Lp4 Quality?

[newfie1970]

Hi i am new to mini disc can someone tell me how good of sound quality LP4 is?and give some comparsions.Thank you

[greenmachine]

That's a highly subjective question.

For me, the quality degradation from LP2 to LP4 is much more significant than from SP to LP2. That said, i would use LP4 only if i had no other choices, if i'd really need the extended recording time (speech recording). For music it's unenjoyable.

For recording, always use the best quality setting you can afford, you can still downsize it afterwards if you have to.

Other than that, you can use the search function, which gave me the following quick result:

http://forums.minidisc.org/index.php?showt...&hl=lp4+quality

Edited June 14, 2005 by greenmachine

[KrazyIvan]

I would say that LP4 is just below radio quality. I would not really use it for music listening. Lectures are good but stick with LP2 if you want a balance between quality and space.

[saaron]

It really depends on the source. I only use it for recording DVD commentaries for listening on the road. Newer source material digitally mastered sounds okay (as KrazyIvan said "radio quality"), but if you have something older, originally mastered analogue, the results can be appalling.

I had originally used LP4 quite extensively until I tried putting my Beatles collection on an LP4 disc, and Revolver was completely unlistenable. There were numerous dropouts to the point that half the audio seemed to be gone; the recording sounded completely garbled.

After that I reviewed all my previous recordings and re-did everything in LP2 which I find quite excellent for audio generally. LP4 has promise, but I think it's kind of like 64-bit MP3 and really limited to those situations where you won't be bothered by audio quality.

[dvallere]

I haven't had any problems. I record almost all my music in LP4. Mostly I listen to it in the car, so there's a lot of ambient noise, but sometimes I use my good Sennheiser headphones and everything still sounds fine. For example, I used to own some of REM's old stuff on vinyl - and then on CD - and now I have it on LP4 - and with the Senns I can't hear any difference from the CD or record (except lack of record pops, etc.)

[Guest NRen2k5]

I haven't had any problems.  I record almost all my music in LP4.  Mostly I listen to it in the car, so there's a lot of ambient noise, but sometimes I use my good Sennheiser headphones and everything still sounds fine.  For example, I used to own some of REM's old stuff on vinyl - and then on CD - and now I have it on LP4 - and with the Senns I can't hear any difference from the CD or record (except lack of record pops, etc.)

←

Wow, your sense of hearing is VERY forgiving.

I very rarely have any trouble telling an LP4 copy apart from the original. For most music, LP4 is, to me, like having rusty nails jammed into my ears.

Edited June 24, 2005 by NRen2k5

[1kyle]

Wow, your sense of hearing is VERY forgiving.

I very rarely have any trouble telling an LP4 copy apart from the original. For most music, LP4 is, to me, like having rusty nails jammed into my ears.

←

SP or HI-SP (newer HI-MD players only) -- Virtually indistinguishable from CD / original GOOD quality source --even when using top notch cans like decent top end Sennheisers.

Unless you are an absolute fanatic no need for PCM (again HI-MD units only) and want to store the music / recording on your computer for further processing / archiving --in this case convert PCM to loseless FLAC for storing on your computer.

LP2 -- 99% perfectly OK for listening -- assuming the Original is GOOD QUALITY to start with. If your original is not of high quality you'll notice the degradation far more.

For listening on the move --trains, cars, plains, cycling, jogging etc. LP2 is more than good enough subject to the proviso above.

I'd suggest however that you rip your CD's to 256Kbs ATRAC3+ and then transfer to MD via SS rather than record LP2 direct ( or use Simpble Burner V2 - )downloadable from this site if you don't have the latest version.

LP4 -- Fine for copying sound, Radio broadcasts (AM), Internet Audio streams

The BBC for example have copies of broadcasts you can download FREE and listen to later --often LP4 is fine for this.

MP3 -- unless the sort of music you like just sounds like being enclosed in a steel cage while Road drills are being used on the outside and all you want to do is listen on Boom Boxes or not even listen but just FEEL the vibrartions of an incessant BOOM BOOM type of noise I'd tend to forget anything to do with MP3.

Everybodies ears are different but the above tends to be a typical consensus from MD users.

People who use OTHER devices such as those supplied with White earphones would probably disagree -- but we are talking about MUSIC aren't we.

