WaywardTraveller Posted November 6, 2005 Report Share Posted November 6, 2005 So I finally decided to see what all this crazy business was with ATRAC 105kbps mode.Ingredients:- One (1) Sony MZ-RH10...(black, baby, black )- One (1) TDK Fine 74min MD (Hi-MD formatted)- One (1) pair Sony EX70s- One (1) custom equalizer setting for said budsThe following fits on the MD in ATRAC105 (with roughly 15MB left):DJ Spooky:- Dubtometry- Riddim Warfare- Songs Of A Dead Dreamer- The Quick And The Dead(all converted from 192kbps MP3s)The result? Whoa!! Dude, 105 isn't bad at all! I'm actually beginning to reconsider how I listen to certain albums from time to time...maybe it's just me, but I find that ATRAC-105 adds just a slight tinge of lo-fi without loss of stereo separation or loss of real detail.I've always thought that having a pristine recording isn't the only way (nor is it always the best way) to listen to a given piece...and with the added benefits of having over 5.5 hours on a single 74min MD...hey, if I want to I can always rip a high-definition version, but for now...bump it!Jus' thinkin' out loud...word!peaceWaywardTraveller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e1ghtyf1ve Posted November 7, 2005 Report Share Posted November 7, 2005 (edited) I can't say I'm surprised. My ears tell me that especially ATRAC3plus is so much better than mp3 at similar bit rates it's not even funny...Cheers Edited November 7, 2005 by e1ghtyf1ve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMPlitude Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 agreed! i dont think any of the atrac3+ at anything higher than 100kbps is bad at all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrius Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 Blasphemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zerodB Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 ATRAC3plus is purported to excel against other codecs at low bitrates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenmachine Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 ATRAC3plus is purported to excel against other codecs at low bitrates....which is quite impressive considering its optimisation for low power requirements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexx Posted November 12, 2005 Report Share Posted November 12, 2005 oh no- i think its dreadful!infact i hate it more than 66 and 64 kbsits only slightly better than 48kbs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Continuity Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 Actually I got into 105 back in my Clié days. I found it excellent if ripped from an original CD at the time in terms of compromise. Even on the stereo didn't sound soooo bad. Considering a 256 Meg Magicgate Memory Stick would set me back 350 CAD$ it was a nice compromise. Getting back into MD though I kind of appreciate the fine things in life like Hi-SP LoL Especially when you aren't paying 1200$ for a gig But converted from an MP3? I had troubles dealing with the quality that gave. Ouch.Which makes me wonder: my Clié certainly isn't ATRAC3+, so 105 kb/s must not be part of ATRAC3+. Maybe ATRAC3 without the plus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROMBUSTERS Posted November 21, 2005 Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 105kbps is technically speaking LP3 which falls between LP2 @ 132kbps and LP4 @ 66kbps all part of Atrac3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercury_in_flames Posted November 21, 2005 Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 Does anyone here actually change bit rates that often?? Out of about 1200 songs, I have only encode about 25 or so in 256kc atrac, the rest are either mp3s or 132 atrac. I cant really hear enough diff in 132 and 256 atrac, to use 256, when the songs are just about 1.5 times their size when in 132. i.e from 6 to 9 mb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted November 21, 2005 Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 (edited) Almost all of my tracks are in 256kbps ATRAC3plus or 320kbps MP3. Nothing less.I always get amused when people blast low bitrates, but I remember when such quality was acceptable and for many that will be the zenith of their knowledge for listening quality. It's all subjective -- if you're content, then so be it. Edited November 21, 2005 by kurisu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenmachine Posted November 21, 2005 Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 Almost all of my tracks are in 256kbps ATRAC3plus or 320kbps MP3. Nothing less.You should give LAME's VBR encoding a try some day - it doesn't need to be 320kbps all the time, especially if you set value on efficiency or don't have one of these multi-gigabyte players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e1ghtyf1ve Posted November 21, 2005 Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 You should give LAME's VBR encoding a try some day - it doesn't need to be 320kbps all the time, especially if you set value on efficiency or don't have one of these multi-gigabyte players.Exactly! Encoding schemes are constantly improving... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Continuity Posted November 21, 2005 Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 (edited) I usually switch bitrates to make something fit on whatever medium I happen to have handy.If I need to fit just a bit more then that 80m MD will take, I'll figure out what songs I like a bit less then encode those at 1 step down. I tend to like complete albums on 1 disk, so PCM for the most liked, then 256 for some, etc...That online calculator tool gets a LOT of use out of me Thanx to Rombuster's post I remember why I took 105 to start with instead of 132. It was a custom hardware project I put into my head to do with my friend's portables. Due to form factor and materials at hand my custom RS-232 (serial) miniport was limited to around 130 kbps max. Any more then that and it would just be unreliable, kept loosing information.Kind of frustrating that at the time 132 kbps was soooooo close. Edited November 21, 2005 by MZ Addicted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky191 Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 Heck I think 48kbps sounds fantastic, go for hi-md!Well I'm convinced. I'm going to transcode all my HQ LAME VBR MP3's and 224kps ACC to low bitrate ATRAC to hear how better it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercury_in_flames Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 (edited) Almost all of my tracks are in 256kbps ATRAC3plus or 320kbps MP3. Nothing less.I always get amused when people blast low bitrates, but I remember when such quality was acceptable and for many that will be the zenith of their knowledge for listening quality. It's all subjective -- if you're content, then so be it.As long as my net md deck uses 132 atrac, and I dont want to re-encode my music to transfer it to md, then I'll stick to 132kb/s, If it sounds good enough through my deck, its good enough for my hd5. If I get earphones that really[i/] show the detail, and I hear a huge[i/] difference, then maybe. But as you, say, it is subjective. I suppose its also the fact that I dont want to see my hd5 on its last 2 gigs any time soon, just because of higher bit rates. I've only used up 6gb so far, but still. It would annoy me to no end to have to have two lots of the same music on two different devices if i got a 40 gig mp3 player, or to have to choose between two different mp3 players with different music on, to listen to. Edited November 22, 2005 by GregTheRotter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynos Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 I can hear the difference of 105 kbps compare to the 132 kbps if the song is more of vocals like choir. Slight difference in voice solo though. I can even differentiate in my car while driving. Instruments hard to tell unless I use my headphone. Try for yourself and share your ideas and experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenshank Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 This thread is quite timely. I have just been experimenting with the various Hi-MD bitrates i.e. 48kb/s, Hi-LP, Hi-SP and PCM. After careful listening to various styles of music through my decent if elderly Hi-Fi, I find I can't hear any consistent difference, even between 48 and PCM! Have I got cloth ears or what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KJ_Palmer Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 I'm sorry, but yes, I think you must have... Well, either that or your system needs tuning up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenshank Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 I'm sorry, but yes, I think you must have... Well, either that or your system needs tuning up.I was a bit taken aback by my own oral insensitivity!Not sure how I might tune my system though. Eardrops perhaps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KJ_Palmer Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 No offence, BTW... - I meant the Hi-Fi system may need tuning up, or speakers repositioning, or new cables maybe, or blowing dust/cobwebs out of the circuits. If you like 48kbps, then fine, though, good for you, you'll get a lot of tracks into a 20Gb DAP. It usually sets my teeth on edge, so I use 256k minimally.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenshank Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 No offence, BTW... - I meant the Hi-Fi system may need tuning up, or speakers repositioning, or new cables maybe, or blowing dust/cobwebs out of the circuits. If you like 48kbps, then fine, though, good for you, you'll get a lot of tracks into a 20Gb DAP. It usually sets my teeth on edge, so I use 256k minimally..None taken. Repositioning the speakers is not an option (this room's too small) but I might check the connectors for tarnishing.It's academic anyway as I only intend to listen to ripped music in unfriendly environments e.g. noisy aircraft. If I want to listen properly then I'll use the CD. (Who wouldn't?)In theory though I am interested in what differences other people can detect. What am I missing out on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KJ_Palmer Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 I believe very high and low frequencies are the first things to go. So look out (well listen) for thinning of the bass lines and definition of things like cymbal crashes. This happens even with relatively mild compression (like 256k). Also compression reduces the 'full-bodiness' of the music, so a lot of the 'air' and 'presence' goes, and similar vague terms. A common artifact is a more metallic grating effect, which as I mentioned can set my teeth on edge.I'm sure some of our more technically minded regulars can put it in more scientific terms, but this is why I'm not too keen on heavy audio compression... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercury_in_flames Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 ah yes, i admit that there is a lack of what you call 'air' or possibly sound stage or depth? if those are all the same thing then thats what i mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jadeclaw Posted November 23, 2005 Report Share Posted November 23, 2005 (edited) Have I got cloth ears or what?Yes. Ok, seriously. It is possible, that you have damaged your ears at work.Have you worked in noisy environments without proper ear protection, e.g. military service, aircraft maintenance or construction work?I suggest, that you have checked your ears by a doctor.The difference between 48k Atrac and PCM is close to the difference between AM and FM-Stereo,so normally it is obvious, which one is playing. Edited November 23, 2005 by jadeclaw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenshank Posted November 24, 2005 Report Share Posted November 24, 2005 Yes. Ok, seriously. It is possible, that you have damaged your ears at work.Have you worked in noisy environments without proper ear protection, e.g. military service, aircraft maintenance or construction work?I suggest, that you have checked your ears by a doctor.The difference between 48k Atrac and PCM is close to the difference between AM and FM-Stereo,so normally it is obvious, which one is playing.Well I have tinnitus in one ear although it's not too bad. That ear has a notch at around 12 kHz (classic tinnitus symptom). I have no idea what caused it as I've never been subjected to persistent high levels of noise.As for the difference between AM and FM, last time I checked I could certainly hear that so I don't think my hearing's that bad! Mmm, maybe I should get someone else to listen to my MD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynos Posted November 24, 2005 Report Share Posted November 24, 2005 Well I have tinnitus in one ear although it's not too bad. That ear has a notch at around 12 kHz (classic tinnitus symptom). I have no idea what caused it as I've never been subjected to persistent high levels of noise.As for the difference between AM and FM, last time I checked I could certainly hear that so I don't think my hearing's that bad! Mmm, maybe I should get someone else to listen to my MD.check if the FM is set to mono Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chriswyatt Posted November 24, 2005 Report Share Posted November 24, 2005 I got fed up with my old MP3 player because I couldn't decide between bitrates. I've found that I hate lossy WMAs with a passion, to me the distortion stands out a mile. I remember I listened to a demo CD once and I could tell it was mastered from crappy WMAs.In the end I think I settled with something like VBR min: 96 kbps: max: 192 kbps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaywardTraveller Posted December 15, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2005 (edited) Do the 2nd-gen Hi-MDs support VBR MP3 playback? I'm sure it's been discussed elsewhere, but since I usually rip straight from my CDs or convert my MP3s (yes, that's right....to me ATRAC/3+ sounds better ) I don't usually listen to MP3s on my RH-10.I know the bitrate issue has been discussed a hundred times and will be discussed a hundred more...but to me there's a world of difference between 48kbps and PCM. Now that I have good 'phones, I can even hear the difference between 132 and 256, although I use both a lot depending on the artist and how much I wanna fit on one MD. I find, though, that the best way to distinguish between the two is to make a mic recording - songs don't always make good benchmarks.Although you can't mic-record in 48, you can with 66...and it's good for voice/spoken-word recordings such as meetings and lectures, but when I tried out my mics in a coffee shop all the background noise was "smeared" (i.e. blurry-sounding) while the voices came out fine. With PCM and 256kbps, everything is much more in-your face; for me, stereo separation is also much more robust with the higher bitrates (lower bitrates make everything sound like it's canned/boxed lol).peaceWaywardTraveller Edited December 15, 2005 by WaywardTraveller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akijikan Posted December 15, 2005 Report Share Posted December 15, 2005 Color Me Lo-Fi! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauljones52 Posted December 27, 2005 Report Share Posted December 27, 2005 Do the 2nd-gen Hi-MDs support VBR MP3 playback? I'm sure it's been discussed elsewhere, but since I usually rip straight from my CDs or convert my MP3s (yes, that's right....to me ATRAC/3+ sounds better ) I don't usually listen to MP3s on my RH-10.they are but the sound quality of them is not very good, a lack of high frequencies (something about a highpass cutoff when sonicstage wraps them in its copy protection). You can get them to sound ok if you fiddle with the equaliser, but still doesnt sound as good as atrac (on the player itself). The battery life also suffers when playing vbr files. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burns3016 Posted January 19, 2006 Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 Well I'm convinced. I'm going to transcode all my HQ LAME VBR MP3's and 224kps ACC to low bitrate ATRAC to hear how better it is. Really it comes down to what you are willing to accept in terms of sound quality etc. AND what HEADPHONES you are using !!! You also need to consider disc capacity. So it's a trade off between quality & space.Personally, I am happy to encode at 132kbps (LP2) using my SONY Streetstyle headphones. If at some point in the future I improve my headphones, I will perhaps be able to distinguish between the bitrate I am now using (132kbps) & the higher bitrates. However, at the moment, I cannot.However, if your talking about using your line-out and connecting your Hi-MD unit to a good amp & a good set of speakers, then I consider Hi-SP (256kbps) to be more than acceptable. I plug my MZ-NH900 (using the line-out option) into my Logitech Z-680 5.1 Surround system, which is THX-certified & pumps out approx. 