Re: MD: ATRAC VERSIONS
We can safely assume, however, that it is not type-R, because it would have been an important advantage over other portables. wtf is atrac type R ? Am I correct in thinking that it is only found in decks? Thanks -=d9=- - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: ATRAC VERSIONS
Sony doesn't say, and now it is impossible to find out unless Sony tells us. The reason for this is that Sony now uses different ATRAC DSP chips for the portables and the decks. We can safely assume, however, that it is not type-R, because it would have been an important advantage over other portables. Leon on 4/14/01 3:52 AM, Lion Shmulevich at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I was wondering what kind of ATRAC version does r90 and r900 have? Also I would like to know what are the differences. thanks Lion Shmulevich, == E-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel : +972-3-917799 (051-917799) - 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]
Re: MD: ATRAC versions of R55 and DHC-MD555?
* Glen [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 27 Feb 2001 | Does anyone know the ATRAC versions of the Sony Portable Recorder MZ-R55 and | the Sony Bookshelf system DHC-MD555? Sony does not publish that information. Best guess is Sony ATRAC vesrion 4.0, but it could be 4.5 or something else, depending on the specific unit. -- Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ Warning: pregnant women, the elderly, and Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ children under 10 should avoid prolonged PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ exposure to Happy Fun Ball. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: ATRAC Codec
On 19 Feb 01, 11:25PM, Matt Wall wrote: First off whoever wrote this codec, bravo to you. I love it and so far = sony wrote it. in this version, at least, there's no way to go above 132kbps. peter - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: ATRAC Codec
OK so sony wrote this, does this mean according to this url http://www.minidisc.org/mdlpfaq.html#listen that they have now written 2, one for atrac3, an older version which for some reason they abandoned, and another newer one, from which they pretty much changed the header, and i would guess implimented smdi into it. Please either verify this or tell me where i'm wrong. i'm trying to figure it out. anyway's thanks for the info to all. - Original Message - From: "Peter Jaques" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 8:04 PM Subject: Re: MD: ATRAC Codec On 19 Feb 01, 11:25PM, Matt Wall wrote: First off whoever wrote this codec, bravo to you. I love it and so far = sony wrote it. in this version, at least, there's no way to go above 132kbps. peter - 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]
Re: MD: ATRAC Codec
On 20 Feb 01, 9:24PM, Matt Wall wrote: OK so sony wrote this, does this mean according to this url http://www.minidisc.org/mdlpfaq.html#listen that they have now written 2, one for atrac3, an older version which for some reason they abandoned, and another newer one, from which they pretty much changed the header, and i would guess implimented smdi into it. Please either verify this or tell me where i'm wrong. i'm trying to figure it out. anyway's thanks for the info to all. the codec has nothing to do with the header. windows uses this codec to put the atrac data into a wav file, but the data is identical to atrac data in any other kind of file. only the header is different. don't know about smdi. peter - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: ATRAC lossiness
* "Howard Chu" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, 15 Jan 2001 | about 4000 samples. So, it's been pretty much impossible for me to do a | direct bit-for-bit comparison of the ATRAC audio with the original WAV data. And useless, by the way. If you make a recording of a cricket chirping and a jumbo jet flies overhead, you cannot hear the cricket over the sound of the jet. ATRAC removes the sounds the cricket makes. When you do the bitwise comparison of the original vs. the reduced version, you can hear the cricket because that is what was removed, assuming that the fidelity of the original recording is sufficient to have picked it up in the first place. But that tells you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT WHAT YOU CAN REALLY HEAR. The objective comparison is fundamentally flawed because hearing is subjective. -- Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core, Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: ATRAC loseless compression techniques...
* Anthony Lalande [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 11 Jan 2001 | Does any loseless compression algorithm require the entire set of data for | read access before it begins compression? No. In fact none do. Conventional compression algorithms operate on fixed-size blocks of data. Real-time compression of an audio stream is easilly possible with a bit of buffering. The issue is not that but compressing fast enough so that the buffer is not overrun. -- Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ returned to its special container and PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ kept under refrigeration. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: ATRAC loseless compression techniques...
