Which bitrate do you use most often?

[mercury_in_flames 0]

132 kb/s = LP2 any songs i convert i keep on my external hard disk, That way i get good quality on my hd5 and have a bit rate that doesnt need to be converted for my md.

[Roamer 1]

HiSP or PCM when recording (which is my main use, and it would be great to be able to record at 352k)

Legacy LP2 for listening in the public transport (for backward compatibility with my Sharp unit)

[ninjaturtle 0]

I really don't like DLing anything less than 128kps MP3s but will take less if I can't find a higher bitrate so I use 64 A3+ for my MD and listen with my Sony's MDR-XD 400s.

My CDs are incoded 196kps VBR, stored in my HTPC and played through my Roku 1000.

[Sparky191 0]

I think once you "hear" the difference between Hi and low bitrates you can't go back.

[mercury_in_flames 0]

Ive listened to lp4 on my jb980, and its actually amazing how much better it sounds compared to using my portables, one of which has type s playback. The only reason i dont use lp4 is because i hate the crackles, pops, and the bass effect- where there seems to be something wrong with the speakers or earphones at every thud of bass, because of the compression. So its listenable, but only for certain music I find.

[AMPlitude 0]

256 is great, i dont see the need to go higher than that

[lecram1971 0]

I use 132 because I find it´s the best Space-Quality. I record many things, but most is as a player.

When I bought the MZ-NH700 I used Hi-Lp (64kbs) and think it´s sound good, but after I heard same disk in 132 I feel so poor the sound quality that I return to 132. For me it sounds like MP3 192.

For my recordings I use PCM or 256

[KJ_Palmer 6]

I've been using 352k quite a bit lately, but the vast majority is still in 256k (Hi-SP) or normal SP. I don't see any great reason to change that. I don't go below 256k, though.

Edited November 14, 2005 by KJ_Palmer

[DARRKCLOUD 0]

Most of my music collection is on 256kbps, apart from 2 what are on 352kbps.

[Sparky191 0]

Ive listened to lp4 on my jb980, and its actually amazing how much better it sounds compared to using my portables, one of which has type s playback. The only reason i dont use lp4 is because i hate the crackles, pops, and the bass effect- where there seems to be something wrong with the speakers or earphones at every thud of bass, because of the compression. So its listenable, but only for certain music I find.

I've heard a lot of people comment that decks are far better than the portables. Since the process is digital I'm not clear on way that is. I suspect that its the playback is better, and that theres no difference in the actual encoding. In the same way a cheap CD sounds worse than a quality CD deck. But I'm only guessing.

[THIS SUCKS 4]

<!--quoteo(post=77980:date=Nov 13 2005, 06:56 PM:name=GregTheRotter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GregTheRotter @ Nov 13 2005, 06:56 PM) ←</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->

Ive listened to lp4 on my jb980, and its actually amazing how much better it sounds compared to using my portables, one of which has type s playback. The only reason i dont use lp4 is because i hate the crackles, pops, and the bass effect- where there seems to be something wrong with the speakers or earphones at every thud of bass, because of the compression. So its listenable, but only for certain music I find.

<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I've heard a lot of people comment that decks are far better than the portables. Since the process is digital I'm not clear on way that is. I suspect that its the playback is better, and that theres no difference in the actual encoding. In the same way a cheap CD sounds worse than a quality CD deck. But I'm only guessing.

why is there no choice to listen at 192k i use it all the time. it sounds much better than lp2

[sfbp 8]

Why do we keep getting :new content: on this post only to find no new postings. Maybe the poll should be closed? Just my $0.02

Merry Christmas (and custard) to all!

Stephen

[Levanel 0]

I step down depending on the source quality and whether I want a compilation.

[Giant_Rick 0]

I transfer cassettes/LPs in Atrac3+ @ 256 (Hi-SP) and then convert to mp3 for my convenience.

When recording a gig I usually record in PCM quality if the show lasts less than 94 mins, otherwise I record in Hi-SP.. I can barely hear the difference.

I have a MD recorded at the lowest bitrate.. it sounds nice with some EQ on my NH900.

Hi-SP is a great deal to me.

[Guest Gray Rider]

I always use 256k and always through simple burner because I think it gives a smoother sound. It's a good compromise to get space. It sounds like a good version of compression that I can be happy with. I only wish sony would make a blu-ray minidisc player so I can move up to PCM.

[Arr-Nine-Hundred 3]

I think the simplicity of just having a "limited" set of very good encoding options is a plus of MiniDisc. If I was faced with loads of tweakable settings like in the LAME encoder I'd be forever changing things or wondering if I could have done better by using a value of 100 rather than 99 for some factor. So it's easy - if recording from mp3, wma, mp4 or another format OR a double CD album then LP2, if recording from an outstanding CD album then SP (eg. RaTM's "The Battle of Los Angelos" lends itself to SP so one can hear every snarl in de la Rocha's lyrics).

So to answer the question: I use LP2 most often, followed by SP. LP4 I never use.

I always encode with Type-R and decode with Type-S.

[Avrin 14]

SimpleBurner encoding uses the same encoding algorithm as SonicStage does in Normal (Faster), and not High, Recording Quality. But this definitely preserves more high frequencies in LP2.

[Azureal 26]

SimpleBurner encoding uses the same encoding algorithm as SonicStage does in Normal (Faster), and not High, Recording Quality. But this definitely preserves more high frequencies in LP2.

Arvin, why would the Normal (Faster) recording quality produce better results than the High (presumably slower ...) recording quality, preserving more high frequencies in LP2? I am curious as I am trying to discern what bit rate/codec to use for some recent recordings.

