Hi-LP

[MDGB2]

Listening to MP3 files that were burned on a CD as .WAV without conversion, then transferred to Hi-LP using Simple Burner2.

With a pair of Sennheiser HD590 phones.........wow.

Not bad at all, an I'm usually quite picky about mi sound.

Edited November 19, 2005 by MDGB2

[Sparky191]

Must have borrowed Harry Potters HiMD.

[sebastianbf]

do the same but transer to hisp. WOW the difference is amazing!

[e1ghtyf1ve]

Must have borrowed Harry Potters HiMD.

That's pretty funny, but oh please. Sound is subjective and relative. Some folks try Hi-LP expecting 64k mp3 sound and are pleasantly surprised at the results, and that's all. Newer technology sometimes works better, ya know!

Cheers

[MDGB2]

Harry Potter my ****.

I'm not trying to say Hi-LP is acceptable for serious listening (lets face it, that can't be achieved on a portable anyway) and I know Hi-SP is miles better however:

This is the first time I've tested Hi-LP with a quality output (~£150 headphones) and it did allright.

The basis of this is so I can fit 40+ CDs on two Hi-MDs to use at work/travelling to.

For that purpose it is more than exceptable, especially with the new 'Atrac Lossless.'

Sounds more like 128-160kbps MP3 than 64kbps audio.

Edited November 20, 2005 by MDGB2

[greenmachine]

I've recently recorded my first lecture in Hi-LP and must say it's almost transparent for sources without extensive high-frequency content like speech. It's more than sufficient if your main intent is to 'get the information'. I wouldn't use it for quality demanding applications like recording or listening to music though.

[The Low Volta]

not to meddle in any (pointless?? 'cause sound appreciation, just as taste is quite relative and one should use what one thinks is good for him/her) discussions... but I thought we had settled it that the whole "atrac lossless + bitrates" idea somewhat defeated the point of lossless, as it seamingly only is lossless when played back from PC... but then it is actually lossless and not connected to any bitrate and should be compared to wavpack, flac etc. or even PCM/wav and definitely not to any lossy codec, and when transferred to HiMD (or any other DAP's) only the lossy part (as indicated by the chosen bitrate) is used, so there is no point in using the lossless version whatsoever (hold the enhanced transferring speed perhaps... hasn't been measured extensively)

so either compare HiLP on the DAP to other lossy codecs or compare the lossless played back through PC to other lossless/raw methods... then you have a comparison... but saying that atrac lossless 64kbps (played through PC) sounds better than (*edit) as good as a 128-160kbps MP3 so atrac 64kbps sounds better than (*edit) as good as MP3's at a higher bitrate is just as correct as saying that a CD which you intend to rip to MP3 at a rediculous low bitrate sounds better than (*edit) as good as HiSP ergo MP3 is better than (*edit) as good as atrac3+ whatever the bitrates used... (remember kids... this is sarcasm! but without the intent to harm!!)... (*edit)I have made these changes to quote MDGB2 correctly, though "better" would fit in there just as well, as I am only stating the obvious! This whole paragraph simply means that there is no 64kbps lossless on PC or HiMD... just HiLP (=64kbps = lossy) on HiMD and lossless (= lossless = no bitrate, just data compression) on PC and one has to remember that when comparing different encodings of the same music

personally, I think HiLP could be used for speech etc. but as HiSP gives me 8 hours, recordings can easily be uploaded and discs re-used on and on... I really cannot justify using it at any time... sorry

- recordings (even speech) to me are precious enough to use the best bitrate I can... and I do not need to record more than 8 hours without a chance to change discs ... ever in my entire life I think

- for listening with my panasonics, I can even hear the difference between 132 and 256 on a Belgian train, so I definitely cannot justify HiLP... and for storage space... discs are switchable and I always travel with a bag and carry at least three 1gb discs (= 24 hours of music in HiSP = enough!)

so put away the handbags and simply use what you can tolerate... hell, if HiLP works for you, enjoy it... do not ruin the experience by discussing it till you can't listen to t anymore without a bitter aftertaste

*edit: fixed my comment after MDGB2's remark just to be correctly quoting others, but this is actually a bit besides the point I was trying to make, which BTW still remains... I do not take a stand in the atrac><MP3 discussion (please read my post again carefully if you think I did)...I just wanted to point out that one should make sure that one is comparing things that can be compared (lossless><lossless and lossy ><lossy)

Edited November 20, 2005 by The Low Volta

[MDGB2]

so either compare HiLP on the DAP to other lossy codecs or compare the lossless played back through PC to other lossless/raw methods... then you have a comparison... but saying that atrac lossless 64kbps (played through PC) sounds better than a 128-160kbps MP3 so atrac 64kbps sounds better than MP3's at a higher bitrate is just as correct as saying that a CD which you intend to rip to MP3 at a rediculous low bitrate sounds better than HiSP ergo MP3 is better than atrac3+ whatever the bitrates used... (remember kids... this is sarcasm! but without the intent to harm!!)

I said like those bitrates, not better than. The Hi-LP codec cannot go as far as higher quality mp3 but can hold its own at the lower end.

Still a nicer sound than my cr@ppy cheap MP3 player that I currently use at work, and thats why I see Hi-LP as an alternative for this use. All my other stuff is done in LP2 or Hi-SP.

Edited November 20, 2005 by MDGB2

[Sparky191]

The process is illogical. Nothing subjective about it. Transcoding reduces SQ. Encoding from an original CD or WAV recording to ATRAC makes sense. Transcoding a MP3 to ATRAC doesn't.

The only reason you would do that is if you don't have the original source, or you have it already ripped to MP3. If thats the case and you have 40+ CD's of the stuff, and you have any interest in SQ (given that you mention the 'phones I assume you do) then you need to buy a better MP3 player, or re-encode it to ATRAC. Not transcode it. If the issue is capacity and you simply want more music on the device, then a large capacity HD is the way to go.

Given your requirements Seems odd to choose a HiMD, which sounds best with ATRAC not MP3 and isn't best suited to large music libraries. Small capacity and slow transfer rates. However if you are happy with the sound of transcoded stuff to HiLP, then who am I to rain on your parade. But you posted here to discuss it.

You left out some critical info. What is the source material, and whats the MP3 player.

Edited November 21, 2005 by Sparky191