Mp3 Support? Sounds Cool But......

[weiswang]

So, recently, MP3 support from MZ-RH10 and MZ-RH910 has been a very exciting news for hi-md fans. But is this really the mp3 you think?

No!

Actually, guys, I just find the current MP3 function of Hi-MD meaningless.

Why?

Because you have to use SonicStage to upload them. Given the current computation power, what makes this process different from converting them into the SONY format? Absolutely no difference!!!

Unless SONY provides the USB load & play function for MP3's, there is no point to cheer for its current MP3 compatibility at all.

It's much more a business trick than a functionality improvement.

[sonyslave]

No it may not be mp3 as we know it. ie drag and play.

Yes you need to use Sonicstage to transfere the files to the player.

The big advantage is that now you do not need to transcode the files.

This means no loss of quality and increased speed when transfering.

Of course you also get Sony's DRM so you cannot transfere the

music tracks to another computer.

[Michael1980]

Not all DAP's provide true drag and drop support.

[weiswang]

No it may not be mp3 as we know it. ie drag and play.

←

umm, bad news.

Yes you need to use Sonicstage to transfere the files to the player.

The big advantage is that now you do not need to transcode the files.

This means no loss of quality and increased speed when transfering.

Of course you also get Sony's DRM so you cannot transfere the

music tracks to another computer.

←

Really? mp3->OMA makes the quality worse? I didn't know this --- I simply assumed that digital to digital, though compressed, is always lossless unless you lower the bit rate.

[dex Otaku]

Really? mp3->OMA makes the quality worse? I didn't know this --- I simply assumed that digital to digital, though compressed, is always lossless unless you lower the bit rate.

Each pass of compression is lossy, so each pass loses something. This is true whether you're going from 256kbps mp3 -> 256kbps atrac3plus or even 64kbps mp3 -> 256kbps atrac3plus for that matter.

Lossy compression means there's a loss for each pass, period.

The higher the bitrate of a given pass, the less noticeable loss there is.

[dex Otaku]

Actually, guys, I just find the current MP3 function of Hi-MD meaningless.

Why?

Because you have to use SonicStage to upload them. Given the current computation power, what makes this process different from converting them into the SONY format? Absolutely no difference!!!

What does it have to do with computation power? So yes - you have to use SS to put them on your player. Thing is, if you have a large collection of MP3s [like I do] you now no longer have to transcode them. SS just shunts the tracks to the player, albeit now wrapped in DRM, but this doesn't require any processing by your computer, and it means no further quality loss.

If that isn't the entire purpose of adding native MP3 playback - not having to transcode - then I don't know what is.

So yes, you still have to use SS, but there are a multitude of DAPs other than netMD / HiMD out there that also don't have drag & drop support.

The only time this truly becomes a concern is if your primary goal in using MP3s with your player is to be able to also copy them to other people's computers from the same player.

[Matsuto]

Hello, I'm new but I thought, I mean I read I don't now where on internet that with the new rh10 you will be able to use your HI-md as a small HD? is taht false? Just a question, I live in Belgium and I went to my sony shop, they told me that the rh10 was not coming out before mai or june? so where do you buy it? from which japanese website? Because I just broke my mp3 lector (40 gigs, Iriver) in putting the wrong powerplug inside :S. So I waan buy a new thing and I was hesitating to buy the new rh10 but does he really read mp3? Thanks a lot for your help

[Breepee2]

Well, mp3 is a better codec, and with bitrates up to 320kbps it sounds better. The mp3-datastream remains untouched (however gets the encryption treatment). OK, Sony still manages to make is just not right, but hey, at least it actually sounds (way) better.

[MusicBringer]

So yes - you have to use SS to put them on your player.  Thing is, if you have a large collection of MP3s [like I do] you now no longer have to transcode them.  SS just shunts the tracks to the player, albeit now wrapped in DRM, but this doesn't require any processing by your computer, and it means no further quality loss. 

←

Hello dex Otaku, This is the bit I cannot get my head around. I understand you have to use SS3 to "shunt" the (large collection of ) mp3 files to my NH900. But to my eyes it DOES convert/transcode them (no?). SS3 asks what me what transfer mode setting. And when they are on the player they say ATRAC3 132kbps or whatever. They do not sit on my player as mp3s.

