audio quality

[the_rapture]

hi all

just wondering is it worth it converting mp3 file at 128-192kb to Atrac3+ 256kb+

or wma to 256kb+

or how bout first burning the mp3 or wma to cd than extract it to 256kb Atrac3+

thank it advance

[sebastianbf]

When I have a 192kbps I convert it to Hi-sp. I think that a 192-160 kbps MP3 sounds much better than Hi-Lp. Do a test by yourself.

[bri]

I'm in a similar position to yourself - havn't got round to doing my own test.

What does burning to a CD achieve?

[Christopher]

It wouldn't acheieve too much. I would try converting it to Hi-SP first.

[Guest NRen2k5]

Burning a CD will only achieve one thing:

If your intent is to burn an entire album (with no gap between some tracks), then you have the advantage here, because you will have no gaps on the MD. In my experience, SonicStage transfers have a slight gap between tracks.

[ROMBUSTERS]

Burning a CD will only achieve one thing:

If your intent is to burn an entire album (with no gap between some tracks), then you have the advantage here, because you will have no gaps on the MD. In my experience, SonicStage transfers have a slight gap between tracks.

←

if your burning MP3s or WMAs there will still be gaps even on the CD itself

[AMPlitude]

the cd wont help, cuz its gonna bring out the faults and gaps in the mp3 into 192

[ROMBUSTERS]

the cd wont help, cuz its gonna bring out the faults and gaps in the mp3 into 192

←

the only advantage to burning a CD would be to have an audio CD of the original MP3s in he best quality your gonna get out of them (for use in a car or CD player). As for using it to transfer to an MD the CD route is useless.

[pata2001]

hi all

just wondering is it worth it converting mp3 file at 128-192kb to Atrac3+ 256kb+

or wma to 256kb+

or how bout first burning the mp3 or wma to cd than extract it to 256kb Atrac3+

thank it advance

←

Your audio quality is only going to be as good as the source, in this case, the 128-192kbps MP3. You will NOT gain any quality by transcoding to higher bitrate. In fact, you are loosing quality by transcoding a lossy format to another. 2nd gen HiMD can play MP3s natively, so just use the MP3s. There is no point in transcoding to anything. If you must transcode (ie for playback in older HiMD/MD units), I would go with LP2. Converting MP3s at those bitrates to HiSP will only waste space, and you gain nothing in return.

[ROMBUSTERS]

Your audio quality is only going to be as good as the source, in this case, the 128-192kbps MP3. You will NOT gain any quality by transcoding to higher bitrate. In fact, you are loosing quality by transcoding a lossy format to another. 2nd gen HiMD can play MP3s natively, so just use the MP3s. There is no point in transcoding to anything. If you must transcode (ie for playback in older HiMD/MD units), I would go with LP2. Converting MP3s at those bitrates to HiSP will only waste space, and you gain nothing in return.

←

not entirely true...

The way transcoding works is it takes the source (in this case MP3) and converts it to PCM (wav) then it takes that PCM (wav) and converts it to Atrac (in this case)

MP3>>PCM>>Atrac

The way lossy codecs work is by stripping out the information you usually cannot hear and overlaying stronger sounds (those that usually overpower weaker ones) so again you can not tell the difference. Obviously in straight MP3 playback the higher the bitrate the closer the encoder can come to the original PCM wave line (i.e. better sound quality).

However, assuming your original source is the wave line of an MP3 (i.e. MP3>>PCM) you are only hurting the audio quality more by transcoding into a lower bitrate. If you've already lost a lot of audio quality going from the original source to a compressed one (i.e. PCM>>MP3) then going from that lower quality MP3 to an even lower quality Atrac (for example) is very bad. What this does is takes the 'garbage' that the MP3 encoder spit out and tries to compress that even further.

Only through the use of a higher bitrate atrac (or just keeping it in PCM (wav)) can you hope to at least attain a level of quality. The higher the bitrate the less information is thrown out.

