Which bitrate do you use most often?

[LupinIV]

While we have discussed quality issues many times, I think it would be interesting to look at the real bitrate selection when it comes to actually burning Hi-MDs.

So, what is the bitrate that you ACTUALLY end up using the most on your Hi-MDs?

I personally love the higher bitrates quality, but I always end up using the 132 kbps.

Yes the good old Atrac 3. It still is the only mid-bitrate available for MDs (since the new 128 cannot be moved to Hi-MDs) that offers good quality and a lot of room for songs on Hi-MD (both 1Gb or 280Mb)

So lets see what the vox populi (voice of the mass) has to say.

This may give an indication to SONY on what kind of bitrate to offer for the next Hi-MD generation.

Cheers

[greenmachine]

Where's pcm? I use this mode almost exclusively for recording. Hardly use the unit for playback. If i would, I'd propably choose 256 kbps.

[LupinIV]

Where's pcm? I use this mode almost exclusively for recording. Hardly use the unit for playback. If i would, I'd propably choose 256 kbps.

Greenmachine,

I have excluded PCM because it is not really an ATRAC format, and I am referring to PC-to-Hi-MD more than recording from Mic.

I understand that some use PCM on their MD's but I am trying to analyze the pure ATRAC world of MD.

Cheers

Edited November 11, 2005 by LupinIV

[LupinIV]

C'mon guys!!!

71 views and only 9 votes!!!!

VOTE VOTE VOTE!!!!

[duancg]

PCM for recording.

256 for burn CD onto Hi-MD

132 or 64 for burning downloaded mp3s (depends on how to the mp3 is, but overall, 64 more often than 132 unless I care about comptibility)

[Sparky191]

Well we only just found out about 352kps. So hardly anyone will have tried it yet. I've only tried it on one HiMD so far. Otherwise I would have voted, HiSP. But I reckon I'll be using 352kps more so I voted for that. I use PCM and HiSP for recording, and HiSP/352 for playback.

Edited November 11, 2005 by Sparky191

[Breepee2]

Where's old SP?

[LupinIV]

Where's old SP?

Well, on the SS transfer options for Hi-MD formatted disks there is no OLD-SP. That is why I have omitted it.

Again, I am trying to make a point on what bitrate you use to transfer to Hi-MD using the optionms available in SS.

Cheers

[atrain]

i actually use atrac3+ 192 mostly or 256 for music i rellay want to listen to.

[RobA]

I only use 48kbps Atrac3plus

Edited November 12, 2005 by RobA

[LupinIV]

Wow, it really looks like 256 dominates.

Still very low voting though! C'mon don't be shy, let's participate a little. Cast your vote and help MD become a better platform.

Cheers

[alexis]

I like using the 64kbps (Hi-LP), because of the more than acceptable quality for listening on-the-go with earbuds and the plenty of music time in allows, even on 270MB MDs. Definitely my favourite to take music with me while I am out. I even own an iPod too and use AAC encoding at 80kbps, for the same reasons (acceptable quality, plenty of space).

Edited November 12, 2005 by storm shadow

[ynos]

132 kbps for my MD. I don't store my music in atrac format so my library is empty. I deleted after uploading to MD. Strange huh but I still undecided to convert my music library (45+ GB MP3/WMA) to SS.

[The Low Volta]

at this moment 265 only... in the future (that means when I find the time and if I can still be bothered) I guess I will download a couple of really demanding CD's in 352...

but what really annoys me is that we do not get 352 as a recording option as it would be good for a lot of longer taping I seem to do right now in which I'd still like the best quality possible without changing discs (and Sony...now we now that 352 should be possible)

[dex Otaku]

I stick with HiSP [256kbps] for music.

I occasionally use PCM for some things, such as classical or jazz, but not often.

Some lo-fi recordings I have used LP2 [132kbps] but I generally find that 256kbps is the minimum bitrate that my ears can stand.

And yes, I can hear artifacting in first-generation HiSP-encoded material, though not often enough for it to bother me with portable listening.

Note that when importing CDs, 352kbps is not an available option [at least - not here, it's not]. 352kbps is only available when converting files imported into your library from other sources [like WAV files].

