Atrac3 LP2(132) vs Atrac3Plus HiLP(64)

[bockers]

I have been using Minidiscs for years now but need to upgrade from NetMD as I want more music per disc. Nearly all my discs are in Atrac 3 LP2 encoded. I find the sound quality excellant for my needs. Tried LP4 but it was just a bit too lossy.

The question is.. how does the Atrac3 Plus HiLP compare? Is it the same or slightly better? 10hrs vs 4hrs is quite a difference on a reformatted old disc.

I am back in the MD market after trying out an iPod for a few days. Sound quality was lousy comparred to my NH1!

Thanks

p.s. Am I the only person who actally like Sonic Stage :ohmy:

[doomlordis]

hi-lp has more highs than lp4 and better stereo, to my ears it is slightly better than lp4 but has more artifacts. LP2 sounds far better. As said before 128kbps Atrac3+ would be interesting but maybe it didnt improve on LP2?

[Latexxx]

Lp2 beats hi-lp hands down.

[raintheory]

LP2 > HiLP

[deafplayer]

LP2 > HiLP

hands down

i guess twice as much info per time is hard to beat

[Tiesto]

It depends on the source, but most of times 132kbps is far better than Hi-LP :rasp:

[mutant1345]

i wouldnt say its FAR better but definetly better,, most would choose lp2 over it, for quality, but some may be able to give up some quality for more space, you could always download SS2.3 from www.connect.com and see how it sounds yourself.....everyone has there own oppinion

[MDGB2]

Hi-LP = pants.

I'm very scientific... :laugh:

[Skradgee]

When I first heard Atrac3plus @ 64kbps, I was very surprised...and maybe even a little impressed at how good it sounded. I almost can't hear any swishy-swashy compression sound. Everything sounds good except high-end sounds like cymbals. I've used it a little bit just to try and reach the best compromise between sound quality and disc space, but there are defenitly some songs/recordings that I will NEVER encode in Hi-LP. For some things though, Hi-LP is tolerable IMHO.

[jadeclaw]

LP2@132k as a minimum for music, Hi-LP for speech and airchecks on shortwave radio - it's good enough for Radio Pyongyang...

[yakko]

I'll have to try this for myself. I do know the tracks I downloaded in LP2 don't sound as good as the tracks I ripped from CDs in Hi-LP.

128 kps would be nice for Hi-MD. I might try using LP2 on the 1GB disc and see how it works.

[ROMBUSTERS]

a

Edited January 9, 2008 by ROMBUSTERS

[streaml1ne]

If I have music that has clean highs then I use LP2. If I'm encoding music where the highs are muddled on the original CD then Hi-LP is a good alternative.

[Christopher]

I do know the tracks I downloaded in LP2 don't sound as good as the tracks I ripped from CDs in Hi-LP.

What headphones are you employing?

[snathanb]

I did quite a bit of ripping and comparing side by side of HiSP, LP2 and HiLP trying to decide what to use on my new HiMD player. After several days of listening in various environments, etc. I decided on LP2.

Unfortunately, Sony doesn't make it easy... The MP3 Bulk convert tool doesn't support LP2, and SimpleBurner will not write LP2 to a HiMD formatted MD.

I was able to bulk convert my whole 5000+ MP3 library to LP2 at once using SonicStage, but it took 24 hours.

[ROMBUSTERS]

a

Edited January 9, 2008 by ROMBUSTERS

[jadeclaw]

LP2-Atrac3@105k is still better than Hi-LP.

But I would prefer Atrac3@132k = LP2

[Michael1980]

LP2 is the best format re size/quality IMHO.

[ffs]

Right Guys,

So if I am not bothered about space.

Is HI-SP better quality than LP2 ?

I would imagine it is.

[dex Otaku]

re: HiSP vs LP2 - yes, noticeably so, especially when encoding through SonicStage

[daremo]

p.s. Am I the only person who actally like Sonic Stage :ohmy:

Nope... I actually use it myself. Be afraid!!

[zerodB]

I was able to bulk convert my whole 5000+ MP3 library to LP2 at once using SonicStage, but it took 24 hours.

←

Yikes! You don't have the orginal music on uncompressed audio CD by any chance.

Going from MP3 to LP2 =

Best to avoid transcoding if it all possible.

[arb226]

Yikes! You don't have the orginal music on uncompressed audio CD by any chance.

Going from MP3 to LP2 =   

Best to avoid transcoding if it all possible.

