void Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Does anybody have any information about listening tests of ATRAC3Plus/256kbit in comparison to MP3 at the same bitrate?I have spent a lot of time trying to find such info, but found only ATRAC3/132+Atrac3Plus/64k+MP3 tests... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breepee2 Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Try a search here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/I know there once was a big community comparison with high bitrates and a lot off codecs including Atrac and MP3. Can't find it right now, but I know it's there.And of course you can always ABX for yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenmachine Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 (edited) Somebody at hydrogenaudio conducted such a test a while ago, but i think without a significant result. It's damn hard to hear a difference at such a high bitrate.http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=20485 Edited July 1, 2005 by greenmachine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valta Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Does anybody have any information about listening tests of ATRAC3Plus/256kbit in comparison to MP3 at the same bitrate?I have spent a lot of time trying to find such info, but found only ATRAC3/132+Atrac3Plus/64k+MP3 tests...←I have tried some test with one track from Evita, Mp3 and atrac3+, both with 256 kbps bitrate. Selection of Mp3 codec is very important, i used original Fraunhofer Mp3 codec and result were very good for Mp3(). But with other mp3 codecs, higher frequencies were missed. Total result for me is: I will create mp3s,because i can move theme shrough many pcs, i want. Total curve from frequency alnalysis in SonicStage was the same for Fraunhofer Mp3 and Atrac3+.ByeValta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valta Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Does anybody have any information about listening tests of ATRAC3Plus/256kbit in comparison to MP3 at the same bitrate?I have spent a lot of time trying to find such info, but found only ATRAC3/132+Atrac3Plus/64k+MP3 tests...←...and some pictures .......1) atrac3+ 256 kbps2) mp3 256kbps3) original wav file Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenmachine Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 do you listen with your eyes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valta Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 do you listen with your eyes?←)) No , I am sorry, I forgot the most important thing: I did not heard any differences between Mp3@256 and Atrac3+@256 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenmachine Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Me neither. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenmachine Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 When you look at graphs you could be mislead by an intentional lowpass which LAME for example uses. Very high inaudible frequencies are cut to improve quality elsewhere. It's part of the way it works. It doesn't mean it'll sound worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breepee2 Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 By the way, I don't know what you mean with 'other MP3 codecs' than Fraunhofers, but Lame is the best MP3 encoder. No question about it and no exceptions. Have you looked into that one?Isn't it funny, that the best audio codecs are made under Open Source licenses by dedicated audiophiles (Lame, Vorbis, Musepack) and not by companies (Fraunhofer, Sony, Apple). OK, Nero with it's HE-AAC is an exception Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NRen2k5 Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Actually, Lame isn't universally the best.It's widely accepted that Fraunhofer's encoders are better for low bitrates (<128kbps). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenmachine Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Lame lacks so-called 'intensity stereo', which is usually used for low bitrates (<128 kbps). OGG Vorbis uses a similar technique below -q6 (approx. 192 kbps) AFAIK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breepee2 Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Well, 256 k isn't low bitrate, and I must say I didn't (and don't) look into that, I don't care much for low-bitrates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dex Otaku Posted July 2, 2005 Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 Is is usually reserved for <96kbps bitrates. If I'm not mistaken, that's part of the MP3 [MPEG-1 Layer II, not MPEG-2] standard, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bug80 Posted July 4, 2005 Report Share Posted July 4, 2005 Note that if you want to play your audio back on a 2nd generation Hi-MD unit, the MP3 files will sound dull compared to ATRAC. So, if you think frequency response is important go for ATRAC! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.