> | 1) The original CD
>
> Played on what? Sony equipment?
Grrrr... are you trying to wind me up now, or what? "I DON'T OWN ANY SONY
EQUIPMENT EXCEPT MY NEW MZR90", which bit of that sentence don't you
understand? The original CD was played through a digital output (I have used
both a CD-ROM to SBLive via SPDIF and then optical SPDIF out of the
LiveDriveII, and a Marantz CD6000OSE with optical SPDIF out) and then I
LISTENED to this through the minidisc itself WHILST I recorded onto the
minidisc. I then played back the track and it sounded noticeably worse. I
can hear artifacts. Let me rephrase that, **I** can hear artifacts. So
I suspect that Sharp's psychoacoustic model used in their ATRAC encoder
isn't quite as generous as Sony's, in that Sharp ATRAC throws away stuff
that is actually important to my ear/brain combination. Let me rephrase
that, **my** ear/brain combination.
> Feh. The only time I've heard "CLEARLY audible" aritifacts on a Sharp MD
> recorder was when I had a defective CD to begin with, and in that case
both
> Sharp *AND* Sony recorders exhibited those artifacts.
Then they aren't ATRAC artifacts, are they. If you have a defective CD,
then the artifacts are on the CD, aren't they. And the whole point of
psychoacoustics relies on an averaged impirical model of human sound
responses, so it's perfectly possible that I would be able to hear the
artifiacts I was talking about and you couldn't if the model wasn't quite
right for me.
"Feh" right back at you. I am not alone, I did a search at altavista and
found a couple complaints about Sharp ATRAC just like mine. I already *KNOW*
that some people can hear the artifacts and some people can't. I suspect
some of the people that can't are the sort of people who don't really see
(well, hear...) the advantage of 160kbps MP3s over 96kbps MP3s.
> This is on both a
> 702 and 722, w/ Koss headphones and an AirHead amp. Similar goes for the
> half-dozen other Sharp owners I know. You are blowing smoke out your
> derrier, Mr. Hooper.
So, let me get this straight: I report some observations backed up by some
experimental details, you report that you know 7 people (yourself included)
who listen to tracks recorded on Sharp MiniDisc portables and none of you
have yet observed anything similar, and therefore I AM WRONG and making it
up?
What's up with you? It's not like I have a personal vendetta against Sharp,
because I happen to very much like Sharp equipment (just not their ATRAC
encoder).
For everyone else who still cares about this thread at all, I will close it
with a couple of simple statements that ought to shut everyone up and end it
now:
Some people don't like Sharp ATRAC recordings because they sound artificial
and 'compressed', whereas some people don't like Sony ATRAC recordings for
whatever other personal reasons they may have. This is a completely
different issue to playing back those recordings. If you're going to use MD
for master recordings take a few try outs on various manufacturer's
equipment before settling on what you're going to use for recording and
playback.
dave
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
