alexis

The "bitrate" of AAL refers to the lossy part of an AAL file. I just had hoped that converting to higher bitrates would use the additional information (the lossless part) of AAL to produce a higher-quality file. I like sound quality, that is why I like the MiniDisc format. The other (and for me big) problem is the lost gapless playing: it is true that it may be very hard to distinguish a 64kbps ATRAC3plus converted from original material and the same one converted from 256kbps ATRAC3plus - but the converted result is not gapless any more, which I cannot tolerate, because gapless playing is one of the reasons I ditched my iPod for MiniDisc gear. I want gapless playing at any bitrate.

This would explain why the conversion rippAAL64high -> 256 is still gapless: it is exactly the same data as the (gapless) original import. All other conversions include gaps (which makes them unacceptable for me, as quite many of my CDs have seamless tracks (techno mixes, live performances, some classical, some soundtracks...). I am afraid I will soon stop testing so much about AAL, because now I have ruled out the format as a choice for my library (mainly because it is not really scalable, ignoring the lossless part for re-encodings, and because of the broken gapless playing).

I sais "re-rendered", I meant transferred to minidisc then transferred back to the library after the original material has been deleted then re-rendered as WAV file. So the quality/complexity of the lossy part can be evaluated.

More conversion Voodoo: gapless?Gapless tracks are preserved when transferring imported tracks "as-is" (which is normal and expected) but only converting from 64kbps AAL to ATRAC3plus 256kbps preserves gapless tracks. All other conversions I have tested (AAL 256 -> A3+ 64, or any AAL to ATRAC3) causes slight gaps in converted recordings. Why does it work differently for this conversion? And will the 256kbps converted track have better quality (this topic seems to have been negatively answered according to our previous tests). However, looking at the re-rendered WAV files from these tracks (AAL64kbps->A3+256kbps->WAV) shows less differences to the original than the re-rendered 64kbps WAV file (AAL64kbps->WAV). Why? Beats me... lossless?I can confirm after more testing that a rendered WAV file from an AAL track is identical to the original only for the first converted track. All following tracks show differences. Why? Beats me... This unpredictable Voodoo has killed my confidence in the AAL format. Now I am stuck at the beginning of my survey: how will I build a music library which can handle multiple formats and multiple bitrates gracefully?The only alternative I have is: import music as WAV files and let SonicStage perform conversions to other formatsgood: simple library structurebad: eats up disk space, must specify transfer bitrate using optionsimport music multiple times into the library under the same album name and use playlists to manage the different formats and bitratesgood: no conversion voodoo, saves disk space, simple transfer handlingbad: inelegant and tedious library management, takes more time to rip and import musicGood advice, tips and tricks from anyone to manage a library using multiple formats and bitrates?Does anybody know if a playlist can be generated outside SonicStage?

Any hints about the DH10P performance?

I converted source material (the overture of the nightmare before Christmas soundtrack) in AAL 64kbps, transferred it to minidisc as ATRAC3plus 256kbps and re-transferred it again after having deleted the AAL at 64kbps (because SonicStage uses the track's key to identify it, renaming or changing the album name of the track have no effect: SonicStage knows that it already has the track in the library, so it does not transfer it back). Then I rendered the transferred file into a WAV and had a look at it. Typically, forr any track that begins with silence and rising music, the beginning of the WAV file is filled with zeros, and then very small amplitude samples begin to appear (FFFF,0001, etc...). At 64kbps these very small amplitude samples are removed, thus reducing complexity, so when comparing two files, it is easy to see which one shows these samples and which one shows zeros at the same place. Maybe I will care doing a blind test between tracks transferred from AAL 64kbps and ATRAC3+256kbps at 64kbps, but I think I would not hear any difference (except, as I already said in previous posts, for the gaplessness).

First off all, that is actually a good news - like Sony understands at last that SonicStage and their stupid content locking policy prevents their products from being bought. We have been waiting for such a move for years (count how many posts here wanted "just drag and drop"). Furthermore, is this model not just an entry-level MP3 player? Normal people like you and I (well, actually not like you and I - people sticking to Sony's idiosyncrasies cannot be normal ) just want the shortest way: copy the MP3 files they have just illegally downloaded to their player with one mouse movement, and go outside enjoy life. This model is for them - inexpensive, simple to use, looks good, works. How we could benefit from this recent move from Sony is if they release a more advanced player (say, hard disk based, or even ... based on Hi-MD no, no, no I'm dreaming) aimed at more tech- or sound-savvy people with deeper pockets, where all you had to do is to drag-and-drop DRM-free .OMA files into. This is actually just what we have all wished for years, so let us hold our breath and wait for Sony to produce this wonderful device (well, Sony hurry up otherwise we will all be dead soon). I can only grief on Sony ditching ATRAC (well, ATRAC3plus) which is a superior codec, but we can imagine that ATRAC is to MP3 what DTS is to Dolby digital... MP3 is not a really bad, just was at the right place at the right moment - and the ATRACxxx codecs will certainly retain a strong set of loyal followers (at least one: me).

