ATRAC Advanced Lossless format, works?

[lecram1971]

A question, the Atrac Lossles fomat really work?

can you use SS 3.3 for storagin the songs in "My Library" in Atrac Lossles format and then transfer to Hi-Md in any Bit rate as if it were in WAV format with the same loss of quality, of course?

[dex Otaku]

AAL appears to work the exact opposite of what you'd expect, making it almost completely useless.

The useful way would be for it to have a lossless copy along with a compressed copy at your most commonly used bitrate in one file, so when you go to download it to your player it doesn't have to transcode... and if you want to download a different bitrate, it would use the lossless copy as the source for trancoding. The lossless copy gets used for playback in SS at all times.

It does -almost- all of that, except for one thing: if you want to download at a bitrate other than the one you selected as your "default" compression, it transcodes the compressed copy rather than the lossless copy.

What this means is that the only use for the lossless copy is for listening from SS; it doesn't get used for anything else.

If you store things in your library using WAV/uncompressed, it transcodes to whatever bitrate you select from the uncompressed source, meaning it's always using the best possible quality the codecs can produce.

[The Low Volta]

the most effective way possible with SS is to store stuff in WMA lossless, as this format is lossless compressed and also understood by SS so you can save space without losing data and without the need for pre-decoding to wav (which other lossless compressions like flac/wavepack/... would require)

[bigboki]

Yesterday I tried AAL, and it produce between 30% and 50% larger files then flac.

I tried also compress into AAL decompress back to wav, and at the first try I've got different sizes BUT then I realize that I added album/song info into the ALL compressed files. When I did ALL compress for decompressed WAV and then decompress of those files I've got exactly the same files.

But since compression size wise is 30 to 50% worse then FLAC, I don't plan to use it for now.

Sincerely yours

Bojan

[hpmoon]

AAL appears to work the exact opposite of what you'd expect, making it almost completely useless.

The useful way would be for it to have a lossless copy along with a compressed copy at your most commonly used bitrate in one file, so when you go to download it to your player it doesn't have to transcode... and if you want to download a different bitrate, it would use the lossless copy as the source for trancoding. The lossless copy gets used for playback in SS at all times.

It does -almost- all of that, except for one thing: if you want to download at a bitrate other than the one you selected as your "default" compression, it transcodes the compressed copy rather than the lossless copy.

What this means is that the only use for the lossless copy is for listening from SS; it doesn't get used for anything else.

If you store things in your library using WAV/uncompressed, it transcodes to whatever bitrate you select from the uncompressed source, meaning it's always using the best possible quality the codecs can produce.

Can you definitively assert, however, that the process of saving an ATRAC Lossless file to WAV format, either directly into a file or onto a CD burn, only draws from the low-bitrate share of the file and not the lossless portion? This is a very important distinction.

[Qwakrz]

When copying to the Hi-MD it uses the compressed section, if you rip in AAL using 64kbps and then select to transfer at 352 to the minidisc you get a warning about quality being poor as you are going from low bitrate to high.

When transcoding to WAV I believe it uses the lossless part as well but this is almost pointless as you should already have the original.

The only use I can see is for compressing PCM captures from Hi-MD but even then you cant copy them back to the Hi-MD in the original quality once you compress them and get rid of the original.

[hpmoon]

When copying to the Hi-MD it uses the compressed section, if you rip in AAL using 64kbps and then select to transfer at 352 to the minidisc you get a warning about quality being poor as you are going from low bitrate to high.

When transcoding to WAV I believe it uses the lossless part as well but this is almost pointless as you should already have the original.

The only use I can see is for compressing PCM captures from Hi-MD but even then you cant copy them back to the Hi-MD in the original quality once you compress them and get rid of the original.

Thanks for the reply -- I am taking exception to this generally, but to avoid cross-posting, please read my reply here: Link

[greenshank]

the most effective way possible with SS is to store stuff in WMA lossless, as this format is lossless compressed and also understood by SS so you can save space without losing data and without the need for pre-decoding to wav (which other lossless compressions like flac/wavepack/... would require)

I may be missing something here but as far as I can see, SS 3.4 won't rip CDs using a lossless WMA codec. The best it offers is 192. But perhaps you're suggesting we only use SS for writing, and something else like WMP for ripping?

