88 replies to this topic

[LupinIV]

While we have discussed quality issues many times, I think it would be interesting to look at the real bitrate selection when it comes to actually burning Hi-MDs.

So, what is the bitrate that you ACTUALLY end up using the most on your Hi-MDs?

I personally love the higher bitrates quality, but I always end up using the 132 kbps.
Yes the good old Atrac 3. It still is the only mid-bitrate available for MDs (since the new 128 cannot be moved to Hi-MDs) that offers good quality and a lot of room for songs on Hi-MD (both 1Gb or 280Mb)

So lets see what the vox populi (voice of the mass) has to say.

This may give an indication to SONY on what kind of bitrate to offer for the next Hi-MD generation.

Cheers

[greenmachine]

Where's pcm? I use this mode almost exclusively for recording. Hardly use the unit for playback. If i would, I'd propably choose 256 kbps.

[LupinIV]

Where's pcm? I use this mode almost exclusively for recording. Hardly use the unit for playback. If i would, I'd propably choose 256 kbps.

Greenmachine,
I have excluded PCM because it is not really an ATRAC format, and I am referring to PC-to-Hi-MD more than recording from Mic.

I understand that some use PCM on their MD's but I am trying to analyze the pure ATRAC world of MD.

Cheers

Edited by LupinIV, 11 November 2005 - 02:36 PM.

[LupinIV]

C'mon guys!!!
71 views and only 9 votes!!!!

VOTE VOTE VOTE!!!!

[duancg]

PCM for recording.
256 for burn CD onto Hi-MD
132 or 64 for burning downloaded mp3s (depends on how to the mp3 is, but overall, 64 more often than 132 unless I care about comptibility)

[Sparky191]

Well we only just found out about 352kps. So hardly anyone will have tried it yet. I've only tried it on one HiMD so far. Otherwise I would have voted, HiSP. But I reckon I'll be using 352kps more so I voted for that. I use PCM and HiSP for recording, and HiSP/352 for playback.

Edited by Sparky191, 11 November 2005 - 04:12 PM.

[Breepee2]

Where's old SP?

[LupinIV]

Where's old SP?

Well, on the SS transfer options for Hi-MD formatted disks there is no OLD-SP. That is why I have omitted it.

Again, I am trying to make a point on what bitrate you use to transfer to Hi-MD using the optionms available in SS.

Cheers

[atrain]

i actually use atrac3+ 192 mostly or 256 for music i rellay want to listen to.

[RobA]

I only use 48kbps Atrac3plus

Edited by RobA, 11 November 2005 - 11:50 PM.

[LupinIV]

Wow, it really looks like 256 dominates.

Still very low voting though! C'mon don't be shy, let's participate a little. Cast your vote and help MD become a better platform.

Cheers

[alexis]

I like using the 64kbps (Hi-LP), because of the more than acceptable quality for listening on-the-go with earbuds and the plenty of music time in allows, even on 270MB MDs. Definitely my favourite to take music with me while I am out. I even own an iPod too and use AAC encoding at 80kbps, for the same reasons (acceptable quality, plenty of space).

Edited by storm shadow, 12 November 2005 - 03:06 AM.

[ynos]

132 kbps for my MD. I don't store my music in atrac format so my library is empty. I deleted after uploading to MD. Strange huh but I still undecided to convert my music library (45+ GB MP3/WMA) to SS.

[The Low Volta]

at this moment 265 only... in the future (that means when I find the time and if I can still be bothered) I guess I will download a couple of really demanding CD's in 352...

but what really annoys me is that we do not get 352 as a recording option as it would be good for a lot of longer taping I seem to do right now in which I'd still like the best quality possible without changing discs (and Sony...now we now that 352 should be possible)

[dex Otaku]

I stick with HiSP [256kbps] for music.

I occasionally use PCM for some things, such as classical or jazz, but not often.

Some lo-fi recordings I have used LP2 [132kbps] but I generally find that 256kbps is the minimum bitrate that my ears can stand.

And yes, I can hear artifacting in first-generation HiSP-encoded material, though not often enough for it to bother me with portable listening.

Note that when importing CDs, 352kbps is not an available option [at least - not here, it's not]. 352kbps is only available when converting files imported into your library from other sources [like WAV files].

If the recent reports from greenmachine et al about AAL are accurate - that the lossless copy is for playback from SS only, and that anything transferred to HiMD at a different bitrate than the "sub" rate selected is encoded from the already-lossy copy, then I see AAL as completely, utterly pointless. I don't use SS to listen to anything except mic recordings I've just uploaded.

[LupinIV]

Looking at the votes, I wonder if anyone is really interested in mid-bitrares (128-132 or so). It seems that the majority is mostly heading for quality more than playing time.
This fact is about the opposite to the general tendency of using 128kbps mp3s in most of the mp3 players. Also, most of the online services only provide this type of bitrate.

So is the md crowd more sensitive to quality? If so, how many of us actually use mp3s at higher rates? (250 und up)

The results seems to tell that MD users are more quality prone and this makes MD a restricted community of audiofiles compared to the larger community of mp3s gobblers, where the target is to fit as much as we can in the storage privided by the player.

Anyone wants to comment on this thought?

Edited by LupinIV, 12 November 2005 - 11:16 AM.

[ynos]

Looking at the votes, I wonder if anyone is really interested in mid-bitrares (128-132 or so). It seems that the majority is mostly heading for quality more than playing time.
This fact is about the opposite to the general tendency of using 128kbps mp3s in most of the mp3 players. Also, most of the online services only provide this type of bitrate.

So is the md crowd more sensitive to quality? If so, how many of us actually use mp3s at higher rates? (250 und up)

The results seems to tell that MD users are more quality prone and this makes MD a restricted community of audiofiles compared to the larger community of mp3s gobblers, where the target is to fit as much as we can in the storage privided by the player.

Anyone wants to comment on this thought?

Well I think if most of your music are in MP3 in 128-196 kpbs then atrac 132 kbps is the best choice

[greenmachine]

Mp3 - if encoded carefully - can sound good in the ~140-170 kbps range and indistinguishable from the original at ~170-210 when using vbr, which should give more consistent quality. Atrac(3(+)) on the other hand is optimized for low power consumption and restricted to cbr only. I think Atrac simply requires a higher bitrate to reach transparency.

[ynos]

Mp3 - if encoded carefully - can sound good in the ~140-170 kbps range and indistinguishable from the original at ~170-210 when using vbr, which should give more consistent quality. Atrac(3(+)) on the other hand is optimized for low power consumption and restricted to cbr only. I think Atrac simply requires a higher bitrate to reach transparency.

I normally rip my CD to MP3 at 192. This is base on my test. It's hard to tell the difference compare to CD. Someone out there might disagree with me but after all it is me who will listen and enjoy my music .

[Alexx]

I use 66kbs because its also longplay 4; i i use the retro thing a lot. I also really like it a lot mmore than 105 kbs.

I think that 66kbps is actually FAR better than 105. I have never recorded a good track at 105.

105 is on a par with 48kbps.


I use 64kbps a lot too for myself anf HiMD