Converting from one lossy codec to another is always bad. However converting from one lossy codec to another lossy codec of an equal or lesser bitrate (note: codec bitrates are not universal) is even worse.

My recomendation: if you cant tell the difference between the original MP3 and a transcodec MP3 into something like Atrac3/+ 132kpbs/105kbps/64kbps that don't worry about it. However if you can, always convert to something like Atrac3+ 256kbps or if you have the software convert the MP3 to wav and transfer the wav as PCM. Yes it takes up a lot more space but it is the ONLY way to retain the quality of the audio.

Garbage in ~ garbage out

[bug80]

if your burning MP3s or WMAs there will still be gaps even on the CD itself

←

Not if the MP3's have a Lame header and are burned using Nero (this combination results in gapless audio). Maybe other burning software supports Lame headers, but Nero does for sure.

[bri]

Your audio quality is only going to be as good as the source, in this case, the 128-192kbps MP3. You will NOT gain any quality by transcoding to higher bitrate. In fact, you are loosing quality by transcoding a lossy format to another. 2nd gen HiMD can play MP3s natively, so just use the MP3s. There is no point in transcoding to anything. If you must transcode (ie for playback in older HiMD/MD units), I would go with LP2. Converting MP3s at those bitrates to HiSP will only waste space, and you gain nothing in return.

←

What happened to the idea that (unofficially) mp3s converted to ATRAC sounded marginally better than when played as mp3s?

I'm aware of the idea of further compressing on lossy formats and it sounds counter intuitive but that was what I was lead to believe.

[Guest NRen2k5]

the only advantage to burning a CD would be to have an audio CD of the original MP3s in he best quality your gonna get out of them (for use in a car or CD player). As for using it to transfer to an MD the CD route is useless.

←

No. I explain below.

if your burning MP3s or WMAs there will still be gaps even on the CD itself

←

the cd wont help, cuz its gonna bring out the faults and gaps in the mp3 into 192

←

I know. I'm telling you that even with WAV's which I've tested and verified to be gapless, the Hi-MD made by SonicStage will have tiny gaps.

I'm assuming that the reason for optical dubs being gapless and computer transfers not being gapless is some sort of flaw in the conversion process and closing of files on PC. Possibly the dubs are gapless because the MD unit is just "listening" to a single, long, *stream* of audio data.

What happened to the idea that (unofficially) mp3s converted to ATRAC sounded marginally better than when played as mp3s?

I'm aware of the idea of further compressing on lossy formats and it sounds counter intuitive but that was what I was lead to believe.

←

It's just marketing baloney. From what I understand, SonicStage applies some filters to MP3 audio, but this does not objectively "improve" the sound quality. Technically it's just making it even more different from the original recording, under the assumption that it will sound "better" to you. Edited August 12, 2005 by NRen2k5

[The Low Volta]

It's just marketing baloney. From what I understand, SonicStage applies some filters to MP3 audio, but this does not objectively "improve" the sound quality. Technically it's just making it even more different from the original recording, under the assumption that it will sound "better" to you.

nope, as this is related to the playback bug in the 2nd gen HiMD this has nothing to do with Sony marketing... unless you assume that Sony incorporated the bug on purpose so to make HiMD users believe that atrac really sounds better than MP3 (I wouldn't know, as I never used MP3 before)... but that would make it a dirty, cheating marketing trick and not baloney...

- as the playback of MP3's on 2nd gen HiMD lacks higher frequencies, the converted atrac files do tend to sound fuller I believe...

- but, as you use the eq to raise the highs, it should become clear that this 'muffling' is only part of the machine and not of the file and therefore correctable ... AND that a double lossy encoded atrac definitely sounds worse than the 'original' MP3

so...

source = MP3:

- yes, without eq'ing the converted atrac version will sound better...

- no, after eq'ing double lossy encoding still ruins a track

source = CD:

- use HiSP, as it will sound ok and doesn't need 'special' eq'ing

- MP3 and HiMD aren't really good friends yet I believe...