No. In fact none do. Conventional compression algorithms operate on fixed-size blocks of data. Real-time compression of an audio stream is easilly possible with a bit of buffering. The issue is not that but compressing fast enough so that the buffer is not overrun. Well, in effect, the answer is yes. It does require a whole set of data before compression, but to combat this, the data is split into blocks, and each block is compressed individually from a buffer. I'm wondering if you would get better compression by treating the whole stream as 1 block, and then compressing that, or compression in many smaller blocks. I guess it all depends on the compression used. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: ATRAC loseless compression techniques...
* Anthony Lalande [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 12 Jan 2001 | I'm wondering if you would get better compression by treating the whole | stream as 1 block, and then compressing that, or compression in many smaller | blocks. I guess it all depends on the compression used. All data compression programs work roughly like this: a block of data is put into a buffer. The algorithm scans the buffer for redundant data and patterns and builds hash tables in additional buffers. Scanning often requires several passes over the buffer. Many compression utilities use several different algorithms to obtain maximum compression, and each algorithm requires one or more hash buffers of its own. And, of course, each pass requires processing power. A final hash for the block is chosen and written out. Increasing the block size increases the quantity of redundant data and patterns in the stream, which usually means greater compression ratios. Bigger blocks require more memory for the buffers, and have more complex patterns which means more processing power/time is required. 32-64K blocks is the norm for high-level compression these days. That is what bzip2 uses, and boy is it slow even on a fast Pentium-III. One minute of linear PCM is ~8.75MB. You would need a supercomputer the size of a refrigerator to utilize a block size that large. -- Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core, Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: ATRAC loseless compression techniques...
32-64K blocks is the norm for high-level compression these days. That is what bzip2 uses, and boy is it slow even on a fast Pentium-III. One minute of linear PCM is ~8.75MB. You would need a supercomputer the size of a refrigerator to utilize a block size that large. Well, I can go to sleep tonight feeling that much smarter. Large pattern-matches and combination-matches are the promise of quantum supercomputers, but that's another forum altogether. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: ATRAC loseless compression techniques...
Does any loseless compression algorithm require the entire set of data for read access before it begins compression? If you wanted to encode audio with a loseless compression, could you do it in real-time or would you need to wait until the entire recording is complete, and then compress afterwards? Would the results be as good in real-time than as a post-process? I'm sure that there are some algorithms that require access to the entire data set before they could compress it. I can't name any off the top of my head though. Compress, gzip, and bzip2 (all from the Unix world, although Windows implementations exist) are able to compress a stream of data in real time (this is actually their normal way of handling things). These all use lossless compression algorithms with varying degrees of speed and compression. One advantage of a non-realtime compression algorithm is that it can be much more complex than a realtime one. If a realtime algorithm is too complex it won't be able to keep up with the input data and will lose data. This isn't an issue with non-realtime compression since it doesn't have to keep up with an input, it can work through at its leisure. As for quality of the results, that's dependant on the specific algorithms in question. This is, coincidentally, why audio MD equipment would be very poor for data storage. I believe this has been discussed on-list a few times. ...and if I understand correctly, data would have to be encoded into some sort of audio stream designed to be completely loseless when converted with ATRAC, right? ...or maybe embed some sort of error-correction mechanism...? As I said, these have been hashed out on the list before. The gist of it all seemed to be that you would fit a very small amount of data onto a disc, it would take a long time (74 minutes for a full disc) to read and write the data. This isn't to say that it can't be done, just that it would be fairly impractical when compared to using something designed for storing data. -- Dave Kimmel [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 5615049 - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: atrac sharp questions
Atrac version only affects the way it is recorded in the first place, not how it is played back. Just get the one you want and it will be compatible. Drexel Atkinson CIRT wrote: The problem I am trying to resolve is: While the ms722 uses atrac 6.0, the sony decks use a different format which i assume is not fully compatible. Am I wrong about this compatibility? -- Jim Coon Not just another pretty mandolin picker. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: ATRAC Version?
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === Chris I belive this is ATRAC 4.0. See: http://www.amulation.com/minidisc/part_Sony_MZ-R37+R37PCIF.html john -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Chris Moore Sent: 26 December 2000 21:43 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MD: ATRAC Version? I got a Sony MZ-R37SP portable MD recorder for christmas and I am very happy with it. I was wondering, does anybody know what revision of ATRAC compression it uses? - 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]
Re: MD: ATRAC Version?
