Why I've come back to MD

[linzq]

What DOES an artifact sound like? (Probably not the easiest question to answer in words...)

[vova]

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.

I couldn't agree more. While everybody talks about accuracy, people actually want soothing sound. Like when Kodak marketed scientifically accurate color film - nobody was buying it.

[aeriyn]

I couldn't agree more. While everybody talks about accuracy, people actually want soothing sound. Like when Kodak marketed scientifically accurate color film - nobody was buying it

When I buy a CD and I listen to it on my home system, I usually don't concern myself with the integrity of the recording; Redbook Audio is always 16/44.1 and generally sounds around the same, unless the master was poor. So I tend to look at Redbook as what I want my compressed audio to strive for.

I agree that ATRAC/3/3+ tends to soften (muddy up) things, especially vocals. I don't like that; I prefer detail. Everyone else may like soothing sound, but hey, I like detail! If I'm going to spend 15-20USD on a CD, I'm going to want it to sound as good as it can sound--both at home and on the go.

And I find that soothing sound usually depends on the artist I'm listening to, and not the codec or lack thereof. For instance, I'm listening to Bonnie Pink right now on Redbook (CD). It's very detailed; I can hear the instruments very clearly and her voice sounds distinct and crisp, almost as if she's in the room singing right next to me. However, the style of her music is soothing, and her voice is soft and sultry. Very relaxing.

Now, if I were to take something else I have around here, like Nine Inch Nails, no matter how ATRACed Trent Reznor's voice and instruments were, it still wouldn't be soothing. :laugh:

What DOES an artifact sound like? (Probably not the easiest question to answer in words...)

This varies from codec to codec. A compression artifact is defined by any noise introduced into the music as a byproduct of the encoding process. This can range from strange warbling, to pre-echo, to flanging and metallic noises, to hissing and fuzzed-up sounds.

For instance, ATRAC is a "dirtier" codec (has more artifacts) than MP3, but many people tend to believe ATRAC's artifacts are not as annoying as MP3's, which can sound metallic. I tend to agree at the ~128kbps level; LP2 sounds less annoying to me than 128kbps MP3.

[poe]

Skyther do you know the difference between conjecture and fact. In my message I said " I believe"=conjecture. You talk of people talking out their butt ( I refuse to use the language you use), I say pot calling the kettle black.

Now for some more conjecture(just for you skyther), I bring up cd's and them being optiumized. Most cds recorded today use a very high record level to the point that you can here some clipping(can't remember the exact term for when you use to high of a record level, sorry skyther) on good stereo systems. Do you think they sell cd's to sound good on systems very few people own or for the boom boxes and cheap home theaters. I think the latter, the companies don't want to sell a product that sounds really bad on most of their customers choice of listening gear. Most likely they(the recording studios) tweak the stuff to sound good on most systems,tweak=record levels and equalization. So why would Sony not tweak a codec that was meant for a specific device of their own (I bet I know why, so that it sounds good to the customers). This of course is all conjecture based on my limited knowledge of sound engineering and more of my large knowledge base of customers and selling stuff to them being that I'm retail managment for 14 years. Sony may not listen to minidisc owners very much about suggestions to improve their products. They do pay attention to lost profits do to inferrior product and lost customer appreciation. So yes I beleive they tweak their codec so that it plays back best on the product that it was meant for, minidisc!POE

[aeriyn]

So yes I beleive they tweak their codec so that it plays back best on the product that it was meant for, minidisc!

The fact of the matter is what can really alter the sound of a source (such as an MD player, for instance) happens to the audio signal after it's already converted from digital to analog, in which case it's no longer ATRAC data, but analog audio information. So, even if Sony DAPs were tweaked to play ATRAC better, it doesn't necessarily matter, because the tweaks take place on the analog side, and also, that Sony DAPs are ATRAC/3/3+ only. (At the moment.)

Also, and you somewhat neglected to notice this: the only devices that use ATRAC/3/3+ is Sony/MD. No one else uses it. So how can MD be "tweaked" to make ATRAC sound better?

Sound better than what? No other portable devices can play ATRAC.

[poe]

Aeriyn I am a little confused by your post,you quote from my previous post where I say "what it was meant for,minidisc!". Yet further down you say that I neglect to notice that atrac codecs are only used on minidisc. I think my statement does say I notice this. Sorry for the confussion if I didn't make this clear. I also didn't say it sounded better than anything else. My whole point was that atrac probably sounds best through what it was meant to be played back through,minidisc.

As far as the the graph of the test for the various codecs I don't deny it, I just think that Atrac fairs much better on the device it was meant for in the first place. All the test really says is that Atrac is a inferior codec when played against the other codecs on a device it wasn't meant for. I think even you said that the artifacts from Atrac (I assume while it is played on a minidisc) is more acceptable to people.

I just refuse to beleive that a company that has brought us technoligies like dolby S for cassettes and type R for minidisc would not try to get the best sound out of Atrac 3/+ when they know it is being played back on one type of device. Of course not at the expense of download speed even I concede that this is probably a higher need than sound quality for Sony.

Doesn't some of Sony personal cd players play back atrac 3.

[sxc]

On the flip side, I think possibly a more accurate perspective is that the components in minidisc, such as the amps etc are optimised to deal with the style of sound that results from atrac decoding.

I think it would be fair to say that as a total package, all the components that make up a minidisc player have been tweaked to work together best.

