1kyle Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 I'm re-ripping my CD collection again into ATRAC3 Losseless --since SS 3.4 allows conversion of ATRAC3 lossless into WAV (and the other way around) you can get much better use of disk space on the computer.Doesn't seem to be a problem uploading the files either (no DRM issues).I'm not likely to be stuck with an "Unuseable" format since the ATRAC lossless converts to WAV again and this can of course be converted to any other format you like.Pity though the MD player won't play ATRAC 3 lossless directly -- maybe a "3rd Gen" unit might.If only Sony had given us SS 3.4 facilities say 2 years ago.I can't percieve any difference in quality from a CD ripped in WAV to a CD ripped in ATRAC lossless and converted to WAV (the ATRAC lossless was about 50% the size of the WAV file so lots of space savings without quality loss). Perhaps someone with an Oscilloscope or other gear --sound engineers out there -- could do a comparison -- but it certainly passes the "Ear" test.Cheers-K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwakrz Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 Just remember to rip all the tracks in ATL using the 352K option as converting from ATL to AT for copying onto an MD will use the lossy part & wont look at the lossless part.(ATL = Atrac Lossless, AT = Atrack or Atrack+) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1kyle Posted February 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 Just remember to rip all the tracks in ATL using the 352K option as converting from ATL to AT for copying onto an MD will use the lossy part & wont look at the lossless part.(ATL = Atrac Lossless, AT = Atrack or Atrack+)Thanks -- I was wondering why you could still select the bit rate -- anyway I had it set to the highest (352K)Cheers-K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielbb90 Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 (edited) Perhaps someone with an Oscilloscope or other gear --sound engineers out there -- could do a comparison -- but it certainly passes the "Ear" test.There is a digital one... I don't know how to use it but it saves looking for someone with a real one! Maby you should try that!http://polly.phys.msu.ru/~zeld/oscill.html Edited February 13, 2006 by danielbb90 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1kyle Posted February 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Thanks -- interesting app -- will download and try it.Cheers-K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zerodB Posted February 14, 2006 Report Share Posted February 14, 2006 I can't percieve any difference in quality from a CD ripped in WAV to a CD ripped in ATRAC lossless and converted to WAV (the ATRAC lossless was about 50% the size of the WAV file so lots of space savings without quality loss). You've missed the point - the reason it's called "lossless" is because no information or sound quality is lossed during compression. You won't be able to detect a difference between the orignal CD.The reason you can select a bitrate is because the "lossless" file actually contains a "lossy" track within the data at your selected bitrate. When transferring to MD, it transfers the lossy component of the track, but when you listen to the track on your computer, you're hearing the lossless version. It's a bit confusing, but this page auto clear things up: http://www.sony.net/Products/ATRAC3/tech/aal.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atheodo Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 SS 3.4 and the Atrac Lossless format are unebelievable. The sound quality is the best sound I have heard in a portable player ever. I am also re-ripping all my CDs, dare I say for the last time, what else they would come up with now that we have lossless? Also, I am transfering @ 352 bit rate on the HiMd now. My music sounds as if I am carrying a hiFi unit with me everywhere I go. Way to Go Sony!!!! Finally, they are getting it. Now, we are missing one last piece. APPLE/MACOSX support for the HiMd platform for music transfers. I know we can upload PCM recordings with the right equirment, but come on guys, we need to cross that last threshold, and then the world will have a shot at perfection :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky191 Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 S....My music sounds as if I am carrying a hiFi unit with me everywhere I go....I take it you've never heard a HiFi then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhousel Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 Just remember to rip all the tracks in ATL using the 352K option as converting from ATL to AT for copying onto an MD will use the lossy part & wont look at the lossless part.(ATL = Atrac Lossless, AT = Atrack or Atrack+)If I rip using the 352K option and then convert to 256K during transfer, will that give worse sound than if I ripped using 256K? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zerodB Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 If I rip using the 352K option and then convert to 256K during transfer, will that give worse sound than if I ripped using 256K?Yep, that's correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwakrz Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 Yep, that's correct.Yes you will get a generation loss but I think you'll be hard pushed to tell the difference.I rip in 352K now so that I have the best quality when I want it but can also goto lower bitrates when I want to fit more on a disc, e.g. for playback in work or on the move when you cant really hear the difference in quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_bass5 Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 Ok guys, ive been out of the MD scene for a while(well more the SS3 scene)am i right in thinking if i record through the mic on say a RH910 i can upload via SS3.4 direct to .wav or/and 352k or have i got this wrong?Thanks for any helpDave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky191 Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 You can't record in 352kps on a MD unit. Only in the HiLP (64kps) HiSP(356kps) and PCM(Wav). You can only get 352kps by converting from WAV in SonicStage. So obviously you can record in PCM then convert it to 352kps on the PC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What Happend Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 If I rip using the 352K option and then convert to 256K during transfer, will that give worse sound than if I ripped using 256K?It will sound the same. The track stored on the PC has the lossless and lossy 352K version. SonicStage should use the lossless version to do the 256K conversion because it saves time and has no generation loss. I assume you are talking about using the lossless codec with the 352K option since you quoted a lossless post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky191 Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 It will sound the same. The track stored on the PC has the lossless and lossy 352K version. SonicStage should use the lossless version to do the 256K conversion because it saves time and has no generation loss. I assume you are talking about using the lossless codec with the 352K option since you quoted a lossless post.Has it changed in 3.4? Because there is a bug in SonicStage 3.3 where the lossless version isn't used and it uses the 352k to transcode to 256k. Which is obviously worse then a straight rip from straight to 256k. This bug was talked about before on these forums. It renders the ATRAC lossless option pointless really. Unless you only listen to it on your PC and never transfer it. CD >>> 256K best quality352k >>> 256K = transcoded worseLossless 352k >>> 256K = the same as above (due to bug)Maybe its changed in 3.4? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommypeters Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 No, I haven't heard that it has changed. Having ATRAC Lossless (at least if it's the same as in 3.3) is similar to having one FLAC version and one lossy ATRAC3+ version of the song, the positive difference is only that you have one file for each song instead of two.If it was just a bug that should be corrected the lossy part of the file would be useless. The lossless part would then be used both for playback on computer and to convert from when transfering to Minidisc. The only reason for taking up the extra storage would be if you often transfer/erase because you have very few discs, if you want to have the same bitrate as already the lossy part is encoded into it could be transfered without any conversion at transfer time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhousel Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 Atrac Lossless would be more useful if you could transfer to minidisc in PCM (without saving as a wav file). I can't figure out why they wouldn't have that feature. 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.