Which Flavour Atrac?

[matrulesok]

Let me start by saying that I know a lot of people only use their hi-md for recording, and also a lot has been written about this before, and its a personal choice etc but I was just interested in which format is most widely used for listening only, and why people choose their favoured codec.

I only got my first non-sp only md (nh900) yesterday (as did a few others from amazon!). So far I have listened to lp2 and found it very convincing. I looked at hi-lp and it seems to on the border of being acceptable....with the supplied phones, it sounds pretty good and is definently useable. But when I tried the phones that came with my sharp md-mt15 (over the head types that I got 5 years ago!) I could spot the flaws. Basically, I am still deciding, and since I nearly always listen to my music on the bus/train, I will do best to try out the formats there (once I'm back at uni), and with the phones I usually use (senheiser mx400's). I have to say I'm still pretty much just messing with the plethora of options at the moment!

I do think that I will end up going with hi-sp though since I'm always a fool for the stats - "it says its better, so it must be, even though I can't tell the difference!" ha.

Thanks for any views and satisfying my curiosity!

[dex Otaku]

It really depends on what you're encoding, but I find that anything below HiSP is basically unacceptable for general use.

For very specific types of recordings, LP2 is OK [for music in general I find its artifacting glaringly obvious], and for mono recordings [such as voice only] even HiLP is fine.

I'll note that I'm extremely picky about what is acceptable as a base-level when encoding - far more so than the average person.

[Syrius]

Sp for me. With Hi-Sp coming in second.

I'm glad someone mentioned this, as I have done some tests using a CD as source, and I cannot find any difference between true SP, and fake SP from SS 3.0 LP2 sounds acceptable too, if just a tiny little bit muffled. Either my phones are not that good, my ears are not that discerning, or the source and the encoding are just too darn good to distinguish.

I'm sure it will be more noticeable when using lower-fidelity sources.

Still, I will stick to Sp for regular MD, Hi-Sp and PCM for Hi-MD mode. I don't want to know about the other formats.

[xispe]

SP Rocks!

[Michael1980]

What are the damn logistics behind the not inclusion of SP in SonisStage?

[The Low Volta]

hi-sp sure sounds better (I'm recording from CD>ss3>nh900) but for me the extra space I gain from using sp (fake/132) was more important, especially since I mostly listen on the move (with so much background noise, it's hard to distinguish between hi-sp and fake sp)...

I do notice the artifacts when I'm at home with my big Sennheiser phones, so now that my CD-player died, I'm thinking of getting a few extra 80minMD's to put my alltime favorite albums on in hi-sp or even PCM (via sb) just to enhance the experience

[matrulesok]

hi-sp sure sounds better (I'm recording from CD>ss3>nh900) but for me the extra space I gain from using sp (fake/132) was more important, especially since I mostly listen on the move (with so much background noise, it's hard to distinguish between hi-sp and fake sp)...

I do notice the artifacts when I'm at home with my big Sennheiser phones, so now that my CD-player died, I'm thinking of getting a few extra 80minMD's to put my alltime favorite albums on in hi-sp or even PCM (via sb) just to enhance the experience

←

I am leaning toward a similar thing: most discs in lp2 for travelling, and a few higher quality (hi-sp) for challenging audio, and some in lower quality (hi-lp) for comedy and things like that.

My next question is, what is challenging audio? I listen to all sorts: Blues (muddy waters, john lee hooker etc) through rock (zeppelin, skynyrd, zz top etc) to metal (sabbath, machine head, pantera etc) and ocasionally classical and easy listening. I obviously dont want to sit through recording all my cd's at the 2 different formats to find what needs what so can anyone give a general rule for what type of music needs more space. Im guessing that metal will be more challenging, but I don't really know. Thanks again!

[peare]

I checked LP2, because I had a longer history with NetMD than HiMD. Istarted in 1995 and my archive was of course composed of SP recordings. Then beginning with NetMD I deleted some of them to use more space, still buying more blanks. Now I am using mostly hi-sp, reformatting my LP2 ones, but I still keep some of my old SP recordings.

[zerodB]

Well, an old-skool (Net)MD user like me only has a few options to play with. Usually, it's SP for albums and the like. But I also use NetMD LP2 for custom mixes downloaded from the PC.

[Latexxx]

I used to use hi-sp exclusively but lp2 has really got better since SS 2.0 and nowadays I'm using it almost exclusively.

[Ishiyoshi]

I used to employ only SP recordings. However, I have now included both PCM and Hi-SP recordings as well.

[Valder]

Every new CD I buy gets tossed in the Sony ES player and recorded in SP on the Pioneer Elite....as SP is all it does.

