Jump to content

Why Can'y Sony Use A Simple Bps Method? I'm Lost..

Rate this topic


monomonster

Recommended Posts

hello everyone,

i sold my mzr50 and bought a new mznh1 and i noticed that many things changed smile.gif but everything for the best I think.

however, there is one topic and i can't really understand: audio compression.

sony has a new atrac3plus compression system and now you can choose what quality you want for your recordings. i saw that atrac3plus offers lower bitrate than atrac3 but they didn't say anything about quality. i read the entire manual and stuff on sony's site but all they will say is that you can fit much info in there. i encoded a cd in 48 kbps with atrac3plus and it sounded BAD. almost as bad as an mp3 file but the noises and disturbances were of different nature. i felt it's making me very uncomfortable while listening for a long time.

so what compression should i use???

atrac3 at 132 kbps should be "near cd quality" right? so what is the deal with atrac3plus 256 kbps? it's giving less recording time on the minidisc (just under 8 hours vs. 16 and a half hours).

can anyone please explain this to me? i can understand mp3 easily smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome!!!

i wouldnt recomend anything below 132 kbps lp2, which is probably equivilant to 196kbps mp3.

256 is indescernible form cd quality and is used for more important recordings, like live concerts, for example. Many would argue that ATRAC is a better codec than mp3, since it is specifically designed to remove sounds that are inaudible to human ears, but your ears can only be the judge.

oh and one more thing, going from codec to codec, or "stacking" as they call it, reduces the quality even further. like if u had an mp3 and transfered it through sonicstage (which converts it to ATRAC) it will not come out the same as the original mp3 sounded. so in other words, if you want the best quality, use a higher bitrete if u have an mp3 or just transfer it right from the cd.

Edited by skmetal07
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite an in depth discussion (and poll) here http://forums.minidisc.org/index.php?showtopic=9397 , but this is mainly other peoples opinions of quality, you're best to read what other people think, try a few samples and decide what is acceptable to you! It depends on what music and what headphones etc etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so what compression should i use???

atrac3 at 132 kbps should be "near cd quality" right? so what is the deal with atrac3plus 256 kbps? it's giving less recording time on the minidisc (just under 8 hours vs. 16 and a half hours).

Hi monomonster,

A simple explanation is that Atrac3plus 256 (Hi-SP) will retain more audio information than Atrac3 132 (LP2), that's the difference. "Near CD quality" is somewhat subjective - some may find LP2 very good others may not. Though I've never heard LP2 referred to as "near CD quality". It's a compromise between SP and LP4.

Personally, I only use SP (292k) and Hi-SP (256k).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so the question becomes, how detailed is the musical image. more detailed equals needs higher bitrate. this is why vbr mode for mp3 is kinda nice as then the more detailed bits get a higher bitrate while the simple ones gets a lower one, nice compromise on quality vs space.

still, if your going do to something to the music after its recorded (like say speeding it up and so on) you should go pcm as then "all" info is saved (pcm equals whats used on cds).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome!!!

i wouldnt recomend anything below 132 kbps lp2, which is probably equivilant to 196kbps mp3.

256 is indescernible form cd quality and is used for more important recordings, like live concerts, for example.  Many would argue that ATRAC is a better codec than mp3, since it is specifically designed to remove sounds that are inaudible to human ears, but your ears can only be the judge.

From what i could tell from the results of the Multiformats Listening Test, peoples subjective judgement was that an mp3 encoded at 128kbps (LAME) sounded better than an Atrac3 encoded at 132kbps.. Sounds pretty strange to hear you say that an atrac at 132kbps is about equal to an mp3 at 192.. But, of course, i could have gotten this multiformats test all wrong..