Bad news guys: I have done some testing recently that definitely shows that although rendered WAV files and burned CDs are identical to the original (see this topic), when converting an AAL 64kbps file into an ATRAC3plus 256kbps file, only the ATRAC3plus part of the AAL file gets used to perform the conversion, that is the converted 256kbps file has the same quality as a 64kbps file (to be honest, the standard warning from SonicStage has always told us so). Combined with my previous observations, this leads us the following bottom line(s): AAL is useful for burning CDs or rendering WAV filesAAL is not useful for converting to higher bitratesAAL helps converting high bitrates to low bitrates better (preserves gapless tracks)So in conclusion:AAL can be useful as format for your music library, but only if converted with high bitrate on your computer. The only drawback would be that files converted to lower bitrates would be converted from the lossy part of the AAL, not from the original (if somebody can actually hear the difference between 64kbps converted from original material and from ATRAC3plus-SP, except for gaplessness, this person should be called either God or The Nitpicker). I think I'm going to build up my library with Hi-SP AALs, these are good enough for me (burn CDs, convert preserving gaplessness) and eat up less space on my hard disk. See you guys for the next measurements... (next chapter is whether rendered files are identical when rendered alone or together with other files).

Well, would you care to give us the link to the original image of the *cute* asian looking girl ? She is definitely my favourite / would be nice to continue to see her even after the most-desired Olivia has come back .

Great work garcou, now we all know the conversion options voodoo a little better, based on rigorous measurements and not on vague assumptions. I am still trying to determine whether a converted AAL 64kbs file into 256kbps ATRAC3plus has better quality than the original 64kbps part. As it is a deliberate comparison between two lossy formats, this would be a case for a listening test, for which I still cannot give definitive answers. I will try to find a modus operandi to compare these tracks using WAV file comparison or something, maybe this weekend. So after all, AAL seems to be a good basis to store music in the library, with merely the same features than WAV file storage, but needing less disk space.

I had a couple of problems with SonicStage 4.3. Try de-installing everything and re-installing the OpenMG secure module. Try installing the personal audio driver using the MDCF downloadable version. Try to force an installation using Windows "Add or Remove Programs".

Yeah! I just corrected my post.

I suggest to de-install all software, especially the OpenMG secure module, to delete all files in /Program Files/Sony Shared/Common/OpenMG (or something like that) and in the My Music directory, and to reinstall everything from scratch. Use SonicStage 4.3, and disable the copy protection "feature" when importing files: at least, the whole content of the library can be re-imported as .oma files if the OpenMG module is reinstalled.

By the way, I still see the "older" avatar (white girl), but stretched horizontally - do I have a problem with my internet cache or browser or something? Looks like it is actually stretched to the same aspect ratio as your new avatar on audiotstation (the *cute* asian looking girl ). What does your new avatar actually look like? correction: I forced the manual reload of the avatar image a couple of times, and voilà... a nice *cute* asian looking girl . Sorry for the disturbance - it is indeed the same avatar as on audiotstation.

The RH-10 is definitely a problematic machine. Mine had this strange bug that I listened to an MP3 Hi-MD for a while, then I switched for another Hi-MD and recorded tracks on it. Then at the end of the recoding, it wrote the system file, and I got a "cannot record or play" error. My while disk was trashed. I looked further and realized that the RH-10 had actually overwritten the tracklist file with the one from the Hi-MD just before. Of course, nothing was consistent with the existing maclist file on the Hi-MD any more, thus the trashed recording. Furthermore, it did the same during some experiments a couple of hours later. I also had this strange bug that once, I was listening to music, and I bumped it on a table (it slipped my hand). after that, the track I was listening to would not play any more - instead, it would scroll through the whole track at high speed. I think somebody had this one too somewhere else in this forum. Anyway, now I won't record with this RH-10 any more - too many problems reported from other people. I was really fond of the RH-10, but now I think it is only good to play tracks from write-protected MDs. This unit seems to damage much too many MDs to be trusted.