[streaml1ne]

Hello dex Otaku, This is the bit I cannot get my head around.   I understand you have to use SS3 to "shunt" the (large collection of  ) mp3 files to my NH900. But to my eyes it DOES convert/transcode them (no?). SS3 asks what me what transfer mode setting. And when they are on the player they say ATRAC3 132kbps or whatever. They do not sit on my player as mp3s. 

←

That's because your NH900 doesn't support native mp3 playback so SonicStage has to convert them to ATRAC.

[MusicBringer]

Oh dear

[Christopher]

Bree: *.mp3 is not a better codec as this hardware is designed to play ATRAC3/plus. You should read this: http://forums.minidisc.org/index.php?showtopic=7980

[lamewing]

No it may not be mp3 as we know it. ie drag and play.

Yes you need to use Sonicstage to transfere the files to the player.

The big advantage is that now you do not need to transcode the files.

This means no loss of quality and increased speed when transfering.

Of course you also get Sony's DRM so you cannot transfere the

music tracks to another computer.

←

Here is what I don't understand.....

I cannot remove the music due to DRM, BUT the disc is a mass-storage, so I just use another 6 dollar HiMD disc and copy the same music files, via drag-and-drop. Of course THESE files can be copied to anything later on. So what exactly is this "copy protection" supposed to do anyhow?

[atrain]

by transferring to the disc as mass storage they will not play on the recorder.

they will be data only. all sound music be put on via sonicstage or simple burner

[bug80]

Bree: *.mp3 is not a better codec as this hardware is designed to play ATRAC3/plus. You should read this: http://forums.minidisc.org/index.php?showtopic=7980

←

I don't see why ATRAC at a certain bitrate will sound better on a Hi-MD unit than its MP3 equivalent, when MP3 outperformes ATRAC when listening on a PC at the same bitrate.

The latter is a dangerous statement, I know, but it is my experience (done a lot of testing).

[Breepee2]

Bree: *.mp3 is not a better codec as this hardware is designed to play ATRAC3/plus. You should read this: http://forums.minidisc.org/index.php?showtopic=7980

←

Info in that link is either outdated or just not accurate. True, Atrac3Plus tends to be better al ultra low bitrates like 64, but above neither Atrac3 nor Atrac3plus can be taken seriously. The story Atrac is better tuned to the hardware is just not true, the units play don't have separate circuitry for mp3 and Atrac, it's just one cpu which decodes everything the same way (nothing bad about that). MP3 sounds better. In bitrates below 192 I'm not interested, sounds horrible to me. Add that MP3 is pretty much the standard, I see no reason to choose Atrac(3plus) over MP3.

Compressed lossless is what I want. No hassle of codec-fights () and half the size of wav/pcm. What a wonderful world it would be

Mr Suzuki even admits it:

If the bit rate is high enough, there's enough data to cover any shortcoming even if the encoder doesn't work exactly as hoped. But the lower the bit rate, the more likely it will be affected should the encoder performance be just a little wanting – it would appear as noise or otherwise sound poor. That's why we spent a lot of time enhancing the 48kbps and 64kbps encoders. We're confident that they sound better than any competing codec. In the future, with the cooperation of SME, we want to make audio quality even better.

Edited April 18, 2005 by Breepee2

[aeriyn]

There are situations where atrac can be superior to MP3. Gapless playback is one of these.

The codec itself is not "better" in any sense where even an above average user such as myself could tell the difference at 256kbps or higher.

I can barely tell the difference between 320kbps and 192kbps MP3 on my Mini with my ER-6s.

Most everything has its strengths and weaknesses. MD is still not attractive to me anymore, and it's for practicality/portability reasons: I do not wish to tote discs around and I do not wish to have capacity limited to only 1GB by carrying only one disc in the player. :S Size is also an issue.

So don't think I'm an atrac fangirl. I'm just playing it like it is. Atrac can be very good for someone who is a classical music enthusiast due to its effortless gapless playback.

And at bitrates above 192kbps, the differences between ALL codecs are mostly academic and not worth talking about.

[Christopher]

Info in that link is either outdated or just not accurate.

←

It came straight from Sony late last year. Sorry, Developer's opinions override yours.