Cheers

-K

Edited June 24, 2005 by 1kyle

[greenmachine]

LP2 -- 99% perfectly OK for listening -- assuming the Original is GOOD QUALITY to start with. If your original is nor high quality you'll notice the degradation far more.

←

I'd say exactly the opposite: If you have high quality material to start with, you'll hear far more degradation than from a lo-fi source.

MP3 -- unless the sort of music you like just sounds like being enclosed in a steel cage while Road drills are being used on the outside and all you want to do is listen on Boom Boxes or not even listen but just FEEL the vibrartions of an incessant BOOM BOOM type of noise  I'd tend to forget anything to do with MP3.

C'mon, you're not serious, are you? Mp3 may perform bad at very low bitrates, but from 128k upwards it beats Atrac's arse.

[The Low Volta]

@greenmachine & 1kyle:

please remember you are posting in the "NetMD + MDLP"-section guys... they really have no use for atrac3+@256kbps and will need to convert each MP3 (no mather what bitrate) to LP4, LP2 or (fake) SP in SS

@newfie1970 & the rest

my advice:

- LP4, never, except for speech recordings!

- LP2 (when encoded by your player and not with SS/SB as Dex always points out) sounds pretty good for real portable use (background noise, etc..)

- SP (only when encoded by your player!! SS/SB only give fake SP which is only disguised LP2 and sounds like that too) is for those situations you really need quality (good headphones, silent background,...)

choose between SP2 (convenience as it works with SS/SB, more space) and SP (near perfect quality, only realtime recording and takes up a lot of space)

Volta

PS:

I'd suggest however that you rip your CD's to 256Kbs ATRAC3+ and then transfer to MD via SS rather than record LP2 direct

I wouldn't use this technique: it introduces two lossy steps (CD->HI-SP->LP2) and works with the SS-software LP2 encoder which is crap according to Dex...

I would encode LP2 in the player itself for best quality and if you really need/want to use software either rip CD's in SS directly to LP2 or transfer with SB in LP2...

[greenmachine]

I bow to the master.

[The Low Volta]

I bow to the master.

no problem greenmachine...I'll let you outsmart me again on mic-wisdom soon enough

[greenmachine]

The problem is that i don't have any.

[1kyle]

Hi - Volta -the reason I suggested encoding in Atrac3+ @ 256K was that IF Net-MD owners do get a HI-MD unit then they won't have to re-rip the music.

There are also quite a few people like me who have both --I still like and use the NZ10 a lot -- The attachable battery feature is really great and have a bookshelf unit HCD-CP500MD --use better speakers however than the standard one's and a quality QS -MDSJB980 Deck which really does do the job at top notch quality.

The ATRAC3+ @ 256 kbs nfo is there so people can use the same Library for BOTH types of machines

Recording directly on LP2 --(although I'm not really sure) might be better (although Real Time of course) and as far as ripping directly from CD's via Simple Burner or using SS 3.1 -- I certainly can't tell any difference.

If you've got around 600 or more CD' s doing it in Real Time is going to take you a LONG time --even with those players that will do it at 2X and 4X speed (digitally).

BTW SS 3.1 will work with older Net-MD devices so it's worth downloading and installing it in any case.

I got OpenMG Jukebox with the QS-MDSJB980 which I didn't install --however even the QS-MDSJB980 will work with SS 3.1 provided you install the DRIVER from the supplied CD.

People seem to think in any case that the codecs in SS 3.1 transcribe better than the earlier versions so my remarks over LP2 still stand.

I did make a typo in the original post -- If the quality of the original is not good of course you'll notice degradation in quality FAR more at any compression --so SP should be used in these cases.

I used to use SP almost exclusively -- but with SS 3.1 and ATRAC3+ @ 256 ====> LP2 I find is more than adequate for pretty well all listening requirements on MDLP gear.

I agree 100% with Volta however Don't use SP transcribed fom SS (Fake SP). Use this direct via the recorder.

Cheers

-K

Edited June 25, 2005 by 1kyle

[The Low Volta]

Recording directly on LP2 --(although I'm not really sure) might be better (although Real Time of course)  and  as far as ripping directly from CD's via Simple Burner or using SS 3.1 -- I certainly can't tell any difference.

