Guest NRen2k5 Posted July 28, 2004 Report Share Posted July 28, 2004 I read a bit about Type R here. I'm wondering now, why would they make the recorder process the sample twice, first to run it through the psymodel, and then again to re-arrange the bits to make the sound closer to the original? Why not just improve the psymodel in the first place? (When I say psymodel, I'm referring to ATRAC's model of human hearing.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananatree Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 If I can remember properly, Sony's Atrac 1st point of the agenda is to make a pleasing audio-codec, second is trying to sound like the original. I.e "I belive low bit-rate mp3s are less-pleasing than LP4." Hope that answers the question..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jadeclaw Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 Urf, someone actually takes time to read through the old stuff... But seriously, from the graphic shown here: http://www.minidisc.org/type_r_atrac.html#details misplaced bits (brown dots) are corrected to closer correspond to the audio data (blue bars). The 2-pass thing reminds me of video codecs, improving the picture quality considerably during the second pass. If I can remember properly, Sony's Atrac 1st point of the agenda is to make a pleasing audio-codec, second is trying to sound like the original.But that has nothing to do with Type-R, as the two-pass algorithm brings the result closer to the original. I.e "I belive low bit-rate mp3s are less-pleasing than LP4."With LP4 we're coming in an area, where true fidelity isn't no longer possible, so here it is important, what hurts the least. And in that department, low bit-rate mp3s really hurt... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeriyn Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 Besides, MDLP modes of encoding are not handled by the Type-R DSP. Type-R handles SP mode... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananatree Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 Justly said, although I just made assumptions about what I thought about the situation. The LP4 was just an example to pad my "shot in the dark", Since all of Sony's bitrates are meant to please the ear more than copy the original. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jadeclaw Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 To some people, lossy codecs are actually ear-pleasing. The german magazine c't had organized hearing sessions to compare mp3 with CD. Some of the participants actually pointed consistently to the mp3 as the original. (Double blind test). Even at 128k. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NRen2k5 Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 With LP4 we're coming in an area, where true fidelity isn't no longer possible, so here it is important, what hurts the least. And in that department, low bit-rate mp3s really hurt...I beg to differ. At a sampling rate of 22.05kHz or 32kHz, MP3 can sound pretty good at low bitrates... that is to say, certainly in comparison with 64kbps ATRAC3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.