RH1: MP3 vs ATRAC3plus playback

[Sony_Fan]

So which of the two formats sound better on an RH1, assuming they're both equal bitrates: MP3 or ATRAC3plus?

[boojum]

So which of the two formats sound better on an RH1, assuming they're both equal bitrates: MP3 or ATRAC3plus?

Well, here's the deal: my stuff is already MP3 and I see no need to convert it one more time. MP3 sounds transparent to most people using LAME 3.97 V2 new. You can pursue this at hydrogenaudio.org which has tested this on a regular basis. I am sure ATRAC is good, but I just do not need another step of things to do in the chain to get music to my RH1. MP3 just migrate as they are.

YMMV

Cheers

[Qwakrz]

If you go for the best quality that both formats have to offer (320K Atrac and 320K MP3) then you will be very very hard pushed to tell the difference.

If you go down to low bitrates (64K Atrac and 64K MP3) then its no contest.

However saying that I use alot of ~128K MP3 (VBR rates) as this gives me a good compromise between space and quality, plus Atrac does not do VBR so for audio books you have to either use a high bitrate or putup with poor quality, VBR MP3 allows lower bitrate for parts that dont need alot of quality (like silence).

[Avrin]

IMHO:

The main pro of ATRAC3[plus] is gapless playback.

The main con of ATRAC3[plus] is the inability to transfer at some useful bitrates.

The main pro of MP3 (on the RH1 only) is the ability to encode at 48 kHz, which is ideal for music ripped from DVDs (no downsampling).

The main con of MP3 is gapped playback (that is, if you do not encode the whole concert as a single file). Gaps are really short on the RH1, but still noticeable in some cases.

[Sparky191]

The main pro of MP3 is that is a more common format, so your library is usable across more devices. I think ATRAC probably has the edge in SQ but its so slight the inconvenience is not worth it.

[bobt]

The ONLY way to tell is listening, we all hear differently, some like LP4 some don't, let your ears be you guide

Bob

[bluecrab]

The ONLY way to tell is listening, we all hear differently, some like LP4 some don't, let your ears be you guide

Bob

If I have agreed with this (or thought the same thing) once or a dozen or a hundred times, then I simply want to say that I agree again. After years of refusing to use LP2/4 without actually trying it, only b/c of all the negativity about them, I was surprised to find them both listenable to me....as is MP3. Main issue for me regarding MP3 is not so much SQ (at the higher b/r, anyway), just that in my current setup plain old SP/LP2/LP4 is the most convenient.

I have read various explanations, technical and otherwise, about why one format exceeds the other, but as Bob notes, the only real standard is one's own ears. For that matter, a good cassette still sounds fine to me.

[Sparky191]

I think theres a realisation, especially as you get older that not everyone can hear the difference. That doesn't mean it isn't there.

I struggle distinguishing different high bitrates. But have no trouble distinguishing between low bitrates like LP2/LP4 from SP. For me its obvious. However SP from HiSP or PCM is much harder, often impossible for me. I'm sure someone with better ears and better equipment can hear it though. I like the sound of a good cassette though I often can hear a different between it and a high bitrate MP3/ATRAC. Depending on the specific track and recording I might prefer either.

[Karl Myer]

Atrac does not do VBR so for audio books you have to either use a high bitrate or putup with poor quality, VBR MP3 allows lower bitrate for parts that dont need alot of quality (like silence).

Can someone explain Qwakrz's statement for me? I record audiobooks to minidisc using 48 kbps Atrac3plus. I used to use 64 kbps but went to 48 because I can't discern any difference in quality (for spoken-word -- I do hear a difference for music.) I'm completely satisfied with 48kbps for audiobooks. What is the "poor quality" Qwakrz mentions?

[greenmachine]

When encoding in VBR (variable bitrate), you choose a quality setting instead of a fixed bitrate and the encoder automatically chooses the minimum necessary bitrate to achieve a defined quality. Complex passages of a track will get encoded at higher bitrates than easy-to-encode ones. This way VBR produces a better quality-to-space ratio compared to an equivalent CBR algorithm.

Every individual's threshold of acceptable/good quality is different, so you may be perfectly satisfied with 48kbps, while the other wouldn't go any lower than PCM (two extremes, the average person's threshold seems to be somewhere in between). When recording speech, it is usually only necessary "to get the information", while for music enjoyment quality is of a higher importance.

[Sparky191]

I've had two main problem with VBR. My iPod Shuffle had a problem with it as does my car CD/MP3 unit. While I realise its smaller and better quality than CBR I'm wary of VBR because of the problems I've had with it.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Sparky191

[Karl Myer]

Thank you greenmachine for explaining that so well. Yes, I am satisfied with the excellent quality of spoken-word recording at 48 kbps. I regularly listen 10 hours without a break (hiking) with no aural fatigue. I only wish mono recording would be possible on the RH1 to get more on a disc.

I find music very acceptable at 48 kbps as long as I'm outside walking. Indoors, playing through a good radio, the 48 kbps music is fatiguing.

