> 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
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 por
* 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
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 pr
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, Febr
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 se
* "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
> 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
* 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 progr
> 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, t
* 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 compress
> 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
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 wh
* Drexel Atkinson CIRT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 10 Jan 2001
| Sony and Sharp use different atrac formats.
No, they don't. They use subtlely (some claim not so subtle) different
versions of the ATRAC algorithms. Sony's version numbers are only relevant
to Sony, and Sharp's version numbers a
* "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 differen
===
= 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:/
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.
| ---
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.
Leo
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
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 lo
>"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 st
ssage-
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
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"
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
ssage-
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
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
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
| th
=== 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
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 ATRA
> go to that last url on his web site, i posted it to this
> discussion a while back about it. it is however only atrac
> 3 if i recall correctly.
Yep it's a player only .. 132kbit max, won't run unless you backdate
your system date. There are samples there too (at different rates).
I wasn't
go to that last url on his web site, i posted it to this discussion a while
back about it. it is however only atrac 3 if i recall correctly. also if
you fill out a form (forget where it is at sony's web site) they will e-mail
you an atrac 3 software encoder.
hope this helps
- Original Mes
>
> 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.
From: wb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 11:40 PM
Subject: MD: ATRAC Type-WB
> I don't wanna interfere into the discussion whether or not ATRAC encoding
is
> possible on todays PCs (please no flames!!), but I have an ATRAC
> encoder/decoder running o
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
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I don't wanna interfere into the discussion whether or not ATRAC encoding is
> possible on todays PCs (please no flames!!), but I have an ATRAC
> encoder/decoder running on my PentiumII-450Mhz (with good old Win95b). I named my
> encode
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 interest
Hi,
I am extremely interested in ATRAC, could you point me to the right
direction with a few links to various sites that's got the algorithm? where
did you get yours from? Any info would be great. I am hoping to gather more
info about it any maybe use it to do my dissertation next year.
Cheers,
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 s
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
From: Simon Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 12:18 PM
Subject: RE: MD: ATRAC-R and Laser Colors
> Wrong (sorry). While it's correct to say that you don't have to decompress
> the ZIP into a file, you do have to rever
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
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 samplin
[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 total
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 prototyp
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
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
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
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 downl
From: Eric Woudenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 1999 4:36 AM
Subject: MD: ATRAC Naming Botch (was: Compaq Personal Jukebox...)
> What's the difference in naming between the "ATRAC 3" used in Sony's
> old MDS-303 MD deck and the "ATRAC3" used in the
What about just plain old AMTRAK 5? With up to 70% less fatalities than
AMTRAK 4.5?
P.S. Seriously, if anyone knows anything more about the MD camcorder,
please post. (IEEE1394, wherefore art thou?)
-The Refreshing Beverage Messenger- ("Joan Of Barq's")-deliciously
served with a burned stake.
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?
M
51 matches
Mail list logo