[Breepee2]

It came straight from Sony late last year. Sorry, Developer's opinions override yours.

←

As long as people think that way, we're doomed to stay stupid. Luckily I'm unbiased and my primairy concern is audio quality, not supporting everything MD because it's MD. I like the disc, not it's codecs (it's no secret that I'd like a FLAC-like codec, you'll never hear me again if Sony adds one ).

Always be wary for info coming from the makers (of course Sony considers MD/Atrac better, just like Atrac HiLP is supposed to be near CD-quality). And add that is a year old, it's of no use. I value someones opinion in a forum higher than a developer's, simply because a paid developer would be very stupid to say his work can't compete with an existing (and older) codec.

And true, Atrac has a few format-advantages over mp3, but when audio quality is your concern, there's no question.

Of course codec's have different characteristics so saying one is better is indeed tricky, however I think I can say that on the whole MP3 is a better performer. And about the height of the bitrates: distinguishibility (is that a word?) differs from song to song, but sometimes I even can hear that good ol SP sounds different than the CD (I did a blind listening test once with a friend, with some other codecs and bitrates). Other than that, I don't want the hassle of keeping a non-bitperfect copy. Why go with 256/320 kbits with some lossy codec (which improve all the time) when I can have a bitperfect copy at ~800kbps. Space is no issue, it's 2005, our movies are 5~9GB, why crunch a CD of beautiful music into 140MB (or less, if you go with LP2 or lower even)? Reformatted discs could hold an average album, completely lossless. 1GB discs three. That'd be perfect.

Edited April 20, 2005 by Breepee2

[Guest NRen2k5]

Bree: *.mp3 is not a better codec as this hardware is designed to play ATRAC3/plus. You should read this: http://forums.minidisc.org/index.php?showtopic=7980

←

I don't see where they mention MP3 at all in that interview.

At high bitrates, LAME MP3 is superior to ATRAC/ATRAC3/ATRAC3plus; there's not really any question about that. Even with all its modern ammendments, ATRAC still doesn't have as amazing fidelity as it should (because of how it is designed to be cut up and spliced together).

[Christopher]

You've misread what I said.

[aeriyn]

It came straight from Sony late last year. Sorry, Developer's opinions override yours.

←

Analog is analog, Chris. =P The unit cares not if it's ATRAC or PCM that it's receiving. In all actuality, the data is decoded from ATRAC to PCM before it even hits the DAC, the first piece in the digital to analog signal chain.

So basically Sony *can't* optimize Hi-MD to make atrac sound better because by the time it's actually converted into an audio signal, it's not even close to atrac anymore. =D

[Seikeden]

if it's the case that md units just use a single cpu to process data.. then what's stopping sony from adding mp3 support to older decks?

Oh they made sure you can never update the firmware cos they're paranoid that someone might try to use their hardware to its true potential?

[Breepee2]

And probably/possibly because cpu's in older units have not got the juice to decode MP3, and because MP3's would have to go on an standard discs involving a lot of hassle.

[lightbulbjim]

And probably/possibly because cpu's in older units have not got the juice to decode MP3, and because MP3's would have to go on an standard discs involving a lot of hassle.

←

Wasn't there a guy once that hacked on old NetMD to be able to play back mp3s?

Don't take my word for it, as I only heard it second hand myself

[Breepee2]

I haven't ever heard of it, but if it's true (and he gets it actually to work) that would be great.

[me]

The point is that ATRAC3Plus/ATRAC3 are more efficient than mp3. You get more hours from your battery, which is more important than sound quality. I guess their mission is to develop a codec that while still sounding very good (but not as good as mp3 if that's what your taste leans towards) is also very easy to process.

As a portable audio player developer, you'd be silly to consider absolute sound quality over everything else. Look at all of these square wave recordings and itunes files being downloaded.

Just guessing, but the developers tastes are obviously different to everyone elses. They gotta make it gapless, choppable and also efficient which means [here's the guessing part] they have to make compromises with the sound quality.

I'm your average moron and that's my average moronic take on this; ie i'm probably full of toilet product.

[MusicBringer]

Hello Me, I think your opinion is just as valid as mine or anybody else's. However, to me sound quality is important, and I take some spare batteries around with me to deal with the issue of (short) battery life.