←

I beg to differ. I have a bunch of Radiohead songs in MP3 format at 128kbps and I converted them to ATRAC3 132kbps LP2 and I can't even tell the difference really. They sound really good. I tried converting those same MP3's to 64kbps Hi-LP and while they sound really good at that setting, they sound much better with 132lbps LP2. You just have to decide for yourself if you wanna sacrafice quality for space and even though I am by no means an audiophile, I would rather have quality over space. And I don't mind having 16.5 hours of LP2 music per HiMD disc rather than 34hrs of Hi-LP music, especially since I just got a 5 pack of HiMD's from minidisco.com

Edited February 5, 2005 by arb226

[Tiesto]

wait a second... When you all write about LP2 it is Atrac3 format, right?? The most of my disc are coded at Atrac3plus 132kbps and few at 105kbps and HiLP according to quality of the original source or to the use that I give them (home or street listening). My NF610 @LP2 and the NH900 @Atrac3plus 132kbps sound way too similar. Edited February 5, 2005 by Tiesto

[dex Otaku]

wait a second...  When you all write about LP2 it is Atrac3 format, right?? The most of my disc are coded at Atrac3plus 132kbps and few at 105kbps and HiLP according to quality of the original source or to the use that I give them (home or street listening). My NF610 @LP2 and the NH900 @Atrac3plus 132kbps sound way too similar.

←

There is no atrac3plus 132 kbps.

The modes are:

ATRAC: SP and SP mono

ATRAC3: LP2 [132 and 105kbps], LP4

ATRAC3plus: HiSP, HiLP [64 and 48kbps]

[MDGB2]

Why couldn't Sony use a better bitrate for Hi-LP?

Maybe Atrac3+ @ 128kbps?

[Tiesto]

There is no atrac3plus 132 kbps.

The modes are:

ATRAC: SP and SP mono

ATRAC3: LP2 [132 and 105kbps], LP4

ATRAC3plus: HiSP, HiLP [64 and 48kbps]

←

My mistake. There are two modes: MD and HiMD. I thought that 132kbps at HiMD mode was Atrac3plus

Edited February 5, 2005 by Tiesto

[NtN]

For effiency Hi-LP beats LP2 - I mean what do you expect? LP2 is more than double the bitrate of Hi-LP so it's a pretty strange question to ask as to which will sound better. The question really is does it sound so much better that you would cut down from 34 hours to a measly 14 hours (or whatever it is for LP2) and the answer for me would be no. I use Hi-LP all the time except for a few Jazz albums because ATRAC3plus doesn't handle well music where there is SO MUCH going not to mention the soft sounds of the music. etc.

If you were however to do Hi-LP vs. LP2 in all aspects (quality is just as important as size) then Hi-LP would win.

I'm just still extremely angry that Sony only gave us 64 and 256 (which is really just for audiophiles). If you get a decent set of earphones and turn OFF all that equalizer rubbish on your hi-md hi-lp sounds AMAZING. First time listening I was worried that i had clicked the wrong bitrate or something.

The thing is with Hi-LP if you were to compare it to the original CD - you would clearly hear that the CD sounds more sharper, detailed and 'airy' .

BUT if you were just to convert and listen... you would find it v. hard to pick out artifacts because they are virtually inaudible. This is why it is so good, because it sounds perfectly normal - MP3 at 128 fails in this area because you can sometimes clearly hear where data has been stripped and clearly hear artifacts.

Now all we need is for Sony to give us ATRAC3plus 96k which would be the perfect replacement for that awkward 132k ATRAC3.

Also we want a 128 and 192k ATRAC3plus to replace that awfully large 256k - I mean if 132K ATRAC3 sounds amazing... 192 ATRAC3plus would surely be enough for CD quality - 256k is simply overkill.

Also 105k ATRAC3 seems to suck in my opinion - you can hear artifacts way more than Hi-LP.

Even if 96k ATRAC3plus was 'released' i would still probably stick with my 64k because well it takes too long to reconvert everything and i'm so happy with it already that there would be no need to convert.

[horace]

Hi

I must say that I was initially quite impressed by HI-LP, but I can't live with it now -it sounds like the music has been recorded on a setup consisting of two tin cans and a taught piece of string. Yuk! Even radio plays don't fare well in Hi-Lp. There's a strange, metallic, sucked out 'phasey' quality which is quite unsettling to my ears.

LP2 is MUCH better IMHO.

YMMV, of course.

Personally, I don't see the point of spending hard-earned cash on a fancy HI-MD gizmo, only to load up hours and hours of songs in sub-FM quality. Lp2 is bare minimum for me (and only for speech based recordings). Otherwise, Hi-Sp or death!

Having said that, I haven't even tried PCM yet......

Cheers

Martin

BTW - can anyone point me towards a comparitive Hi-Sp vs old-style SP post?

I guess Hi-SP is better, but by how much?

[ROMBUSTERS]

a

Edited January 9, 2008 by ROMBUSTERS

[xispe]

old school SP rocks!

[Skradgee]

old school SP rocks!

WoRd! It sure was nice, back in the day when there were only two recording modes to agonize over: Stereo SP and mono!

[Fast Eddie]

I have to say that initially I was impressed with Hi-LP. But after a while it just sounded like somebody had thrown a big wet towel over the speakers, and I couldn't live with the quality.

I didn't want to compromise on space too much and have now settled on Atrac 105 compression setting. It sounds miles better and is a good compromise between Hi-LP and LP2.