[vova]

When I buy a CD and I listen to it on my home system, I usually don't concern myself with the integrity of the recording; Redbook Audio is always 16/44.1 and generally sounds around the same, unless the master was poor. So I tend to look at Redbook as what I want my compressed audio to strive for.

the recordings out there have been juiced up so much by the time they reach the consumer that the question of integrity isn't even there. Ditto the speakers etc. It's about what sells

[aeriyn]

My whole point was that atrac probably sounds best through what it was meant to be played back through,minidisc.

What I don't understand is what you're comparing this to. If ATRAC is tweaked to sound better on MD, then what does it sound worse on? There can't be anything, because nothing else but Sony products uses ATRAC.

For instance, I can say an iPod playing back MP3 sounds better than a Zen Nomad. Both units can play MP3s. But I can't say an MD player sounds better than an iPod playing ATRAC, because nothing but MD and Sony DAPs use ATRAC.

On the flip side, I think possibly a more accurate perspective is that the components in minidisc, such as the amps etc are optimised to deal with the style of sound that results from atrac decoding.

I think it would be fair to say that as a total package, all the components that make up a minidisc player have been tweaked to work together best.

Of course they are. But there's no reference from which to say an MD sounds better than when using ATRAC, because an iPod can't use ATRAC. A Zen Nomad can't use ATRAC. A Rio Karma can't use ATRAC. So what, pray tell, is the MD tweaked to run better than, if there's no other DAPs that use ATRAC?! Oi!

the recordings out there have been juiced up so much by the time they reach the consumer that the question of integrity isn't even there. Ditto the speakers etc. It's about what sells

Sadly, this is true; they don't record music like they used to. However, I avoid most of the bit-pushing by virtue of the type of music I listen to; J-Rock and J-Pop, and Asian-mastered CDs tend to have a greater dynamic range than US-made albums. I guess the Japanese still understand that volume doesn't equal better sound. :laugh:

[Christopher]

I will be moving this to the User Opinions forum. Good topic, btw.

[jonahn]

My whole point was that atrac probably sounds best through what it was meant to be played back through,minidisc.

I assume you mean, compared to playing it back through a PC, correct?

I really don't think this is possible. Audio codecs are designed so that the output sounds as close to the input as possible. There is no way that you can optimise a codec to sound best on minidisc, because the fact that the data is stored on a minidisc is irrelevant to the sound quality of a codec. Whichever media you're using, whether it is minidisc, hard disk, CD, flash memory etc., is just a pure digital data storage: bits out = bits in.

On the flip side, I think possibly a more accurate perspective is that the components in minidisc, such as the amps etc are optimised to deal with the style of sound that results from atrac decoding.

As far as I know, there is nothing in an audio amplifier design (or a DAC, or anything else in the audio signal path) that you can optimise to deal with a particular style of sound...

[dex Otaku]

As far as I know, there is nothing in an audio amplifier design (or a DAC, or anything else in the audio signal path) that you can optimise to deal with a particular style of sound...

This is frequently used in the audio industry, actually. Everything from the RIAA equalisation in a turntable preamp to EQ built into cassette decks for different tape fomulations to the MPX filter on most FM stereo receivers to the de-emphasis circuits required in CD players to conform to industry standard basically fits this function.

I would seriously doubt that the hedphone amp in any HiMD or MD unit is EQ'd in some way to make ATRAC sound better, though. Filtering is done by the ATRAC codec itself, yes - and likely a high shelf used after the DAC.

Apparently there is a small amount of bass EQ applied to the [non-digital] headphone amps in order to compensate for the average impedance of earbuds as well, but again - this is not compensating for ATRAC, it is compensating for earbuds, and not in order to enhance sound - rather, to try and keep response as flat as possible under most circumstances.

[jonahn]

This is frequently used in the audio industry, actually.  Everything from the RIAA equalisation in a turntable preamp to EQ built into cassette decks for different tape fomulations to the MPX filter on most FM stereo receivers to the de-emphasis circuits required in CD players to conform to industry standard basically fits this function.

Yes you're right of course, but those are compensating for the physics of the media and/or the pre-emphasis applied in recording. What I meant was, in the context of "style of sound" resulting from digital audio compression, or distortion by any other means, there is nothing that an amp can do to improve the sound once it's been damaged.

Apparently there is a small amount of bass EQ applied to the [non-digital] headphone amps in order to compensate for the average impedance of earbuds as well, but again - this is not compensating for ATRAC, it is compensating for earbuds, and not in order to enhance sound - rather, to try and keep response as flat as possible under most circumstances.

Yep, I was the one who found that! :grin: Actually it's compensating for losses in the too-small output coupling capacitors (which you could consider to be part of the amp itself), not deficiencies of the earbuds.

[dex Otaku]

Yep, I was the one who found that!  :grin: Actually it's compensating for losses in the too-small output coupling capacitors (which you could consider to be part of the amp itself), not deficiencies of the earbuds.

Haha! Thanks for the correction, then.

As to the rest, I think we're quietly agreeing that .. the purpose of most codecs is in fact to reproduce what comes in as faithfully as possible on output. Which makes all of this moot.

[skyther]

Um hello, ATRAC is used in decks. Optimizing ATRAC sound quality for portable devices would make it sound bad through speakers. AAC is used everywhere, not just iPods and other similar likes.

Common sense would tell you that nobody, especially not Apple, would optimize the sound properties of a codec for a particular piece of equipment.