sub27 Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Is it better to have atrac3plus at 256/292 kbps or atrac at 356kbps for sound quality? I think an mp3 sound type lossy sound would suit the Mz-RH1 so I might stick with 356kbps... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenmachine Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 The original atrac was limited to 292kbps only, while the newer atrac3plus comes in different flavors like 192, 256 (Hi-SP), 352kbps.Although both SP and Hi-SP have been designed with transparency in mind, what sounds 'best' is up to your own ears. You might find 192kbps perfectly acceptable while others hear artifacts even at 352kbps. SP can't be used on 1GB Hi-MDs and takes considerably more space (less efficient formatting of disks). Software transfer of SP will give inferior quality (fake SP - re-encoded atrac3 132kbps LP2). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avrin Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Hi-SP@256 is DEFINITELY better that SP@292. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobt Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Try a few recoerdings of the same song at different bitrates, the listen to them with good headphones on shuffle mode and see if you really can tell the difference.Enjoy,Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pata2001 Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 (edited) With support for legacy Atrac seems to be diminishing in HiMD units, and non-existant in Sonicstage, I would pick HiSP instead, unless you still have SP-only units. Edited July 21, 2006 by pata2001 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky191 Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 Hi-SP@256 is DEFINITELY better that SP@292.I actually think SP is slightly better. But the difference is so slight its not worth the hassle. 352 is too big IMO unless for classical and other favorites tunes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avrin Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 (edited) Actually classical music needs somewhat lower bitrates than is widely believed. Try to compress some classical music into ATRAC Advanced Lossless or FLAC. You'll be impressed by the size reduction in comparison to other styles, especially jazz and trance.The cause of that is simple: harmony. Edited July 21, 2006 by Avrin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky191 Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 (edited) I acutall meant favorite tunes, especially classical stuff. But it depends entirely on the piece and the quality of the recording. Some are ok, some are simply nicer in a higher bitrate. My current fav is Violin Sonata Op. 5 No. 12 - Corelli - Jefferson in Paris soundtrack . Edited July 21, 2006 by Sparky191 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shozzer Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 This is a question that keeps appearing but the answer is down to individual perception. If you find a lower bitrate to be acceptable then don't be persuaded by someone else to go higher just because they think it's better! It's your ears and your enjoyment (and your disk capacity too)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tunster Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 The best thing to do is record two or three of your favourite tracks (that you know very well) in EVERY bitrate.Play them all back on headphones and your hi-fi system to see how low you can go for tolerance in terms of quality. My limit is 132kbps ATRAC3, but 192kbps ATRAC3+ in terms of Hi-MD is the lowest I'd go.One niggle I have, why have they not enabled the RH1 to record SP on 1GB discs on the unit? Would of been brill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1kyle Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 The best thing to do is record two or three of your favourite tracks (that you know very well) in EVERY bitrate.Play them all back on headphones and your hi-fi system to see how low you can go for tolerance in terms of quality. My limit is 132kbps ATRAC3, but 192kbps ATRAC3+ in terms of Hi-MD is the lowest I'd go.One niggle I have, why have they not enabled the RH1 to record SP on 1GB discs on the unit? Would of been brill.One shouldn't get too bogged down in the actual "Numbers" here. Over the years since SP came out advances in mathematics and physics have led to better and more efficient compression algorithms. This means you can in theory get better quality than you could have got before even though the file is smaller and more compression has been applied.For its day SP was absolutely top dog -- Mp3 /Flac/others hadn't been even thought of then so it was either full CD WAV or ATRAC.Most computers --if you could even get your hands on one back then were pretty terrible and not used for any sort of domestic music recording / editing / manipulation.The best you could get was a CD with an optical out which you recorded to your MD in real time. A few combo type units (with both a CD and an MD) existed which would allow you to dub your CD ==>MD at usually 2X or rarely 4X.Whilst there's no question whatever that SP is superior to LP2/LP4 I doubt whether it is better than HI-SP @ 256 or 352.A decent blind test should determine this pretty quickly.I usually save my music in ATRAC Lossless (@352) since this compresses (losslesslly) on the computer fairly efficiently --and if I want to convert to flac or whatever I can convert idividual files back to WAV (again losslessly) and then do my editing.I only tend to store music on a computer as a backup -- I rarely use a computer for actually listening to music --got a nice deck for that purpose.Now another possible issue that might "Obfuscate" the above conclusion is that the amplifier in the RH1 is pretty good --so