Jump to content

MP3 vs ATRAC3+

Rate this topic


Sony_Fan

Recommended Posts

Why is it that MP3s transferred to Hi-MD don't sound as good as ATRAC3+? I transferred a song @ 256kbps in both formats, but the ATRAC3+ version sounds more CD like. But when I play the track on my computer they both sound the same. Is Sony intentionally making MP3 and WMA sound worse? It almost feels like they're forcing us to use ATRAC if we want clear sound quality. Anyone else notice this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DaikenTana, lol nice pic. i can think of only one reason sony wants you to use atrac if all this is true. one acronym for ya, DRM ... .digital rights management :bad: as far as im concerned, as long as you arent sharing the music illegally, you should be able to use what ever format you want. i use to download music, but even when i did, id download the entire album then if i liked it , id buy it. thats how i built my collection up ;) i now have spent over $500 on cds, and much more online for buying my music. so, it was a way for the artists to get their music on the net, and people will buy the music if theyve heard the songs. kinda like fm radio use to be, or still is. anyway, i guess your going to have to use atrac or just live with the mp3's degraded quality (it sucks i know) but, what can you do that wont void your warrenty? :blink:

-brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can use the EQ but it still doesnt have a crisp sounding treble as the upper frequencies have been completly removed (presumably to make space for DRM information), dex Otaku's graphs show this nicely. Your best off transcoding the mp3s to ATRAC even though you will loose some quality, in my opinion it will sound better as the treble will not be lacking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can use the EQ but it still doesnt have a crisp sounding treble as the upper frequencies have been completly removed (presumably to make space for DRM information), dex Otaku's graphs show this nicely. Your best off transcoding the mp3s to ATRAC even though you will loose some quality, in my opinion it will sound better as the treble will not be lacking.

Sony's "cutting the treble" doesn't save any space. It's just there to show the..uhm...superiority of ATRAC, and give the misguided souls (that would be us) - a guiding hand and some gentle prodding to GO FORTH AND SPREAD THE GOOD WORD by choosing it :)

And it's not gonna work in a million years for them. If anything, it's just pissing people off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Sony's "cutting the treble" doesn't save any space. It's just there to show the..uhm...superiority of ATRAC, and give the misguided souls (that would be us) - a guiding hand and some gentle prodding to GO FORTH AND SPREAD THE GOOD WORD by choosing it :)

And it's not gonna work in a million years for them. If anything, it's just pissing people off.

Because mp3 is not a hi-format and atrac is (debatable either way) - the high frequency noise artifacts present in mp3 are filtered out in an attempt to not get that 'tinny' effect you get from some poorly encoded (or multiply transcoded) mp3s. As you don't generally multiply transcode omg files (as up to SS3.4 they have not been designed to be shared like mp3s) thrancoding and thus a 'lo-fi' effect is not such a great problem. Thus the treble is not limited.

Qyuite simply atrac sounds better than mp3 on a Hi-MD. However a first generation mp3 file at the same bit rate as an omg file sounds practically the same if both a burnt on a CD and played through a proper CD player.

Advice:- Don't use mp3s on Hi-MD!!! <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because mp3 is not a hi-format and atrac is (debatable either way) - the high frequency noise artifacts present in mp3 are filtered out in an attempt to not get that 'tinny' effect you get from some poorly encoded (or multiply transcoded) mp3s.

So Sony were trying to make mp3 sound better than it is lol :blink: mabye they should have left as it was so that people would get pissed off with poorly encoded mp3 files and buy the original cd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What?

ATRAC is a lossy Codec as is MP3. They should sound equally good if encoded

properly. Both are lossy and neither is HiFi. Though 99% of people won't be able to tell the difference from a good ATRAC/MP3 file from the original CD even with the right amp/headphones and enviroment.

Thats ignoring ATRAC lossless which you can't put on a HiMD or indeed any portable anyway so doesn't count. There are many lossless file formats and until recently ATRAC wasn't one of them. It sounds good, and its enjoyable. But don't kid yourself its HiFi. It isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What?

ATRAC is a lossy Codec as is MP3. They should sound equally good if encoded

properly. Both are lossy and neither is HiFi. Though 99% of people won't be able to tell the difference from a good ATRAC/MP3 file from the original CD even with the right amp/headphones and enviroment.

Thats ignoring ATRAC lossless which you can't put on a HiMD or indeed any portable anyway so doesn't count. There are many lossless file formats and until recently ATRAC wasn't one of them. It sounds good, and its enjoyable. But don't kid yourself its HiFi. It isn't.

To me, everything that sounds good is HiFi. What's your definition of HiFi?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...