What is the Best Quality sound setting on the NH900.

[ffs]

I know this is about opinion but what is the best quality recording setting. I would of thought HI-SP but it seems other people say different.

Would appreciate all your views.

I would sacrifice space for quality if I had to.

( To those that were involved in my previous post, HELP, I MIGHT HAVE MADE A MISTAKE)

I have my World Model NH900, 5mW at last & managed to sell my NH900 3mW. Thanks again for all your help.

:smile:

[ROMBUSTERS]

assuming your transfering from SonicStage

-PCM is the highest quality sound because it is uncompressed and therefore suffers no artifacts or bad sounds attributed from the other codecs.

-Atrac3+ 256 is the best compressed sound with a compression ratio of about 1/5

-Atrac3 132 (also known as LP2) is the middle ground and sound very good but is limited in improvements now because it is so old (made for MDLP models)

-Atrac3 105 (shows up as LP2 but is more of an LP3) is a step down from 132 and is only slightly different

-Atrac3+ 64 is the best low-bitrate compression and sounds quite decent for the lack of bandwith associated with the 64kbps mode

-Atrac3 66 (also known as LP4) was made to compress music even further than 132 and frankly sounds like garbage, a no-contest when compraed to atrac3+ @ 64 even though LP4 has more bandwidth)

-Atrac3+ 48 is the worst setting and should be avoided at all costs for anything other then general speaking or audiobooks as it makes music sound like... something that isnt music at all.

I personally would recomend going with Atrac3+ 256/64 or Atrac3 132/105 depending on your need for quality vs space

[ffs]

assuming your transfering from SonicStage

-PCM is the highest quality sound because it is uncompressed and therefore suffers no artifacts or bad sounds attributed from the other codecs.

-Atrac3+ 256 is the best compressed sound with a compression ratio of about 1/5

-Atrac3 132 (also known as LP2) is the middle ground and sound very good but is limited in improvements now because it is so old (made for MDLP models)

-Atrac3 105 (shows up as LP2 but is more of an LP3) is a step down from 132 and is only slightly different

-Atrac3+ 64 is the best low-bitrate compression and sounds quite decent for the lack of bandwith associated with the 64kbps mode

-Atrac3 66 (also known as LP4) was made to compress music even further than 132 and frankly sounds like garbage, a no-contest when compraed to atrac3+ @ 64 even though LP4 has more bandwidth)

-Atrac3+ 48 is the worst setting and should be avoided at all costs for anything other then general speaking or audiobooks as it makes music sound like... something that isnt music at all.

I personally would recomend going with Atrac3+ 256/64 or Atrac3 132/105 depending on your need for quality vs space

Nice one for that INFO ROMBUSTERS.

I was thinking of 256. Is there much of a difference between 256 and 64.

I have an older player an MZ-R91 which obviously used ATRAC Technology, does anyone know what kps it ran at or any other players of that time.

[dex Otaku]

ATRAC: SP mode is 292kbps

ATRAC3 [MDLP]: 132, 105, 66kbps

There is a huge difference between atrac3plus 256 and 64kbps [HiSP and HiLP].

My suggestion would be to simply try recording the same thing in each mode to compare the relative diffences. For some applications, lower bitrates are perfectly fine.

Note that when recording from analogue or digital sources on the recorder itself in HiMD mode - only PCM, HiSP, and HiLP are available.

Also: encoding done by SonicStage on your computer is not the same as when recording from an analogue or digital [optical] source. Encoding done by the hardware atrac3plus codec appears to be of higher quality, possibly due to shortcuts used in the PC codec to make it faster rather than of higher quality.

[yakko]

 

Also: encoding done by SonicStage on your computer is not the same as when recording from an analogue or digital [optical] source.  Encoding done by the hardware atrac3plus codec appears to be of higher quality, possibly due to shortcuts used in the PC codec to make it faster rather than of higher quality.

This was my thought as well. However, I only recently got a computer capable of hooking my 900 up to for moving music. Before, I was recording with the digital input from my CD player. I have found (in the few comparisons I've done), that the tracks recorded in Hi-LP sound better when transferred from the computer than from the digital input. When I get some more time, I plan to play with this further. Right now, I've been spending my free time recording discs.

[ROMBUSTERS]

This was my thought as well. However, I only recently got a computer capable of hooking my 900 up to for moving music. Before, I was recording with the digital input from my CD player. I have found (in the few comparisons I've done), that the tracks recorded in Hi-LP sound better when transferred from the computer than from the digital input. When I get some more time, I plan to play with this further. Right now, I've been spending my free time recording discs.

which version of sonic stage are you using though? Wasn't 2.3 supposed to be an improvement from previous versions in terms of Atrac3+ encoding?

