Jump to content

64 Kbit/s Hi-lp Same Quality As 128kbit/s Mp3?

Rate this topic


How do you think they compare qualitywise?  

  1. 1. How do you think they compare qualitywise?

    • a=b=c
      5
    • a<b<c
      1
    • a<c<b
      1
    • b<a<c
      1
    • b<c<a
      0
    • c<a<b
      3
    • c<b<a
      5
    • a=b<c
      0
    • a=c<b
      0
    • b=c<a
      0
    • a<b=c
      0
    • b<a=c
      0
    • c<a=b
      1


Recommended Posts

That's the right way to do it, bug, but you understand the point I was trying to make. wink.gif

Of course happy.gif

It's also fun to read stories on head-fi from people who carry a complete hi-fi setup together with their iPod, just to get that audiophile sound.

Edited by bug80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just noticed that since I have a cold (sinusitis), which disturbs the pressure on my ears, I can't even really make out the difference between wav and Atrac64bps laugh.gif

I guess my vote will have to be postponed till after my cold

Volta

PS: I do still have a response to physya's comment on non-exact sciences, but I do not want to clutter this thread any more so PM me if you would like to receive it as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS: I do still have a response to physya's comment on non-exact sciences, but I do not want to clutter this thread any more so PM me if you would like to receive it as well

... and I encourage all interested in science do so, because it was very interesting reading... cool.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... and I encourage all interested in science do so, because it was  very interesting reading...  cool.gif

I think I've read it. There was a long post in this topic that suddenly disappeared? unsure.gif

It was interesting, though. Can't we get our own "Minidisc science nerds" subforum? laugh.gif

EDIT: got a PM, thanks

Edited by bug80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My vote, simply a != b != c, isn't there.

HiLP sounds like crap to me, but then, so do most 128kbps MP3s.

It is possible to make acceptable-sounding 128kbps MP3s [by using ATH filtering and joint stereo, or by simply cutting off all bandwidth above 12kHz, for example].

HiLP .. while it generally sounds like crap to me [keeping in mind that SS-encoded LP2 does as well], the artifacting is less annoying than with most poorly-encoded 128kbps MP3s.

For uncomplicated live recording [i.e. non-crucial voice recordings] HiLP is quite acceptable in my books.

Given the choice, I'd rather listen to nothing than any of the three [HiLP, 128kbps MP3, or SS-encoded LP2], to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mp3 @ 128 kbps can be quite acceptable and surpass Atrac at that bitrate in many cases if set properly IMO. It can be a real pity that the uneducated user has so many choices to mis-set it and / or choose encoders which differ more or less significantly qualitywise. For example, many users seem to think choosing 'real stereo' would be 'better' than (m/s) joint stereo (see BladeEnc). They propably knew what they were doing when they decited not to give the user any choice except to choose the bitrate with Atrac. I see no point in setting the lowpass that low for mp3 though, it'd be too obvious IMO.

Edited by greenmachine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is very interesting!!!

I have aquestion for you guys: if we stick to Atrac3/3+, which one would you choose? 64kbs Atrac3+ or 132 Atrac3?

The question arises because I have eventually dowsized my CD collection and want to make myself a 1GBHiMD with my favourite music.

They would fit on a single Himd at 64kb, but I noticed the artifacts (especially with some fusion music).

If I choose the 132kbs, I have to use 2 1GBHiMD, but do I really get a better quality?

What would you choose?

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is very interesting!!!

I have aquestion for you guys: if we stick to Atrac3/3+, which one would you choose? 64kbs Atrac3+ or 132 Atrac3?

The question arises because I have eventually dowsized my CD collection and want to make myself a 1GBHiMD with my favourite music.

They would fit on a single Himd at 64kb, but I noticed the artifacts (especially with some fusion music).

If I choose the 132kbs, I have to use 2 1GBHiMD, but do I really get a better quality?

What would you choose?

Thanks

From the formal point of view, it does not matter how you do it, 64 kbps will always have LESS useful information compared to the hifher bitrates. So it IS worse. The question is - will you notice it? From my experiments, I think ATRAC3plus at 64 kbps is best if you compare it to 64 kbps WMA or MP3 or even MP3PRO. However, properly encoded MP3 (or better WMA) at 128 kbps will sound better.

On the other hand, it really depends on your listening environment. I have recently done exactly what you described - a kinda "best of" of some stuff and I am listening it using an FM transmitted in a car. There, I found that 64 ATRAC give same quality as 128 MP3 (or even 256 kbps ATRAC) - simply because all other noises in the car dominate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the formal point of view, it does not matter how you do it, 64 kbps will always have LESS useful information compared to the hifher bitrates. So it IS worse.

I have to disagree: For lossy codecs it does matter how you select between useful and unuseful information, so theoretically an unefficient codec can sound worse at twice the bitrate than a more efficient one.

From my experiments, I think ATRAC3plus at 64 kbps is best if you compare it to 64 kbps WMA or MP3 or even MP3PRO.

Ogg Vorbis, HE AAC and MP3Pro seem to be serious competitors at such a low bitrate.

However, properly encoded MP3 (or better WMA) at 128 kbps will sound better.

I don't think WMA Std performs significantly better than mp3 at 128 kbit/s, if at all:

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html

Edited by greenmachine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree: For lossy codecs it does matter how you select between useful and unuseful information, so theoretically an unefficient codec can sound worse at twice the bitrate than a more efficient one.

Of course, but we're talking about efficient codecs.

Ogg Vorbis, HE AAC and MP3Pro seem to be serious competitors at such a low bitrate.

Yes, but they are not supported by MDs (as far as I know).

I don't think WMA Std performs significantly better than mp3 at 128 kbit/s, if at all:

Two - pass WMA 9.1 certainly does.

Edited by physya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, but we're talking about efficient codecs.

Unfortunately a perfectly efficient all-round codec does not exist, most of them are not even close.

You have been comparing two entirely different, noncompatible codecs (Atrac3 and Atrac3+). If you would have compared the same codec with the same internal settings at different bitrates i'd have accepted your statement.

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...