If the recent reports from greenmachine et al about AAL are accurate - that the lossless copy is for playback from SS only, and that anything transferred to HiMD at a different bitrate than the "sub" rate selected is encoded from the already-lossy copy, then I see AAL as completely, utterly pointless. I don't use SS to listen to anything except mic recordings I've just uploaded.

[LupinIV]

Looking at the votes, I wonder if anyone is really interested in mid-bitrares (128-132 or so). It seems that the majority is mostly heading for quality more than playing time.

This fact is about the opposite to the general tendency of using 128kbps mp3s in most of the mp3 players. Also, most of the online services only provide this type of bitrate.

So is the md crowd more sensitive to quality? If so, how many of us actually use mp3s at higher rates? (250 und up)

The results seems to tell that MD users are more quality prone and this makes MD a restricted community of audiofiles compared to the larger community of mp3s gobblers, where the target is to fit as much as we can in the storage privided by the player.

Anyone wants to comment on this thought?

Edited November 12, 2005 by LupinIV

[ynos]

Looking at the votes, I wonder if anyone is really interested in mid-bitrares (128-132 or so). It seems that the majority is mostly heading for quality more than playing time.

This fact is about the opposite to the general tendency of using 128kbps mp3s in most of the mp3 players. Also, most of the online services only provide this type of bitrate.

So is the md crowd more sensitive to quality? If so, how many of us actually use mp3s at higher rates? (250 und up)

The results seems to tell that MD users are more quality prone and this makes MD a restricted community of audiofiles compared to the larger community of mp3s gobblers, where the target is to fit as much as we can in the storage privided by the player.

Anyone wants to comment on this thought?

Well I think if most of your music are in MP3 in 128-196 kpbs then atrac 132 kbps is the best choice

[greenmachine]

Mp3 - if encoded carefully - can sound good in the ~140-170 kbps range and indistinguishable from the original at ~170-210 when using vbr, which should give more consistent quality. Atrac(3(+)) on the other hand is optimized for low power consumption and restricted to cbr only. I think Atrac simply requires a higher bitrate to reach transparency.

[ynos]

Mp3 - if encoded carefully - can sound good in the ~140-170 kbps range and indistinguishable from the original at ~170-210 when using vbr, which should give more consistent quality. Atrac(3(+)) on the other hand is optimized for low power consumption and restricted to cbr only. I think Atrac simply requires a higher bitrate to reach transparency.

I normally rip my CD to MP3 at 192. This is base on my test. It's hard to tell the difference compare to CD. Someone out there might disagree with me but after all it is me who will listen and enjoy my music .

[Alexx]

I use 66kbs because its also longplay 4; i i use the retro thing a lot. I also really like it a lot mmore than 105 kbs.

I think that 66kbps is actually FAR better than 105. I have never recorded a good track at 105.

105 is on a par with 48kbps.

I use 64kbps a lot too for myself anf HiMD

[dex Otaku]

So is the md crowd more sensitive to quality? If so, how many of us actually use mp3s at higher rates? (250 und up)

My mp3s tend to be of the lame "--alt-preset standard" quality or higher. I find most music to be pretty transparent encoded this way. Likewise for iTunes' FhG encoder set at "VBR highest quality". For some things I use lame "--alt-preset insane" but it really depends on what the material going into the encoder is.

For distro material I use "--alt-preset standard" which, frankly, exceeds the quality expectations of the majority of people I've done work for.

About 1/5 of my music collection is in WavPack or FLAC, as well.

Well I think if most of your music are in MP3 in 128-196 kpbs then atrac 132 kbps is the best choice

This really depends on your ears, your 'phones, and how you listen. I find that non-hardware encoded LP2 sounds like sand or grit pouring into my ears. The artifacting is very obvious, and very annoying. Hardware-encoded LP2 isn't that bad, though.

Mp3 - if encoded carefully - can sound good in the ~140-170 kbps range and indistinguishable from the original at ~170-210 when using vbr, which should give more consistent quality. Atrac(3(+)) on the other hand is optimized for low power consumption and restricted to cbr only. I think Atrac simply requires a higher bitrate to reach transparency.

