Alexx Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 1411 KBPS is an ATRAC3+ but is also used in CDs and WAVsthey are 100% pure352 KBPS is an ATRAC3+ "lossless". How can this be if CD music is recorded @ 1411 kbps292 is ATRAC Its lossy, but very very good. Infact some say it's better than 256256 ATRAC 3+ Is a lossy compression: but is very good.the new sonic stage has enhanced / improved all the other bitrates Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommypeters Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 No, you don't have any ATRAC3+ at 1411kbps - it's uncompressed PCM.352kbps is ATRAC3+, but not lossless.You may be thinking of the new lossless variants that has two parts, each file has a lossless and a lossy part. The lossy part gives the name to the codec, and it's the lossy part that is transferred to your Hi-MD. The lossless part is (mainly) used for playing music on your computer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexx Posted November 22, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 ok i am lostnevermind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky191 Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 (edited) ATRAC is audio compression algorithm. Another one is MP3 and another one ACC (iPods) for example. There are different version of ATRAC as it was improved over the years. ATRAC1, ATRAC3, ATRAC3, ATRAC3+. From that you will see that ATRAC3+ is the latest one. Most common ATRAC3+ bitrates are352kps256kps (HiSP)64kps (HiLPPCM is not a ATRAC format and is an uncompressed format of the same quality as a CD. WAV is more or less the same. HiMD can also play and record this format. But it has nothing to do with ATRAC. These might be helpful..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATRAC or http://www.minidisc.org/hi-md_faq.html#_q93 Edited November 22, 2005 by Sparky191 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexx Posted November 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2005 can anyone tell the diffrence between 352, old 292 or modern 256? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercury_in_flames Posted November 28, 2005 Report Share Posted November 28, 2005 im sure u can if u listen really really really hard with extremelly detailed headphones, but i cant so i dont bother with the higher bit rates on my hd5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zerodB Posted November 30, 2005 Report Share Posted November 30, 2005 1411 KBPS is an ATRAC3+ but is also used in CDs and WAVsthey are 100% pureIt's PCM, but in an OpenMG header, if that makes sense. So it's just like a WAV file, or the data from your CD. But wrapped in all the same compression and file-type nonsense that ATRAC3+ files are in. And yes you're right, it's uncompressed. Lossless.292 is ATRAC Its lossy, but very very good. Infact some say it's better than 256292 is the old SP mode on normal MD. You can't use it with SonicStage, and on 2nd generation HiMD models. Some prefer the old SP sound to HiSP 256 ATRAC 3+ because of the colour it adds to the sound, but in reality HiSP is pretty much the same as SP in terms of quality. Perhaps one is infitessimly better than the other, but if you can check it, you must have good ears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KJ_Palmer Posted November 30, 2005 Report Share Posted November 30, 2005 (edited) I'm using 352k in my recordings these days, but just to be 'on the safe side'. Really speaking for portable use there is little practical difference between 352k and 256k. At home with decent headphones I often imagine I can tell the difference, but I dont have any 'scientific' data to back that up...SP (292k) is mostly relevent for older (non-Hi-MD) MD units and was the best quality available on minidisc until last year. Like 352k it's practically indistinguishable from an original CD if recorded 'realtime' and digitally. 1st generation Hi-MD units could play and record in realtime to SP, though the latest Hi-MDs can only play back SP. As SP is (sadly) not downloadable, the Sony network walkmans can't play SP at all... Edited November 30, 2005 by KJ_Palmer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky191 Posted November 30, 2005 Report Share Posted November 30, 2005 (edited) can anyone tell the diffrence between 352, old 292 or modern 256?Well I can. But its not much of a difference. HiSP (256) is good enough and so much easier to manage via SS and HiMD that its not worth the hassle of using 352 or 292. In my opinion anyway. Some people are happy with 64kps. Edited November 30, 2005 by Sparky191 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pug Posted November 30, 2005 Report Share Posted November 30, 2005 One thing I have never understood about PCM/WAV is why it is "uncompressed" As it is 1411kbps, wouldn't 2000kbps sound better? Or even 1412kbps?Also whats's the business with 44.1khz and 48khz would 200Khz be better than the lot?Sorry if I'm a little over simplified on these things, but why is Wav 1411kbps 44.1khz the defacto uncompressed?CheersPug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenmachine Posted November 30, 2005 Report Share Posted November 30, 2005 Every digitalized audio file is compressed/divided into bits, no matter how high the resolution. 