500 Watts RMS, and play it in double stereo mode (ie. four speakers - 2 on each side) - and the sound is awesome. The bass is THUMPING, without being distorted - and the highs & mid-ranges are beautifully balanced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauljones52 Posted January 19, 2006 Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 I plug my MZ-NH900 (using the line-out option) into my Logitech Z-680 5.1 Surround system, which is THX-certified & pumps out approx. 500 Watts RMS, and play it in double stereo mode (ie. four speakers - 2 on each side) - and the sound is awesome. The bass is THUMPING, without being distorted - and the highs & mid-ranges are beautifully balanced.Have you tried 352kb/s on this setup?? Can you notice any difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burns3016 Posted January 19, 2006 Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 Have you tried 352kb/s on this setup?? Can you notice any difference?Thanxs for your interest Matt J ! No, I haven't tried this yet. Will do so in the next few days, and post a follow-up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burns3016 Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 Have you tried 352kb/s on this setup?? Can you notice any difference?Hi Matt J ! I have just tried the 352kbps and the difference is minimal if there at all. The Logitech Z-680 is a great sounding system, so I'm generally happy with most recordings.What I think I need is the "right" piece of music to test it out with. I mainly listen to rap/hip-hop and sometimes the production & instrumentation is sub-par, so it doesn't make much difference in my case. Perhaps classical or jazz etc. would give a better picture of the difference between bitrates on my set-up (Logitech Z-680; THX Certified; 505 watts RMS).Thanxz for your interest Matt J !PS.if I do have a listen to a finely recorded piece of classical or jazz, I will post a follow-up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauljones52 Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 Thanks for the test burns3016, i've been debating what to record my music in for a while and I finally settled on HISP. I think rap sounds great at this quality, but things like dance music benefit from 352 IMO. I used to have all my music in LP2 which was great back then, I wish I hadent tried the higher bitrates lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZosoIV Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 I'm surprised that anybody can discern 256kbps from 352kbps A3+; theoretically, there's very little difference between OR within audio codecs above 256kbps. Maybe Hi-SP (256kbps) isn't tuned to its full potential yet? 105kbps? That's a whole other story Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauljones52 Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 The way I think of it is, if you compare a brand new vinyl record to a CD, i find the vinyl has more warmth and sounds "better" in my opinion. You cant hear any artifacts on a CD, but it still has a sample rate of 1411kb/s. Vinyl is analogue so is an exact reproduction of the original sound. I thinks 352 adds more "warmth" that 256, but ask me to indentify artifacts in 256 and i wouldnt be able to! And like so many people say on here, it depends on your headphones and what your used to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burns3016 Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 The way I think of it is, if you compare a brand new vinyl record to a CD, i find the vinyl has more warmth and sounds "better" in my opinion. You cant hear any artifacts on a CD, but it still has a sample rate of 1411kb/s. Vinyl is analogue so is an exact reproduction of the original sound. I thinks 352 adds more "warmth" that 256, but ask me to indentify artifacts in 256 and i wouldnt be able to! And like so many people say on here, it depends on your headphones and what your used toFor me LP2(132kbps) is a reasonable trade off for space VS quality. I use LP2 to encode all my portable music and I am more than satisfied. I manage to fit plenty of music on a 1GB blank. Perhaps if I get a hold of a set of really, really good phones at some point, I'll consider a higher bitrate. However, for home listening, as I said earlier, I encode at 256kbps. This is more than acceptable. Wasn't it so much less complicated back in the days of MDLP ? Hi-MD has contributed to all of us developing a "bitrate-complex" ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZosoIV Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 Wasn't it so much less complicated back in the days of MDLP ? Hi-MD has contributed to all of us developing a "bitrate-complex" !SP was so much simpler - I could pop in a disc and always get a recording that sounded exactly like what I put into it! No worrying about quality/size ratios, robotic-sounding artifacts, etc. If Hi-MD discs weren't so damn expensive, I'd probably just stick to PCM. 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.