I'm basically agreed on the bitrates gm has listed, but there's something here I just have to comment on.. Does anyone else out there besides me think that the whole "designed for low power consumption" thing has nothing whatsoever to do with the sound of the hardware or [especially] software codecs? Every time I read someone saying this, it's like the proverbial scraping of nails on a blackboard in the back of my mind. My personal opinion is that there is no relation between these factors whatsoever.

Second, MD and HiMD are limited to realtime CBR encoding because they're, well, realtime encoders [i.e. live recorders]that are expected to work a certain way. It's not that VBR encoding on the fly is difficult to implement by itself, it's just that things like - estimating how much time is left on the disc, for example - are made extremely difficult by it. Same with realtime lossless packing.

I would also wager that designers for companies like Sony probably think in terms of, "The recordist probably wants a guarantee of a certain quality when recording."

This is all beside the point though, because this topic is about software-encoded content downloaded to players from computers, not live recordings. So I'll shut up about it now.

[Sparky191]

Well over on Head-Fi, theres loads of Audiophiles who used to be MD users. Some still have players but generally they've moved on to MP3 players using FLAC, High bitrate MP3's or Lossless though a HDD player, often through a line out and a portable amp.

As for power consumption. I would assume it would depend on how effecient the DSP is on the unit. Theres been a few discussions on Head-Fi about different encodings, really effecting the battery life of HDD units. Either because they exceed the cache, requiring HD access. Or they simply require more effort to decode. Thus requiring more energy. If the encoding/decoding is hardwired on a DSP and if the design of the DSP is energy efficent, then its possible that some bitrates are more enery efficient than others.

I have a vague memory of people testing this out on Sony Mp3 HDD players, PCDP and iPods. Though I have no links to point you to. The tests concluded that ATRAC was more energy effcient than MP3, and low bitrates better. VBR being worse than CBR. But to be honest theres no way of know that Sony didn't make MP3's especially energy inefficent on their devices. Like they fiddled with the EQ on the 2nd gen HiMD units.

[dex Otaku]

As for power consumption. I would assume it would depend on how effecient the DSP is on the unit. Theres been a few discussions on Head-Fi about different encodings, really effecting the battery life of HDD units. Either because they exceed the cache, requiring HD access. Or they simply require more effort to decode. Thus requiring more energy. If the encoding/decoding is hardwired on a DSP and if the design of the DSP is energy efficent, then its possible that some bitrates are more enery efficient than others.

I don't dispute that one algorithm may be less processing-intensive [and thereby more energy efficient] than another. What I dispute is that there is some inherent link between perceivable playback or recording quality and low power consumption. IMO, they would likely design a hardware codec to maintain a certain level of quality, then tweak it to lower power consumption.

This is also a place where custom-designed circuits or DSPs can make a huge difference. If you know that you have a dedicated atrac/3/plus LSI, you can pretty much count on that consuming less power than a general-purpose DSP with firmware-loaded codecs which wastes a lot of energy on being versatile. This is a positive argument for proprietary design, in fact.

Thing is - even general purpose DSPs these days have so much processing power that basic jobs like decoding simple audio should be nothing to them [even to run in many times realtime - SS with software codecs is STUPID; they should be sending digital audio over USB to the recorder and having it encode, with hardware, the audio to be written to the disc]. I would think that buffering and mechanical operations would consume far more power than simple decoding cycles [encoding is another matter], buffering especially.

But then, I'm theorising. It's only my opinion, and this time around it's not based on anything I've researched, just what I consider to be common sense - which is as likely to be wrong as not.

[dex Otaku]

---

After rereading my own words, I'll just withdraw my utterly pointless argument. I agree with greemachine, who wasn't even talking about what I was arguing pointlessly about.

er, greeNmachine. yeah.

[LupinIV]

Let me ask a question:

Why was everybody so excited by the appearence of mid-bitrates such as 128-190 or so, when the majority seems to head for hi and now extra-hi bitrates?

Do you guys think you would actually use A3+ at 128 or 160 if it was avaialble on HiMD?

[mercury_in_flames]

132 kb/s = LP2 any songs i convert i keep on my external hard disk, That way i get good quality on my hd5 and have a bit rate that doesnt need to be converted for my md.