Otherwise using netMD or HiMD I use lp2 for traveling. Can really load up a 1GB with lp2. Handy on those longs flights.

Valder

[matrulesok]

Every new CD I buy gets tossed in the Sony ES player and recorded in SP on the Pioneer Elite....as SP is all it does.

Otherwise using netMD or HiMD I use lp2 for traveling. Can really load up a 1GB with lp2. Handy on those longs flights.

Valder

←

I take it you have o use sonicstage? As far as I can see, simple burner only lets atrac3+ onto a hi-md.

[silvermark]

I need to know something from all you SP fans.

Do you really have the bulk of your record collection in SP? How did you do that? "SP" is achieved through line in in real time... did you really take the time to transfer each CD through line in to MD discs?

[Ishiyoshi]

I need to know something from all you SP fans.

Do you really have the bulk of your record collection in SP? How did you do that? "SP" is achieved through line in in real time... did you really take the time to transfer each CD through line in to MD discs?

←

Indeed, before the advent of Hi-MD, I record exclusively in SP mode optically or CD-->MD via Sharp's SD-NX10. To date, I have about 350 MDs in SP mode exclusively. So, there you go.

[matrulesok]

I need to know something from all you SP fans.

Do you really have the bulk of your record collection in SP? How did you do that? "SP" is achieved through line in in real time... did you really take the time to transfer each CD through line in to MD discs?

←

Well, although I am now putting it all in lp2, my collection was (as of 3 days ago) all in sp. All recorded real time. Thats about 120-150 minidiscs worth! Its not so bad, just put a cd in and press synchro record and come back in an hour or so.

[silvermark]

Wow you guys are hardcore

[matrulesok]

Wow you guys are hardcore 

←

don't worry, I didnt buy them all myself - every birthday and xmas my nan tends to get me 10 and since i've had an md for 5 years, thats 100 from her! I spend my money on buying the cd's to fill them all with! ha

[though]

LP2 for me via sonicstage 3.0

i have several MD units (rack mount, decks, portable) and all the discs need to work in all the players.

- troy

[MusicBringer]

Indeed, before the advent of Hi-MD, I record exclusively in SP mode optically or CD-->MD via Sharp's SD-NX10. To date, I have about 350 MDs in SP mode exclusively. So, there you go.

←

Yeah me too Ishiyoshi

CD-->MD via Sharp's MD-MT888. To date, I have 500+MDs in SP mode exclusively. So, there you go.

btw matrulesok, this is a good question and will help us new members of Team NH900.

Not fully analised yet, but I think it's between ATRAC3+ 256 kbps HiSP, and ATRAC3 132 kbps LP2

[matrulesok]

Yeah me too Ishiyoshi

CD-->MD via Sharp's MD-MT888. To date, I have 500+MDs in SP mode exclusively. So, there you go.  

btw matrulesok, this is a good question and will help us new members of Team NH900.

Not fully analised yet, but I think it's between ATRAC3+ 256 kbps HiSP, and ATRAC3 132 kbps LP2 

←

I think whichever method you choose, with 500 md's it may take some time .

I am listening to lp2 at the moment, I think it has the edge since it will work with my panasonic sj-mj50 which has about 100 hours battery life.

I think that "team nh900" will eventually rule the world!

[bug80]

I used to encode my CD's to LP2 using SonicStage, for listening while traveling, but the artifacts became simply too anoying for me. So, I switched over to real-time recording in good old SP. SP is transparent to me. Real-time recording takes a lot of time, unfortunately.

If I'll ever buy a Hi-MD unit, I think I'll switch to Hi-SP or even MP3's encoded with LAME --alt-preset standard.

Because I always keep the original CD quality loss is no big deal to me, as long as the result is transparent to my ears.

[matrulesok]

I used to encode my CD's to LP2 using SonicStage, for listening while traveling, but the artifacts became simply too anoying for me. So, I switched over to real-time recording in good old SP. SP is transparent to me. Real-time recording takes a lot of time, unfortunately.

←

What phones do you use (top notch ones or just £20-£30 ones)? I can't tell the difference between sp and lp2 unless I really sit down and concentrate hard (although this is probably a result of too many machine head gigs than cheap headphones! ) using any of my £20-£30 headphones.

If it really is the phones that make the difference all I ask is that you split the money that you save on cheaper phones and less minidisc with me. ha!

[dex Otaku]

I can't tell the difference between sp and lp2 unless I really sit down and concentrate hard using any of my £20-£30 headphones.

It depends on what you're encoding as well as what you're listening through and where you're listening.