[The Low Volta]

there are heaps of other applications to rip CD's... I prefer to use Exact Audio copy which is the most accurate as far as I know... It rips to lots of formats, including WMA (through the settings -> compression -> external encoder WMA9)

[greenshank]

there are heaps of other applications to rip CD's... I prefer to use Exact Audio copy which is the most accurate as far as I know... It rips to lots of formats, including WMA (through the settings -> compression -> external encoder WMA9)

You've got me worried now. Most accurate? Lossless is lossless, surely? Still, I'll try it out. Thanks.

[greenshank]

there are heaps of other applications to rip CD's... I prefer to use Exact Audio copy which is the most accurate as far as I know... It rips to lots of formats, including WMA (through the settings -> compression -> external encoder WMA9)

Ok, maybe a stupid question, but where do I find WMA9? I have WMP9; does that include WMA9, and if so, where is it so I can tell EAC where to find it?

And what is it with EAC's wacky drop-downs? They disappear again as soon as you try to use them. Fortunately you can get round this by dragging to the option that you want, but still...

[zerodB]

You've got me worried now. Most accurate? Lossless is lossless, surely? Still, I'll try it out. Thanks.

Yes, lossless is lossless. But EAC can rip your CDs into the lossless format of your choice more accuratley, compensating for read errors and other glitches that happen in the process.

[greenshank]

Yes, lossless is lossless. But EAC can rip your CDs into the lossless format of your choice more accuratley, compensating for read errors and other glitches that happen in the process.

Call me a crusty old pedant, but I would be tempted to describe that as reliable, not accurate.

I still want to know where to find WMA9; a search of my hard disc revealed nothing, and a google for "wma9 download" didn't help.

I wouldn't care, except that I have had WMP rips produce nasty glitches.

[The Low Volta]

If I select WMA9 as the external encoder in EAC it grays out the box in which you need to select the path to the encoder (i.e. it knows where it is)

so I dunno what's wrong with your installation of EAC, but it ain't the way it is supposed to work I guess

PS: about reliable><accurate: I think it is accurate as EAC will reproduce the bits on the CD more accurately than other rippers... which makes it more reliable

sure any lossless codec should be perfectly accurate compared with the wav you could rip from the CD, but with EAC this wav is more accurate compared to the CD itself, hence any lossless codec coupled to an EAC-rip is more accurate than another lossless rip when compared to the original CD

[greenshank]

If I select WMA9 as the external encoder in EAC it grays out the box in which you need to select the path to the encoder (i.e. it knows where it is)

I apologise, it seems I can't see beyond the end of my nose. I was going to claim that I didn't have WMA9 on that drop-down, but there it is. Hurrah, time to do a lot of re-ripping!

PS: about reliable><accurate: I think it is accurate as EAC will reproduce the bits on the CD more accurately than other rippers... which makes it more reliable

Cough, I would say that it reproduces them more reliably, which makes it more accurate. (This could run and run... no, enough!)

[hpmoon]

sure any lossless codec should be perfectly accurate compared with the wav you could rip from the CD, but with EAC this wav is more accurate compared to the CD itself, hence any lossless codec coupled to an EAC-rip is more accurate than another lossless rip when compared to the original CD

In a related thread, Qwakrz wrote that any lossless compression means fundamentally that you get the exact same WAV out that you put in, end of story. The assertion contradicts what you wrote above. I'm going with Qwakrz's analysis.

[eriktous]

No, it doesn't contradict what The Low Volta said. He and Qwakrz are talking about two seperate steps on the ripping process.

Qwakrz is talking about taking a wav file, compressing it with a lossless codec and then decompressing it. The resulting file will be identical to the original wav.

