Dave Hooper wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > >Everything that I record on my Sharp831, using a digital optical
> > >connection to my Marantz CD6000OSE from a good quality CD source
> > >sounds NOTICEABLY fake with clearly audible compression artifacts.
> > >Yes, the quality of MP3 -encoded audio can vary greatly ... but good
> > >quality MP3 audio DOES sound better than everything I personally
> > >record on my Sharp831.
> >
> > No offense Dave (seriously), but you either aren't using your 831
> > correctly, or you're not doing any sort of scientific comparison (i.e.
> > you're listening on different equipment and/or there are other factors
> > affecting the sound). The highest quality MP3 still doesn't sound as good
> > as a digital copy of an MD.
>
> OK . Here's the test I did and it's inCREDibly simple
> Granted it isn't particularly scientific, but that doesn't mean it should be
> debunked instantly.
>
> 1. Put a blank MD in your Sharp831 recorder
> 2. Connect the optical digital IN on the 831 to the optical digital OUT of
> the CD player
> 3. Put in a good CD with lots of dynamics, quiet bits, and high frequencies,
> and if possible a little
> background noise. Something recorded live rather than overproduced, so
> something like A Minor Forest,
> Do Make Say Think or Mogwai, rather than Future Sound Of London
> 4. Set to Rec-Pause and monitor to the audio coming out of the CD player
> source
> 5. Record the track onto minidisc
> 6. Play the track back.
>
> Which factors change? As far as I can see only:
> 1- Whether the audio is direct from the source CD or from the MD copy
> 2- Whether the 831 is postprocessing the MD audio differently than
> Rec-Pause monitoring
>
> I can rule out 2 because:
> I did the same test on a friend's Aiwa player and the differences (whilst
> still there) were less pronounced,
> and then I played that MiniDisc on my 831 player and did a blind A/B/X test
> to compare it with the one I recorded on my 831. Guess what? My 831 lost
> every time.
I have never seen a discussion about this and it has never come up so I am not
sure which of the following is the case and also not 100% sure I fully
understand your statement above with regard to the means you used to monitor
the sound.
First, does the sound coming out of an MD player while the MD is being recorded,
come from the MD or is it just a straight pass through. In other words like the
difference between a one head and a two head cassette recorder?
I don't think that the sound you hear while you are doing the actual recording
is coming from the MD since that would require the laser to be recording and
playing at the same time. This statement applies if I interpreted how you did
your test correctly.
If I am correct about not being able to monitor the actual output of the MD
itself while it is being produced and that's what you are saying you did in your
test, then ATRAC has nothing to do with the difference in sound quality you are
hearing.
If I misinterpreted how you did the test, please correct me.
> The 831 adds a layer of sparkly, burbling high frequencies to quiet passages
> and high frequencies .. in fact, if you record anything with a slight amount
> of background noise onto the 831 the background noise just sounds crazy and
> artificial like a load of bubbles bursting instead of dull white noise.
> DON'T come back at me by saying 'You should get a better CD collection if
> all the tracks have background hiss' because I'll just tell you where to go.
> That's my CDs, and the 831 cannot encode them as well as a Aiwa model at
> half the price, or a Sony deck, or ...
>
> > NO!! YOU ARE WRONG! because what you state below is a subjective statement
> that
> > has no meaning in reality. If you hear digital artifacts so clearly with
> the MD
> > copy, something is wrong with your CD player or recorder. Sounds like a
> it may
> > be a bad ADC.
There is no ADC in the process. I just threw that in to see if you were on your
toes. But there is a DAC at the end of the chain for the MD. The quality of
DACs can vary greatly. I'm sure that you know they make stand alone ADC and
DACs that cost more then most people's entire audio system. These are not for
consumer use (unless you are really, really into music and super wealthy).
>
>
> My CD player is fine, thankyou. No really. What, you actually think a CD
> player uses an ADC between the audio source and the digital optical output?
> Are you mad?
> And hey, I get exactly the same results no matter what CD drive I use, or
> whether I use the optical output on my SBLive Live Drive II, or if I use
> conventional analogue in, or ... No, please believe me, I have tried SO MANY
> different sources. What, they're all broken?
Broken, no.
>
> > >The quality of ATRAC compression can vary greatly. Both MP3 encoders
> > >and ATRAC encoders have improved since their inception such that
> > >
> almost any modern MP3-encoded file will sound better than a MiniDisc
> > >recorded using a version of Atrac that is a couple of generations
> > >old.
>
Here you are 100% correct. I missed the statement "Atrac that is a couple of
generations old". I apologize because no one on the list is going to argue with
you about that. You are stating an objective fact and you are correct.
>
> Larry said:
> > I don't know that that is a fact! Comparing equal versions (same chipset
> should product consistent results.)
>
> Well duh. I was talking about *different* chipsets. I.e. Sharp ATRAC vs.
> Sony ATRAC.
>
See above statement and apology.
>
> Dan said:
> > MD's recorded on a Sharp MS-702 (two to three years old) still sound
> > significantly better than the best MP3 encoding of today. You're welcome
> > to come over to my place and do a scientific comparison ;-)
>
> Can I? Do you live in the UK?
>
> > Seriously, though, I'm currently reviewing a new PC receiver with USB and
> > Digital connections. I've been comparing high-quality MP3s played on my
> > computer with MDs of the same music played via analog-out (I don't
> > currently have an MD player with digital out, so I can't test that).
>
> I would be interested to see more details of this hardware.
> I hope in your testing you didn't confuse 'high-quality MP3s' with
> 'high-bitrate MP3s'!
>
I'm not sure what a "high quality" MP3 is compared to one of lesser quality.
Please explain what makes the difference.
As far as bitrate goes, there doesn't seem to be an audible difference in the
acceptable range of bitrates of MP3 files. The only difference I notice is
that a 128 vs a 300 or what ever doubles the size of the file as the bite rate
gets larger.
Some of the worst sounding MP3s that I have heard have a much higher bitrate
then the same song recorded at a lower bitrate (these are MP3s that I obtained
from Napster. Since I don't know what a high quality MP3 is, perhaps when you
explain that to me, Napster will not qualify.
I also realize that the quality of MP3s on Napster can vary greatly because you
are getting the files from different individuals and have no way of knowing how
they recorded their MP3 or where they came from.
I have heard MP3s on Napster were I can actually hear the clicks and pops of
vinyl. So the sources vary greatly.
> This is not a war here. We seem to be getting angry with each other. There
> is no need for that and it is silly. If any of my previous replies sounded
> hostle, I apologize. Old people (and many hard working young people) are
> getting sick and dying becaue they can not afford the ourtageous prices (and
> profits) being made by drug companies. I'm not trying to sound like Gore
> here. I made these statements long before he did.
People are being denied proper medical care because someone not qualified to
make that judgment is turning down treatments (this is actually illegal because
it is illegal for someone not licensed to do so to diagnose, interpret and
prescribe treatment-but the insurance companies are saying we aren't doing any
of the above, we are just denying payment)
I see this all of the time, I prescribe a course of treatment only to have it
denied by an insurance company making the statement "this contract calls for the
least expensive form of treatment. While you are free to treat as you see fit,
we are only obligated to pay for the lease expensive treatment".
These are things to get upset about. Not whether an MP3 sounds better than an
MD or the other way around. Most of the time both are within acceptable limits
of the average person and I am certain that no one is going to die from
listening to the inferior source.
Have a great weekend,
Larry
>
> dave
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