* "Chris Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 26 Dec 2000 | I got a Sony MZ-R37SP portable MD recorder for christmas and I am very happy | with it. I was wondering, does anybody know what revision of ATRAC | compression it uses? Sony does not publish that information. It is possible for different revisions of a given model to have different ATRAC versions. -- Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core, Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: ATRAC version used on MZ-R90?
Hi there, The DSP chips on recent Sony portables (i.e. from the R90 generation onwards) are used in portables only and not home decks. So we can no longer find out the ATRAC version by a "matching" method. The only way to find out is to ask Sony, assuming that they don't mind telling you. Leon From: "Francisco J. Huerta" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:25:32 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MD: ATRAC version used on MZ-R90? Hello, I've been looking up and down for the ATRAC version used on the RZ90, but haven't been able to find it. Does someone know if it is 4.0 or 4.5? Thanks! Francisco. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: ATRAC version used on MZ-R90?
Sony does not release that information. * "Francisco J. Huerta" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 19 Dec 2000 | Hello, | I've been looking up and down for the ATRAC version used on the RZ90, but | haven't been able to find it. Does someone know if it is 4.0 or 4.5? | Thanks! | Francisco. | - | To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word | "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ of skin. PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: ATRAC-R (HiFi)
Steve Corey wrote: I was a die-hard uncompressed PCM DAT fan for years. When MD's first came out, they sounded terrible, so I wrote off the format. Then a person, whose ears I trusted, said that I should really check out the new MD's. I was impressed, and now am the proud owner of a Sony MZR-90. I absolutely love it. Even though it has its share of annoying (endearing?) quirks. Just be careful of the END SEARCH button. Use it even when you don't need to, 'cause it will erase your Md faster than you can say bread and butter. If you're looking for fidelity (faithfulness) I havn't come across a situation where MD has not been adequate. I'm new to MD, however, so perhaps I'll stumble across something that will trip it up. 'Till then I'll happily continue "taping" with my MD. There was one incident with a certain French horn solo on a Sharp 702 that was reproducible. However, it disappeared when another instrument was added to the mix, or a different sequence of notes was played. Most people would have missed the artifact if it hadn't been brought to their attention. -- Jim Coon Not just another pretty mandolin picker. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: ATRAC-R
Fidelity does mean faithfulness, but so many people have so many different perceptions of what is truly a faithful reproduction and what isn't. So what is lo-fi to one is HiFi to another. Adios, LarZ --- TAMA - The Strongest Name in Drums --- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of las Sent: Tuesday, 10 October 2000 1:07 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: MD: ATRAC-R Tony Antoniou wrote: So what is HiFi? Whatever appears to be of greatest fidelity to the individual. THAT is HiFi. There is no ultimate answer. Tony, this is one time that I have to disagree with you. It is only semantics but your statement is incorrect. Don't confuse the terms fidelity and better. Fidelity is an objective term. It means faithfulness. Which means that the what you hear is as close to the original as possible. It is true or "faithful" to it. Better is a subjective term. It can be what ever the individual wants it to be. Larry - 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]
Re: MD: ATRAC-R (HiFi)
"Fidelity" is an objective term. It means faithfulness. Which means that the what you hear is as close to the original as possible. It is true or "faithful" to it. Me being on the digest, this may've already been addressed, but just to continue in the hair-splitting vein: Some people striving for hi-fi are attempting to reproduce exactly what the recording engineer hears on his monitors in the studio. Some people are attempting to reproduce the live event. Which is subtley different, and begs the flippant question - which seat? - because the listening environment overwhelms all else. Some people are trying to create the sound that pleases them most in their environment, a moderate and perhaps sensible approach given that none of us live in anechoic chambers. But it gets very muddy in a world of electronic or processed music. What is the original sound? There is no original acoustic environment for some of this stuff, borne solely of electronics. You can choose the flattest full range speakers possible, but you're still hearing mainly your room. All good fun until someone loses an eye. Time to whip out the Sennheiser phones? Enjoy your MD and remember if you want to have Private Free E-mail while Sharing Information About Yourself use... _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: ATRAC-R