If you've got around 600 or more CD' s doing it in Real Time is going to take you a LONG time --even with those players that will do it at 2X and 4X speed (digitally).

ah, yes... I can see that the advantage of only wasting space on one copy of each track/CD in a music library could for some people outweigh the degradation from double lossy encoding (wav->Hi-SP->LP2) in stead of only once (wav->LP2) but only if one has and wants to use both Hi-MD and Net-MD like you... for ppl without Hi-MD (and plans to upgrade in the near future) just rip directly to LP2 in SS3.1

I (400+ CD's) don't use HD-space on my PC to store my music, I have most of these CD's in their physical form and am currently backing them all up in FLAC on CDR&DVDR... I transfer these to MD from time to time...I haven't got all my CD's on a Mdisc yet, but I can transfer them almost whenever I want so I don't think that's so big a problem... also I do not feel the need to have them with me all the time in some overly heavy music-library, I mostly use SB to transfer as the CD's don't need to be on my harddisk at all... but then again, I could be very strange

as for recording LP2 realtime vs. transfering through software... I would go for software convenience too (and otherwise your Net-MD would be quite useless since you'd only use it as a MDLP) for discs intended for portable use...for higher quality I would record realtime, but in SP (as LP2 - even when recorded realtime - just doesn't sound as good when played under hifi-circumstances)

Volta

[1kyle]

I (400+ CD's) don't use HD-space on my PC to store my music, I have most of these CD's in their physical form and am currently backing them all up in FLAC on CDR&DVDR... I transfer these to MD from time to time

Volta

←

Hi Volta -- I like the idea of storing CD's to FLAC. Easy to do on the computer but do you burn directly to DVD and if you do how do you span media.

I might go this route myself -- I like FLAC it's a good loseless compression " and it means you can always get at your music whatever new media come out without all the DRM stuff in it.

I think what I'll do is store it all on a HD temporarily and then use my backup siftware to transfer the data to a tape streamer or DVD's (avoids the problem of spanning data). After backup I can delete the HD files.

Funny thing is although I've currently got libraries on the computer I never use the computer for playing music. DVD's / TV are another matter but Music I prefer on a player with decent speakers or Sennheiser Cans.

Question -- Do you have any catalguing software for your FLAC files or do you just use a Spreadsheet (EXCEL) or something like that for finding tracks etc.

Cheers

-K

BTW was in Belgium recently as I often do photo shoots / News outside the Commission and Nato -- of course also in "Tourist Areas" like The Grand Place etc.-- but I know a lot of people who work at Berlaymont --Schumann district at the EU commission --so am often in "The Hairy Canary" and other Irish bars when I'm there.

Cheers

-K

[The Low Volta]

Easy to do on the computer but do you burn directly to DVD and if you do  how do you span media.Question -- Do you have any catalguing software for your FLAC files or do you just use a Spreadsheet (EXCEL) or something like that for finding tracks etc.

I've only just started and believe me I have not really got a master plan I just throw in a number of discs (by band) encode them (with tags) and burn a DVD and mark what I've archived in the database I once made of my CD-collection better to ask Dex about efficient archiving strategies using FLAC, he's been doing stuff like this for ages or perhaps Breepee2 FLAC-fanboy n°1 (you could PM them if you want)

Funny thing is although I've currently got  libraries on the computer I never use the computer for playing music. DVD's / TV are another matter but Music I prefer on  a player with decent speakers or Sennheiser Cans.

that was my problem also... I found myself listening to Hi-MD with sennheiser phones while working on my 'puter which actually had all that music in a library cluttering up my drive...so I decided to just throw out my SS library (it's useless anyway as it takes way too much effort to transfer it to another PC or to back it up). I have harman/Kardon boxes for my PC, but if I really want to use them in stead of my phones I just plug in my NH900 or one of my CD's/DVDR's...

BTW was in Belgium recently ...