recording in SP might be better than recording in SP with older equipment --however this could then equally apply to all the other modes of recording so the differential(assuming there was any) would still be maintained.I doubt that a decent SP recording however would disappoint.Cheers-K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky191 Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 When you convert from ATRAC Lossless to WAV, are you certain its using the lossless part? There was a bug with this in converting to other lossy ATRAC bitrates. Has that been fixed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcou Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 Just try recording Miles Davis "kind of Blue" in old SP : a lot of horrible artifacts on the trumpet.Try it with HiSP: the artifacts have totally disapear!Hisp >> SP ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky191 Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 Which track? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1kyle Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 (edited) When you convert from ATRAC Lossless to WAV, are you certain its using the lossless part? There was a bug with this in converting to other lossy ATRAC bitrates. Has that been fixed?Hi Sparky -- I think you only even SEE the lossy Atrac files on your computer once you've transferred music to MD from SS. You can easily check this out by just transferring 1 track for which no "lossy" file exists. You'll then see the same track has both an ATRAC Lossless (the original uploaded file) and and an ATRAC 352 file which is what actually gets written to your MD.If you transfer to WAV I don't think it will use the Lossy file --it can't in any case if the lossy file doesn't exist.Incidently a 1GB disc holds around 5 1/2 - 6 hrs of music @ 352 compared with about 7 1/2 @ 256. I think using the highe bit rate is well worth it (especially with decent headphones). If you are just using cheap ear-buds then I don't think you'll notice any difference between 256 and 352.Cheers-K Edited July 21, 2006 by 1kyle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky191 Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 Yeah fair point K. my earphones are budget, PMX100's and MX500's the different is lost on me! You are talking about the optimised folder. Why does this exist if the lossless also contains a lossy verions? Must test this myself. I'll experiment a bit and see what happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Low Volta Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 with the PX100 I can hear the difference between LP2 and HiSP, but not significantly between HiSP (256) and 352 and not with an VBR quality 4 Lame MP3 either (which is about half the size and which I can transfer from mac -> RH1) so guess what I'll be using?PS: it just really sucks that MP3 can't really do gapless (unless you've got a rockboxed MP3-player and way too much time to spend on lame commandlines) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky191 Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 Hi Sparky -- I think you only even SEE the lossy Atrac files on your computer once you've transferred music to MD from SS. You can easily check this out by just transferring 1 track for which no "lossy" file exists. You'll then see the same track has both an ATRAC Lossless (the original uploaded file) and and an ATRAC 352 file which is what actually gets written to your MD.If you transfer to WAV I don't think it will use the Lossy file --it can't in any case if the lossy file doesn't exist....On a quick test a single track~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Atrac Lossless 064k = 23,713 kbAtrac Lossless 352k = 27,338 kbNo files in the optimized folder. Conclusion that Atrac Lossless itself contains the lossy file. I'll generate a Wav from each and see if theres a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky191 Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 (edited) On a quick test a single track~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Atrac Lossless 064k = 23,713 kbAtrac Lossless 352k = 27,338 kbNo files in the optimized folder. Conclusion that Atrac Lossless itself contains the lossy file. I'll generate a Wav from each and see if theres a difference.Ok WAV from CD = 35,618kbATRAC 064kb from CD back to WAV = 35,631kbATRAC 352kb from CD back to WAV = 35,631kbWAVE from Lossless 352kb = 35,551kbWAVE from Lossless 064kb = 35,551kbConclusion that the WAV from any lossless is the same. Though different from Original WAV. That said the results maybe misleading, as SS maybe (very likely) padding the file for some reason. I don't know enough about who it creates the WAV file. It would be interesting to compare the waveforms. Maybe someone could do that. Edited July 21, 2006 by Sparky191 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avrin Posted July 22, 2006 Report Share Posted July 22, 2006 Definitely padding. Don't forget that WAV is just a container. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZosoIV Posted July 22, 2006 Report Share Posted July 22, 2006 Funny that somebody brought up Miles Davis; SP was terrible at encoding things like trumpets. I remember wanting to throw the disc at the wall when I heard a bunch of weird, electric-sounding artifacts on "Kind of Blue!" Hi-SP is better at this, but still not perfect - sharp clicks and attacks sound metallic and artificial to my ears. I've given up on ATRAC, personally, and only use PCM for serious listening on my discs. Once you know what to listen for, artifacts can be heard even at 352kbps with ATRAC3plus on certain signals. For portable use, though, who cares? In a noisy environment, Hi-SP is just fine, if not even overkill. If I had an RH1, I wouldn't even bother with ATRAC3plus, and would instead use LAME -V0 or --preset insane (great sound, a universal format, and the ability to use better rippers like EAC). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avrin Posted July 23, 2006 Report Share Posted July 23, 2006 (edited) LAME is really good. But, unfortunately, there is no way to make MP3s gapless on a Hi-MD unit. And do not forget the "MP3 bug" in second generation units. Edited July 23, 2006 by Avrin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Low Volta Posted July 23, 2006 Report Share Posted July 23, 2006 I resolved this for me personally (PC and Mac available, though mac gets most use by far and an RH1) by doing as follows:- cds that do not require gapless to be enjoyed: Lame VBR new, quality level 4 (mostly ripped with EAC + USB-stick -> mac or directy with iTunes Lame) which I can download from mac and is about 160kbps average- cd's that do require gapless: transfer with PC in HiSP (through SB) or 192kbps (through SS 4.0)this saves quite some space, delivers great SQ for portable use and allows me to create discs with mac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparda Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 What is gapless? Is a gap the short time between tracks where there is no sound? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Low Volta Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 indeed: a gap is the short 'gap of silence in between songs, where there should be no gap as there is none in the original cd/recording' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacRhythmGuy Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 Actually classical music needs somewhat lower bitrates than is widely believed. Try to compress some classical music into ATRAC Advanced Lossless or FLAC. You'll be impressed by the size reduction in comparison to other styles, especially jazz and trance.The cause of that is simple: harmony.Avrin, that's an intriguing claim. I don't quite buy it. Do you have some references to back this up? I'm not trying to corner you. It could be true, but as I think about it, there are other forms of music, especially the two you just quoted (jazz and trance) which have plenty of harmony. I haven't done any research on this. I know something about both computer science and music, but am not an expert in data compression algorithms. Here we're speaking of traditional non-lossy data compression optimized for music.There are arguably more "complex" or "interesting" chords or harmonies in classical music, as a generalization, although even that claim would bring strong criticism from jazz fans.Electronic or "trance" music, being generated by a computer, is going to be the most precisely in tune, mathematically, and have the most regular beat, as well. And the most repetition of sounds. Often no vocals. All those things lead to more compression. It also does have harmonies. They may be simple in nature, but even that would seem to argue for MORE compression, not less.I picture an orchestra. 100 instruments playing very well in tune, but each performer contributing their own tone and very slight variation in pitch, especially on orchestral string instruments which are all fretless. The result is a powerful artistic sound appealing to the human ear, but seems like murder on a compression algorithm, to me.There are beautiful harmonies which are not "mathematically in tune" in an absolute way, (e.g. 440 Hz) but sound fantastic, where all notes in the chord are in tune *relative to each other* like is emphasized in a barbershop quartet, but is also present in chamber music and lots of high-quality classical music. This also would seem bad for compression, to me. Plus it's present in the best jazz, as well. Non-existent in electronic music.Here's my theory. I think what you're observing, with classical music compressing better losslessly, has far more to do with the lack of very high frequencies. The typical orchestral performance has an occasional cymbal crash, but nothing like the constant high-hat or cymbals which are pervasive in both trance and jazz. There's no drum set in an orchestra. Even the high register of a violin can't compare (in Hz) to the airy "hissy" KHz of whispy electronic sounds and percussion beating regularly throughout the music.Mac Rhythm Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenmachine Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 (edited) Metal/Rock/Pop/Electro is also often highly compressed [dynamically, not psychoacoustically], often with a good amount of distortion, thus harder to compress further. I encode a lot [VBR mp3 most of the time] and can confirm Avrin's observations. The resulting bitrates when encoding in VBR are usually the highest with highly [dynamically] compressed metal [containing lots of high frequencies and distortion], while [usually relatively quiet and clean with occasional peaks] classical music seems the easiest to encode [resulting in relatively low bitrates while maintaining sound quality].Microphone placement will also play a major role. A recording, which is close to mono, will be easier to encode [the benefits of joint stereo encoding]. Edited September 14, 2006 by greenmachine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparda Posted September 15, 2006 Report Share Posted September 15, 2006 One thing that i don't see being mentioned is the source..... it only gets as good as the source, impossible for something encoded to surprass the original source. I personally like to listen to 356 or occasionally 256 when i run outta room. Imho if your gonna listen to low bit rates why not just ditch md and buy an ipod...... anyways thats for another time. I bought my RH1 for the sound quality that mds can reproduce. Also i agree with what 1kyle said. Just my .02 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.