SonicStage 3.4 bit rates

[ronil [mz nh1]]

Hi, I have recently upgraded from ss2 to ss3.4, and was wondering which bitrate to choose from. In ss3.4 I am pleased to find a better selection of bitrates compared to ss2.

Anyway, in ss2 I would simply transfer my mp3 files at 64kpbs Atrac3plus. But since i have a greater variety to choose from in ss3.4 i am a bit confused which rate to use.

Should I use the normal 64kpbs or 66kpbs Atrac?

I playback through my car stereo and sometimes find the volume of encoded tracks on the md low, even if the volume is at 24. So another part to this question is, if i use a higher bitrate, say 132 Atrac or 192, will my encoded tracks playback louder as they are better quality?

The final part to this is, if i use a higher bitrate such as 132 Atrac or 192, is there a large difference in the amount of space the files on the disc be that much larger? ie, better quality = larger files. If so how much larger?

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help me

[A440]

Atrac3Plus is the later codec and presumably better quality. Flip a coin if you're playing them in the car stereo--the difference probably isn't noticeable.

A higher bitrate won't make your tracks louder, only richer.

The bitrate governs the size of the file. 2 x 66 = 132, so you'll get half as much recording time. 3 x 64 = 192, so you'll get 1/3 the recording time. If you're listening in a car, the quality difference is probably lost anyway, so you might as well stick to the lower bitrate.

[greenmachine]

Also it depends on the quality of the mp3s. It wouldn't make much sense to transcode 64kbps mp3s to 192 kbps Atrac3+. For best quality at your bitrate of choice, it is best to begin with a lossless file (i.e. CD) whenever possible instead of transcoding from a lossy file. Car stereo's ain't usually that demanding though. Or get a mp3 player and you won't have to think about transcoding, bitrates, etc.

[ronil [mz nh1]]

ok, i understand now. thanks for the help, but in regards to normal encoding, what is the difference between a normal bitrate, eg 64kbps and an 64atrac3 bitrate?

also as most of the music i put on the md is mp3, usually 128 or 192kpbs, would this mean if i was using low bitrate i would not hear much degredation in sound quality over converting an mp3 @ 96 or 64kpbs at high bitrate?

[A440]

Every form of compression--mp3, atrac, ogg--involves decisions about what information to discard and what to keep. kbps is kilobytes per second: how much information is used to reproduce one second of music. Atrac3 and Atrac3plus simply make different decisions about what to pack into those 64 kilobytes. They may sound very marginally different, one may work better with certain kinds of music than others, etc. Practically speaking, in a moving car, there's no difference.

When you turn mp3 into Atrac you are compressing it again. The lower the bitrate, the more the sound degrades. If you wanted a perfect copy of your 128 kpbs mp3 file, you would do a lossless compression (.wav or .flac) and end up with a much bigger file because .wav takes about 10MB per minute. Mp3s at 96 or 64 sound pretty bad to begin with--you'd be making them worse, but a higher bitrate would preserve more of what was there in the mp3.

Imagine a photograph. An mp3 is a grainy photograph. An Atrac conversion of an mp3 is a grainy photograph of a grainy photograph. How much grain depends on both the original bitrate of the mp3 and the bitrate of the Atrac.

Edited March 5, 2006 by A440

[dex Otaku]

kbps is kilobytes per second

You mean kilobits, not bytes.

[xatax]

Nice short explanation A440. And about "Atrac 3" at 66 kbps and "Atrac 3 Plus" at 64 kbps, I would stick to the newer one, Atrac3+, which uses a more advanced compression algorythm.

What I do, (which is overkill) is to decompress my Mp3s to Wav PCM, usually with Winamp so I can use the Auto-Preset equalizers and DSP plugins in my Mp3s and equalize/normalize each song exactly the way I want to hear it. Then import them in SS and compress them in my bitrate of choice. It's interesting to see who bad SS treats already compressed files (read mp3, wma..) or other codecs in comparison with an uncompressed wav-file. It seems SS can't handle a good re-compression. I've found much better sounding results this way.

Edited March 6, 2006 by xatax

[Sparky191]

All encoders decode/uncompress the files before re-encoding them. Even transcoding in SS doesn't directly go MP3>>ATRAC. Decompressing them doesn't regain any quality that was lost originally it just has to do this in order to recompress it. So there should be no difference in going

MP3>WAV>ATRAC

or

MP3>ATRAC

as its fundamentally the exact same process. However tweaking the EQ and applying other effects in the middle is going seriously change the sound. It can only be very different from the source file.