Just to throw a spanner in the works though, the definition of fidelity can be interpreted as one of subjective or objective observation. If we go along with technical, then indeed it (ATRAC) isn't of "better" fidelity than its DAT or CD counterparts. However, if we take it from a subjective standpoint, as most would because we aim for the end result to be appealing to the human ear and not a piece of test gear, then that's where we hit the stalemate. What might sound perfectly identical to the original source (and therefore be of the highest fidelity) to one person may be perceived differently by another. So what is HiFi? Whatever appears to be of greatest fidelity to the individual. THAT is HiFi. There is no ultimate answer. Ok, I'm done now 3#-) Adios, LarZ --- TAMA - The Strongest Name in Drums --- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of sherryl Sent: Monday, 9 October 2000 3:14 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MD: ATRAC-R But if "better" means more faithful to the original, ATRAC R is still lossy, and uncompressed digital audio on DAT or CD is better by that definition. Firs of, David, I know I shouldn't be tying right now. I get the distinct impression defined better as a fidelity thing. And as you stated, the answer is no. The reason I say he meant fidelity is because until you even asked him to define fidelity, I was about to e mail him no. You multiple definition thing never even crossed my mind. That doesn't mean I am right though. Just may have tunnel vision. Having "known" you for a long time from the net, I have formed two opinions about you. The first is that you were a very good student when you were in school. The second is that you seem like the kind of student that read things into the question. I used to do that. But in my case it always worked against me. They would ask for the color of the sky. Now you should answer blue without even thinking. But I would be thinking, was the sun out??? Is it raining??? Is it day time. Except when I tried to get the teacher to clarify the question all I get was a dirty look :) Shanna Tova, Larry - 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]
Re: MD: ATRAC-R
Tony Antoniou wrote: So what is HiFi? Whatever appears to be of greatest fidelity to the individual. THAT is HiFi. There is no ultimate answer. Tony, this is one time that I have to disagree with you. It is only semantics but your statement is incorrect. Don't confuse the terms fidelity and better. Fidelity is an objective term. It means faithfulness. Which means that the what you hear is as close to the original as possible. It is true or "faithful" to it. Better is a subjective term. It can be what ever the individual wants it to be. Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: ATRAC-R
Tony Antoniou wrote: So what is HiFi? Whatever appears to be of greatest fidelity to the individual. THAT is HiFi. There is no ultimate answer. Tony, this is one time that I have to disagree with you. It is only semantics but your statement is incorrect. Don't confuse the terms "fidelity" and "better". "Fidelity" is an objective term. It means faithfulness. Which means that the what you hear is as close to the original as possible. It is true or "faithful" to it. "Better" is a subjective term. It can be what ever the individual wants it to be. Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: ATRAC-R
Chris Moore wrote, | I have recently learned that I own a MiniDisc deck (Sony JE-330) that uses | the newest ATRAC-R compression scheme. | I have heard that this new form of compression creates a recording that is | etiher equivalent to or even BETTER than DAT.is there any truth in | this? Define "better". DAT is uncompressed. It uses no compression scheme. If "better" means more pleasing to the listener, the answer is "maybe." Some people might like the sound resulting from ATRAC R while others will prefer that of the uncompressed digital signal. But if "better" means more faithful to the original, ATRAC R is still lossy, and uncompressed digital audio on DAT or CD is better by that definition. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: ATRAC-R
But if "better" means more faithful to the original, ATRAC R is still lossy, and uncompressed digital audio on DAT or CD is better by that definition. Firs of, David, I know I shouldn't be tying right now. I get the distinct impression defined better as a fidelity thing. And as you stated, the answer is no. The reason I say he meant fidelity is because until you even asked him to define fidelity, I was about to e mail him no. You multiple definition thing never even crossed my mind. That doesn't mean I am right though. Just may have tunnel vision. Having "known" you for a long time from the net, I have formed two opinions about you. The first is that you were a very good student when you were in school. The second is that you seem like the kind of student that read things into the question. I used to do that. But in my case it always worked against me. They would ask for the color of the sky. Now you should answer blue without even thinking. But I would be thinking, was the sun out??? Is it raining??? Is it day time. Except when I tried to get the teacher to clarify the question all I get was a dirty look :) Shanna Tova, Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: ATRAC 3 FAQs