[LJM]

So, if my whole collection consists of MP3s in a variety of bitrates (*ahem* ), it's pretty pointless to convert them into ATRAC?

Simple yes or no answer will suffice for the stupid (IE. me).

[MusicBringer]

So, if my whole collection consists of MP3s in a variety of bitrates (*ahem* ), it's pretty pointless to convert them into ATRAC?

Simple yes or no answer will suffice for the stupid (IE. me).

←

Give it a go yourself with SOME of your collection. I have transfered some of my collection (*ahem* ) to minidisc, not ALL of it, just the stuff I want to carry around this week.

[ROMBUSTERS]

I know. I'm telling you that even with WAV's which I've tested and verified to be gapless, the Hi-MD made by SonicStage will have tiny gaps.

←

That's odd as my recordings seem to be 100% gapless with songs that are designed to be played back with no gaps.

HiMDs have a set accuracy of recordings to a certain amount of miliseconds so perhaps your unit is loosing some accuracy and is not giving you correct recording results.

My point however was that unless you go from a CD source, that was designed to be gapless, straight to Atrac you will have gaps introduced into your audio. This is because like PCM, Atrac has set block lengths (which is something MP3 does not)

[bri]

It's just marketing baloney. From what I understand, SonicStage applies some filters to MP3 audio, but this does not objectively "improve" the sound quality. Technically it's just making it even more different from the original recording, under the assumption that it will sound "better" to you.

←

I never got this from anywhere official; the complete opposite infact - user forums and comments...

Thanks for the input Volta.

[ROMBUSTERS]

I never got this from anywhere official; the complete opposite infact - user forums and comments...

Thanks for the input Volta.

←

The main argument being made is that Atrac/3/+ sounds better than MP3 at lower bit rates. Also it is fair to say that Atrac3+ is a more advanced codec then MP3 and may in fact be closer to m4a. However transcoding from one codec to another or re-encoding into a lower bit rate is always not as good as going from the original CD source

[The Low Volta]

The main argument being made is that Atrac/3/+ sounds better than MP3 at lower bit rates.

I believe there are actually two issues being mixed here:

- atrac3+ > MP3? this is stuff for endless discussions and ABX tests and I do not really think that with 2nd gen HiMD this is the main issue

- MP3 converted to atrac3+ on 2nd gen HiMD > original MP3 on 2nd gen HiMD? simply put...

without eq'ing: yes

with eq'ing: no

I believe that this second point is some sort of an answer to the questions posed... so just choose, if you do not want to use the equalizer...convert, but realize that the total SQ will suffer even though it may superficially sound "fuller" and 'remember kids'... if possible just go from the CD straight to atrac3+ (not necessarily for SQ, but with HiMD it is still more useful because of space and battery life I believe...but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)

[ROMBUSTERS]

I believe there are actually two issues being mixed here:

- atrac3+ > MP3? this is stuff for endless discussions and ABX tests and I do not really think that with 2nd gen HiMD this is the main issue

- MP3 converted to atrac3+ on 2nd gen HiMD > original MP3 on 2nd gen HiMD? simply put...

without eq'ing: yes

with eq'ing: no

I believe that this second point is some sort of an answer to the questions posed... so just choose, if you do not want to use the equalizer...convert, but realize that the total SQ will suffer even though it may superficially sound "fuller" and 'remember kids'... if possible just go from the CD straight to atrac3+ (not necessarily for SQ, but with HiMD it is still more useful because of space and battery life I believe...but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)

←

Haha I wasn't refering to Atrac > MP3 in my opinion, I meant that, that is probably the argument being present by Sony and why he/she was confused. However in practice (not that anyone encodes low bitrate MP3s) I'd probably have to give Atrac3+ a bit up over MP3

[DJ_THE_CROW]

So, if my whole collection consists of MP3s in a variety of bitrates (*ahem* ), it's pretty pointless to convert them into ATRAC?