So about 19 hours on a 1GB disc is fine for me.

I agree too that I wish they could have supplied a higher Hi-LP setting like 84kps. Which would have knocked a few hours off a disc but still probably given at least 25-30 hours per disc of much better quality than 64kps. Which IMO is just a bit to low.

Edited February 9, 2005 by Fast Eddie

[ROMBUSTERS]

a

Edited January 9, 2008 by ROMBUSTERS

[marcnet]

How about a VBR (variable bitrate) mode that selects between the various existing and (currently) non-existing bitrates dynamically. That would be extra nice .

agreed. Atrac3+ 64/96/128/256kbps would be nice

←

[dex Otaku]

VBR = loss of editing and gapless playback.

[ROMBUSTERS]

a

Edited January 9, 2008 by ROMBUSTERS

[staarek]

Hi,

I'm sort of new on the forum, so hello to everybody! I couldn't really decide on the format HI-SP, LP2 (132 or 105). 34 hrs on HI-SP sounds tempting though. What am I doing now is:

1. Mp3 at 128 - all to Atrac3Plus (Mp3 at this bitrate sounds crappy anyway)

2. CD's ripping to Atrac3 (132 or 105, depends on the music, always checking how it sounds in both, then deciding)

3. Mixing my records, putting few cd’s and Mp3, that way I could still get about 25-30 hrs in decent quality

M.

[1kyle]

Hi,

I'm sort of new on the forum, so hello to everybody! I couldn't really decide on the format HI-SP, LP2 (132 or 105). 34 hrs on HI-SP sounds tempting though. What am I doing now is:

1. Mp3 at 128 - all to Atrac3Plus (Mp3 at this bitrate sounds crappy anyway)

2. CD's ripping to Atrac3 (132 or 105, depends on the music, always checking how it sounds in both, then deciding)

3. Mixing my records, putting few cd’s and Mp3, that way I could still get about 25-30 hrs in decent quality

M.

just my take on this

If you ARE listening to music why not just go for the highest reasonable quality you can get - At HI-SP at 256 which is usually good enough unless you really want to go for "extreme" modes such as 352 / PCM you will get nearly 8 hours / 8 CD's worth of listening on a 1GB disc.

How often are you actually continuously listening during a day so 1 disc should be sufficient. Take a 2nd disc if you must. Discs are relatively cheap and easy to store so I wouldn't worry too much about cost here.

If you are transcoding from a 128 MP3 source then all bets are off since there won't be any point in taking an already lossy file and making a larger file out of it.

It's equivalent to taking a 25 ml glass filled with water and pouring it into a 1 Litre glass - spilling a little of the liquid in the process - the spilling would be equivalent to the additional dataloss in the re-transcoding.

With cheap "cans" you can get away with lower bitrates etc --but once you start using decent phones or playing through high end audio equipment you really will notice the difference.

128 MP3's IMO are really only good enough when you are listening through those cheap bud type of phones --and even then only if it's an MP3 made from an original CD (not a copy of another compressed music source).

Incidentally for storing music on the computer - provided you don't mind using SS and the extra steps for moving music to different devices such as if I dare say it IPOD's storing in 352 Atrac LOSSLESS is quite efficient (when ripping original CD's).

You can convert LOSSLESSLY to PCM and then convert to MP3 / OGG or whatever. You don't have to keep the WAV files in the library.

Note however SS does have an issue --music can't span more than one volume --when your disk is full you can't add a 2nd disk to the same library. (You can have more than one library however).

remember also that MD is now primarily marketed as a RECORDING device so don't expect Sony to add any new formats or bit-rates. We might get in due course a larger capacity recording device 2GB or greater - but that's another issue. Solid state recording devices are fine on the road in theory but studios etc will want to archive recordings so removable media still IMO has a role to play.

As for SP vs HI-SP HI-SP really is fine as you will get 2 hrs 20 on a standard 80 min disc instead of 80 Min and modern compression algorithms have improved considerably since the launch of the original MD.

Unless you have gear which still uses SP (like some of the great decks such as MDS-JB980) I'd tend to forget it and standardize on Hi-SP.

Cheers

-K

Edited November 10, 2006 by 1kyle

[eriktous]

If you are transcoding from a 128 MP3 source then all bets are off since there won't be any point in taking an already lossy file and making a larger file out of it.

I see people saying this more often, but I disagree. If you're transcoding a 128kbps mp3 to a low bitrate Atrac file, you're just making it worse. You're right in saying you can't improve a 'crappy' original, but you can most certainly make it even worse.

It's equivalent to taking a 25 ml glass filled with water and pouring it into a 1 Litre glass - spilling a little of the liquid in the process - the spilling would be equivalent to the additional dataloss in the re-transcoding.

It's actually more like taking a picture of a picture. If the original picture is grainy/low quality, and you photograph it with a poor camera, the resulting picture will be even grainier/less quality. However, if you photograph it with a high-end camera, the resulting picture won't be better than the original, but at least it won't be much worse than it either.