[Breepee2]

True, Atrac is probably one of the most battery- and edit-friendly formats out there.

But, since I almost don't edit and don't mind -10% battery life, I prefer quality.

[Christopher]

Nope me, you've stated exactly what I was trying to say.

[aeriyn]

Sony nearly always exaggerates their battery life figures, and they are always based on the low-bitrate (in this case 64kbps) realm. Hell, even an iPod could get 15+ hours of life on 64kbps AAC files. >.>;

At 256kbps ATRAC3+, most of them get about equal battery life to nearly every other MP3 player in existence. If the internal headphone amplifier of the Sony MD units matched that of competing brands, the battery life would be even less. I don't care what anyone says or how efficient your headphones are--more powerful signal just sounds better. Hence the existence of headphone amps, preamps and power amps.

The goal behind ATRAC was to fit 72 minutes of audio on a disc 1/5th the size of a CD and optimized for real-time recording and editing with an acceptible level of degradation/distortion. Remember, the first MD unit actually took longer to charge up than its runtime on a single charge!

MD is an old technology and ATRAC is an antiquated codec. So is MP3 (they're about the same age). With ATRAC, Sony's goal was as I stated above. They were not trying to wow audiophiles. They were attempting to replace the compact casette but failed.

At this point I'm not sure why Sony doesn't just contract a new codec instead of using ATRAC. I liken this to Capcom's milking of the MegaMan franchise--like that old political cartoon showing a Communist milking a dead cow.

The technology is old, people. Obsolete. Move on.

And by the way, Sony is moving on. Point in case: the NW-HD3. The only, ONLY reason they keep making MD units is because they are still wildly (perhaps culturally) popular in Japan and some Asian countries.

Wow, been a long time since I posted in such a long-winded manner. =)

[Christopher]

Yeah, but it's so one sided. Something you'll learn in college is that there are two sides to everything, and that if you post things like this it'll seem overtly biased and undigestable; there are no well-reasoned conclusions (or solutions for that matter) - whilst I believe in relativism, this is more or less a helion's gun getting as many shots off as possible. Standing on the soapbox and telling everyone that this is old tech and we all need to move on..really has nothing to do with MP3 compability. Wasn't this about the introduction of that and not the other woes such as low mW output, MD format being old, etc? It's not like I don't agree with you, it's just that you've stated it so many times in so many different ways that it's seemingly the same rhetoric over and over just wrapped differently.

p.s. I love this forum, it's where we play some real hardball. Geek shit like this cracks me up, because if we talked like this in real life I know for sure we'd be laughing our asses off afterwards.

[aeriyn]

I really don't care if you guys use casette tapes--whatever floats your boat. But complaining about the obvious limitations of a severely outdated format is what's going on, and it's just a waste of time.

MD wasn't designed for extended battery life. It wasn't designed for superior sound quality. It was designed for exactly what it does, which makes it a good design. A good device is one that does exactly what it's designed to do, and MD does admirably replace the usage of a compact casette. It does not, however, replace nor is even the same THING as an MP3 player.

I'm not beating up on MD. I'm actually defending it. =) Yes, I've had a change of heart but the arguments are the same. MD is old, it's fifteen plus years old, "upgrades" notwithstanding. Don't expect it to be as good as the new stuff, and don't claim it's what it's not. It's not fair to compare MD to an HDAP. That's not what MD was designed for. And it's not fair for Sony to try and make MD compete with HDAPs.

[Christopher]

Sony has problems for sure trying to keep MD relevant, but I have no doubt that it will serve for many a moon before it's finally retired. Whilst many of your points are valid, it's still very attractive when priced appropriately compared to flash type players. I don't think MD will ever be comprable to DAP's with high density, unless they make a big leap within a decade's time with disc density, which is feasible. With new leadership afoot at Sony, it's entirely possible that slowly MD will become an even moreso multi-codec device that will foster attractiveness to the average Joe. We must remember that us people here, that post at these types of venues, live in an accelerated technological world that not all of society has caught up to yet. What's dismal to you Cori could still be neat to others, if they would even know what we're talking about. I think that Hi-MD and the MD format is doing better than ever before, because I know for damn sure I've never seen it so bustling. I've never seen so many news entries that were this interesting before in one year - and it's barely halfway through! I'm keeping my chin up whilst the ride is good for sure, as I've never seen things like this in any prior generation.