[phish]

I have some spectral view images comparing several different recording options.

http://www.evl.uic.edu/xevious/misc/md/diff.html

[ffs]

ATRAC: SP mode is 292kbps

ATRAC3 [MDLP]: 132, 105, 66kbps

So does this mean that as the NH900 only goes up to 256kpbs, that my old MZ-R91 is better quality at 292kpbs.

[MDGB2]

I've actually noticed MORE detail in my music with Hi-SP. (Not with the cr@ppy standard Sony headphones - Sennheiser MX500's ~£20)

Although the bit rate is lower than old skool SP, the compression has been improved so there is (allegedly) less artifacts in the sound.

[ffs]

I've actually noticed MORE detail in my music with Hi-SP. (Not with the cr@ppy standard Sony headphones - Sennheiser MX500's ~£20)

Although the bit rate is lower than old skool SP, the compression has been improved so there is (allegedly) less artifacts in the sound.

Right. Thanks. :smile:

Interesting Info.

Seems strange they have lowered the bit rate though. I wonder exactly how much quality has been lost or (allegedly) gained.

[xispe]

i disagree, i think there's something wrong with higher frequency sounds at Hi-SP. In SP (Type-R) the highs are more smooth and much more natural.

[snathanb]

I find HiLP too compressed for my tastes and listening environment, so I am still using LP2 for most things. The only thing I use HiLP for is for workout mixes for noisy environments.

Unfortunately, The MP3 bulk convert tool only works for AtracPlus codecs, and SimpleBurner will not let you use LP2 on a HiMD formatted disc.

I did find that in SonicStage, you can switch from Album View to View All tracks, select all, and convert you entirely library to LP2 all in one shot. It took about 24 hours on my PC to convert 5000 songs.

[ROMBUSTERS]

So does this mean that as the NH900 only goes up to 256kpbs, that my old MZ-R91 is better quality at 292kpbs.

i dont believe that SS supports Atrac SP however you *are* still able to record in it via a HiMD recorder.

You have to insert a normal 60/74/80 min MD formated in MD Mode and then you have the option to record in Type S SP via line in or mic

[Skradgee]

i dont believe that SS supports Atrac SP however you *are* still able to record in it via a HiMD recorder.  

You have to insert a normal 60/74/80 min MD formated in MD Mode and then you have the option to record in Type S SP via line in or mic

Well :whatever: I'm not so sure that is recording in true 292kbps. I read another post that said recording in SP in MD on a Hi-MD recorder is resampled 256 kbps (a fake SP)...just so the recording can be played on an old MD player.

Therefore, as I understand it, you'd get better quality recording on an old MD player in SP than you would with a Hi-MD player in MD mode (also SP). Can anyone else confirm that this is true?

[yakko]

which version of sonic stage are you using though? Wasn't 2.3 supposed to be an improvement from previous versions in terms of Atrac3+ encoding?

I was using version 2.2 at the time. I'll have to see if I can tell a difference now that I'm up to 2.3.

[yakko]

Well :whatever: I'm not so sure that is recording in true 292kbps. I read another post that said recording in SP in MD on a Hi-MD recorder is resampled 256 kbps (a fake SP)...just so the recording can be played on an old MD player.

Therefore, as I understand it, you'd get better quality recording on an old MD player in SP than you would with a Hi-MD player in MD mode (also SP). Can anyone else confirm that this is true?

That's an interesting tidbit of info. I'm going to have to compare those two as well. I still don't think anything records with as good of quality as my 930. But I'll have to see how it sounds with SS recording SP and Hi-SP discs.

[atrain]

292 vs 256

bitrates aren't everything 192 is alledged to be cd-transparent remember. codecs have different ways of compressing the data & atrac3+ is not the same thing as atrac3

[poe]

Skradgee when using Sonic Stage to record fake SP it is upconverted lp2(Atrac 3),not 256 HISP(Atrac 3+). There is quite a difference in quallity compared to old SP.POE

[yakko]

Skradgee when using Sonic Stage to record fake SP it is upconverted lp2(Atrac 3),not 256 HISP(Atrac 3+). There is quite a difference in quallity compared to old SP.POE

←

So if I transfer a track recorded in SS in Hi-SP to my MD unit and tell it to make it SP, SS changes it to LP2, then to SP? So, as long as I can live with LP2 quality (132k right?) then this is a good solution for making SP discs?

I'll have to try that and see what I think. I think I'll decide it's better to record real time on my 930 when making SP discs for the car...

[Sparky191]

Type-R, Type-S whats the difference between these format. Also when you mention ATRAC levels that are not on MD walkman are they available on seperates?

[ROMBUSTERS]

i believe Type-S (the new standard) is the update from Type-R (makes sense following apha order)

[atrain]

have a look at the faqs on the main page

www.minidisc.org they should help you through most of the R vs S questions