Edited March 6, 2006 by Sparky191

[xatax]

All encoders decode/uncompress the files before re-encoding them. Even transcoding in SS doesn't directly go MP3>>ATRAC. Decompressing them doesn't regain any quality that was lost originally it just has to do this in order to recompress it. So there should be no difference in going

MP3>WAV>ATRAC

or

MP3>ATRAC

as its fundamentally the exact same process. However tweaking the EQ and applying other effects in the middle is going seriously change the sound. It can only be very different from the source file.

That's what I thought. But maybe the decompressor used in SS is not as good as the one used in Winamp for example. I wouldn't be much surprised if that's the case since that ridiculous MP3 implementation in SS, lowering the quality of the files just to "show" how much "better" atrac sounds in comparison to MP3... Sony is capable of obscure restrictions, we've seen it before.

Try it. As you said there should be no differences, but, without EQs or DSPs there's still a difference, at least to my ears. Maybe you'll be surprised.

[Sparky191]

64kpbs or 66kpbs Atrac? It doesn't really matter. Your are listening to terrible sound quality at that bit rate.

If Sony hobbled the decoding of MP3's it would effect their subsequent encoding to ATRAC. So thats not logical.

The obvious thing is to rip from the source CD. If you can't do that then forget about SQ.

Never underestimate the placebo effect.

[xatax]

Sometimes that quality is useful. Long recording times are for a large group of MD users the key factor of MDLP or HI-LP, interviews anyone? Why shouldn't someone choose the best sounding codec for their purpouse? (I can see in the future 60kbps sounding really cd-like.) Oh and Atrac Plus 64 sounds really better than Atrac3 66kbps.

Ok, it's not logical. It is as logical as Sony making mp3 sound like crap if they are not transcoded to their format. But hey, that's what happening, right?

To Sony, it really does sound logical to at least try to make you realize it's better to buy the CD or download it from their Connect store.

We see improvenments, but that doesn't mean Sony isn't still experiencing internal problems with their divisions.

And I really believe that a good ripped track, sounds indistinguishable to the source, so we really can talk about SQ.

[Sparky191]

The problem with the MP3 play back not that it "lowers" SQ but that a high pass filter is being applied. You can counter balance the effect using the EQ. Theres lots of posts and threads on this if you do a search. However from a development point of view its not logical to write two different MP3 decoders. It is logical to hobble MP3 playback to promote your own format.

The majority of people can't even tell the difference between the orignial CD (1411.2kps) and a decent bitrate 256-192kps file and thats a stright rip no transcoding. Yet you can hear the difference between 64kps and 66kps? But its mute point really Since both are terrible sound quality, it doesn't really matter which you use. Compounding this is that they are transcoded. Transcoding anything is bad, but to low bitrates like like 64/66kps is simply awful.

If you insist on using 64kpbs at least do a straight rip from the CD. It still won't be good, but it will be better than transcoding.

[greenmachine]

It doesn't really matter much if you encode directly from an uncompressed file (pcm) or a high resolution/bitrate compressed file (eg. 256kbps mp3) to a low resolution/bitrate file (eg. 64kbps atrac3+), the resulting quality will be almost identical (low in both cases). The degradation will be most obvious when transcoding a lossy file to a different lossy codec at approx. the same resolution/bitrate (eg. 128kbps mp3 to lp2).

[Shozzer]

It's all down to your ears. If you are happy with 64 or 66 Kps then use it! If it sounds ok then fill your discs to the full. If not then go for a higher bit rate. This is a very subjective field. How do you define awful? It all boils down to personal preference and provided you are happy with the sound then stick to it. Just enjoy the recording - whatever it is. If the sound quality (or lack of it) is getting in the way of enjoying it then look to improve it.

[Sparky191]

I would define SQ as the most true to the original source. Obviously if you are tone deaf then a low bitrate would be fine for you. But it fairness there is a general consensus that anyone with a decent ear, transparency starts about 192 and up, depending on the material, grunge vs classical etc.

It doesn't really matter much if you encode directly from an uncompressed file (pcm) or a high resolution/bitrate compressed file (eg. 256kbps mp3) to a low resolution/bitrate file (eg. 64kbps atrac3+), the resulting quality will be almost identical (low in both cases). The degradation will be most obvious when transcoding a lossy file to a different lossy codec at approx. the same resolution/bitrate (eg. 128kbps mp3 to lp2).

I agree. I'm only suggesting going from the CD because it will make more of a difference (even if its v.small) than decoding to wav outside of SS then re-encoding to 66kps. To be honest changing your headphones/car speaker would make a vast difference compared to the differences in methods of encoding lowbitrates.

To be honest I'm baffled why, if you can hear a difference between 64/66 kps that you haven't been driven to decent bitrates.