I'm studying in Brussels (in Etterbeek, VUB) but my sister lives in the centre and I like to have a drink a couple of bars around the St-Gorikshallen or the Rue de Flandre (Vlaanderenstraat)...but if you're in Brussels, be sure to check out the AB (Ancienne Belgique)... it is a very nice club with a lot of very good bands performing there ever so often and there is an Irish pub across the street

[mrsoul]

Call me crazy (and you wouldn't be the first) but LP4 isn't that bad at times for some music. I use my MZ-S1 at the gym and on morning walks. If the source was a studio CD, I can actually have decent enjoyment out of the 4 or 5 mixes I made in LP4. I agree that LP2 does sound much better and that is usually the bit rate I use. But, there are some Lp4 music copies that don't sound "horrible" or "appalling" to me and others who I have tested. It's not a perfect bit rate for music but it does a fair job for portable applications. Plus, the headphones that I use with the MZ-S1 (the OEM Sports pair) aren't likely to let me hear that many artifacts anyways!

Of the 15 or so MDs I have recorded for use in the MZ-S1, 3 are LP4 and 12 are LP2. That should tell you something. But, don't knock it till you give it a shot for some of your music. It might be acceptable, depending how you are listening and what you are using to listen. The 3 LP4 I have kept are a Rush mix, a 80's Heavy Metal mix and something else I can't remember (maybe cause I don't listen to it ) All of the LP4 were recorded from CD via Simple Burner.

Now, back to the family vacation in lovely Northeast Ohio

[greenmachine]

What i have noticed when comparing LP4 and Hi-LP was a quite excessive collapse of the stereo image (channel narrowing) with LP4. Hi-LP's low pass seems to work less aggressive, but at the expense of introducing more artifacts (metallic ringing). I'm not sure which one of these compression methods i prefer, the quality loss is far too obvious for both. Did anyone else compare them side by side?

Edited June 25, 2005 by greenmachine

[gmdisc]

What is participant's of this thread opinion on the following:

Recording directly to a portable (like NH800) to LP2 (not SS transfer) from a 192 or 160 kbps WMA? I think it sounds pretty good,. indistinguishable from the WMA file.

[The Low Volta]

Recording directly to a portable (like NH800) to LP2 (not SS transfer) from a 192 or 160 kbps WMA?  I think it sounds pretty good,. indistinguishable from the WMA file.

every lossy converting of audio in theory stands for a degradation in sound quality...but in how much that degradation leads to unacceptable sound quality is mostly a subjective thing...so if it works for you, there is no reason at all not to use it (while at the other hand there are even ppl who would argue that 192kbps WMA is impossible to listen to even without further degradation...it all depends on how -impossibly- critical you are...)

as Dex states (and I happen to trust Dex's hearing quite a bit) recording directly in LP2 is much better than the LP2 you get from software (SS/SB) it could be a good idea to record this directly...though others can't really hear the difference...

but IMHO if you are using LP2, it probably means it's not intended for real hifi use so why bother realtime recording? and if it is intended for hifi use: use realtime recorded SP (from optical in) and not LP2. Also for hifi listening, don't start from WMA(@any bitrate) but use a CD or likewise quality (wav/PCM/flac/other lossless formats) files (->burn to CD and transfer optically)...

but hey those are only my ideas...feel free to use whatever works for you

Greetings, Volta

PS: if you have a NH800 use Hi-SP through SS/SB (then you can use HiMD formatted discs and almost still fit more on them as LP2 on MD-formatted ones) and don't post these questions in the Net-MD/MDLP section as it concerns some other format entirely i.e. Hi-MD!

[1kyle]

PS: if you have a NH800 use Hi-SP through SS/SB (then you can use HiMD formatted discs and almost still fit more on them as LP2 on MD-formatted ones) and don't post these questions in the Net-MD/MDLP section as it concerns some other format entirely i.e. Hi-MD!

←

What is the quallity like on those units which have Both a CD and a MD which do CD==>MD copying in 2X or 4X real time compared with "Traditional Real time X 1).

Is this done digitally or through some type of "SS" built into the unit's firmware.

I DO know that even using SS that the JB980 recorded LP2 discs "seem" --can't prove it however as I don't have any WAVE / Spectrum analysers to sound marginally better than LP2 recorded discs om a NH1 or NZ10. So top notch equipment may also make a difference.

For a lot of Classical music LP2 can sound suprisingly good --possible because things like acoustic string instruments are easier to transcode (less artifacts) than some modern music which has a lot of percussion sounds.

One of the most difficult sounds to re-produce accurately due to the almost infinite number of harmonics is that of a large bell.