Volta is talking about creating this original wav file from a track on a cd. He states that using EAC will give you a wav that better resembles the track on cd than other ripping software does.

[zerodB]

Volta is talking about creating this original wav file from a track on a cd. He states that using EAC will give you a wav that better resembles the track on cd than other ripping software does.

Yep, that's what I was trying to say. WAV (or compressed lossless) file that better resembles the original CD data = more accurate.

[The Low Volta]

thanks eriktous and zerodB... that was indeed what I meant, but I guess hpmoon has a hard time believing any of my remarks

[dex Otaku]

I use EAC because of it's accurate ripping, error-correction [i have CDs from the 80s which are now irreplaceable and suffer bit rot .. which EAC has successfully saved] .. and most of all because it compensates for read offset, which means you can rip with frame-accuracy.

Admittedly, most optical drives now do a good enough job that this isn't that crucial with CDs that are in good condition, but it really bugs me when programs that are made for consumers can't, say, rip a single track from the middle of a CD without completely buggering up where the beginning and end are.

EAC also rips full disc images that perfectly match cuesheets, which is important to me, because I make burning masters [FLAC disc-image file with embedded cuesheet and full tags plus comments] for people of their shows.

There are other programs that do this as well. I know a number of people who use CDex, for instance, though I have never used it myself.

My one complaint about EAC is its interface oddities, but having been an OSS user since before linux even existed, I've gotten used to the relatively ugly faces of many programs which, underneath, were so vastly better than commercial offerings that the oddities seem rather unimportant by comparison.

Oops. Off-topic, heh.

[The Low Volta]

I have suggested in this thread to use EAC -> WMA-lossless so you can build a lossless library that can be used in SS without any prior reconversions. I personally stick with this (even though I have much more sympathy for opensource stuff like flac and wavpack and I would switch the minute SS enables support for those)... but thanks to greenshank I've noticed a little problem with my suggestion... it doesn't work

well, it does, but EAC can't use the encoder built in WMP to create WMA-lossless files. Even though the WMA9 encoder is listed in the dropdown menu, this only gives wav-files and a very briefly flashing error that converting to WMA didn't work. I had forgotten about this as I had set EAC up a long time ago and once functional... problems like this slip easily out of your mind...

So here's the solution to use a great ripping tool (EAC) for building a library in WMA-lossless:

- install the Windows Media (WME) external encoder (download can be found here but it does need a microsoft genuine check... )

- after you have installed the WME, just set EAC compression to 'use an external encoder'

- select 'Microsoft WMA9 encoder' out of the dropdown list (now it will find/use the encoder needed!)

- select bitrate = lossless

- leave the 'program path' (greyed out so you can't actually fill in this one) and 'command line' blank

- check 'delete wav' and the 'control' checkboxes if you want to (I would advise to use 'delete wav', as otherwise your HD might be full pretty quick)

So now get ripping

Edited March 5, 2006 by The Low Volta

[hpmoon]

thanks eriktous and zerodB... that was indeed what I meant, but I guess hpmoon has a hard time believing any of my remarks

No, just a hard time trusting your remarks, since you appear to be setting the threshold for deliberation within this forum at "belief" (a context synonymous with deification). The objective reality is that there are arguments on both sides of this issue, and even if the thrust of almost every ATRAC Lossless thread in this forum is anti-ATRAC Lossless, one wonders why anybody here chooses to buy ATRAC devices. The name of this domain is minidisc.org, and the manufacturer (almost exclusively) is Sony. ATRAC Lossless is Sony's latest compromise codec that streamlines the user experience for selectively transferring content onto portable media players without re-encoding and (most importantly, since time is money for most of us) without waiting. The technical arguments here dance around that issue without fully respecting it as the fundamental virtue for mainstream use.

