Why I've come back to MD

[Wundoo]

I got frustrated some months ago with Sony and decided to succumb to the seduction of MP3. I bought an MP3 player and put my Net MD away.

Some weeks later I am selling my MP3 player and returning to minidisc.

Why? MP3 and WMA are not as good as ATRAC3 at high compression rates. Having more songs on a player rather than carrying around a few discs made eff all difference to my life.

At the end of the day you pay for quality and much as they annoy me, Sony have been able to provide decent audio quality, great reliability and phenomenal battery life at a decent price.

I hope the MD format is here for years to come. I am now thinking about buying a HiMD player. I will use it for higher bitrate recordings and also for mic recordings.

Has anyone else been through the same process as me and concluded that Minidisc can't really be beaten despite all the hype to the contrary?

[watcher666]

Yep!

I bought an ipod off ebay, and a week later it was back on ebay!!! :laugh:

VERY poor battery life, Also at maximum volume it was still quiet and i found i was getting lost in the menu and not finding the song i wanted!

I got several albums off of itunes (fantastic software!) but they are encoded at 128kbps AAC which DID NOT sound as good as ATRAC at 132kbps! I expected it to sound the same or better but there was a very noticable drop in clarity and detail!

I have since got a Hi-MD player, only a 600, but the UK version has the optical input and AC input so that's enough for me!

[KJ_Palmer]

Hmmm.... Whether you love or loathe the iPod, I never thought the volume on the thing was a problem. Especially compared to Euro/UK MD units..

[Latexxx]

I got several albums off of itunes (fantastic software!) but they are encoded at 128kbps AAC which DID NOT sound as good as ATRAC at 132kbps! I expected it to sound the same or better but there was a very noticable drop in clarity and detail!

placebo... :laugh:

[watcher666]

I have no idea what the above post means! :wink:

If it's a chart showing that itunes is a better audio codec than atrac, then fair enough!

But, i got my ipod with the full intent of completely converting to it and selling all my MD gear! So im unbiased!

I downloaded an album (that i already have on MD), full of excitement over my new toy, pressed play and........My heart sank! It's hard to explain but the music did'nt sound "alive" it was clear and correct but lacked something?!

I tried again over a week converting all my CD's etc onto the ipod but at 128kbps (which Apple describe as "High Quality") the sound was dissapointing. Using Apple Losseless is a different matter hovever, but what you but from itunes is set at 128kbps so it was no good to me!

[Latexxx]

I downloaded an album (that i already have on MD), full of excitement over my new toy, pressed play and........My heart sank! It's hard to explain but the music did'nt sound "alive" it was clear and correct but lacked something?!

It probably lacked atrac3's artifacts which can be clearly heard without even abx'ing and which you were likely to be used to.

[watcher666]

Well, i never use LP2, i have only ever used SP. There are noticeable differences between LP2 and SP but to as a comparison ATRAC3 at 132 sounded more pleasing than AAC at 128.

But as all my music is recorded in SP (via optical input) using my JB940 that is probably why i noticed such a difference between the ipod (128kbps) and MD (292kbps).

Also my ipod was 3rd gen, I hear that they have improved the audio circitry in the latest model!

[jadeclaw]

One warning: Never compare tracks from the iTunes store with self encoded tracks.

Aside from the fact, that Nero outperformes iTunes, even iTunes can deliver a considerably better quality than what you get from the iTunes store.

But of course, to be fair, you should use atleast AAC@256k to compare it with your MD @ 292k.

On the other paw, the JB-series is known for its excellent codec

Any pc-based codec has a hard time to keep up with it...

[Wundoo]

With regard to these tests the results of which are shown in the graph - does anyone know how they compare the sound files?

Do they play all the different formats on the same computer, amplifier and speakers?

What I have started to think is that Atrac files sound good when played on a machine designed to play them i.e. a minidisc player.

I think I forgot that with minidisc I was buying the whole package and that the players themselves were excellent.

I am also wary of so called objective tests such as the one above. I think enjoyment of music is to a large degree subjective. I am interested in these tests but just not sure what to make of them, especially as they seem to come to different conclusions. Also you have to read the small print. If I remember correctly, some of the tests I have seen compare different formats at different bit rates e.g. 64kbps Atrac vs 128kbps AAC.

I am not against iPod but something about their extreme popularity, the way they look and sound and the battery life puts me off. Maybe I am just a self deceiving Juan Kerr and misguided snob - who knows?

[jadeclaw]

The result from the test Latexx mentioned was achieved by blind testing using a software, that plays the tracks at random, so that the listener doesn't know, which codec was used for the file, that is just playing.