From: "las" [EMAIL PROTECTED] After reading the FAQs, I'm not very impressed with Atrac 3. I would say from the description that is sounds lousy. Digital artifacts that you can hear? First off it's probably best if we all call it ATRAC3 - without the space to differentiate it from ATRAC 3 (the algorithm used in 3rd generation Sony units like the MZ-R3). There are peeps that claim to be able to tell the difference between standard MD and CD, dunno if they are using an R-Type decoder for the MD but personally I'd be hard pushed to differentiate tween ATRAC 4.5 and CD. Just how important is the bit rate? I never realized that ATRAC used a bit rate of almost 300! I have downloaded Mp3s in several different bit rates and really didn't hear a difference. At bitrates of about 192kbps and above, you'll need a decent setup to "hear the artifacts", assuming with mp3 you used one of the good encoders (the Fraunhoffer one seems to be considered the best all round coder). If youre just encoding to listen while on the move 128kbps will be fine or if space is at a premium, like on naff MP3 porties, you could get away with 96 or even 64kbps, though 64kbps may only be adequate for journeys in a noisy bus or busy streets :-) The high bit rates seemed to double the file size but did nothing to improve the sound quality. The lower bit rate (like 64-which I sometimes had to use because it was the only way I could find the song I wanted) sounded the same too. I'm tempted to ask just what you are playing, and what you are playing it through. Perhaps really rare old recordings, mono, encoded at 64kbps with joint-L/R (just like how ATRAC3 LP4 uses joint-L/R) will sound okay-- being a mono source, I *guess* the joint channel encoding will allow an effective bitrate of near 128kbps, if anyone knows better please correct me. So if you reduced the bit rate of an MD player to 64 you should be able to ge about 5.6 hours of music on an MD without having to resort to all of the drastic things done with Atrac 2 and 3. Personally I would expect ATRAC3 to sound better than present MP3 encoders at each bitrate. Why? Because Sony et al can put massive RD resources into the algorithm compared to most companies involved with developing MP3 coders. With LP4 and an 80min disc, you will be able to get 5hrs 24mins (nearly) of music at 66kbps. I must admit I too am amazed at Sony's lack of foresight in not having bytes "reserved for future use" and that they literally throw away 10% of the disc space in both LP modes. If you are going to copy Mp3 files to Atrac 3 with all of that compression and manipulation, the end result is likely to sound like sh!t. If you're gonna take a 64kbps MP3 and stick it on a MD in ATRAC3 LP4, I would guess most of the damage had been done in the MP3 encoding, sticking it thro' the ATRAC3 LP4 encoder won't help but probably won't harm too much. I really know very little about the effect of the bit rate on the sound quality, only what I heard using Mp3s. So if someone knowledgeable in this area has more to say on the matter, I am very interested in learning about it. Larry To be honest I'm more or less replying on what seems logical, not so much on actual training in the complicated field of lossy data-compression. So if most of what I've said above is total rubbish, please correct me as I'd much rather learn the facts than live in ignorance! Yours, PrinceGaz. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: ATRAC 3 FAQs
=== The original message was multipart MIME=== === All non-text parts (attachments) have been removed === At bitrates of about 192kbps and above, you'll need a decent setup to "hear the artifacts", assuming with mp3 you used one of the good encoders (the Fraunhoffer one seems to be considered the best all round coder). I don't use a decoder (although there has to be one in the unit I guess), I use an Apex DVD player to play Mp3. The trick to the Apex is that the drive in it is actually a computer IDE drive. That was a pretty smart move. A regular DVD player uses "standard" DVD drive. The equivalent of a plain CD player. But if you put a DVD ROM drive in you will have the advantages of being about to play MP3 files as well as regular CDs and DVDs. You can also use it for CDVs (not sure if I got that letters right). You can rip these from DVDs using a DVD ROM drive, CD writer and the right software. I understand that it is a long process and hard to master. I'm told what you end up with is a CD that is about equal to the quality of a VHS tape. Hardly seems worth it. The only reason it will work on a computer is that DVD ROM drives and CD writers do not have Macrovision, since in theory they are being used for data. Larry === MIME part removed : text/html; === - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: ATRAC Type-WB