44.1/16 pcm/wav is just uncompressed relative to CD resolution/bitrate, which itself is of course digitalized/compressed. It's all relative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Low Volta Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 it is (as greenmachine said) just a case of chosen standards...at one time the CD-audio specs got accepted as standards for audio... and as far as I understand it every codec that:- tries to keep the same sound (accoustic transparancy) while reducing the bitrate (and data) is called lossy as it ditches data/info which isn't 'really heard'... of course the (sound) quality can vary enormously by the bitrate and the codec used (wma < MP3 @ the same bitrate and 48kbps<320kbps)- keeps the exacte same data (and thus sound quality) is called lossless like PCM and wav which are uncompressed and take up the exact same space as the track would on an audio CDThen there are some compressed lossless formats (like monkeyaudio, flac, wavepack,...) that save space by means of data compression (somewhat like 'zip') which means that they do not remove stuff that is supposedly inaudible, but they use repetition and other things in the raw data patterns (so '11111111111111111111' becomes '20x1') to simplify/shorten data... this type of codec really requires decoding before being playable, but this could even be done in a portable DAP (some models can play flac for example) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MusicBringer Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 ... and as far as I understand it... Low Volta, another well written piece..!! It helped me a lot. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexx Posted December 2, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2005 Wait....I thought WMAs were of BETTER quality than mp3s?The lowest MP3 you can really listen to is 128kbpswhere as WMAs (like atrac) arse acceptable down to 64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Low Volta Posted December 2, 2005 Report Share Posted December 2, 2005 I thought WMAs were of BETTER quality than mp3s?The lowest MP3 you can really listen to is 128kbpswhere as WMAs (like atrac) arse acceptable down to 64well... I must admit that I haven't really used a lot of codecs for more than just small tests and even then I never used anything under 128kbps...everbut as I understood it from other (more knowledgable ) ppl, WMA is quite ok at lower bitrates, but once we enter the bitrate levels in which you actually want to listen to music (so 128+ and more like 256 etc.) it starts to fail, whereas a good encoded (lame) VBR MP3 with a avarage bitrate the same as the WMA sounds better by far...then again, this is somewhat speculation on my side, as I actually only use HiSP for listening (haven't got an MP3 player or something and no PC-music-library) and PCM/HiSP to recordall in all I simply used it as an illustration of my explanation...please feel free to fill in the correct coedcs according to your taste while reading Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky191 Posted December 2, 2005 Report Share Posted December 2, 2005 WMA is not widely supported by players. I wouldn't use it as a basis for a library for that reason alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zerodB Posted December 3, 2005 Report Share Posted December 3, 2005 Microsoft claim that WMA is better than MP3 at identical bitrates. I personally feel such a claim to be a little optomistic, especially since Microsoft also claim 96kbps WMA to be "CD Quality". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexx Posted December 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2005 Microsoft claim that WMA is better than MP3 at identical bitrates. I personally feel such a claim to be a little optomistic, especially since Microsoft also claim 96kbps WMA to be "CD Quality".My oppinion of very low (<100kbps) compressions:WMA>ATRAC>MP3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrius Posted December 8, 2005 Report Share Posted December 8, 2005 Microsoft also says an Xbox 360 is the solution to all your problems and that you can't be happy without one.The only use I have for WMA is when I convert from FLAC to WMA lossless in order to import and transfer to HI-MD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky191 Posted December 8, 2005 Report Share Posted December 8, 2005 Microsoft also says an Xbox 360 is the solution to all your problems and that you can't be happy without one.The only use I have for WMA is when I convert from FLAC to WMA lossless in order to import and transfer to HI-MD.Why WMA lossless and not just WAV? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexx Posted December 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 11, 2005 WAV files are really huge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky191 Posted December 12, 2005 Report Share Posted December 12, 2005 WAV files are really hugeDOH!... Note to self...Must put brain in gear before posting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexx Posted December 15, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2005 DOH!... Note to self...Must put brain in gear before posting... Its fine my tooth really hurts has anyone got DF118 or at least an Aspirin 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.