[raymand]

as far as i know, the i-pod also uses an external program to transfer its files (i-tunes)

[anont]

The ATRAC/MP3 codec aren't severely outdated. That would imply there are other modern codecs which inarguably sound & function better. However, MP3 is still arguably the best-sounding lossey audio codec, and the other commonly used codecs are about the same. On the other hand, 15 year old lossey video codecs are wildly outdated, and you wouldn't contemplate building a video system around them.

Maximizing a codec for battery efficiency? There's two components to this that relate to the codec - how much data has to be read, and how much power the D/A computation takes. But MP3 is relatively simple in computation. I don't know how MD works with MP3, but most MP3 decoders use specialized, low-power, commodity-priced chips, so it's safe to assume MD either uses these chips or an equivalent process. As far as having to read data, the different codecs are essentially equal at equal bitrates, so that's not really a factor.

MD wasn't designed just to replace the audio cassette, was it? I recall it initially being marketed as a replacement for the CD as well, so the intent was to be the only consumer audio format. Regardless, it's obviously been re-designed over the years. Complaining about the original design of MD being for lower quality sound, when the MD now supports PCM or 320kbps MP3, seems kind of irrelevant.

And the battery comment is off. MD is much more battery efficient than a HD based player like the iPod, particularly with the player only models. If the MD recorders and iPods both have about the same running time between charges (about 10 hours), it's because Sony and Apple both realize 10 hours is considered the minimum acceptable number. Apple has to dedicate space and weight to their player, to support the extra batteries - if an iPod could run on a single AA, it would be smaller and lighter and cheaper and better, but the battery would last maybe 10 minutes and that's not a realistic option.

I think the only valid complaints about the current MD is that software is terrible and the the storage format is low-density. Although that's enough to make the MD not a good option for most people. But if Hi-MD was released in (say) a 5GB version, and the software was improved, what would there be to not like?

[jadeclaw]

Well, Atrac3 isn't outdated, that is true.

And despite being better than MP3, there is still potential for improvement.

On the other paw, MP3 is hopelessly outdated.

When it comes to efficiency, especially space requirement vs. quality, MP3 has reached its limits.

To sum it up:

MP3@128k == Atrac3@105k == OGG@96k == aacPlusV2@64k.

But don't make the error of using the MP3-encoder included in SS3.1 as a reference, that one sucks like a black hole, it sounds like diarrhea at and below 128k.

However, when it comes to energy efficiency, aacPlus poses a serious challenge to developers - Let's see, how long the first DRM-radios run on one charge...

(DRM = Digital Radio Mondiale)

[mangizmo]

So, recently, MP3 support from MZ-RH10 and MZ-RH910 has been a very exciting news for hi-md fans. But is this really the mp3 you think?

No!

Actually, guys, I just find the current MP3 function of Hi-MD meaningless.

Why?

Because you have to use SonicStage to upload them. Given the current computation power, what makes this process different from converting them into the SONY format? Absolutely no difference!!!

Unless SONY provides the USB load & play function for MP3's, there is no point to cheer for its current MP3 compatibility at all.

It's much more a business trick than a functionality improvement.

←

I think thats a bit harsh, I use minidisc mainly for very long audiobooks, I dont mind using SS, but I DID mind havind to convert from MP3 to ATRAC....now it works just great....I for one am very satisfied with this development and I can see no other device that would give me what Minidisc does.

Yes O.K not having to use SS would be even better, but this is good enough to keep me a minidisc fan

I rea

[Night Rider]

There are different ways to use MD.

Only a small group really uses the recorder to atually record something via microphone, or use the portable player as a HiFi component.

Most of the consumers just use it to listen to music while walking, jogging...

If I want to transfer some mp3s or other data to another pc, I can put it via drag&drop on the MD.

If i want to listen to the music I can export my winamp playlist to SS, transfer the music without conversion to my player an delete the SS-library entry.

Well SS is sh*t, but I just use it to transfer the Mp3s on the md. And with the possibilty of importing m3u playlists its ok.