I used to love LP2 even in the pre-Type S days of playback, but I find it a bit harsh now. This is likely due to all of the real-time optical SP recording I have done over the past few years. SP is hard to beat according to my ears, but I am trying to fit more music on one disc ...

Is it possible to record SP real-time, via optical in, onto an RH1 with a standard MD disc formatted as Hi-MD? This could allow nearly three hours of SP recording on one disc ...

[freddyjollo 8]

I use Lp2 or Lp4. Lp4 for recording spoken radio shows. I did buy a HiMd portable but now only use it as a good NetMd device. I (used to mainly) use the 940/980 brand of deck of which I still have a few, & had Sony brought out a HiMd deck that was readily available I would probably have changed my choice - but they didnt. I would have preferred they had made a deck rather than the MZ-RH1

[Avrin 14]

I'm not sure why this happens, but frequency analysis in Adobe Audition shows that more higher frequencies are preserved when encoding to ATRAC3 @ 132 kbit/s using the Normal (Faster) mode or SimpleBurner, than when using High Recording Quality. And I'm still not sure about the actual quality of encoding (more higher frequencies do not automatically mean better quality).

Also, it is not possible to record in SP/MONO/LP2/LP3/LP4 on the unit in Hi-MD mode (only PCM, Hi-SP, and Hi-LP are available for recording). But you may transfer ATRAC3 @ 66, 105, or 132 kbit/s from the PC.

[sfbp 8]

I use whatever bitrate I won't have to transcode.

For CD->MD this means compressing using SonicStage to Atrac Advanced Lossless (which will generate "essentially" untouched PCM, OR Atrac3+ just as easily). In addition my MXD-D400 CD/MD deck does a nice job making both SP and LP2 digitally.

For recording off the radio or internet, I use either LP2 or Hi-SP. In the case of LP2 I use a deck which has Type-R and this (and the advanced A->D built into the deck) makes sure the optimum use of the data is made to produce a full, rich sound despite compression. In addition I capture long radio compilations at LP4, and the sound is surprisingly reliable after upload.

In the case of Hi-SP, I upload to the PC and never change its format again even if transferring back to MD for a compilation.

In the case of LP2, I use the RH1 to upload it to the PC, and if I want to make a compilation, I transfer the LP2 **unchanged** to HiMD or MD (both work). Note that it's easy to put LARGE amounts of LP2 and LP4 onto HiMD media, almost twice as much (compared to NetMD) on the same physical medium, and up to 16.5 or 33 hours respectively on a single 1GB disk.

I have a feeling that many of the reports comparing the different bit rates used flawed methodology, starting with a particular format (I already drew attention to what an appalling job SonicStage does at ripping PCM to the computer in the interests of speed) and transcoding that file to different rates. This doesn't work. I abandoned LP modes for the first 2 years after I got a portable because the quality was, frankly, crap. Once I worked out to leave the data alone, the LP modes started to shine.

For live recording I use the RH1 and a 1GB disk, at PCM rate (1411Khz), 94 minutes max. This means that I have lots of headroom if I need to play with the signal (eg if it is underrecorded) after uploading.

For transcription (re-mastering) of old analogue recordings, I capture at SP and then upload, either via optical or using the RH1 (and Sonic Stage's automatic WAV conversion), to the PC as a WAV file, which I can edit using one of the many tools (eg. CoolEdit or Audition) available. This avoids bad stuff getting into the signal because the inputs to the MD deck are really clean, and SP->WAV looks pretty good as long as you don't transfer *via* MD more than once.

[Arr-Nine-Hundred 3]

Is it possible to record SP real-time, via optical in, onto an RH1 with a standard MD disc formatted as Hi-MD? This could allow nearly three hours of SP recording on one disc ...

That would be very cool indeed but according to this chart it is not possible: http://www.minidisc.org/hi-md_faq.html#_q93

[Arr-Nine-Hundred 3]

For recording off the radio or internet, I use either LP2 or Hi-SP. In the case of LP2 I use a deck which has Type-R and this (and the advanced A->D built into the deck) makes sure the optimum use of the data is made to produce a full, rich sound despite compression. In addition I capture long radio compilations at LP4, and the sound is surprisingly reliable after upload.

I was about to jump in say that Type-R only benefits SP, not

LP2, recordings but it seems you are correct:

http://www.minidisc.org/type_r_atrac.html

Some user comments suggest otherwise:

http://www.minidisc.org/brian_youn/MDLP_usercomments.html

[sfbp 8]

I was about to jump in say that Type-R only benefits SP, not

LP2, recordings but it seems you are correct:

http://www.minidisc.org/type_r_atrac.html

Some user comments suggest otherwise:

http://www.minidisc.org/brian_youn/MDLP_usercomments.html

I don't think the recordings made with my deck would sound as good as they do 'twere it not for Type-R.

It may be that the transcoding in software doesn't always match the Type-R which is presumably done in the DSP chip(s). That would account for what I have observed, if so. Looks like SOME means in software work ok, but it's a bit hit-and-miss. SimpleBurner seems agreed to do a good job, for whatever reason.

[md user 0]

I know a little off-topic (just) but has anybody compared the quality of Type R SP@292 to [Atrac3+ @256 or @353kbps]?

I'm considering buying one of those NW-A ranges - but they don't offer SP@292.. just wanted to know what to expect (I'm very pleased with SP).

If this has already been discussed, please point me in the right direction ...

Regards All,

mdmad.

BTW, I would have voted for SP@292 - but obviously not an option. Is it correct to presume that Sony considered SP superseded by the above, and so did not include it as native with SS on HiMD, hence the lack of this option in the poll?