>WHAT ABOUT CDDB? Your MD keyboarding solution can't take advantage of it. With the music I listen to, CDDB rarely works properly. I have yet to even use the CDDB features. And as you rave about in your other posts, I have *NEVER* traded MD or MP3's with people. Almost everything you say is attractive about MP3 is something I never use, nor does anyone else I know. Especially when it comes to trading---the people I trade live music with absolutely *DO NOT* accept shows sourced from MP3. In my circles, MP3 trading is sure way to get excluded.. >don't even have to type the titles 1 time, when trading 10 copies of an album, >if the titles are in CDDB. What is the big deal with titles? The people I trade shows with (live music) all prefer printed setlists, or emailed setlists. No cd-text on the cd-r, no mp3 to begin with, and no MD trading either. Titles?? >more trouble than MP3, which simply automatically preserves ID3 info across >copies, and utilizes CDDB too so you don't have to type anything, at all. ...And ruins the sound quality of the music, and ruins the tradibility of the music with 90 percent of live music traders out there. And I'm not even considering those pirates who trade copyrighted studio albums. >>MP3 titling is a godsend and puts MD titling to shame. Titling an mp3 is inherent in structure of MP3, it is a part of the file format, and encoding mp3s and titles mp3s are done the same way: on your computer. With MD, a *storage medium*, the titling is obviously going to be more difficult because it is not a part of the PC at all. Comparing the two, which are entirely different, is unfair IMO. > I found that it was easier to trade 30 titled MP3 albums (on CD-R) >in one shot than to trade just 5 titled albums on MD. I just don't understand how you can do that. It is piracy, pure and simple, and it withholds money from the artist and record label. And not just that, but the sound quality is inherently bad. You are the only person I know that trades mp3 and MD albums, not that you aren't the only one... but you are also the reason that the RIAA and record labels are trying to make copyrighted cds. > Automatic titling is inherent in MP3 but not in MD. This is true. 'Automatic titling' is also a very low priority for most minidisc users, and trying to compare the two is wrong. MP3 is a compression scheme. MD is not. MD is a storage medium, just like your hard drive. >MD home decks that lack keyboard input are inferior to MP3s as far as titling. I agree, and it never bothers me. I title all my MD's when I feel that I can't write the titles on the label. Otherwise, just like CDs, I use the label. >I have consistently differentiated between compression algs and storage media, >which is all obvious to anyone with any real comprehension of the >technologies. Actually most of your posts do not differentiate the two. Especially regarding titles, you constantly have compared apples to oranges. >You can compare the quality of MP3 with the quality of ATRAC, or the >features/abilities of MD as a storage and recording medium vs. those of SS >MP3 players vs. HD-based MP3 players vs. CD-based MP3 players, etc. > As I have done. Actually, regarding titling, you have compared the features of the compression and file format of MP3 (id3 tag), vs. the features of MD players. This is an argument based on compression/file format vs. audio hardware. Apple.Orange again. > I think your A/B test is mis-conducted. Actually his test is very fair. It uses a raw uncompressed source (CD), and ATRAC compressed source (MD), ran digitally to his mic amp from the CD and MD players digital output, through (1) DAC (the one in the amp). In this test, you can blindly switch between the two sources with a switch, and listener doesn't know. Very fair. >computer-based audio system. I'm into what the audiphiles call "mid-fi" >(which to normal people would be considered very hi-fi). Normal people? Lol.. Normal people don't pirate albums and trade 30 of them in MP3 format... > My A/B setup is much more fair. Either something is fair or it isn't, nothing can be inherently more fair. In any case, there is nothing wrong with the way his test was done. > There are too many variables in your setup. Wrong. > You're not A/B'ing ATRAC vs. uncompressed, alone; you're comparing two >different playback audio-components (the output of a CD deck and MD deck). Wrong again. He's A/Bing ATRAC vs. Uncompressed alone. The output he is hearing is coming from the mic preamp, which is getting a pure digital signal from the MD and CD units. >My diagnosis is that your CD reader and DAC system is better than your MD CD reader, DAC system?? What are these terms? >My tests predict that if your gear is decently good, you'd find that MD sounds >the same as the CD to your friends in critical headphone tests, and that 256 >or 320 Kbps MP3s would also have that same potential. Your friends could not Highly doubtful. If he is using Seinnheiser headphones or other very high quality audiophile gear, and his friends have good hearing as well, they could easily tell the different between MP3's. ----------------------------------------------------------------- To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