Simple yes or no answer will suffice for the stupid (IE. me).

←

your whole collection should be in a lossless format for example WAV.

100 % space will be used.

if you want to save space, your colletction should be in lossless compressed format for example FLAC.

~ 66 % space will be used.

if you really want to save more space AND still want to keep quality, only use the lossy compressed format "OGG @ Quality Level 10".

~ 33 % space will be used

If your entire collection is in MP3... i really feel sorry for you.

MP3 is the worst lossy format ive ever heard....

[LJM]

Having realised half of my stuff was converted into WMA for my Zen Micro, I've had to re-encode pretty much my whole collection. To save space I used 132Kb (or 105Kb, can't remember) ATRAC3, and while there is a very noticeable quality loss with EQing, it's pretty negligible without. Having said that, some of it is perfectly fine when listened to through the standard 'phones (although my ears have ached since ).

I'd still like to have as good a quality of music as possible, at a reasonable bitrate (like 132Kb), so it might involve actually buying some of the music in my collection (luckily, the majority of it is legit). It'll be expensive, but it'll certainly be worth it. eBay and Amazon Marketplace, here I come!

Edited August 16, 2005 by LJM

[The Low Volta]

I'd still like to have as good a quality of music as possible, at a reasonable bitrate (like 132Kb), so it might involve actually buying some of the music in my collection

hm... I must definitely be growing old for me the musical experience still begins with buying a CD, although even I shared with close friends so we mostly only had one copy of the CD in our collective library...

but I would recommend HiSP if you really want good quality music... the difference really is noticable with decent 'phones...which is the second recommendation... dump the stock'buds/'phones somewhere and get something that respects the music...even when listening with a portable device... just have a look at this thread for 'cheap' alternatives and I personally can recommend the Panasonic RP-JE50 in ear 'phones (for a shortish review see this thread) which can be bought cheaply from ebay

[LJM]

Thanks, I'll look into that

One last question. I've started burning whatever of my collection I have on CD, using MD Simple Burner. Now, if Hi-SP is 256Kb ATRAC3+, what bitrate is Hi-LP? If the quality comparison is negligible, I think I could get a lot more than 8 albums out of a Hi-MD.

The quality of Hi-SP is well and truly amazing though.

Edited August 16, 2005 by LJM

[The Low Volta]

Now, if Hi-SP is 256Kb ATRAC3+, what bitrate is Hi-LP? If the quality comparison is negligible, I think I could get a lot more than 8 albums out of a Hi-MD.

HiLP = Atrac3+ @ 64kbps... I would personally only use HiSP for music I appreciate... but the only ears you should trust are your own! If HiLP works for you, why wouldn't you use it... it doesn't work for me though

[LJM]

Having tested, I agree with that. Some tracks sounded fine in HiLP, but others were terrible - especially with the EQ amplifying it (I was imitating a line-out with my PC speakers). Well, I think quality comes over quantity here - I can always get more discs for my music.

[ROMBUSTERS]

agreed HiLP works sometimes better than others, however considering its only 64kbps (8KB/s!) compared to that of CD quality 1411kbps (~176KB/s) that's a huge advantage in the space department

[silence]

So, if my whole collection consists of MP3s in a variety of bitrates (*ahem* ), it's pretty pointless to convert them into ATRAC?

Simple yes or no answer will suffice for the stupid (IE. me).

←

YES-

it is pointless

In very simple terms:

for examle in Photoshop if you start with a 2 megapixel photograph, you DO NOT gain quality by changing the resolution to a higher one.

Once something is captured - that is as good as it gets. you can filter manipulate Etc but it is all artificial enhanced.

[MDGB2]

I wonder if Sony's boffins will work on an improved Hi-LP codec? It's not really that far off being decent, certainly on par with the lower MP3 bitrates (128kbps and under)

Although bad compared to LP2, you can still listen to it as music (which is more than can be said for the same bitrate in MP3 )

Edited August 18, 2005 by MDGB2