wb wrote: but I have an ATRAC encoder/decoder running on my PentiumII-450Mhz (with good old Win95b). Excellent news! I knew it was only a matter of time before someone posted this. I think wb is to be congratulated for persuing this problem to a solution. I'd be interested to learn how he proposes to get the resulting ATRAC data onto a disc. Well, as it happens I have been assembling a raw mode MD drive (SCSI and USB) for the last several months, I hope to have all of the final details worked out by August 2000. So with his ATRAC data, I don't see any problem with a replacement to the MDH-10 that allows audio encoding and editting features. RJ Kirkland KC2COE U of South Florida Engineering - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: ATRAC Type-WB
wb wrote: but I have an ATRAC encoder/decoder running on my PentiumII-450Mhz (with good old Win95b). Excellent news! I knew it was only a matter of time before someone posted this. I think wb is to be congratulated for persuing this problem to a solution. I'd be interested to learn how he proposes to get the resulting ATRAC data onto a disc. simon - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: ATRAC Type-WB
From: Simon Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 11:02 AM Subject: RE: MD: ATRAC Type-WB wb wrote: but I have an ATRAC encoder/decoder running on my PentiumII-450Mhz (with good old Win95b). Excellent news! I knew it was only a matter of time before someone posted this. I think wb is to be congratulated for persuing this problem to a solution. I'd be interested to learn how he proposes to get the resulting ATRAC data onto a disc. Search for Sony MDH10 - there's your answer. SCSI 2 MD drive. Magic -- "Creativity is more a birthright than an acquisition, and the power of sound is wisdom and understanding applied to the power of vibration." Location : Portsmouth, England, UK Homepage : http://www.mattnet.freeserve.co.uk EMail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: ATRAC Type-WB
I think everybody here would be glad to erceive a copy of this software that you have. It sounds like just the thing that all of us have been waiting for. Please let us (me) know how we can get this for ourselves. Thanks eD - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: ATRAC Compression
Matt Wall wrote: there would be a loss of quality, however in that "perfect" world where = it was all digital and no attenuation or any other interference at all, = going from your recorder/player to your other identical md = recorder/player since the ATRAC systems should be identical and should = attempt to compress the audio the same in all the same places the = recording's should not have a generational loss. In the digital domain, it IS possible to make a perfect copy, but this is not the issue. When the original audio PCM data is ATRAC'd, 80% of the data is discarded, so the decompressed audio PCM coming out can be quite different to what went in, but will sound quite similar. If this data is then ATRAC'd again, the hardware does not *know* that it is dealing with an already processed data stream, and tries to reproduce the data as if it were an original full-spectrum signal, and this is the reason for the generational loss. It could be possible to design an algorithm which always reconsituted a compressed data set the same way, preventing generational loss, but my guess is that it would sound worse than ATRAC, and most of us would prefer to have better sounding first generation copies at the expense of worse multi-generations. simon - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: ATRAC-R and Laser Colors
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ATRAC can never surpass CD quality since it stores less information than CD-DA. For the same reasons, equal quality is also theoretically impossible, and practically impossible without increasing the bit stream allowed (24-bits/sample I believe). I"m not totaly convinced. ATRAC allows 24 bit datawords. Sampling a signal results in a datasteam of samples. These samples all together represent a frequency spectrum. The CD bitstream contains all the frequencies (even the one with an amplitude of 0!). ATRAC try's to trow away the frequencies that are inhearable. (Those who're 0 for instance!!!). So if you have a clear digital signal without noise and just a few frequencies (less then one fifth of the total frequencies), ATRAC will store this signal with the same or even higher qualitly as oposed to CD. I can hear people thinking, ATRAC will allways compress. That's correct, but remember that in the digital domain, the value '0' is still a value! Cheers, Ralph -- === Ralph SmeetsFunctional Verification Centre Of Competence - CMG Voice: (+33) (0)4 76 58 44 46 STMicroelectronics Fax:(+33) (0)4 76 58 40 11 5, chem de la Dhuy Mobile: (+33) (0)6 82 66 62 70 38240 MEYLAN E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] FRANCE === "For many years, mankind lived just like the animals. And then something happened that unleashed the powers of our imagination: We learned to talk." -- Stephen Hawking, later used by Pink Floyd -- === - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: ATRAC-R and Laser Colors
