2
L> version..." vs "ATRAC 3 LP *4* version ...". that'll double the average
L> size of emails around here :-)
That's a good argument for being careful to call ATRAC3 "ATRAC3" without a
space and ATRAC version 3.0 something like "ATRAC v3.0" with a space after
"ATRAC," at least the letter "v" to represent the word "version," and a
decimal and a tenths' place in the numeral. In conjunction with discussing
LP (whether LP2 or LP4) it's unnecessary to say either, since it has to be
ATRAC3.
Simon Gardner wrote,
G> Personally, I don't feel the need for LP ...
I don't either. I'm buying a JB940 for Scale Factor Edit (and now that I've
heard that the 640 will also have Scale Factor Edit, I've a bit of regret for
ordering the more expensive model; but heck, I forewent the 920 for the 520
and skipped the entire ?30 series, so maybe it's time to treat myself to a
JB9xx machine). But of course I'll experiment a little with the LP modes
(being duty bound to see how the W1 handles LP2 and LP4 tracks), probably to
use them very rarely thereafter.
Nathan White prophesied,
W> This LP Mode will destroy MD. Mark my words.
For now I'll mark them premature, thank you, hoping to mark them wrong some
day.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
