Re: [microsound] about samples

[t-mu <tkorpipa@xxxxxxxxx>]

From: Joshua Maremont <thermal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To the last question, yes.  DAT technically sounds better -
> uncompressed audio being better than the ATRAC-compressed audio of MD
> - but in practice the MD portables and media on the market are far
> cheaper, have features far better for field recording (robustness of
> machines and media, editing, relative imperviousness to climate, long
> battery life, long-play recording, etc), and in some cases have
> better-sounding D/A converters than one finds in the DAT portables.
> A good MD portable, a good stereo mic, and a pile of blanks will
> still cost less than a DAT portable.  It is amusing that both were
> intended as consumer formats...

also md:s are smaller and most newer ones have internal battery case (a must
for field-recording) and record hours from one 1.5v battery. many portable
dat's only run off their own rechargeable battery...

plus the compressing method of minidisks has progressed from the earlier
models, making it very close to the non-compressed sound. in my opinion,
nowdays your choice of microphone and the quality of your machine's
mic-pre's/ad-converters affects more to the sound quality than the
compression method (or lack of it).


 t-mu

]]] tkorpipa@xxxxxxxxx        [[[
[[[ "Green breeze sound sofa" ]]]