lalomania Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 Ive been doing some research on Compression Formats.After reading some posts here where they talk about how incredible ATRAC3 is, i wanted to know how good it really was.Obviously mi first search was at Wikipedia...WikiI have to admint i was really dissapointed, as a former MD owner and future HiMD owner i mustsay i expected more. But maybe it was just that Wikipedia has something against MDs. I kept researching...Comparison tableIt's last on almoust every TEST!! Well, normaly i would just trust my ear, but during the short time i used my old MD i listened everything in LP4(only after losing it i realised that its the worse quality not the best available on my R500, so i know i wasnt giving my MD a chance to show it's best. So, now im going to buy a HiMD, is this new atrac3plus format better? Are all these polls wrong? I know these polls only test older Atrac but wikipedia says that new atrac isnt much better... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenmachine Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 I'm not going to comment on the quality (too subjective), but Atrac(3(+)) is CPU friendlier than many other codecs, it has been designed with hardware in mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky191 Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 I find the ATRAC sound on MD and HiMD models fun and enjoyable to listen too, in the higher bitrates at least. But I've always thought that its less accurate. Certainly its adds something to the sound. In my experience of recording from poor cassette sources I find the ATRAC recording can even sound better than the original. However when I've done my own blind listening tests I discovered that I prefer the sound of original rips of music when encoded to Lame MP3's on other devices like a Zen Micro or a iPod Shuffle, it sounds closer to the original, perhaps its less fun, I dunno.Thats only my own subjective opinion based on my own ABX listening tests. I've done no scientific measuring tests with different sources. Generally I use lo fi equipment, perhaps using high end phones and amps I'd change my mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heathenmagic Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 Here's me thinking I might have made the wong choice going for the RH1. Lol! I was after the best sounding player and a quality recorder. I deliberated for days whether to go for MP3, Ipod etc. After reading strong reviews about sound etc for the MZ-RH1, I plumped for RH1, whilst being a casual minidisc user. Though I have enough discs to upload. I am just awaiting its delivery once it is back in stock. Just hoping it will be up to scratch, for the amount it costs. Not sure now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenmachine Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 Even if the codec might sound slightly worse (or not), the excellent AD & DA stages of the hardware make up for it. To my ears, Hi-SP is virtually transparent and Hi-LP not too bad for a low bitrate codec though. Mp3 playback is also possible with the RH1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A440 Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 (edited) If LP2 (132 kbps) was judged to be nearly as good as the others in the comparison chart--which is really what that comparison shows--then Hi-SP (256 kbps), which not only has a higher bitrate but years of additional development, should be far better. Edited July 4, 2006 by A440 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky191 Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 As would higher bitrates of the other codecs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heathenmagic Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 I have the LP modes on my five year old Sharp MD recorder. I did read a technology piece online which said the Hi-SP / Hi-LP were some advance in sound quality compared to the LP modes and previous methods. Mainly I'll be using the 256 bitrate and upwards for compiling albums etc, which I understand to be lossless. And linear PCM for recording rehearsals and concerts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky191 Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 I've LP2/LP4 on my old Sony, and a a HIMD with HiLP. I couldn't listen to either, maybe HiLP is better than LP2 but its still not good. I know other find it ok, each to their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Low Volta Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 HiSP (256kbps) is NOT lossless... - flac, WMA-lossless, wavpack,...and even 'atrac advanced lossless' are lossless compression-types but they cannot be played on the portable device (even though AtAdvLossless and WMA could be usefull as they are compatible with SS)- MP3, atrac(3/+), ogg, WMA (and mostly all types that come 'in different bitrates')... are lossy compressions and mean they won't be the same as the CD. They might sound transparant which means you won't hear any real difference compared to the CD. MP3 encoded with lame of 128kbs (avarage) or above and HiSP (atrac3+ @ 256kbps) should be transparant and can be played with the RH1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faulkner1953 Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 Although I am still waiting for my RH1 to arrive, I will be using it to record my (loud) hobby band rehearsals and performances. I have been using the Sharp MT770 that I have had for a couple of years. I feel that the Sharp makes outstanding recordings in both SP and LP2 mode. Of course my old ears aren't what they used to be. You young guys with the golden ears will find out about that later in life. I am trying to figure out how the PCM mode and the HI-SP modes might compare with the modes I mentioned earlier in live recording scenarios. It seems that PCM is the same as CD quality? Is HI-SP better than the old SP and LP2 modes? Sure is a big increase in recording time with HI-SP, I could start it and just let it run. Edit out the BS later. Who has thoughts about all this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky191 Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 In my opinion SP is a tiny bit better than HiSP. But HiSP is vastly easier to manage, well until the RH1 as the none of the earlier players had proper SP support. LP2 I simply wouldn't bother with, its a huge drop (in my opinion) from HiSP. But of course if you are happy with LP2...For a rough practice I'd use HiSP, at a gig or a demo for getting gigs I'd use PCM. If you are happy with LP2 then HiSP would me more than enough for you. SP 292kpsHiSP 256kpsLP2 132kps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heathenmagic Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 Thanks to all the knowledgeable guys who have put their wisdom forward on this thread. It has been very helpful. I think I have definitely made the right choice, and have learned that any quality is achievable on this machine, depending on the amount of stuff you want on a disc. My gut feeling when ordering was it will be a great machine. I think I might be a total convert to the format too. Lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faulkner1953 Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 In my opinion SP is a tiny bit better than HiSP. But HiSP is vastly easier to manage, well until the RH1 as the none of the earlier players had proper SP support. LP2 I simply wouldn't bother with, its a huge drop (in my opinion) from HiSP. But of course if you are happy with LP2...For a rough practice I'd use HiSP, at a gig or a demo for getting gigs I'd use PCM. If you are happy with LP2 then HiSP would me more than enough for you. SP 292kpsHiSP 256kpsLP2 132kps.So, I see the numbers above I take to be bits per second. Does that roughly translate to MP3 numbers, or apples and oranges? I know I'll need to make my own decision about what I think is good or not. I have just been unable to find any real sound quality comparisons, like frequency response and such. 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.