Atrac3 And Atrac3plus

[enriquez]

I'm wondering if quality is directly analogous to the bit rate. Specifically, is ATRAC3 132kbps higher quality than ATRAC3plus 64kbps? Is there any encoding difference b/w ATRAC3 and ATRAC3plus or does plus just offer some more bit rates? Thanks,

_Scott

[Breepee2]

There is a differnce between the codecs. Quality is not directly analogous to the bitrate, but practically it always is. Atrac3 is better at higher bitrates, Atrac3plus on the lower ones. Atrac3 132kbps is (much) better than Atrac3plus 64kbps.

[NtN]

ATRAC3 in my opinion at 132 is just good enough to keep artifacts quiet - however any lower than 132k for ATRAC3 and you WILL be able to hear artifacts - and anything below 132 on ATRAC3 for me sounds awful - 105 (only sometimes sounds alright)

ATRAC3plus however is much better at lower bitrates as previous guy said - At 64k/sec in earphones there to me are so few artifacts its unbelievable - in fact i only use Hi-LP for my music now i mean - if you get a good set of earphones, good equalizer settings it will sound great - i mean like you'll think this is great quality - its only when you listen to the original that you notice the difference (only when you compare it) - the original will sound much more 'airy'.

LP2 (132k/sec - ATRAC3) sounds perfect to me (although for nearly everyone else you could do better) - but vs. Hi-LP in terms of battery life and amount you can store on a disc. i choose Hi-LP just mainly because you can't hear where the audio has been stripped on this codec - you just can't....

P.s. varies with certain kidns of music - Jazz/Slow/RnB i can hear artifacts on Hi-Lp but all other music (Which is mainly what i listen to) you would find it hard to hear artifacts.

Besides if you get the odd jazz album like i have just pump it up to LP2 and it will sound great again.

Availible bitrates: ATRAC3: 66k (LP4), 105k, 132K (LP2)

ATRAC3plus: 48k (so sony can say "45hours on one disc) - not v.good)

64k (Hi-LP), 256k (Hi-SP)

Dumb on sony's behalf because obviously ATRAC3plus is 'more efficient' codec and is definitely an advancement yet they still want us to rely on old ATRAC3 to fill the gaps between 64 and 256 - of which they is really only one decent choice 132k - bleh

Edited March 7, 2005 by NtN

[ROMBUSTERS]

Atrac3+ is a more advanced codec then Atrac3, it uses a different compression system and bit for bit sounds better than Atrac3. However because there are no close bit rate modes (besides 64kbps and LP4) you cannot get a good comparison. For the record Atrac3+ @ 64kbps sounds much much much better than Atrac3 LP4 @ 66kbps

[enriquez]

THanks for the info everyone.

_Scott

[Guest tony wong]

I'm wondering if quality is directly analogous to the bit rate.  Specifically, is ATRAC3 132kbps higher quality than ATRAC3plus 64kbps?  Is there any encoding difference b/w ATRAC3 and ATRAC3plus or does plus just offer some more bit rates?  Thanks,

_Scott

←

sure (there is difference between ATRAC3 and ATRAC3plus)

ATRAC3plus does a higher compression than ATRAC3

this chart is provided by Sony

Sony claims this information to be true

Edited March 8, 2005 by tony wong

[dex Otaku]

Bitrate vs. quality is not a linear relationship.

Among other things to take into account are atrac3plus's higher-resolution transforms, which significantly alter what kind of artifacting the encoding/decoding process will manifest.

Whether one is better than the other is more a matter of personal opinion than measurable differences, though.

To restate this in a different way:

If there were an atrac3plus bitrate of 132kbps, same as standard atrac3's LP2, it would likely be of higher perceivable quality than LP2.

In the end, this doesn't amount to much of use.

While the quality relationship is not linear, it is at least possible to say that each higher bitrate is better in perceivable quality than the next lower one.

Mind you, this falls apart at rates below LP3 [atrac3 105kbps]. i.e. atrac3plus 64kbps is likely to be found to be better in perceivable quality than atrac3 66kbps.

Clear as mud.

[Fast Eddie]

atrac3plus 64kbps sounds to me like it's been mixed into mono and then back to stereo again. It sounds free of distortion but at the same time it sounds like there's a load layering to hide the distortion. I just don't like the sound of it.

Atrac3 at 105 sounds better and clearer to me, even though artifacts can be heard, sometimes depending on the song.

I also did a comparison of atrac3plus 64 and Atrac3 105 with just voice, and I still prefered Atrac3 105.

Edited March 10, 2005 by Fast Eddie

[ROMBUSTERS]

for voice (depending on the quality) i think Atrac3+ 64 kbps is more than enough, and at times dropping even to the horrible 48kbps can do.

anything more than mono speaking voice however 48kbps is not good for

[Breepee2]

Sony claims this information to be true

←

But (of course) it isn't.

[ROMBUSTERS]

But (of course) it isn't.

←

well its a little rediculous

following that graph there should be a time (in the near future to boot!) that we will get perfect quality sound at 0kbps !