Regardless of what codec is being used, I find that certain material suffers less with low-bitrate encoding. This will tend to contradict the purists [i'm fussy but I'm not a purest] but I've found that jazz music, chamber music, classical soloists and quartets, and anything that is relatively sparse [in a harmonic sense] will be handled well by LP2 or, say, MP3 at 128kbps. Pure tones and silence are pretty easy to encode without too much artifacting.

But wait - what about all those essential overtones made by acoustic instruments? Well, they disappear, yes. The thing is, you're far less likely to notice it in an obvious way unless there are either many instruments playing at the same time [i.e. jazz band or full orchestra] or only one instrument with a really complex timbre playing [such as solo sax or muted trumpet]. In these cases, however, what you're likely to notice is not distinctive swishing or underwater-sound type artifacting, but a general loss of timbre or obvious colouration of the instruments.

Hard to encode material tends to be sonically and harmonically dense, with loud, fast transients [example: electronic drumbeats] and instruments with complex harmonic structures where the harmonics are extremely obvious [example: distorted guitars].

Other sources that are harder to encode include recordings originally made on analogue equipment that have audible tape hiss. Tape hiss drives lossy encoders mad, generally speaking.

More specific examples of relatively easy to encode material:

[Note that this is not to say there's no audible loss, just that the loss is not likely to be gratingly annoying.]

* string quartets

* small jazz improv groups

* folk music with only acoustic guitar and vocals

* electronic music featuring mostly pure tones

* film soundtracks that lack complex ambience

More specific examples of hard to encode material:

* rock/metal/punk/industrial &c. that feature large amounts of distortion

* anything with lots of effects such as flange, phase, and chorus

* complex ambient sound

* horn sections

* full orchestras

* techno and anything with loud hard drumbeats [some codecs are more forgiving than others, of course; ATRAC in all its incarnations has trouble with transients, though]

* pipe organ [the only musical instrument to cover, audibly, the full range of human hearing and beyond]

* cymbals in combination with virtually anything else

The determining factor is more what I refer to as sonic density than anything else.

Music or material made up of instruments or simply sounds with many complex overtones, or with many instruments playing at once, or with lots of effects [including simple reverb] will tend to push any encoder to its limits in trying to decide what the most important parts to allocate bits for are.

The denser the material is, the harder it is to encode without audible artifacts. The sparser it is, the easier it is to encode without audible artifacts.

LP2 rides the line of being just not quite enough for a lot of what I listen to. HiSP is probably slight overkill for portable use; I've found in the past that MP3 at 192kbps tends to be the minimum [for MP3] that is generally usable [meaning for almost all material you throw at it]. This is part of why there have been a lot of complaints about there being no available atrac3plus bitrate -between- LP2's 132kbps and HiSP's 256kbps.

In terms of listening, I find that LP2's artifacting is plainly obvious when listening through pretty much any headphones/earphones. Generally speaking, head/earphones are the easiest way to detect artifacting.

Over speakers is another matter entirely; LP2 would suffice for listening in the car or for background music at a party, say - where the ambient noise level of the environment assists in masking the artifacts. Generally speaking, playback through speakers in any other than a very quiet environment will be more forgiving.

I have an album here that I use for torture-testing. It's Strange Free World by the Welsh band Kitchens of Distinction [1990]. The high-end on this album is almost brutally engineered; on a good system, it sounds smooth and makes for a good listen. Unfortunately, or fortunately in the case of having become one of my torture-test albums, it also glaringly demonstrates several things, including: the gross read error-rate of a CD player [it actually becomes audible]; DAC defects and problems; jitter problems; encoder limitations and/or deficiencies; amplifier and crossover problems; elusive high-frequency feedback issues for stage PAs; and a number of other things.

This is one of my top reference albums for testing lossy encoders. LP2 makes a total unlistenable mess of it, as I find it also does with Radiohead, Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins, Placebo, Pink Floyd, Ministry, Skinny Puppy, Peter Gabriel, The Cure, Oasis, Nine Inch Nails, Blur, Coldplay, and many other bands/artists I listen to on a fairly regular basis.

The only material I have encoded and kept at LP2 was 1960s pop music that was originally recorded in mono, which it seems to do fairly well with. This is kind of interesting too, since LP2 is a true stereo encoding format, not joint-stereo, which means dual-mono material should be no easier to encode than true stereo material. Somehow it still does okay, though.

[Guest NRen2k5]

I use LP2 the most.

(I record by optical line because I'm still not satisfied with SonicStage's encoders.)

