Jump to content

ROMBUSTERS

Members
  • Posts

    893
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    http://
  • Interests
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

4,097 profile views

ROMBUSTERS's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. Right ~8MB sorry forgot to convert from bits to bytes but does no one have actual numbers on any of this?
  2. I have two questions which I can't seem to find answers to regarding the technical specifications of Hi-MD units. 1) What speed does the Hi-MD read/write to a disc (assuming 1GB disc is used). - In the Hi-MD FAQ on this website it states that there is a "Data Transfer Rate" of 9.83Mbps @1.98m/s but that does not mention if that is the reading or writing speed. 2) How large of a RAM buffer do Hi-MDs come standard with? - Obviously the larger the buffer the longer the anti-skip. If Hi-MDs come with at least 40seconds for PCM then thats roughly 40MB of RAM in each unit. Are these exact numbers listed anywhere?
  3. Check Amazon or eBay there's always some kicking around on there
  4. Wrong forum to post this in but welcome to the forums mate! It may be that your CD has copy protection/CD drive cannot read the CD correctly/Your PC doesn't match the system requirements of SS You can try checking Smooth CD Importing or MCI instead of Digital under Options>CD Drive settings Good luck
  5. 105kbps is technically speaking LP3 which falls between LP2 @ 132kbps and LP4 @ 66kbps all part of Atrac3
  6. It'll be a cold day in hell when Hi-LP at 64kbps reaches the quality and high-dimensional sound of Hi-SP at 256kbps
  7. Atrac 3+ 48kbps I believe its either true or joint stereo its not mono for sure Any HiMD/netMD bitrate codec can be used on a HiMD formatted 60/74/80min disc
  8. why do you need optical input if you can use a PC to convert the audio digitally
  9. It would only make sense at this point if they did
  10. How about a completely different theory on AAL. What seems to be the general consensus is that ATRAC Advanced Lossess (AAL) is just a wav pack add-on for the user-defined lossy bitrate file. I have a few problems with this theory first off. 1) Any lossy file throws out audio based on what is needed and not needed. Therefore a smaller lossy file would need a larger wav-esque file to fill the void. -FACT: AAL at 64kbps creates a smaller file than AAL 256kbps (contradicting the first statement) 2) Any lossy file introduces artifacts based on the encoder. This would be very hard to [predict] and recreate the perfect lossless audio especially at the speed SS currently rips the song at. My Theory AAL is not a wav-pack. In fact there is nothing special about the way AAL encodes the lossless audio (beyond the general universal compression). The only difference between AAL and Windows Media Audio Lossless (WMAL) is that AAL was designed to meet a different need. A few posts back it was mentioned that ATRAC3+ was designed with many data layers in mind. Only a few of these are used for the lossy data. This was so that if the bandwidth of transmission wasn't great enough to transmit all of the full lossless data it would default on the smaller lossy data instead. This is evident when transferring audio to the minidisc player. My theory is that AAL consists of two parts: 1) Lossy ATRAC3+ that we are familiar with. This could exist in some of ATRAC3+ data layers. 2) Lossless independent part. This exists in some of the other layers. Proof: I have ripped 2 CD tracks from Linkin Park's Hybrid Theory album (don't hate me for my tastes in music, it was the first CD on the desk). Test Tracks: Crawling 3:28 In The End 3:36 I then ripped these tracks in WMAL, AAL64kbps, WMA64kbs and Atrac 3+ 64kbps. File Sizes: Windows Media Audio: Crawling WMAL: 24.3MB In The End WMAL: 24.6MB Crawling WMA64: 1.62MB In The End WMA64: 1.68MB Atrac3+ Audio: Crawling AAL: 25.94MB In The End AAL: 26.29MB Crawling 64: 1.62MB In The End 64: 1.67MB Right off the bat it is obvious that AAL is larger than WMAL but this will be explained in the parts to come. Subtracting the size of Atract 3+ 64kbps from the AAL64kbps (effectively removing the 64kbps lossy file) results in this: Crawling AAL - 64: 25.94MB-1.62MB = 24.32MB In The End AAL - 64: 26.29MB-1.67MB = 24.62MB Look how close these file sizes are to WMAL file sizes: Crawling WMAL: 24.3MB AAL: 24.32MB In The End WMAL: 24.6MB AAL: 24.62MB Very close although there is a slight discrepancy. My first thought was that the meta data portion of the audio file in Atrac was larger than that of WMAs. That's why I compared the 64kbps versions. Crawling: WMA64: 1.62MB A3+64: 1.62MB In The End: WMA64: 1.68MB A3+64: 1.67MB This showed that the results were almost identical with a larger file size favoring the WMA64 of In The End. My conclusion is that either the MB display of the file properties is rounded off too much or that (more likely) the difference in file size is a direct result of the differences in Lossless compression techniques used. Therefore my theory is that: AAL = Separate(Normal Lossless Packing + Lossy File)
  11. its not a very intuitive way of doing things
  12. At least it alerts you to the fact that converting a lower bitrate to a higher one results in no increase in sound quality
  13. Then shouldn't an ALL file ripped at 64kbps be larger than one ripped at 256kbps because more information is needed to correct the lossy portion? I could be wrong but back when I was testing it out I noticed that the 64kbps file was still smaller.
  14. In my personal test (which were not extensive at beyond a couple hurried minutes this morning) there seems to be no difference in quality between the AAL tracks (each encoded with the different bit rates) burned to a CD. This would mean that when burning an audio CD the original WAV/PCM quality is preserved.
  15. I must admit the 352kbps bitrate does provide a bit more clarity than 256kbps (in my testing at least)
×
×
  • Create New...