Andrew wrote: (hence, "wavelet"), and can reproduce the signal almost *exactly* by compositing the wavelets at playback. This breaks the bounds of Nyquist's rule, which states that you must sample at double the highest frequency you wish to represent... because you're no longer sampling. I suspect this is nonsense. (sorry Andrew) You do have to sample the data to get it into the digital domain, before you can process it. (Unless you are going to do an ANALOG wavelet analysis - please supply diagrams) There are a few major drawbacks to wavelet compression... mainly the computational workhorsing needed, as well as the fact that the compression is unpredictable -- different waveforms will compress to different degrees, solely based on their structural composition. Also, it's not 100% real- time. You have to look at the signal over time to be able to give a wavelet representation. I work with wavelet video compression, and that IS quasi real-time, ie you have to operate on a whole video field at a time, so there is an effective one field delay. I haven't got round to trying wavelets on audio yet, but you would have to select some sample window size ( I think 20mS might be appropriate ), so there will be a short delay. The computational demands are probably similar to ATRAC. I suspect that wavelets will not be as good as ATRAC for any particular data rate, as they seem to me less amenable to psychoacoustic coding. simon - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: ATRAC-R and Laser Colors
Magic wrote: If I take a sound file which is 44.1kHz in 16bit, the same as CD, and ZIP it with WinZIP, it occupies less space. If I did this with all the music from one of my CDs, I could probably copy those ZIP files onto another CD and fit two CDs worth of music onto it (although a normal CD player couldn't play it). I now have twice as much information stored on the same capacity disc. I tried this on a partial CD image of 503 Mb, and it zipped to 481 Mb. Music data is pseudo random (as far as WinZip is concerned) so it does not accept much lossless compression. And, in reply to: Compression, yes runlength encoding and huffman codes can be used to reduce the size of a the file. But they do not alter the bit rate. In order to read your Zipped files you must first decompress them, then decode them, then play them. (I'm not sure what this means) Wrong. ZIP files do not necessarily have to be decompresed before you can access their contents, it is possible to access the contents directly if you store the decoding table in RAM and use this as a reference for the data you read from the file. Wrong (sorry). While it's correct to say that you don't have to decompress the ZIP into a file, you do have to reverse the compression algorithm to extract the data. simon - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: ATRAC-R and Laser Colors
Wrote RJ Kirkland [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Actually the amount of data stored on an MD could be increased by 8x without a blue laser, simply a slightly different red one. MD-Data2 uses the different laser and a smaller track pitch to achieve a 5x increase in disk capacity. Maxell has already prototyped a MD-Data that can store in excess of 1.5gigs of data. But in both of these cases they will (most likely) never be applied to MD audio because of fear that it would hurt the original MD format customer base. I think it would be a great idea, but I understand how it could potentially hurt MD's use in the US especially. My response: Now that I'm beginning to hear about SACD and DVD-Audio -- things are getting far too complicated -- I imagine that it will be more difficult for MD in the U.S.A. However, I know that some DVDs have 2 layers. Could something like this be implemented for MD, one layer holding the "regular" 74 minutes, and the other holding the increased amount of data (either uncompressed, true quality music of the same quality and length; or ATRAC-compressed music of extended length)? I'm just running ideas through my head here. J. C. R. Davis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: ATRAC-R and Laser Colors
ATRAC can never surpass CD quality since it stores less information than CD-DA. For the same reasons, equal quality is also theoretically impossible, and practically impossible without increasing the bit stream allowed (24-bits/sample I believe). Actually the amount of data stored on an MD could be increased by 8x without a blue laser, simply a slightly different red one. MD-Data2 uses the different laser and a smaller track pitch to achieve a 5x increase in disk capacity. Maxell has already prototyped a MD-Data that can store in excess of 1.5gigs of data. But in both of these cases they will (most likely) never be applied to MD audio because of fear that it would hurt the original MD format customer base. I think it would be a great idea, but I understand how it could potentially hurt MD's use in the US especially. The other problem faced by increasing just the size of the disc, is that you will have to record at 1x speed from most sources, except for the