SP sounds better?!

[21277]

Some time ago I had an MZ-R70 (ATRAC v4.5), and its sound was an excellent for me. Later R70 was broken, and I bought an RH910 (ATRAC3+). I was pleasured by its capabilities and pure sound, but a week ago my girlfriend bought a used R900. After listening, I made a very strange conclusion: the same SP disk, played on R900 sounds better, than on RH910. Why? Maybe a newer model have a simpliest audio chips than old good R900? Or maybe Hi-SP models does not support the reading of SP so how it must be read?

[ATELETRONICS]

its the aoudio chips used for playback. i notice the difference between different md units. its easy to tell.

[Qwakrz]

The RH900 had a HD Digital amp the same as the NH1, the RH910 had a standard Digital amp the same as the RH10.

I prefer the amp in my NH1 over the amp in my RH10, it sounds alot clearer.

[21277]

Thank You for replies, but I must note, that I compareed with RH910 the R900, but not RH900. R900 is the first Sony MDLP player and its 4-5 years old and uses ATRAC v4.5 (optical in)/ATRAC3 (line & mic). Tested minidisc was recorded on MZ-R70 (ATRAC 4.5) via optical line in from notebook. The same disc sounds better on the old portable, than on the new model. May be ATRAC3+ DSP chip is a progress in compression, but a regress in soung quality? Why people still like old MD decks? May be there is something in its sound? Now I like to compare my RH910 with an old ATRAC MD deck.

[garcou]

I have noticed the same

The quality of the analog electronic components is the explanation, I think

As you play the same disc on the two units, the encodig codec has nothing to do with this issue.

A MDS JA 20 ES-based himd deck would certainly sound as good than the classic 20ES with old sp md, and better with hisp and PCM.

Edited October 11, 2006 by garcou

[ATELETRONICS]

didnt they say they couldnt make pre-recorded disks. i thought they couldnt be stamped but had to be recorded? that would take forever...

[Sparky191]

I think you get used to the sound of a device and everything else sounds different. You might prefer the sound of one unit over another but if its actually "better" is debatable, or at least subjective.

[21277]

Thanks to all! I just found the answer.

In short:

Atrac3+ devices has no ATRAC1 write capabilities. If You want to write an SP, You must use SonicStage. Tracks are converted by computer and transfered to portable like a data. It means, that when portable is switched to PC, it doesn`t understand what does it writes. It writes all kind of files, which are converted and ordered by SonicStage.

But, SonicStage converts all media files only for ATRAC3 compartible units. Have You seen the note "Transfers the file in SP mode for compartibility with "non-MDLP" devices"? SonicStage converts all files to LP ONLY! But for compartibility with "non-MDLP" it puts an false-data intervals in file and makes it larger. Also the ATRAC3+ unit, when plaing TRUE-SP file thinks, that it is emulation, and skips noted above intervals. For experiment i wrote an SP-track and an LP-track by SonicStage. I was sad then I have`t find in listening any kind of differences in they.

So, conclusion:

If You want to listen a full-range good SP, You must write it on the on ATRAC 4.5 unit, and listen it on the same one.

If You are not agree, then just try it.

[doomlordis]

dont think this is correct kestrel, my sp recorded disks sound pretty much the same through my RH10 as they do through my N10.

Also what are you suggesting the himd unit does when playing back SP, buffer it , convert it then play back???

[21277]

May be I mistake, but information about Sonicstage`s SP-fake is true. SS is really converts sound to LP2 with adding additional false "zero-sectors". If I will have possibility to extract the Atrac 4.5 audiofile to the computer, then I will compare the Soundforge`s sonogramms. Certanly, if You will play the SP file, written on RH10, its really wlii play better on the new model. But, if You will make recordings on Atrac 4.5 unit, then You will hear the differencies. The N10 is not ATRAC 4.5 unit: it has Net-MD`s ATRAC3. Just try to find a little older model.

[doomlordis]

The N10 records to SP 292kbps, where did you find this out?

Edited October 13, 2006 by doomlordis

[Sparky191]

Thanks to all! I just found the answer.

In short:

Atrac3+ devices has no ATRAC1 write capabilities. If You want to write an SP, You must use SonicStage. Tracks are converted by computer and transfered to portable like a data. It means, that when portable is switched to PC, it doesn`t understand what does it writes. It writes all kind of files, which are converted and ordered by SonicStage.