[MusicBringer]

dex Otaku, thank you for a very informative post. Most helpful

[dex Otaku]

Remember too though - while this may be my experience, YMMV. It's one man's opinion.

[jadeclaw]

One man's opinion yes, but in line with my experiences,

however, my experiences are far from that drastic with LP2.

Is it my age? I'm 41 this month.

Oh, and there is a new kid on the block: aacPlus with SBR (Spectral Band Replication),

giving surprisingly good quality on low bitrates.

A 48kBit Stream outperforms my FM-Tuner with ease. And Hi-LP as well.

You can give it a try here: Tuner2.

(You need Winamp5 to play these).

By the way, it is the same codec, that is used for DRM (Digital Radio Mondiale), the new worldwide Digital AM System.

[dex Otaku]

Is a variation of SBR not also used with mp3plus?

[matrulesok]

Remember too though - while this may be my experience, YMMV.  It's one man's opinion.

←

Yes, but an experienced user's opinion - just what us newbie hi-md users need!

Edited April 11, 2005 by matrulesok

[MusicBringer]

Yes, but an experienced user's opinion - just what us newbie hi-md users need!

←

Hear! Hear! I agree. dex Otaku and the rest of the MCF Team here are being most helpful (and tolerant) with us newbie NH900'ers

[jadeclaw]

Is a variation of SBR not also used with mp3plus?

←

Yes, but that one had almost no effect.

The one used for mp3Pro was a good deal better,

but since the base was mp3, it still inherited all the problems coming with it.

For SBR to work properly, you need a modern efficient codec, that already is optimized for low bitrates.

Something, that cannot be said from mp3.

And the SBR used with aacPlus is a newer version as well.

[zerodB]

I need to know something from all you SP fans.

Do you really have the bulk of your record collection in SP? How did you do that? "SP" is achieved through line in in real time... did you really take the time to transfer each CD through line in to MD discs?

←

Keep in mind that MD was orginally desgined as a replacement for the cassette tape - so it's not much different to recording onto a tape. Except for the fact that you get the benifits of digital sound, random-access non-sequential media, etc.

Just think of what we did before the advent of MP3 and ascociated technologies.

(...although there are some MD/CD units that can do a 4x SP dub).

For me, MP3 has done for portable music exactly what the Microwave has done for cooking - no longer do you have to wait for a warm meal... but has it improved the quality of cooking?

Edited April 11, 2005 by zerodB

[matrulesok]

well, I see lp2 is in the lead! I put the options in the order I thought people would vote. Looks like I got it wrong. Although this is far from conclusive it supports the case for a hi-mp (meduim play) codec eg 160kbps atrac3+. Perhaps then the low codecs (48kbps, lp4 and lp3) could then be dropped.

I have looked at what dex otaku said, and for me I think evn hi-lp is suitable through speakers (nh900>nad seperate>speakers) and on a few 1gb discs i would have a great jukebox! This leaves lp2 on most of my discs - for travelling and using my beautiful panasonic sj-mj50, yes I know the battery compartment is being held on by elastic (see picture) but it has a great battery life and it's tiny!

[attachmentid=192]

Edited April 11, 2005 by matrulesok

[KJ_Palmer]

In terms of the discs I already have recorded, SP still outnumbers all the others put together. That is about 200 SP discs. But this is mainly because of the fact that they were mostly recorded pre-HiMD and pre-NetMD.

Now I've got Hi-MD and am mostly using Simpleburner for quick 'recording', Hi-SP is catching up, and will certainly overtake SP sometime soon. I'm now only really using SP on my deck for radio recording. I can't hear any practical difference between SP and Hi-SP, so am happy for this to carry on.

I'm also still making some LP2 compilations - mostly of the same tracks as go on the Hi-SP compilations because of the similarity in length on a blank and for old equipment compatability..

[zulu2002]

Hi all, i do agree with matrulesok that hi-lp is fine for those of us that want good quality music in a jukebox environment (using 1gb hi-md disc's) and that hi-sp is certainly the best choice for high-quality listening.

It seems obvious to me that sony have not done a great deal of useful research into the listening habbits of the md pubic, and that as far as i have seen the type of people that buy md players ususally want a good quality sound over a high number of files, therefore this forces me to yet again agree with matrulesok for the need of hi-mp and the removal of the lower bitrates.

I read earlier that some of you use pulse code modulation PCM to record ur music, well this seems total overkill as hi-sp is equal as far as the human ear is concerned. PCM is an old method of storing optical data and goes back to the origins of the compact disc, therefore why are many people persistant in the fact that this format is best when surely after 30 years+ there have been many developments in recording technology. ( LOL just thought i would create a stur).