To remove the influence of different software versions on the decode side, the sound examples had been delivered encoded in a lossless format after going through an encode/decode cycle of the tested codec.

The graph is from the 128kBit test.

It is true, it depends on the music used and the ratings can also depend on the technology used to create the original recording.

[Latexxx]

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat12...28/results.html

It is a subjective double blind listening test. The files are decoded using reference decoders (in the case atrac3, Sonic Stage) and all files are played back on same kind of hardware. Of course it is likely that atrac3 on md sounds different than on your pc but that is due to amps, not some special kind of decoding, so there is really nothing to complain about. If you would like to test atrac on md equipment, you would need to somehow play the other formats on the same to get equivalent results for all formats, and that would be just the same thing than playing on pc.

The bitrates are visible on that page too.

[xispe]

the conclusion is that: atrac is the worst encoding around! :laugh: :laugh:

[watcher666]

NO, the conclusion is that ATRAC3 is the worst coding around

[aeriyn]

iPod sounding quieter than MD makes absolutely no sense.

iPod = 30mW+30mW @ 32ohm headphone amp. MD = 5mW+5mW @ 16ohm headphone amp maximum. There are MD units (Euro models and Panasonics) that have less than 5mW amps.

[sxc]

Now that Hi-MD can playback PCM, it may be possible to get all formats played back on a MD. Firstly, encode your music to the different formats. Then burn them to a CD in CD audio format, and record them into a Hi-MD at PCM quality. Then in essence you have the tracks in their different formats all on the MD.

[aeriyn]

Now that Hi-MD can playback PCM, it may be possible to get all formats played back on a MD. Firstly, encode your music to the different formats. Then burn them to a CD in CD audio format, and record them into a Hi-MD at PCM quality. Then in essence you have the tracks in their different formats all on the MD.

Uh, that makes no sense at all. :laugh:

That's just transcoding with an extra step.

Edit: Doh. *smacks herself*

[Rumz]

If he's referring to doing a blind test on different codecs or comparing them all on one portable device (as a control), it makes sense-- since you can't playback every format on any one portable device. You could actually do it with any portable device that supports wav playback, there's just an extra step to package the PCM to put it on Hi-MD.

[dex Otaku]

It is a subjective double blind listening test. The files are decoded using reference decoders (in the case atrac3, Sonic Stage)

While I don't dispute the effectiveness of the testing method, I would assert that using SonicStage as a reference codec for -anything- basically invalidates the test completely. It's well established that the quality of the SonicStage codec is not representative of what atrac3 is capable of. Delicately rephrased: it's well established that SS's codec is basically shite compared to the hardware versions.

On the other hand, if the purpose of the test is to compare codecs that people are likely to use for ripping and encoding music to put on their portables.. since SS is the only choice for netMD / HiMD users, and since the SS codec is what people will be using, then ..

I love it when I defeat my own point. =

[skyther]

In this day and age, only a senile person would encode in real-time. (live recording activities aside) :happy:

[jadeclaw]

In this day and age, only a senile person would encode in real-time. (live recording activities aside) :happy:

Unless you want the highest quality, knowing that SonicStage is junk compared to even the cheapest portable recorder...

[watcher666]

Unless you want the highest quality, knowing that SonicStage is junk compared to even the cheapest portable recorder...

That's why i do it! :grin:

Also, unless your using Hi-MD, which i dont as it's incompatable with my existing deck's and car unit, then all you can get through SonicStage is LP2!

Do you still think im senile?

[Latexxx]

Now that Hi-MD can playback PCM, it may be possible to get all formats played back on a MD. Firstly, encode your music to the different formats. Then burn them to a CD in CD audio format, and record them into a Hi-MD at PCM quality. Then in essence you have the tracks in their different formats all on the MD.

By using this method you'll lose the blind feature of this kind of tests.

[thepootleflump]

Can someone answer this question. Why is SonicStage so poor compared with the built-in encoder?

[dex Otaku]

Answer #1: Sony

.. #2: it's probably optimised for speed, not quality

[reefbeef]

When using the real time upload method, we record the stream sent to the sound card while playing the data on the HiMD through SS. My question: Are we recording the HiMD (hardware) codec or SS' s poorer version?

[thepootleflump]

But is it that bad really? I'm never likely to use the encoder on the player itself why encode in realtime when you can encode the same track in a matter of seconds. Anyone done any back to back listening tests or blind listening tests to see if it really makes enough difference.

Sounds like sony should offer a slower "high quality" encoding mode in SS.