But, SonicStage converts all media files only for ATRAC3 compartible units. Have You seen the note "Transfers the file in SP mode for compartibility with "non-MDLP" devices"? SonicStage converts all files to LP ONLY! But for compartibility with "non-MDLP" it puts an false-data intervals in file and makes it larger. Also the ATRAC3+ unit, when plaing TRUE-SP file thinks, that it is emulation, and skips noted above intervals. For experiment i wrote an SP-track and an LP-track by SonicStage. I was sad then I have`t find in listening any kind of differences in they.

So, conclusion:

If You want to listen a full-range good SP, You must write it on the on ATRAC 4.5 unit, and listen it on the same one.

If You are not agree, then just try it.

You mean SP via SonicStage is LP2. Thats old news. Real time recording though on all models should be the same SP 292kps. But most people can't hear the different between that and HiSP 256kps. In truth the difference is very little.

Where do you get the idea "In short: Atrac3+ devices has no ATRAC1 write capabilities" ???

[21277]

Is it possible to write on MD (SP or LP) without SonicStage? Yes it writes on MD-media, but not in MD format. It writes only in Hi-SP and Hi-LP. If You need to make an MD recording - You must use SonicStage. Just open the manual for RH910.

SP on NET-MD units has another quality, than on ATRAC1 v4.5 one. Yes ATRAC3 units write SP, yes it is the same bitrate, but the sound is poor. Could anybody make some Adobe Audition or Soundforge sonograms of SP files, written on different units? Then we will compare the graphics, and will see the truth. Maybe I mistake, maybe not? The comparation must be objective, isn`t so?

I do not compare SP with Hi-SP. I compare MD-SP written on different units, and asked why does SP written on the old unit sounds better than, then the same disk played on the modern unit? Modern unit skips some bits, am I right?

Edited October 13, 2006 by kestrel

[doomlordis]

I think i know what you are going on about, i seem to remember that atrac LP modes are fattened by 20bytes to keep them compatible with SP on MDLP units.

If this is what you are talking about it has NO effect on SP sound quality

[Sparky191]

Modern unit with PCM adds "bits"

[1kyle]

The RH1 can record directly in SP - SS not required. You can also use optical out from a high end deck such as MDS JB980 to the optical in of the RH1.

OK it's real time - but I don't know where you got the info that some ATRAC3+ devices can't record in true SP mode.

Incidentally I think there's a bit of "erroneous" info around here regarding compression quality of HI-SP @256 and True SP @ 292.

A Higher compression ratio doesn't always mean a poorer quality sound --modern mathematics and engineering can create some very efficient and good compression algorithms and Hi-SP @ 256 certainly passes most quality tests. --Incidentally if you must you can use a higher bit rate (if you use SS) but in most listening applications the Hi-SP @ 256 is more than adequate and certainly beats typical MP3 download rates of 128.

An analogy is in professional photography where some high end (really expensive 1500 GBP or more) digital cameras which "only" have a mega pixel count of 6 - 8MP will yield far far superior pictures under any circumstances to a lot of the consumer grade cameras which have a far higher MP count (often 7 - 10 MP). There really is no contest.

With audio (as well as video) it's not just the "bare numbers" that count. You MUST look at the underlying technology and methods used to produce the effects.

Cheers

-K

Edited October 14, 2006 by 1kyle

[21277]

Please read the topic attentively.

I DON`T COMPARE SP with HI-SP.

I compare SP with SP, but playback on different units.

[Sparky191]

Please read the topic attentively.

I DON`T COMPARE SP with HI-SP.

I compare SP with SP, but playback on different units.

Answer the question

Where do you get the idea "In short: Atrac3+ devices has no ATRAC1 write capabilities" ???

[21277]

Atrac3+ devices has no ATRAC1 write capabilities without SonicStage (at least RH10/RH910). I heared that RH1 has this capability, but i don`t know if it doesn`t make the same "magic" with SP, like SonicStage?

But the question is:

1.) Does old devices (Atrac 4.5) writes True-SP more correctly, than the newer one ATRAC3 devices (NET-MD, but not Hi-MD)?

2.) Does Hi-MD player playbacks correctly (without skiping sectors) the file, written on the old (ATRAC 4.5) devices?

Edited October 15, 2006 by kestrel

[greenmachine]

As far as i know all MD recorders except for 2nd generation Hi-MD [that includes NetMD, 1st generation Hi-MD and the RH1] had SP realtime recording capabilities [in full quality]. As mentioned earlier, software transfer of SP mode is fake and [slightly worse than] LP2 quality. ATRAC[1] type "R" or "S" is generally considered as an improvement [in sound quality] over previous versions [that includes ATRAC v4.5]. New models should be able to play/decode earlier Atrac1 version recordings as good or better than older devices.