Sony CD-MD machine which would allow faster speeds (I doubt more than10x would ever be released for complexities sake). Companies like EDL offer a way for faster access and recording, but like alot of proprietary solutions, they priced their product to make a large profit off of a small user base, instead of the converse. So since at ~$8,000USD it is out of the reach of most people, it has not become a popular piece of software, and MD has suffered. If it had been cheaper then MDH-10/11 (MD-Data drives) would have been higher leading to increased production and possibly better drives in the future. My $0.02, RJ Kirkland Regarding MiniDisc compression, I see that now there is an ATRAC-R. How well does it rate as compared to earlier versions? Since MD's compression algorithm is constantly being upgraded, could MD one day be equal to or surpass CD sound? Also, I believe I read in the January/February issue of SOUND VISION that using a certain color laser (blue?) could practically quadruple the amount of data stored on an MD. Could this mean one of the following: (1) that MD could store the same amount of data as CD without compression, resulting in uncompressed, true CD-quality sound in the same amount of time? or (2) that using ATRAC compression, up to 4x the amount of music could be on one MD? If so, either could be a boon to the MD format! Jonathan C. R. Davis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: ATRAC-R and Laser Colors
From: RJ Kirkland [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 7:21 PM Subject: RE: MD: ATRAC-R and Laser Colors ATRAC can never surpass CD quality since it stores less information than CD-DA. For the same reasons, equal quality is also theoretically impossible, and practically impossible without increasing the bit stream allowed (24-bits/sample I believe). The quality of the sound *could* be increased with ATRAC to surpass CD quality. It is possible to store the same information by simply not storing what you don't need. Take this message you are reading for example. You can still read it, although it is now only 7 bit, despite the fact that before I sent it, it was an 8 bit message. The unused data was removed without making any difference to the used data. This means I now have 1 bit of data in which I can store something else. A CD is 16 bit and can store all frequencies between 0Hz and 22.05kHz. If I were to use a different method of storing the same data, it would still give the same end result. If this method allowed me to remove the inaudible part - the 0 to 20Hz range for example, I could then use this "spare data" to store something else. There's also another method of storing the same data in a smaller space : compression. If I take a sound file which is 44.1kHz in 16bit, the same as CD, and ZIP it with WinZIP, it occupies less space. If I did this with all the music from one of my CDs, I could probably copy those ZIP files onto another CD and fit two CDs worth of music onto it (although a normal CD player couldn't play it). I now have twice as much information stored on the same capacity disc. If the ATRAC system were improved enough, it is not inconceivable that it could eventually exceed CD quality. Magic -- "Creativity is more a birthright than an acquisition, and the power of sound is wisdom and understanding applied to the power of vibration." Location : Portsmouth, England, UK Homepage : http://www.mattnet.freeserve.co.uk EMail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Atrac-bug (French horn solo)
Joost de Meij wrote: I downloaded both files, and played them in Winamp... The first file (LoHorn) sounded fine, but when i played the second file (Horn722), i almostly blew my speakers!!! Horn722 is the result of recording LoHorn on a 722 that I have available to me. There were no download errors - you just heard the result of this bug. -cb - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Atrac-bug (French horn solo)
Maybe they corrected it. Joost de Meij wrote: Hi all...! I still have it available on my site along with a pic of the waveform: The original file: www.ozemail.com.au/~atrac/LoHorn.wav The same file recorded on a 722: www.ozemail.com.au/~atrac/Horn722.wav I downloaded both files, and played them in Winamp... The first file (LoHorn) sounded fine, but when i played the second file (Horn722), i almostly blew my speakers!!! It sounded awfull! Only some clipping noise-thing I hope this was something with the connection while downloading or so I recorded the French horn solo (first file) on my MD-MT15, and i didn't hear any strange "clicks" or something. Bye, Joost __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jim Coon Not just another pretty mandolin picker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways/ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: ATRAC
IT should work just fine. DJ DeeKay wrote: Can I play minidiscs recorded with ATRACK 4.5 (or whatever this Sony has) on a higher ATRAC System (6.0 from Sharp). -- Jim Coon Not just another pretty mandolin picker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways/ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