Also iam not sure of the purpose of the poll above as it is obvious that most people will have there music libuary in the older formats such as sp, lp2. I believe the question should have been which format would you choose if you were starting your collection!!!

Anyway somthing to think about And a very interesting thread.

[bug80]

zulu2002, there are some reasons why people choose PCM (or lossless) for their music:

* In the case that you get better equipment (or ears!) that reveal artefacts that you've never heard before, it's good to know that you have the original, full quality recording. You'll be able to re-encode it to higher quality bitrates, if necessary.

* Another important point is, that it is always a bad idea to use a lossy encoded file for further processing. For instance, if you've recorded a concert of your band to minidisc and you want to apply some EQ, compression or maybe reverb before burning it on CD, lossy is not safe. The original encoding of the audio was such, that the music sounded as good as possible as it was. If you do processing afterwards, nasty things may happen to the sound.

[peare]

Since most of my SP recordings were made on MD-JA50ES Sony deck from my old Denon 3560 CD player and then from Marantz CD63mkII-KI (Ken Ishiwata's signature on it) I keep all of them (over 250MD's). God! How I used to scan all those CD's covers then shrink them to MD sizes. It took too much time and I cant delete them anymore.

[zulu2002]

HI bug80, my post was in reference to listening to audio not the production of audio tracks, where the use of extremely high quality sound is a must. And yes my ears are fine, but i must admit to not using the best of head phones £100+. It seem to me that there is no need to bring PCM sound into the md arena until such time if ever that md become the standard for pre-recorded music. Also iam sure pulse code modulation is not a lossless compression of CD audio but an exact copy, but i have heard of lossless compression of around 60-70% of the orginal PCM recording.

Surely u dont just throw ur cd's away, therefore u can do higher bit rate copies if needed. And to make use of such high precision music recording iam such u would have the sense to not use a standard md portable. More likely a high quality digital computer system, but anyway iam going off topic slightly, becuase most md user i should think dont use there md player in such a way.

So far using the equipment i have at present there doesnt seem to be any degredation in sound between PCM and atrac3plus 256kbps. But i we try them on better phones as soon as possible, and can see where u are coming from sort of?

I will post my final conclusion later after properly looking into the matter.

I do agree my comments do not fit all scenario's possible and i am not trying to say other wise, they are just my observations and opinions.

[Jammin72]

This is an intersting thread... I haven't spent time doing comparisons between PCM and Hi-SP to truly comment on what I've heard. It does bring up an intersting conversation that brought up some intersting thoughts about PCM. A co-worker was speaking with Ed Meitner of EMM Labs (The guy who helped Sony with their DSD devleopment for SACD) and he mentioned that the PCM nasties that you hear in CD's isn't about the encoding method, it's really more in the playback of PCM that the distortions occur. He mentioned that you can encode PCM to 320kBs mp3 and get rid of some the aspects of "That CD Sound" that audiphiles have been complaining about since the inception of the product. The trick is to have a playback device that actually plays the mp3 directly. The only players I have convert the mp3 to PCM to pass out to the output stage so no gains and actually worse performance as you now have compression AND the nasties added by the PCM output circuits. I'm trying to figure out how to make this happen at home. For the EMM Labs gear CD's are actually upsampled to DSD and output using that codec... the result... Amazing!!! CD's sound like real music. Of course his preamp is $10,000 so I won't be getting one anytime soon but it does make my collection of DAT tapes suddenly seem much more like gems waiting to be polished.

HI bug80, my post was in reference to listening to audio not the production of audio tracks, where the use of extremely high quality sound is a must. And yes my ears are fine, but i must admit to not using the best of head phones £100+.  It seem to me that there is no need to bring PCM sound into the md arena until such time if ever that md become the standard for pre-recorded music. Also iam sure pulse code modulation is not a lossless compression of CD audio but an exact copy, but i have heard of lossless compression of around 60-70% of the orginal PCM recording.

Surely u dont just throw ur cd's away, therefore u can do higher bit rate copies if needed. And to make use of such high precision music recording iam such u would have the sense to not use a standard md portable. More likely a high quality digital computer system, but anyway iam going off topic slightly, becuase most md user i should think dont use there md player in such a way.

So far using the equipment i have at present there doesnt seem to be any degredation in sound between PCM and atrac3plus 256kbps. But i we try them on better phones as soon as possible, and can see where u are coming from sort of?

I will post my final conclusion later after properly looking into the matter.

I do agree my comments do not fit all scenario's possible and i am not trying to say other wise, they are just my observations and opinions.

←