Which Flavour Atrac?

[matrulesok]

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.

←

Many people do use there md's for recording where PCM is exactly what they require, however, you are correct in saying that it is overkill for playback. It would be interesting to see the new playback only hi-mds (japan only I believe) and see if they play back PCM. Perhaps someone could help us out (or even direct us to a manual).

God! How I used to scan all those CD's covers then shrink them to MD sizes.

←

Wow!!! Thats dedication! I used to moan about copying down the songs to the sticky labels.

Edited April 11, 2005 by matrulesok

[dex Otaku]

A co-worker was speaking with Ed Meitner of EMM Labs 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. 

Many modern CD players and home receivers don't actually use PCM - same as recorders don't have linear PCM ADCs - they use 1-bit systems that are actually quite similar to how DSD works [using variants of PWM, W = width, not PCM].

The performance of a true PCM ADC / DAC chain compared to most PWM chains is, at least theoretically, technically superiour on many grounds, especially if you're going to be doing any signal processing [such as post processing for recordings, and digital EQ/crossovers for playback].

DSD and PWM variants have advantages of their own, but in terms of recording and processing, they tend to fall short without using large racks of extremely expensive equipment for something that is, ultimately, converted to PCM in the end anyway [for sale to consumers], then containing some of the inherent nastiness of the DSD process as well.

If you do a google search for DSD, you'll come up with several research papers about how bad it actually is as a format. These papers tend to have been written by AES members and the like, real audio engineers who understand what they're talking about [far better than I do, I'll add, I just consume their opinions and scientific data and spout little bits back out].

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. 

Here's the problem: how do you get a non-timebased, nonlinear compressed stream to convert directly to an analogue timebased linear stream? You don't. You have to convert the frequency-domain info contained in the lossy stream back to something linear in order to convert that to analogue for amplification and listening.

You could take MP3 and convert it directly to DSD, incidentally.

Thing is - "those nasties of the PCM output circuits" is a bit of a misnomer. As I said, and you can look around for proof of this [especially with consumer equipment], the DACs of most CD players and receivers [and sound cards, incidentally] now use 1-bit systems, based on variants of PWM, which are remarkably similar to how DSD works. The problems are from the inexpensive [less than 1/10th the cost of true linear PCM DACs] 1-bit DACs, not the PCM format or anything inherent to do with how PCM is converted to analogue.

If we were all using actual PCM DACs, everything would probably sound a lot better.

If engineers, studios, and record companies would also stop bitpushing recordings [the same as running the entire recording through a brickwall limiter] everything would also sound a lot better.

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. 

Forgive me, but I refuse to put even a smidge of faith in that opinion. GIGO.. if you store PCM at 44.1kHz/stereo/16-bit, then you can't exceed that resolution on the output. You can interpolate, you can noise shape, you can smooth things over and alter the timbre from the original to something you prefer, but you can't exceed the resolution of what came in, and you can't really improve the sound beyond the original recording in any sense other than tailoring it [i.e. adding distortion] to suit your tastes.

Rephrased: you can't get out more than is there in the first place.

By the same token, anything, regardless of whether it's been mutilated by conversion to a different stream format, is likely to sound better in some way when played back through multi-thousand-dollar systems with very expensive precision DACs and preamps and amps.

I'd be willing to be that if you took a Mark Levinson DAC [considered the reference for many years for linear PCM], and a decent CD player, and hooked it up to the same equipment, you'd either get results that were basically equal in quality or possibly even better. Mind you, that's no more than conjecture.

I must admit to having a prejudice against DSD. This is based on the fact that I do recording, and DSD is difficult to manipulate, as well as the fact that DSD as a playback medium is that and that only - if you actually want to do anything with the stream, you have to convert it to something usable [i.e. PCM] first.

As impressive as it might be to hear Dark Side of the Moon in DSD 5.1 [i own the disc, but have yet to see a single SACD player for sale where I live] DSD is little more to me than a method of copy-protection.