Digitising percussion / electronic sounds is therefore much more problematic than that say of a classical acoustic guitar played by for example Julian Bream.

This really shows that to get the best quality

1) You need to have a good source -- decent CD quality or good studio mix is usually more than adequate.

2) The equipment you are recording on must be OK --Today's hardware is usually OK so no problemes here -even the cheaper MD recorders are fine --some better than others but differences not large.

3) If you are using Software it must avoid introducing extra artifacts etc.

While we might not really like SS it doesn't do too bad in this regard -- especially SS 3.0 / 3.1.

4) The "Music" must be suitable for the format you want to transcode to.

PCM will obviously have the least "loss" in recording -- but in general unless you have very specialized music tastes LP2 is probably sufficient for the vast majority of people out there when using legacy equipment.

Cheers

-K

[Jenna]

I use lp4 for jogging or in the car. If you are not an audiophile than it will be fine for you.

The only issues I have are for older recordings. anything that has been recorded in the last 5 or 6 years sounds fine "for me".

[saaron]

What is the quallity like on those units which have Both a CD and a MD which do CD==>MD copying in 2X or 4X real time compared with "Traditional Real time X 1).

Is this done digitally or through some type of "SS" built into the unit's firmware.

←

I've done quite a lot of recording on a shelf unit to LP2 using HISPEED CD->MD SYNC (x2) and haven't seen any quality issues. I understand that when you get to 4x copy speed artifacts can get introduced, but aren't detectable unless you get to high volume.

I'm not sure how x2 speed is accomplished, but it does seem to take a while between selecting it and starting it, so something is going on inside the machine beyond playing the CD at double-speed. Also, I cannot listen to the recording whilst this is happening, but this doesn't point one way or another.

[Guest NRen2k5]

MP3 -- unless the sort of music you like just sounds like being enclosed in a steel cage while Road drills are being used on the outside and all you want to do is listen on Boom Boxes or not even listen but just FEEL the vibrartions of an incessant BOOM BOOM type of noise  I'd tend to forget anything to do with MP3.

←

You don't know anything about the proper encoding of MP3's; otherwise you would not have made such an ignorant and crass comment such as the one above. MP3 is equal to or better than ATRAC most of the time.

Everybodies ears are different  but the above tends to be a typical consensus from MD users.

←

I'm a MD user and I beg to differ. I'd take an Alt Preset Standard MP3 over an SP MD any day.

[alfie]

I like lp4 for the gym and riding the train. It has a higher bit rate than the internet radio shows I listen to and I find the radio shows good enough to come back to.

[Breepee2]

Question -- Do you have any catalguing software for your FLAC files or do you just use a Spreadsheet (EXCEL) or something like that for finding tracks etc.

←

If you make sure you've got the tags right (album, artist, title, etc.) you can use musicdatabase software (like wxMusik, musikCube and under Linux Rhythmbox or numerous other apps).

That's how it can look. With ease you can compile your own playlist, burn to CD/MD, play on the computer, whatever you want.

No matter how big your archive is (I'm currently at 110GB, but I'm not even nearly finished getting al my CD's on the disk in FLAC), it's much more transparant then a bunch of CD's in the cabinet.

[ROMBUSTERS]

What i have noticed when comparing LP4 and Hi-LP was a quite excessive collapse of the stereo image (channel narrowing) with LP4. Hi-LP's low pass seems to work less aggressive, but at the expense of introducing more artifacts (metallic ringing). I'm not sure which one of these compression methods i prefer, the quality loss is far too obvious for both. Did anyone else compare them side by side?

←

It seems to me (and generally everyone else on here that ive seen) hi-lp sounds loads better than LP4.

Picking out how it is better isnt as easy but heres some things that I have noticed:

-hi-lp has a much cleaner dynamic range then lp4

-lp4 at its worst sounds like your inside a washing machine while the world around you is banging drums and crumpling paper next to your ears

-hi-lp at its worst introduces slight artifacts (again metallic sounding)

-sometimes (with the right music) i dont notice the difference between hi-lp and say lp2 (at first) however I can ALWAYS tell the difference between LP4 and everything.

-IMO the only thing worse sounding than LP4 is Hi-lp48kbps