I think that is what AAL does indeed (it still has to be scientifically proven). Conversions from AAL are performed using the lossless material source. AAL can then be considered as a lossless representation of source information, equipped with a "preview", or "thumbnail" feature in form of a smaller, lossy part that enables quick operation when lower quality is acceptable. For me, it is the feature I always wanted to have for such a music format: scalability. Maximal fidelity to source material, and fastest conversion (i.e. no conversion necessary) to "standard use" devices. A multi-step scalability would be even more desirable (say, information that stack onto another, like lossless over 256kbps over 64kbps), as I don't see perfect quality as a goal per se, but rather flexibility and ease of use for everyday life use.

Well, that was exactly the statements I was trying to clarify: is it really so or it is a legend? From the previous measurements, it looks like at least .WAV renderings from AAL are performed using the lossless part. So why not assume that conversion to other formats also uses the lossless part of AAL as source? Then, AAL format would be useful, because there is no loss of quality when converting to higher bitrates or burning CDs. I actually never have found any proofs that converting from AAL 64kbps to higher bitrates leads to loss of quality, just rumors. I can assure you that converting from AAL 64kbps and ATRAC3plus 64kbps does not produce the same results, regarding to "gaplessness". Let us try and experiment a little bit more until we have facts that we can analyse.

Thank you for your help. I am happy to observe that AAL seems to be lossless indeed - now I'll have to find out why I do not get rendered material identical to source material . Considering the results of your measurements, I will certainly use AAL as a format for my music library, although you do not recommend it. But I think the versatility of AAL in SonicStage makes it the right candidate for my intended use of a music library (keeping source material ready for conversion and transfer to various NetMD and Hi-MD equipment, as well as occasional CD burning). Anyway, it is only original CDs and a little bit of eMusic. I actually never listen to music using my PC, and now that I have lost one Hi-MD (I mean lost - I can not find it any more ) and my RH-10 has trashed a MD full of CD recordings , I am considering building a library to be able to replace such losses quickly. I think I would use 64kbps AAL, as mos tof my transfers are for mass-storage music Hi-MDs. However, I want to be able to transfer some selected pieces at 256kbps, for favourites listening, and I would like to burn CDs in CD quality for use in Cd equipment or in car-stereo CD changer. So if the quality of the converted higher bitrate tracks and of the burned CDs is confirmed to be higher than the 64kbps quality, then AAL will do the job for me.

I have made some posts in this topic and I would like to catch the attention of some of you guys about making some advanced measurements on WAV files rendered from AAL format (using SonicStage 4.3). I already found out that AAL files behave differently regarding to conversion to other formats, and I have done some basic analysis (well, means just "look at the WAV with HEX editor" and "do some hearing tests") which tend to show that AAL does not reproduce source material identically, but may show no loss of source material information, maybe something like reproduce an identical frequency distribution, or something like that. However, I lack the hardware, software and expertise to perform such nice analyses and comparisons like some people made here to compare the various Hi-MD formats. Could somebody perform some tests and publish them in this forum? I would be very interested, and maybe others too, as it seems that AAL is not really popular, according to the relative rarity of posts on this subject.

Hi! I have been testing those ATRAC3plus and AAL formats, and there is a difference, definitely. Funny thing is, converting a WAV file into an AAL 64kbps and rendering this AAL into a WAV file leads to... a different WAV file - so much for being lossless. However, this resulting file has been judged "better" (by my wife, which is quite younger than me and has undoubtedly better ears) than a rendering from a simple ATRAC3plus 64kbps. I then had a look at those files, and I could see that the original WAV and the rendered AAL had similar "low noise" artifacts, say, many sample values between -5 and +5, whereas the 64kbps rendering shows much smoother sample sequences. So it looks like although the AAL rendering does not lead to identical WAV file data, at least maybe it leads to identical frequency distribution or something. Being that my common computer is a Macintosh and that I don't have neither a decent audio card nor decent audio software, could somebody perform some more precise measurements for frequency distribution, or in any way analyse and compare AAL rendered WAV files? By the way, another funny thing: rendering an AAL track will give different WAV files if it is rendered alone or as part of several tracks rendered altogether. Why? Beats me.