[Roamer]

HiSP or PCM when recording (which is my main use, and it would be great to be able to record at 352k)

Legacy LP2 for listening in the public transport (for backward compatibility with my Sharp unit)

[ninjaturtle]

I really don't like DLing anything less than 128kps MP3s but will take less if I can't find a higher bitrate so I use 64 A3+ for my MD and listen with my Sony's MDR-XD 400s.

My CDs are incoded 196kps VBR, stored in my HTPC and played through my Roku 1000.

[Sparky191]

I think once you "hear" the difference between Hi and low bitrates you can't go back.

[mercury_in_flames]

Ive listened to lp4 on my jb980, and its actually amazing how much better it sounds compared to using my portables, one of which has type s playback. The only reason i dont use lp4 is because i hate the crackles, pops, and the bass effect- where there seems to be something wrong with the speakers or earphones at every thud of bass, because of the compression. So its listenable, but only for certain music I find.

[AMPlitude]

256 is great, i dont see the need to go higher than that

[lecram1971]

I use 132 because I find it´s the best Space-Quality. I record many things, but most is as a player.

When I bought the MZ-NH700 I used Hi-Lp (64kbs) and think it´s sound good, but after I heard same disk in 132 I feel so poor the sound quality that I return to 132. For me it sounds like MP3 192.

For my recordings I use PCM or 256

[KJ_Palmer]

I've been using 352k quite a bit lately, but the vast majority is still in 256k (Hi-SP) or normal SP. I don't see any great reason to change that. I don't go below 256k, though.

Edited November 14, 2005 by KJ_Palmer

[DARRKCLOUD]

Most of my music collection is on 256kbps, apart from 2 what are on 352kbps.

[Sparky191]

Ive listened to lp4 on my jb980, and its actually amazing how much better it sounds compared to using my portables, one of which has type s playback. The only reason i dont use lp4 is because i hate the crackles, pops, and the bass effect- where there seems to be something wrong with the speakers or earphones at every thud of bass, because of the compression. So its listenable, but only for certain music I find.

I've heard a lot of people comment that decks are far better than the portables. Since the process is digital I'm not clear on way that is. I suspect that its the playback is better, and that theres no difference in the actual encoding. In the same way a cheap CD sounds worse than a quality CD deck. But I'm only guessing.

[THIS SUCKS]

<!--quoteo(post=77980:date=Nov 13 2005, 06:56 PM:name=GregTheRotter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GregTheRotter @ Nov 13 2005, 06:56 PM) ←</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->

Ive listened to lp4 on my jb980, and its actually amazing how much better it sounds compared to using my portables, one of which has type s playback. The only reason i dont use lp4 is because i hate the crackles, pops, and the bass effect- where there seems to be something wrong with the speakers or earphones at every thud of bass, because of the compression. So its listenable, but only for certain music I find.

<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I've heard a lot of people comment that decks are far better than the portables. Since the process is digital I'm not clear on way that is. I suspect that its the playback is better, and that theres no difference in the actual encoding. In the same way a cheap CD sounds worse than a quality CD deck. But I'm only guessing.

why is there no choice to listen at 192k i use it all the time. it sounds much better than lp2

[sfbp]

Why do we keep getting :new content: on this post only to find no new postings. Maybe the poll should be closed? Just my $0.02

Merry Christmas (and custard) to all!

Stephen

[Levanel]

I step down depending on the source quality and whether I want a compilation.

[Giant_Rick]

I transfer cassettes/LPs in Atrac3+ @ 256 (Hi-SP) and then convert to mp3 for my convenience.

When recording a gig I usually record in PCM quality if the show lasts less than 94 mins, otherwise I record in Hi-SP.. I can barely hear the difference.

I have a MD recorded at the lowest bitrate.. it sounds nice with some EQ on my NH900.

Hi-SP is a great deal to me.

[Guest Gray Rider]

I always use 256k and always through simple burner because I think it gives a smoother sound. It's a good compromise to get space. It sounds like a good version of compression that I can be happy with. I only wish sony would make a blu-ray minidisc player so I can move up to PCM.