[dex Otaku]

reefbeef: playing HiMD via USB means the audio is being decoded by SS. No real comparison has been done between the hardware and software atrac3/plus decoders, so I can't really say if one is better or not. I would suspect that the software decoder is likely to be of higher quality than the encoder, though - among other things, it's much easier to implement the decoder itself since its standard is basically set in stone. If there is any noticeable difference between them, I'd be surprised.

thepootleflump: it's not that bad, really. I doubt I'd be able to tell the difference with all material. I don't really have a way to fully test this myself as I have no equipment with [optical] digital outputs. Honestly, I don't mind HiSP as it stands from SS - I don't expect miracles from a portable player anyway, and HiSP through SS is transparent -enough- that it doesn't cause me severe listening fatigue over extended listening sessions. By comparison, 192kbps mp3 from most encoders -does-.

[reefbeef]

Oh, I think I understand. SS 'decodes' when playing the HiMD via USB and 'encodes' when downloading music in a non atrac format? Is this correct?

And you're suggesting that the decoder in SS is probably very similar to that of the recorder so the upload is still lossless. Correct?

Thanks...

[dex Otaku]

Oh, I think I understand.  SS 'decodes' when playing the HiMD via USB and 'encodes' when downloading music in a non atrac format?  Is this correct?

Anything going to/from HiMD goes through SS.

If you rip a CD with SS [or SimpleBurner] it gets encoded by SS's codec.

If you transcode an mp3 or [non-DRM'd] WMA or WAV file, it gets encoded by SS's codec.

Basically, anything going to HiMD from your computer gets encoded by SS's codec. Unless, of course, you're using OMA PCM [which is straight PCM, i.e. uncompressed, stuck into the OMA container format for DRM purposes].

And you're suggesting that the decoder in SS is probably very similar to that of the recorder so the upload is still lossless.  Correct?

Um. Hmm. 'Lossless' is not the right term, there.

If you recorded on HiMD in any of the atrac3plus formats, you're using lossy compression, so there's a loss on decode to PCM.

If you recorded in PCM, there should not be any difference between what's on the disc and what gets to your computer.

So - more accurately put, and note that this isn't proven fact but rather my own hypothesis - with atrac3plus audio there should be no significant difference, if any at all, between what is decoded from the player and what is decoded by SonicStage.

With PCM audio there should be no difference as no decoding is being done.

However:

Note that this is sort of under debate right now, as some suspect that Sony are watermarking audio that has been recorded on HiMD and copied to the PC with SS. While this has not been proven either way, chances are that this would be implemented in the codec itself [so that any method of copying carries the watermark] which means that if this is the case, -ALL- audio being decoded by SS's codecs would be being modified in some way, whether PCM or atrac3plus.

[vova]

Basically, anything going to HiMD from your computer gets encoded by SS's codec.  Unless, of course, you're using OMA PCM [which is straight PCM, i.e. uncompressed, stuck into the OMA container format for DRM purposes].

I suspect the so-called PCM is in fact some sort of 1400 kbps ATRAC which would explain why it's not bit-perfect as some people reported. It would also explain why the ATRAC plugin for Winamp which was written long before hi-md came out plays PCM oma's with no problem.

Not that it matters in practical terms, but just to make a geek point...

[poe]

Wundoo had the idea about the device the codec was designed for having a influence on the quality of the playback, I have to agree. It was brought up that the amp was the only influence in this case I believe this may not be true. Take for example type R encoding I believe if you had a sound engineer look it over they would find some built in equalization in the codec that influences the sound,otherwise it was equalized for playback on minidisc(in the high frequency region for type R). Please don't make the stupid comment about having a true flat signal , just about eveything you listen to has most likely been equalized at one point or another. I woudn't doubt to find out that Apple's codec has been equalized for optimum playback on a ipod, also. All the this blind test proved was that the raw codecs playback the same way that Atrac did bad on a device it was really not optimized for,on the other hand a lot of those codecs are broad useage and are probably best played back on a computer. That's my 2cents though.POE

[mmilovan]

I suspect the so-called PCM is in fact some sort of 1400 kbps ATRAC which would explain why it's not bit-perfect as some people reported. It would also explain why the ATRAC plugin for Winamp which was written long before hi-md came out plays PCM oma's with no problem.

Not that it matters in practical terms, but just to make a geek point...

Craaaap, does it mean that "PCM recordings" on this unit are encoded through some codec also, and these are NOT linear, non-compressed straight *.wav recordings? Is there any proof for that? Anyone can confirm? Well, if it is true, think of what we have here: device with restricted slow-to-death speed and format for uploading to, with restricted recording transfer and non linear type, with hard to find new type MD discs... Is this a way too much?

Oh, my... don't say that, don't... don't get me so depressed...