[Jammin72]

Rephrased: you can't get out more than is there in the first place.

By the same token, anything, regardless of whether it's been mutilated by conversion to a different stream format, is likely to sound better in some way when played back through multi-thousand-dollar systems with very expensive precision DACs and preamps and amps. 

I'd be willing to be that if you took a Mark Levinson DAC [considered the reference for many years for linear PCM], and a decent CD player, and hooked it up to the same equipment, you'd either get results that were basically equal in quality or possibly even better.  Mind you, that's no more than conjecture.

I must admit to having a prejudice against DSD.  This is based on the fact that I do recording, and DSD is difficult to manipulate, as well as the fact that DSD as a playback medium is that and that only - if you actually want to do anything with the stream, you have to convert it to something usable [i.e. PCM] first. 

As impressive as it might be to hear Dark Side of the Moon in DSD 5.1 [i own the disc, but have yet to see a single SACD player for sale where I live] DSD is little more to me than a method of copy-protection.

←

I have to say that when we first started thinking about upsampling the general consensus around the shop was the same how do you get something that was never there?

We did set up numerous listening tests to try to limit the effect of superior analog components being the key to the improvement in sound quality. Our Reference system consiting of Rowland Research Model 7's and vairous high end preamps both professional and consumer going into a custom constructed speaker set that utilizes all dyanaudio drives and custom crossovers designed by Doug Oade (His system acutally). We used the Sony SCD-XA9000ES, the Denon DVD-9000, and a couple of Philips and Sony lower end DVD Players as sources.His room has numberous wall treatments bracings etc...

(On an aside if you get a chance to hear the SCD-XA9000ES and the STR-DA9000ES working together TAKE it! For a system below $5K (speakers not included) it does things playback systems 10 times the cost do. The only drawback is not having the juice to playback omni recordings of rock shows at concert levels)

Whereas there wasn't a huge differnce in the instrumentation itslef the thing that changes is the actual space. You can hear the space between and around notes and placement of instumentation. The soundstage becomes immense. Since a mojority of the recordings that we listen two are 2 or 4 mic recordings of concerts what you gain is a sense of the room or space in which the music was created. The easiest way to describe the experience is that instead of listening to a fantastic recording of a concert suddenly you're there!

Sony is a huge fan of fowarding technologies that allow them to control content, I agree I'm sure that a lot of the drive for the company was to try to create a format and then a market for something that isn't able to be copied by the masses. DSD gear is expensive and you have to pay through the teeth to get software to do the editing. Tascams new DSD recorder somewhat breaks the mold but is limited in functionality. I hear what you're saying here. At the same time there is something about SACD that just goes beyond anything else that I've heard as a source to date. DVD-Audio simply doesn't sound as good. Unfortunately since Sony is trying to control the format like they do with most of thier good ideas it has little chance of becoming anywhere close to mainstream. This and the fact that most people seem to perfer free to Great.

I wish that I had the technical expertise to discuss this at a more code based level with you because I know you would find it intriguing, but I was human interface, not machine inteface at the shop!

[Jammin72]

Dex...

Here's a link to Meitner's Patent Page....

You may find some of it quite interesting or be able to find out what in his approach makes the differece. We're convinced that he's holding out on Sony some of the code he's using!

EMM Labs

[dex Otaku]

[snip snip snip..]

I wish that I had the technical expertise to discuss this at a more code based level with you because I know you would find it intriguing, but I was human interface, not machine inteface at the shop!

←

And I wish that I could talk theory without sounding adversarial, which I usually seem to.

Also - my opinion in this case is not based on personal experience, as yours is. This has the effect of making my opinion questionable until I do experience the same or similar myself.

Still, I'm not an audio engineer, I just research things at length because they interest me. Occasionally I can actually remember where I found my information, too. I'm not much of a scientist in that regard.

But I must digress - I've wandered us away from the actual thread topic.

Feel free to contact me directly if you'd like to discuss things.

