So I finally tried ATRAC 105kbps

[Damage]

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.

Why I remember the days when I used to walk to school, miles away, uphill both ways (UCLA campus to dorms is literally uphill both ways). Back then, we used to wait four hours(!) to encode our music in command line encoder and WE LIKED IT!

And you know what, back then we used nothing but 128kbps (or 96 if space were tight), and WE LIKED IT!

And you know what, back then we only had access to the music on our computers. No fancy iPods, no fancy burners, nothing fancy, and WE LIKED IT!

I think I'm showing my age. Get off the LAWN you kids!

[Sparky191]

Just for the heck I encoded a lot of albums from CD>WAV>HiLP and while it doesn't sound good, it is impressive how listenable it is. Better than a lot of 128kps MP3's for sure. I don't think I could use it myself though. You lose too much detail and some airiness from the sound. But if you were stuck you could use it. I generally stick to HiSP or 192-320kps for my MP3's.

[danielbb90]

I use Hi-LP for most things...

Mainly because its expensive to buy Hi-MD discs in major bulk!

[1kyle]

Whilst the 105 kbs is MUCH lower than I would care to try I think you've probably made it even worse by adding another level of transcoding from 192 kbs mp3 which was coded from whatever.

A decent test would be to try this coded DIRECT from a WAV / uncompressed file.

If you do this you'll probably find LP2 (ATRAC 132 kbs) a better bet and compatable with legacy gear.

If you are using Hi MD then even at 352 which is almost indestinguishable from the original WAV sound you'll get at least 5 full CD's on a 1GB disc and if you drop down to the very acceptable 256 Kbs for Hi MD then you'll get over 7 hours on a 1GB disc which will should be better than your 192 kbs mp3 (depending on the source you used and the original encoding method of your mp3).

If you are worried about expensive 1GB discs don't forget that all the Hi MD recorders / players can use Standard 60 (yes they still exist), 74 or 80 min discs which can currently be had really cheaply now, I've even seen packs of 10 in Supermarkets at around 5.99 GBP a pack. On the Internet you can source them cheaper so disc price shouldn't be an issue for your music.

At Hi SP at 256 kbs 74 or 80 min disc will often get 2 CD's per disk.

For high quality I only ever record 1 CD per Standard Disc as this suits me fine. For Portable listening on the move I use 1GB discs where even 1 disc should provide more than enough music for a days listening.

I'd suggest if you really are wearing headphones for 7 hours a day you've got serious social problems in interacting or dealing with other people.

Cheers

-K

Edited March 19, 2006 by 1kyle

[danielbb90]

Whilst the 105 kbs is MUCH lower than I would care to try I think you've probably made it even worse by adding another level of transcoding from 192 kbs mp3 which was coded from whatever.

A decent test would be to try this coded DIRECT from a WAV / uncompressed file.

If you do this you'll probably find LP2 (ATRAC 132 kbs) a better bet and compatable with legacy gear.

If you are using Hi MD then even at 352 which is almost indestinguishable from the original WAV sound you'll get at least 5 full CD's on a 1GB disc and if you drop down to the very acceptable 256 Kbs for Hi MD then you'll get over 7 hours on a 1GB disc which will should be better than your 192 kbs mp3 (depending on the source you used and the original encoding method of your mp3).

If you are worried about expensive 1GB discs don't forget that all the Hi MD recorders / players can use Standard 60 (yes they still exist), 74 or 80 min discs which can currently be had really cheaply now, I've even seen packs of 10 in Supermarkets at around 5.99 GBP a pack. On the Internet you can source them cheaper so disc price shouldn't be an issue for your music.

At Hi SP at 256 kbs 74 or 80 min disc will often get 2 CD's per disk.

For high quality I only ever record 1 CD per Standard Disc as this suits me fine. For Portable listening on the move I use 1GB discs where even 1 disc should provide more than enough music for a days listening.

I'd suggest if you really are wearing headphones for 7 hours a day you've got serious social problems in interacting or dealing with other people.

Cheers

-K

I rather have all my files on the discs I don't like the Idea of downloading different tracks each time I want to listen to something different!

I have loads of 74 min disc somwhere... (Don't ask) There just unavalable to me at this moment! lol

Can you fit 2 352 discs on them? or is it less than that?

Anyway thats probably all the off topic stuff I'm going to post! lol

[1kyle]

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 buds

The 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!

peace

WaywardTraveller

Pity you converted ALREADY from a Lossy format (Mp3 @ 192).

Be interesting to see what you thought of the Atrac 105 converted from an original WAV.

The problem with converting from a lossy format is that you are only going to add to artifacts etc present in the original conversion and that original conversion might not have used the optimum settings in converting from an original file as well.

The only serious way comparing different formats is to start from an uncompressed source and then try all the various formats.

At 352 you'll be able to fit (usually) 1 CD on a 74 Min disk. For the larger CD's (some 77 min ones - usually these are Classical Music discs) they should fit on to a 80 Min Disk.

Hi-SP however @ 256 will probably fit 2 CD's on to a 74 or 80 min disc. The compression algorithm is better (slightly) (than the old SP @ 292) and in Hi-SP mode you can write more data on the discs.

If you are converting from a decent source (original CD's) then for portable listening you probably would be hard pushed to tell any difference between HI-SP (256) ant 352 kbs.

Played into a decent sound system is another matter.

Please note that LOUD (300 watts for example on your sound system) doesn't always equate to QUALITY.

A good sound system has to be able to handle the "Transients" cleanly. Playing a piece of music at full volume will "clip" and distort horribly the loud passages and you'll miss the contrasts between the soft and loud pieces).

The Vinyl Vs CD argument has been raging for years. It's a bit like Digital Vs Film photography.

There's some merit in the Vinyl argument - same in B&W film photography. B&W has an infinite number of grey scales between pure black and pure white. It's hard to represent this number via any decent digital representation. Most digital cameras still only use 12 bits. Only a top notch professional Phase 1 digital back (costing over 22,000 USD) uses 16 or 20 bits and this is a long way short of Infinite. For colour it doesn't matter but you'll notice a digital B&W picture compared with a good film one quite easily.

A good Vinyl deck is a bit like B&W film vs digital. However the quality of decent CD's do produce almost indistinguishable sound from the original. Other problems with Vinyl mask the maximum fidelity you can get out of that medium. (Same with film. Whilst the resolution is arguably better than digital "Grain" will make its appearance long before you can use the full potential of film's resolution).

Cheers

-K

Edited April 11, 2006 by 1kyle

[tekdroid]

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.

Sample rate is actually the number of samples taken per second, which is 44,100 samples per second for CD (44.1KHz). What you quoted was bitrate for CD audio (the total data rate for 2 channels at 16 bit resolution, 44.1KHz sampling rate).

Perhaps a picky distinction, but I had to point that out

Your point stands, though, that all digital systems 'lose' information from the get-go, if you just take into account that the samples are taken at discrete points in time with information in-between 'lost'. Of course analogue 'loses' and distorts things diffrently.

It's all debatable as to how much it matters, but the abundance of 24/96 systems are out there tells us there's obviously room to move (and improve) digital recording and playback.