[xeroxide]

I suspect the so-called PCM is in fact some sort of 1400 kbps ATRAC which would explain why it's not bit-perfect as some people reported. It would also explain why the ATRAC plugin for Winamp which was written long before hi-md came out plays PCM oma's with no problem.

Not that it matters in practical terms, but just to make a geek point...

Almost... its infact 1411kbps Atrac3+ audio.

The reason Sony choose to call it "PCM" is cause it is the same bit rate as pcm! (no shock there).

only difference is that Wav pcm does not include bit-protection!

(so theoretically, someone might be able to figure out which bits contain protection... just a thought though - I do not have enough time or knowledge to get into this... but perhaps someone else might) Also, adding to this "bit-perfect" dilema might be a crc check incorporated into the audio (in which one byte would be used to verify... effectivally reducing bit rate to 1410 audio + 1 bit crc = 1411)

[dex Otaku]

Good god. What are you people talking about?

PCM = linear pulse code modulation. This is uncompressed audio. Period.

ATRAC = lossy compression. Period.

OMA = a container format that wraps a bitstream of whatever format [say, PCM or ATRAC of whatever version] with DRM and encryption. Period.

OMA PCM = straight linear PCM audio that has been encrypted and wrapped with DRM. The audio itself is still standard 1.4Mbps PCM. No ifs ands or buts. No ATRAC. Period.

Where did you get the idea about 1411kbps atrac3+? The National Enquirer?

Incidentally - first of all, a CRC is made up of more than one bit [usually a whole word of 16 or 32 bits, in fact]. Second, if you were adding one bit to 1411kb you would end up with 1411001b.

God. Where, where, where do you people get these ideas? [slaps forehead in dismay]

[jadeclaw]

Good god.  What are you people talking about?  

Where did you get the idea about 1411kbps atrac3+?  The National Enquirer?

The Weekly World News, I say

God.  Where, where, where do you people get these ideas?  [slaps forehead in dismay]

Yes, sometimes I'm wondering myself. :wacky:

And speaking of the OMA plugin, AFAIK it is a wrapper for the directshow filters, so if these improve, the plugin can too.

[aeriyn]

All the news that's printed to fit! :laugh:

The reason, I believe, that PCM recordings are not bit-perfect when used over the optical input may have to do with the fact that Sony's optical in on Hi-MD units may do a similar thing to the signal that Creative Labs' sound cards with optical inputs do--mess with it somehow. Change the gain or do something to the signal to render it no longer an exact copy.

1411kbps ATRAC3+, I doubt. :rasp:

[skyther]

Ajaja, employ lossy compression and pad it up to 1411kbps... sounds very Sony-like though

[jonahn]

The reason, I believe, that PCM recordings are not bit-perfect when used over the optical input may have to do with the fact that Sony's optical in on Hi-MD units may do a similar thing to the signal that Creative Labs' sound cards with optical inputs do--mess with it somehow. Change the gain or do something to the signal to render it no longer an exact copy.

I can explain what it's doing to the signal.

The user manual mentions that optical inputs at 32 and 48kHz are Sample Rate Converted to 44.1kHz. What I've found is that the SRC is still active, even if the incoming signal is already at 44.1kHz. This is called "1:1 SRC", and it is re-sampling the signal from the original sample clock to a separate, internally-generated 44.1kHz reference (which may differ in frequency by a few Hz from the external source). It is not changing the gain nor (IMO) deliberately sabotaging the signal to prevent exact copies.

As for codecs being optimised for specific devices... I don't believe that for a second. Optimised in terms of hardware complexity and power consumption, yes, but how on earth can you optimize the sound quality for optimum playback on a minidisc / ipod etc.??

[skyther]

Ajaja.... I don't think he realized that Apple's main mainstream sales come from Macs (and not iPods), and iTunes (where the QT-AAC encoder sits) is primarily a PC product. This is just another example of someone talking out of his ass and completely bypassing any form of intelligence processing via the brain.

QT *is* speed/encoding performance optimized for Mac hardware (Altivec) though.

[doomlordis]

The blind listening test at hydrogen audio is not telling us what sounded the best or worst, it is simply telling us which samples had the most noticable differences from the original.

I suspect if they did a test asking the listeners(not experienced testers as they wwould be listening for artifacts) to say which was the most pleasurable to listen to atrac would fair better.

I believe Sony have created a codec that is very easy to listen to , at 132 atrac does not sound the same as a cd it is coloured , smoother with less spikes and in my opinion is a pleasure to listen to.

If you read reviews of the different music stores (T3, Stuff etc) , the same thing keeps coming up "atrac sounds better than mp3 and AAC , shame you have to use a Sony" is the general concencus.