And also, you say that Atrac should be better since it's designed to cut out things ar inperceptible to humans. I though this was EXACTLY what mp3 did (in addition to other stuff).. how does Atrac differ from mp3 on that matter? What is it that is cut out on mp3s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's all subjective. i find lp2 on eggos fine, esp for use on public transport or through a car stereo, both situations where there is a bit of background noise.

unless you have a decent system or very keen ears 256 should be comparitive with the original cd. my advice is to play around with all the options in situations similar to where the majority of your use will take place, then work out what trade offs you're willing to make for space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks for the information everyone smile.gif

so actually all of the atrac formats (and bit rates) are a little lossy? i encoded 3 minidiscs in 256kbps. i could fit 8 cds in a MD more or less so that's good enough for me.

i have some sony studio monitoring headphones (can't read the model number anymore) and the recording sounded as good as a cd to me, however on my computer speakers (creative high end stuff) it sounded in cd quality but something in the "feel" was different. i still don't know if for better or worse but it sounds like there is a bigger seperation between the sounds ?!?

i might just going crazy on the other hand wacko.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what i could tell from the results of the Multiformats Listening Test, peoples subjective judgement was that an mp3 encoded at 128kbps (LAME) sounded better than an Atrac3 encoded at 132kbps.. Sounds pretty strange to hear you say that an atrac at 132kbps is about equal to an mp3 at 192.. But, of course, i could have gotten this multiformats test all wrong..

And also, you say that Atrac should be better since it's designed to cut out things ar inperceptible to humans. I though this was EXACTLY what mp3 did (in addition to other stuff).. how does Atrac differ from mp3 on that matter? What is it that is cut out on mp3s?

It depends on what they used to encode that 132kbps ATRAC file. If they used sonicstage, then yeah i can understand that the mp3 would probably sound better, which is what they probably used. but if u used the recorder's encoder then I would definatly have to say that lp2 would beat mp3 128kbps, anyday.

yes, mp3 does the same thing but not as good as ATRAC does it, since it is better engineered and refined many times, but there are some nice sounding LAME encoded mp3s out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on what they used to encode that 132kbps ATRAC file.  If they used sonicstage, then yeah i can understand that the mp3 would probably sound better, which is what they probably used.

As far as I can remember, they used SonicStage 2.0 for encoding.

However, my NH700 was considerably better than that on LP2.

And a good MP3@128k (LAME) was better too.

That changed with 2.3. And SS3.1 is even better than that.

However, the MP3-Encoder in 3.1 simply sucks.

Use something else for that. Or use Atrac instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On my laptop i do 192 AAC and it sounds fyn

I normally do 256K ATRAC3 PLUS

Tonight/ lets say this morning 1AM

i did it in 48Kbps and sounds okay

it lacks bass and treble and sounds slightly blurred, if ur a audiophile its not recommended but if u configure the EQ to the correct EQ, u can get an improvement in sound.

*thats my comment wink.gif *

STICK WITH 256K ATRAC3PLUS! *with the perfect EQ which i've found* makes 192kps song on a shitpod (iPod) sound bad! tongue.gif

Edited by Silvadragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on what they used to encode that 132kbps ATRAC file.  If they used sonicstage, then yeah i can understand that the mp3 would probably sound better, which is what they probably used.  but if u used the recorder's encoder then I would definatly have to say that lp2 would beat mp3 128kbps, anyday.

I seriously doubt that. Please read this topic.

it sounded in cd quality but something in the "feel" was different.

I haven't done extensive testing on ATRAC3+@256kbs, but this could very well be the so-called "placebo" effect, which means you think you hear a difference, because you know there should be one. Best way to overcome this is to perform blind testing.

I think 256 kbs ATRAC3+ should be transparent (i.e. sound the same as the original) on 99% of the music, for 99% of the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a newbie i have tried the Atrac3Plus formats 48K and 64K as I want quite a few songs on my HI-MD. 48K does sound poor and to me it equals a 128k MP3 whilst 64k = a 192K Mp3 and so thats the version i use. I don't see the point of the older formats as they add more filespace per song bet yet don't offer better sound quality. A half way house for Atrac3plus between 64K and 256 would be nice though Sony rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...