timonoj Posted October 8, 2005 Report Share Posted October 8, 2005 Hi there, i'm not sure wether this has been posted yet or not...I have an old MZ-N510 unit, and at the beggining i used to play songs with the lp4 codec(66kbps), but i after a time, i found out that the stereo quality wasn't good at all (well i know i'm not saying anything new), so i decided to use the lp2 codec, @132kbps wich delivers a quite good quality. However, some songs still sound almost the same...Some of them are originally mp3@112 or 128kbps. Do u know roughly how a comparison between quality delivered/bitrate in mp3 and ATRAC3 (non plus) should be? For example, wich is better to use to encode an mp3@128kbps to ATRAC3, LP4 or will i notice it? And what about an mp3@160kbps?Sorry for my poor english Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breepee2 Posted October 8, 2005 Report Share Posted October 8, 2005 Perfrom a search for Atrac on hydrogen.org in the listening test forum to find out what others think... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkeswani Posted October 11, 2005 Report Share Posted October 11, 2005 You might want to read this interesting report done by Sony to compare ATRAC3plus versus MP3 and WMA.http://www.sony.net/Products/ATRAC3/tech/l...test_report.pdfListening tests and frequency analysis are carried out to compare the three formats.Regards,M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roamer Posted October 11, 2005 Report Share Posted October 11, 2005 Starting with better encoded mp3s (or even better, original CDs ...) should surely help ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynos Posted October 12, 2005 Report Share Posted October 12, 2005 Hi there, i'm not sure wether this has been posted yet or not...I have an old MZ-N510 unit, and at the beggining i used to play songs with the lp4 codec(66kbps), but i after a time, i found out that the stereo quality wasn't good at all (well i know i'm not saying anything new), so i decided to use the lp2 codec, @132kbps wich delivers a quite good quality. However, some songs still sound almost the same...Some of them are originally mp3@112 or 128kbps. Do u know roughly how a comparison between quality delivered/bitrate in mp3 and ATRAC3 (non plus) should be? For example, wich is better to use to encode an mp3@128kbps to ATRAC3, LP4 or will i notice it? And what about an mp3@160kbps?Sorry for my poor english Welcome to forum, I think you have a good ear since you can hear the difference of LP4 and LP2. I suggest try for yourself and see what you get. General rule, higher bitrate higher quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timonoj Posted October 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2005 (edited) Hi there, I just bought an MZ-NH600D minidisc, it just arrived today. But well, i'm getting lost with the few new codecs(well, I know it is not the WHOLE range, just a few new ones)... 'Till now I used to tranfer songs into LP2 format, as I said earlier this post, but now I do have some new formats in ATRAC3Plus, wich I never used...I've got the ATRAC3Plus formats (I guess that, it only marks them when they're just ATRAC3) of 64kbps and 48kbps, and also the 256kbps wich I guess it's gonna be the SP codec...If i've been using the ATRAC3 LP2 'till now, should I change it to another one? Like 64kbps? I heard this one sounds pretty well... Even better than the old LP2? Thank you very muchPS: Right now every single mp3 that i use as starting base is quite high quality, 192kbps+ or ogg or ape (reencoded to wav, of course) Edited October 18, 2005 by timonoj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
streaml1ne Posted October 18, 2005 Report Share Posted October 18, 2005 Obviously, try this for yourself, but LP2 (132kbps Atrac3) definitely sounds better than Hi-LP (64kbps Atrac3plus). Give it a shot, take one of your .apes and import as a wav then transfer to the recorder in all 3 flavors, Hi-SP (256kbps Atrac3plus), Hi-LP, and LP2 and give it a listen. If you pick a song that's reasonably detailed and you have decent headphones the differences should be pretty clear. After that it's pretty much up to what you can tolerate in terms of sound quality and the number of songs on one disc.Personally I use LP2 for my pedestrian MD's since I'm listening on the train or walking in NYC where I more than likely won't notice or care about a little artifacting. If I'm sitting at home listening on good headphones to a particularly detailed piece of music then I'll use Hi-SP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexx Posted October 19, 2005 Report Share Posted October 19, 2005 atrac 66 is better than atrac 105 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenmachine Posted October 19, 2005 Report Share Posted October 19, 2005 atrac 66 is better than atrac 105 Who told you that? Maybe you unknowingly encoded to 105 kbps, transcoded to 66 kbps and judged that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timonoj Posted October 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 (edited) atrac 66 is better than atrac 105 My HiMD(NH600D, the cheapest one, I guess) doesn't seem to support 105kbps, though. Or at least, it is not listed on the codec list on my Sonicstage 3.2 Edited October 21, 2005 by timonoj 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.