[zulu2002]

HI all, just wondering what u lot think of hi-lp vs LP2. From some of the information i have seen hi-lp is meant to be equal to LP2, but iam sure some people will say that lp2 is best just becuase it has a higher bit rate of 132 vs 64. Which i can see what ur saying but hi-lp is surposedly using a better compression format atrac3plus, so plz dont just reply on the basis of bitrate, becuase iam interested in see what comes up from this post.

I have not as yet tested lp2 vs hi-lp, so have no personal opinion on this as yet, this post is based on information off the net etc....

[matrulesok]

HI all, just wondering what u lot think of hi-lp vs LP2. From some of the information i have seen hi-lp is meant to be equal to LP2, but iam sure some people will say that lp2 is best just becuase it has a higher bit rate of 132 vs 64. Which i can see what ur saying but hi-lp is surposedly using a better compression format atrac3plus, so plz dont just reply on the basis of bitrate, becuase iam interested in see what comes up from this post.

I have not as yet tested lp2 vs hi-lp, so have no personal opinion on this as yet, this post is based on information off the net etc....

←

I believe, that since the lp2 codec has been updated over time (or at least has been reported to have been!), it does essentially (but not totally) come down to bitrate. If you were comparing the lp2 codec when it first emerged, this may be different, having said that, this means you may expect hi-lp to get better over time!

All in all, I'd say that lp2 is better, but hi-lp is by no means unuseable. In fact I'd say hi-lp is comparable to mp3 128kbs, lp2 comparable to mp3 160-192kbps. However Im sure that many will dissagree wholeheartedly (feel free to do so - I'd love to hear other opinions)!

Edited April 13, 2005 by matrulesok

[The_Stamp]

I have two kinds of discs. lp2 discs and hi-lp. When im on the bus, i use my hi-lp discs, because i can't tell the difference. When im walking, i pop in my lp2 discs because it does indeed sound better. But if you have a quality / bitrate ratio, hi-lp is quite good.

[bug80]

All in all, I'd say that lp2 is better, but hi-lp is by no means unuseable. In fact I'd say hi-lp is comparable to mp3 128kbs, lp2 comparable to mp3 160-192kbps. However Im sure that many will dissagree wholeheartedly (feel free to do so - I'd love to hear other opinions)!

←

Well, I don't agree

I always thought that LP2 was comparable with MP3 >= 160 kbs too, untill I swapped the stock Sony earbuds for some decent Sennheiser ones. Now I believe LP2 is just horrible on most of the music I listen to. It lacks clarity, sharp attacks are smeared out way too much and the vocals sound as if they were recorded under water.

Furthermore, an extended listening test at hydrogenaudio.org pointed out, that LP2 is worse than MP3 @ 128 kbs.

[matrulesok]

Well, I don't agree

I always thought that LP2 was comparable with MP3 >= 160 kbs too, untill I swapped the stock Sony earbuds for some decent Sennheiser ones. Now I believe LP2 is just horrible on most of the music I listen to. It lacks clarity, sharp attacks are smeared out way too much and the vocals sound as if they were recorded under water.

Furthermore, an extended listening test at hydrogenaudio.org pointed out, that LP2 is worse than MP3 @ 128 kbs.

←

So by using the cheap earphones, you save money and your music sounds better!!

[The Low Volta]

I used to think ('till very recently, see my previous post in this thread, it really wasn't long ago) that (fake) sp@132 suited my listening needs as I mostly listened on the move with the crappy sony earplugs that came with my nh900. At home I used my big sennheiser 'phones and I DID notice all the artifacts and stuff...

So now I decided to burn a couple md's in hisp with SB, just to get a better listening experience at home. But as I was traveling by train I decided to pop on in of the newly recorded ones, with an album that I also had with me in fake sp@132, just for the ( c)heck of it and... even with the sony 'buds and on a train (though we have very quiet trains in Belgium ) I noticed a BIG difference between fake sp@132 (is this actually lp2@132?) and hisp!!

ok, it was a very demanding album (The Mars Volta: Frances the Mute... but then again, I have a LOT of demanding albums) but the sound was so much crisper, details more present and less artifacts (though these are easily muffled by external train noises anyway)... so I guess I'm going to opt for hisp for my entire collection (still very small, my actual music collection is kept on cd and not on pc and I record and erase md's as I need 'em)!