Hi guys! I've been recently playing with SonicStage 4.3 experimenting with various import format and bitrates, and transfer options. And I have come to the interesting conclusion that there is a difference between ATRAC3plus at any bitrate and AAL (ATRAC Advanced Lossless) at the same bitrate. I imported a full CD in ATRAC3plus and then transferred the tracks "as-is" and at a different bitrate. Well, the tracks transferred as-is were gapless, whereas the converted tracks were not gapless. Furthermore, when I imported the same CD tracks in AAL format and then transferred them at a different bitrate, the resulting converted tracks were gapless (no roots and everything will be alright tomorrow from Faithless, two albums where each track mixes seamlessly to the next). This means that in any case, the conversion routine from SonicStage 4.3 works differently for ATRAC3plus and AAL, even at the same bitrate. Looks like it is the first time that a difference can be measured between AAL and ATRAC3plus at the same bitrate. Does anybody have some experience with importing and transferring AAL tracks using SonicStage 4.3 or 4.2?Has anybody tested whether the rendered .WAVs or audio CDs created by SonicStage from AAL have better sound than the same created from ATRAC3plus?Has anybody tried what I describeed using a prior version of SonicStage? What are the results?I am using different formats to listen to music (Hi-LP for fully loaded Hi-MDs, Hi-SP for quality sound favourites, LP2 for legacy equipment), and SonicStage is not as flexible as I would like. So far, the option to import as AAL and then to let SonicStage convert to appropriate format is the only one that guarantees me gapless playing and sensible music library management. I will be happy to share my further experiments with the MD forum community, and will be happy to benefit from other people's knowledge on this subject .

Yes, absolutely - the MZ-1 is a nice unit. The big screen and well designed controls, plus the slot-loading mechanism would make it a perfect... Hi-MD deck! So take the MZ-1 case and controls, keep the slot loading, KEEP THE TOSLINK DIGITAL OUT, make it work on 4 standard AA batteries/rechargeable cells, improve the screen resolution (keep it backlit LCD, not OLED), add USB connectivity, add an infrared remote control, and voilà, you have the ultimate portable Hi-MD deck many have dreamt of for a long time. Add a special car-stereo "slide-in" adapter with radio, or something like that, and you get the ultimate car Hi-MD player many have dreamt of for a long time. Gosh - I wish I was head-of-what-to-do-decisions at Sony, just to make this happen. More on the wish list anyone?

I often proceed the following way: * input Artist/Album for first track of set to edit * move to next track mark (usually, just press "next" on your unit) * remove the track mark (just press "T.mark") * set the track mark again at the same position (immediately press "T.mark" again) * voilà... Album and Artist have been copied to the follwing track in just three clicks * then move to the next track mark and do it again This process can be optimised further if you do it all in pause mode, that is, you start playing a track, set your player to pause, perform the editing while staying in paused mode, and then press "stop". The trick is, the System File will be written only once, when you stop the player, and not every time you press "T.mark", which saves a lot of time.

Maybe it was just removed from the consumer (non-professional) product palette. Somebody checks for it?

Well, I think (must still properly re-test it) that backing up a complete set of files from an Hi-MD to any medium and restoring it back at a later time works, "works" meaning that the result is a working Hi-MD holding exactly the same data as at the time it was backed up. No problem with encryption seeds or so. However it works only if you restore the data onto THE VERY SAME PHYSICAL MEDIUM (disk) and DO NOT FORMAT THE DISK in the meantime. Looks like some encryption information is stored at a place that only the Minidisc device can access and is used to check if somebody tampered with the Hi-MD audio files. Thus a possible way to "almost safely" backup music on MD would be to use Hi-MD formatting and back up their content onto another media (hard disk, or why not other MDs in data mode?). It would provide security against trashed Hi-MD recordings, but if the TOC is damaged or the MD is re-formatted, everything is lost (i.e. not even SonicStage can recover music from the original files). This post is to take with care however, as everything stated here should be carefully tested (especially resistence against System-File-Write crash). But as already mentioned in previous posts somewhere else, I would not really recommend Minidisk for archiving, mostly due to the rarity of hardware (what if one day your MD/Hi-MD player dies?) and closeness of the software (Sonistage only/very picky about encryption). Furthermore, backup has to be done using the highest quality level (using lossless compression or very-high quality lossy compression), which is very space-consuming. A full backup of a large music collection would take a big number of MDs or Hi-MDs, which is (very) expensive. Furthermore, there is still the option of regular (non music) magneto-optical disks. They are inexpensive (if old) and compatible with just anything, and are available (eBay) in sizes from 230 MB up to several GB). Data can be stored on them with the same level of durability as prized MDs, and they can be accessed by any computer for any purposes.