Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist (Read 22904 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #25 –
Typical journalists tyring to push big branded names into the forefront.  I get sick of this kind of thing, I read an article in Micro Mart and they gave reviews on audio players, yeah all the big names like Winamp, iTunes and M$ mediaplayer, but they didn't even mention Foobar
:Foobar 2000:
:MPC --standard:
:iRiver H320 Rockboxed:

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #26 –
Quote from: Trondis on
As always, much fuss about Atrac. But it doesn't always come out as the worst codec:

http://www.soundexpert.info/coders256.jsp

Quote from: /mnt on
Yeah, but it sucks at 352 while LAME at 320kps does very well on those results:

http://www.soundexpert.info/coders320.jsp;...id=IDDIFCLEOIBC

There are those who criticize (and I believe rightly) the validity of the methodology used on that site, so take the results with a grain of salt.

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #27 –
Quote from: bug80 on
Most musicians I know use MD for quick demos or live recordings (including my own band).
I've heard Top40 CD singles that sound like they've come from MD. Spectral analysis shows they've come from a lossy encoder, and the artefacts sound far more like multiple MD generations that anything else. It has a characteristic way of "missing" transients, rather than smearing them - especially noticeable in stereo when one channel happens to have the problem and (for some random reason) the other channel doesn't.

Cheers,
David.

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #28 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: bug80 on
Most musicians I know use MD for quick demos or live recordings (including my own band).
I've heard Top40 CD singles that sound like they've come from MD. Spectral analysis shows they've come from a lossy encoder, and the artefacts sound far more like multiple MD generations that anything else. It has a characteristic way of "missing" transients, rather than smearing them - especially noticeable in stereo when one channel happens to have the problem and (for some random reason) the other channel doesn't.

Cheers,
David.

Oh wow. I guess some people don't know that MD's are lossy.

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #30 –
Just on Sony, my wife bought me a CD-player for Christmas a couple years back, and it supported ATRAC, and my wife was asking me about it.

I thought it was interesting that although on the packaging Sony compared MP3 and ATRAC3plus (or whatever it was), they never compared the quality- emphasis was clearly on filesize, to paraphrase, something like "ATRAC can hold X more files on a CD than MP3".

So maybe in the later days the emphasis was on storage (i.e. terrible quality and low bitrates- I think the example used 32kbps) since most consumers realised ATRAC was a dead format.

- Spike

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #31 –
People should be moving on to AAC anyway in my opinion (as a lossy codec), all major portable players out there support it and I have even seen el cheapo players (unknown chinese brand, etc.) that support it. But, of course you guys did know this already