The thing I always find most hilarious about arguments that portend to operate outside the "mainstream" use is that your net result is a perfection in reproducing bland and muddy recordings. That result associates with the musical tastes of the forum-lurker. My impression on that score would alter if I started reading case examples here about how new, recent productions -- for Philip Glass, Michael Gordon, Fixmer-McCarthy, Recoil, Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, Cowboy Junkies, John Zorn, Kronos Quartet, John Adams -- are more faithfully reproduced this-way-or-that, but as it is, I think that you're all comparing results based on how transfers sound of the Rolling Stones, Steppenwolf, Spyro Gyra, Aerosmith, other long-hair rock, and maybe soul music to spice. Not to mention that gorgeous Romantic Favorites of the Violin disc.

All of the above is an attempt to introduce pragmatism and conscience into this otherwise strongly coagulated discussion against ATRAC Lossless. OK?

[greenshank]

I have suggested in this thread to use EAC -> WMA-lossless so you can build a lossless library that can be used in SS without any prior reconversions. I personally stick with this

...

but thanks to greenshank I've noticed a little problem with my suggestion... it doesn't work

...

So here's the solution to use a great ripping tool (EAC) for building a library in WMA-lossless

And while I have privately already thanked T. L. Volta for his help on this, I have also had to note that, although SS can handle WMA-lossless, it can't do it gaplessly. As has been mentioned elsewhere, apparently the only way to retain gapless tracks is to feed SS with WAVs. So I'm hoping for a pointer to a good tool for reconverting the lossless WMAs back to WAV (or else some other cunning plan).

[mhousel]

And while I have privately already thanked T. L. Volta for his help on this, I have also had to note that, although SS can handle WMA-lossless, it can't do it gaplessly. As has been mentioned elsewhere, apparently the only way to retain gapless tracks is to feed SS with WAVs. So I'm hoping for a pointer to a good tool for reconverting the lossless WMAs back to WAV (or else some other cunning plan).

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...&displaylang=en

[greenshank]

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...&displaylang=en

Good grief, Microsoft produced something that does exactly what I want? Whatever next? (Come to think of it though, it was Microsoft who supplied the WME in the first place.)

Thanks markbh!

Edited March 7, 2006 by greenshank

[Ryzir]

One thing that bothers me about using the WMA Lossless > Atrac conversion is that it does not retain gapless playback. (I haven't tried this on 3.4 though just 3.2)

edit: sorry missed greenshank's post.

The way I convert into atrac (and will until there is a easier way) is to burn my Flac files with Nero into an Image file (with the 2 second gap removed) then mount the file using Nero Image drive and import using SoncStage. This method takes a little longer but so far is the best way I have found to do the conversion.

Also I only rip with EAC, even to rip with EAC then make an image file of those files I just ripped to import into SonicStage. It does sound much better and is more consistent.

Greenshank metiones that importing WAV files into SS then converting retains the gaplessness. This wasn't the case when I tested in 3.2. Anyhow it's a pain to delete certain files out of SS and by making an Image and importing I can make use of CDDB which saves a bunch of time.

I wish that Sony would support FLAC and conversion to Atrac retaining gapless playback.

Anyhow that's my $.02

Edited March 8, 2006 by Ryzir

[Sparky191]

...The objective reality is that there are arguments on both sides of this issue...

EAC produces a more acurate copy of the Audio on a CD than other Rippers. What other argument?

and even if the thrust of almost every ATRAC Lossless thread in this forum is anti-ATRAC Lossless, one wonders why anybody here chooses to buy ATRAC devices. The name of this domain is minidisc.org, and the manufacturer (almost exclusively) is Sony. ATRAC Lossless is Sony's latest compromise codec that streamlines the user experience for selectively transferring content onto portable media players without re-encoding and (most importantly, since time is money for most of us) without waiting. The technical arguments here dance around that issue without fully respecting it as the fundamental virtue for mainstream use.

Fundamentally ATRAC Lossless is broken in SS 3.4 Wheres the virtue?

Doesn't matter what the source material is if the CD is mastered badly, its copied, ripped and encoded equally badly, then listened in a typical noisy portable enviroment with nasty earphones or speakers. You seem to be suggesting genre has some impact on quality. Or that modern recordings are better than old ones.

http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/...6256C2E005DAF1C

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=103702