Just to show you guys that a person can change his mind

...and yes, I AM aware that listening with sony'buds on a train to one album recorded in different formats on two different md's doesn't really classify as an objecive listening test, but it did represent my listening needs, so it will stand for me.

[bug80]

So by using the cheap earphones, you save money and your music sounds better!!   

←

Haha, well my "new" earbuds are definitely not A class (Sennheiser MX500, what are they, around $20 or so). Right now I am not thinking of going back to the Sony ones. SP (true SP, that is) sounds great through the Sennheisers. I will not give up that sound, just to mask the artifacts of LP2

This all doesn't mean LP2 can't be good enough for other people, mind you. It is just that I am very picky on sound quality, and a sound that I consider to be "bad" will ruin my listening pleasure, as is the case for LP2.

Most other people don't find sound quality that important, or they just don't hear the artifacts. The popularity of MP3@128 kbs is a prove of this statement. It's just that LP2 isn't good enough for me (anymore).

[bug80]

I noticed a BIG difference between fake sp@132 (is this actually lp2@132?) and hisp!!

←

Oh and yes, fake sp@132 = lp2@132, recorded as SP. So it gives you no improvements on quality.

[matrulesok]

Most other people don't find sound quality that important, or they just don't hear the artifacts. The popularity of MP3@128 kbs is a prove of this statement.

←

And the poll!

Edited April 14, 2005 by matrulesok

[The Low Volta]

if I'm summarizing correctly, we could state that as we arrange the most used formats:

- in descending quality it would be: true sp->hi-sp->lp2 (and fake sp)

- in descending space required: hi-sp->true and fake sp/lp2 (@ same bps)

- in ease of use: hi-sp & lp2 (available through SS & SB) -> true sp (only with direct recording/optical cable)

- (edit) in terms of backward compatibility: only sp & lp2 can be considered if md's need to be playable on pre-himd material, hi-sp works on himd (/edit)

so it actually still depends on what criterium you personally think is most important... in my case, hi-sp is (except for the large space-requirements) definitely the preferred option (sp=too much hassle and I haven't got any cd-player with optical out and lp2 has lost it's appeal after listening to hi-sp, especially now that the price of 1G-blanks has lowered)

but I would like to see what other ppl think of when choosing their format

Edited April 14, 2005 by The Low Volta

[matrulesok]

if I'm summarizing correctly, we could state that as we arrange the most used formats:

- in descending quality it would be: true sp->hisp->lp2 (and fake sp)

- in descending space required: hisp->true and fake sp/lp2 (@ same bps)

- in ease of use: hisp & lp2 (available through SS & SB) -> true sp (only with direct recording/optical cable)

so it actually still depends on what criterium you personally think is most important... in my case, hisp is (except for the large space-requirements) definitely the preferred option (sp=too much hassle and I haven't got any cd-player with optical out and lp2 has lost it's appeal after listening to hisp, especially now that the price of 1G-blanks has lowered)

but I would like to see what other ppl think of when choosing their format

←

I am choosing lp2 on the basis of backwards compatability with my sj-mj50. When that dies or is replaced (by a hi-md player hopefully!) then I would think I would switch to hi-sp.

Lp2 beats sp at the moment because of ease of use (fast via pc and with track names) and space (can get a 2cd on 1 disc). I put those 2 above the barely noticable (to me) decrease in quality.

[The Low Volta]

I am choosing lp2 on the basis of backwards compatability with my sj-mj50.

←

ah yes, , as a strictly-himd user (only picked up md-technology at the first-gen-himd-point) I forgot that the backward compatability is also an important criterium for a lot of users...

thanks for the correction, makes the summary even more complete

[Christopher]

Hi-SP for sure, it's the only way to fly..