[MDX-400]

May be I mistake, but information about Sonicstage`s SP-fake is true. SS is really converts sound to LP2 with adding additional false "zero-sectors".

To clear this up, there is no "false zero-sectors" involved in transferring SP from SonicStage. It is true that it is "fake SP" when you transfer to "SP" with SS but not in the way you're making it out to be.

SS will only transfer to SP to a device by sending audio from an ATRAC3 at 132kbps (LP2) "original". The recorder will then transcode this into ATRAC (292kbps, original) so it is in the SP format. In otherwords SP via SS is actually worse than transferring LP2 because of the transcoding loss.

The resultant SP track is still SP in everyway (there's no sectors skipped or any nonsense like that--a track like that would not play on an SP machine at all), but the track was encoded from an ATRAC3 132kbps source, not a full-quality PCM source. By comparison, transferring MDLP to the device is entirely different. What happens is SS encodes the original (be it CD or whatever) to ATRAC3 and then that data is directly sent to the recorder to write to the disc natively. If the ATRAC3/3plus file is not ATRAC3 132kbps then SS will transcode that (unless you have the original to re-encode it to ATRAC3/132) and then transfer to the device at the proper ATRAC3 bitrate for MDLP. For those transfers the recorder does nothing, it simply writes data. For an SP transfer the recorder has to encode the audio stream it's given into ATRAC.

There is no way to create a true SP track via USB on any MD unit, Hi-MD or not; the obscure and uber-expensive 3rd-party-modified MD-Data deck that once existed notwithstanding.

Now the other part of confusion here (which greenmachine seems to have cleared up but I'll just explain a bit more) is the stand-alone pure recorder aspect of creating an SP track.

Any MD unit that can record SP on a standard MD using via it's own means (i.e. not with a computer connection) through line, optical, or mic input is creating a "True SP" track. All MD recorders can do this (note that downloaders are not considered recorders), with the exception of 2nd Gen Hi-MD units which could not record on standard MDs in a stand-alone situation. Therefore they are not capable of recording True SP. The RH1 has that feature restored and stand-alone recordings on regular MDs can be made with that as well, meaning True SP capability is there as well.

However note NONE of this has anything to do with the difference you might be hearing in the same SP disc you mentioned before. If that disc was stand-alone recorded, in the SP format, from a full-quality PCM (16/44.1/stereo/1411kbps) source then it is a true SP disc/track and one at the highest quality it can be given the ATRAC encoder revision of what recorded it. Playing that back on the R900 and RH910 has nothing to do with either recorder's ability or inability to record true SP.

Those differences might come from many things including the headphones amp, quality of other electronics/circuits inside the units, as well as the ATRAC decoder/encoder chip. Rest assured however that all main ATRAC encoder/decoder ICs in MD units can decode ATRAC1 data. Whether there is some flaw or shortcoming of the IC decoding original ATRAC on Hi-MD units I don't know--it's a possiblity of course. But this is unreleated to SonicStage and "fake SP" otherwise.

[21277]

Thanks a lot to MDX-400 for explaination. I have no more question about it.

[Sparda]

Is it possible to write on MD (SP or LP) without SonicStage? Yes it writes on MD-media, but not in MD format. It writes only in Hi-SP and Hi-LP. If You need to make an MD recording - You must use SonicStage. Just open the manual for RH910.

SP on NET-MD units has another quality, than on ATRAC1 v4.5 one. Yes ATRAC3 units write SP, yes it is the same bitrate, but the sound is poor. Could anybody make some Adobe Audition or Soundforge sonograms of SP files, written on different units? Then we will compare the graphics, and will see the truth. Maybe I mistake, maybe not? The comparation must be objective, isn`t so?

I do not compare SP with Hi-SP. I compare MD-SP written on different units, and asked why does SP written on the old unit sounds better than, then the same disk played on the modern unit? Modern unit skips some bits, am I right?

Kestrel you are getting it all wrong it has nothing to do with that. Think simple. The source is the same. So this means that this is a controlled comparison. So the only thing making the difference would be the minidisc player itself. So maybe your ears are more used to the sound of the amp on the R900 then the new amps. Which sounds better is your personal preference.

Edited October 18, 2006 by Sparda

[poe]

Uhmm... there was something missed in this discussion. Kestrel did you use the same headphones, unpluged and plug into the other unit, when you done this comparison? POE

[21277]

Yes, i tryed to make all for the identical conditions (the same disc, earphones (Sony MDR-E808 from my RH-910), full charged battery etc.). It used to say that on R-900 sound has more elastic bass & clear highs. May be its wrong, but its so seemed to me.

Edited October 25, 2006 by kestrel