Edited March 8, 2006 by Sparky191

[ronil [mz nh1]]

Ok, im glad for your opinions and am surprised at the responses. Well to elaborate on my choices, the main thing for me initially was normal use of the md player, therefore i was just using relatively low bitrates to pack as many CDs onto the discs.

After experimenting with the bitrates, hi and low, i found little difference in SQ when playing through the headphones, but could only tell a difference when playing through line out.

But then my situation changed as my cd changer in my car packed up. The cost of replacing it was more than buying an adapter to use my md in the car. So i opted to go the md route.

Since my situation changed i was just curious as to whether there would be a big difference if i used a hi bitrate through playback in the car and would like to know if anyone else uses there md as i do for their car stereos, if so which bitrate do they use?

Thanks again for the replies

[Sparky191]

' date='Mar 8 2006, 06:29 PM' post='89941']

...

After experimenting with the bitrates, hi and low, i found little difference in SQ when playing through the headphones, but could only tell a difference when playing through line out...

What headphones are you using?

Are going through a cassette adapter or a line in on the car stereo.

[xatax]

Sparky, don't get me wrong, I know it sounds bad, really bad, I never use that bitrates for music or anything sonically complex. And because I can tell the difference between these bitrates, I'm sure you can. You just haven't tried enough. It's just that 64 Atrac3+ sounds better than 66 Atrac3 because it's a more advanced codec. That's all. So I recommended that if your were to use a low bitrate, choose 64kbps. But I really can't recommend anything lower than Atrac at 105 kbps for music.

[Sparky191]

Fair enuff.

[dgelting]

I don't know what all the fuss about bit rates is.

I am new to minidisc and audio compression in general, and when I got my minidisc recorder I did some trials of a song ripped from CD in a variety of bitrates. I wasn't using a very hifi stereo to listen, but I really could not tell much difference between any of the compressions and the source. I don't know if what is happening in the music has anything to do with it (ie. dynamics, variety of tones/frequencys) - It was just one of the tunes off of Van Morrison's Astral Weeks.

I don't think I have bad ears (I am a classical musician), but even if one does think the playback sounds bad, I don't understand why you wouldn't just play the original pressing of the album when you want to do serious listening?

My main reason for getting a minidisc was for the recording functions, and for that I use the PCM file system just because it's there, and I would of course want the best possible quality for my own recordings. But for portable audio player purposes, isn't the point of the portability capacity? I like having 35 hours on one disc - it would defeat the purpose if I had to bring along a wallet of minidiscs. Why not just bring your original CD's then and not bother with any transferring/compressing?

So, in the end, I'll just repeat Shozzer's comment that if it works for your purposes, use it.

[ronil [mz nh1]]

What headphones are you using?

Are going through a cassette adapter or a line in on the car stereo.

Im am using the original headphones for normal use, and in the car its line in

Edited March 9, 2006 by ronil [mz nh1]

[Sparky191]

Well the supplied earphones are rubbish so that would explain why you can't hear any difference with those. The fact you can tell a different using the line out would indicate that there IS a difference. Is up to you to decide what level of compression you are happy with.

dgelting - if you aren't using a decent hifi or earphones then they will limit what you can hear. As soon as you use decent a decent HiFi or earphones the difference should be very noticeable.

The fuss about bitrates is that you can still get a lot of music on a portable player and retain the quality pretty much close to the CD. Some people prefer quality over quantity. Thats a personal decision. A portable device simply makes your music portable. You decide the quality you are happy with. A lot of modern CD portables actually hsve worse sound than a MP3 player with a good bitrate. So you get neither portability or SQ.

As for 35hrs on one disc. Personally it would take me a month maybe more to listen to all that music. A month of listening at low SQ? No thanks. I tend to listen to a few favorite albums for a few weeks then rotate them.

Each to their own. Check out http://www.head-fi.org/

[dex Otaku]

That's what I thought. But maybe the decompressor used in SS is not as good as the one used in Winamp for example. I wouldn't be much surprised if that's the case since that ridiculous MP3 implementation in SS, lowering the quality of the files just to "show" how much "better" atrac sounds in comparison to MP3... Sony is capable of obscure restrictions, we've seen it before.

This is a crock of poop. SS uses your system codec, for one, so it's not SS that is influencing playback or conversion, it's simply whatever you have installed. Also, while encoders can be optimised to give dramatically different results [from one to the next], decoders should basically always decode "identically" [unless they're severely broken, which is actually rare, and within the limits of decoders supporting different bit-depths and dither algorithms].

The problem with the MP3 play back not that it "lowers" SQ but that a high pass filter is being applied.

Actually, it's a high-shelf filter [a high pass passes only highs, exactly the opposite of what you meant].

[Sparky191]

Oops my bad. Sorry.