[greenmachine]

As far as I know, ATRAC 3+, unlike the old ATRAC SP mode for example, uses a joint stereo channel coupling method (virtually lossless at higher bitrates, at lower bitrates probably more lossy - channel narrowing or intensity stereo are lossy coupling methods, m/s joint stereo works virtually losslessly). Thus a pure mono mode is not really necessary or useful, you will automatically benefit from a higher quality at a given bitrate if you encode from a mono source instead of stereo. There would be no difference in the resulting quality if you encode from a mono source to a given bitrate with the same parameters to mono or joint stereo. There is no loss if you encode mono to joint stereo compared to encoding to mono, but there is a significant loss in quality and/or filesize if you encode mono to stereo with no channel coupling (sometimes called real stereo or dual channel). For lossy encoding, no matter if from a stereo or mono source, I would suggest to never use a dual channel mode, you will always sacrifice some of the quality/filesize ratio (unless you have 100% discrete channels). As described above, (m/s) joint stereo will automatically take care of compressing mono or stereo files in the most efficient way. Intensity stereo (channel narrowing) should be used with care as it will destroy some of the stereo field in favor of filesize, but you don't have options to fine-tune ATRAC(3+) anyway, all parameters are pre-set for a given bitrate (proprietary codec). MP3 and many other codecs on the other hand can be fine tuned (which is usually not recommended, but that's a different story).

[bluecrab]

I think theres a realisation, especially as you get older that not everyone can hear the difference. That doesn't mean it isn't there.

Exactly. Several years ago, I was diagnosed with tinnitus and some hearing loss. Yeah, I was one of those guys who listened to just too much loud rock, I guess. My hearing still works OK, and I too can distinguish (usually) between SP/LP2/LP4 etc etc. So in a way, in this case a little hearing loss worked out to my benefit! I will tell you that I think I detect a noticeable difference in sound between what comes out of my Marantz MARANTZ CD5001 CD Player and any other source I have - the Marantz sounds best. I don't think that this is a format issue so much as a DAC issue.

Anyway, I happily listen to all modes! Isn't that what matters most?

[Karl Myer]

... "As far as I know, ATRAC 3+, unlike the old ATRAC SP mode, uses a joint stereo channel coupling method (virtually lossless at higher bitrates" ...... "m/s joint stereo works virtually losslessly" ...... "Thus a pure mono mode is not really necessary or useful, you will automatically benefit from a higher quality at a given bitrate if you encode from a mono source instead of stereo" ...... "(m/s) joint stereo will automatically take care of compressing mono or stereo files in the most efficient way."

From your explanation I gather it is not a shortcoming of the MZ-RH1 to not provide mono recording. In fact there are benefits, it seems, especially if the legacy minidiscs I'm uploading to computer are from a monaural source, which mine all are. For those, I don't care about getting the maximum recording time per disc, I care only about high quality, and I preserve them as wav files.

It is only for audiobooks I wanted to get the most content per disc -- it's nice to have 1 book on 1 disc. But in some cases, I'm finding, I want to preserve those MD's also, instead of erasing and using the minidisc over again when I'm done listening. So it's nice to have them compressed in the most efficient way. It sounds like my complaint against the RH1 is unjustified.

By the way, all my 1993 through 2002 recordings are from a mono source -- a stereo radio station but with a weak signal in my area, so that I had to switch the radio to 'mono' to quiet static and background noise. My AMD-100 doesn't record in mono so those recordings are all 2-channel, even though from the mono source. My MDS-JE530 deck does record in mono, so my MD's recorded on it are from the mono source and recorded in mono. The AMD-100 does play back in mono, reading out correct track timings for MD's made on the JE530 deck, and reading out 'mono' in small LED letters on the display somewhere, as I recall.

I hope I'm beginning to understand this correctly, and thank you for taking the time to explain it so thoroughly.

[Qwakrz]

The audio books I am currently listening to have a musical background (Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy - Complete Radio series, all 6 series fit on 1 Hi-MD using LP2), hence why at 48Kbps I find they sound horrid (but again this is just my taste). I have encoded normal audio books at 48Kbps and they do sound fine.

Greenmachine is correct in thinking that a mono mode on Hi-MD will gain nothing.

I find M-S encoding (Joint stereo) easier to think about as a big piece of cake. As the signal comes in it is converted to a mono signal and a difference (the difference between the left and right channels) signal. This is then fed to the encoder that dishes out parts of the cake as needed to get the best tradeoff between the stereo portion and mono clarity. If there is nothing but mono then the difference channel takes up no space and all available cake is allocated to the mono signal. If there is nothing but the difference signal (out of phase mono will generate this) then everything goes to the difference signal. Most audio that we listen to is about 80-90% mono with just a hint of difference between the 2 channels.

The upside of M-S encoding is that it uses less bandwidth to encode normal sound due to the similarity between 2 channels in a stereo recording.

The downside of M-S is that at low bitrates the difference signal can become distorted and this leads to swirly sounds because the mono signal is reproduced fine but the difference signal that is used to modify the mono signal moves instruments and sounds around where they should not be.

The common place you will find M-S encoding is in FM stereo radio, the mono signal is transmitted for older mono only FM recievers and the stereo difference signal is transmitted with slightly lower power to enable newer equipment to produce 2 channels from the single mono the older radios use.

[Karl Myer]

I understand now, Qwakrz, your dissatisfaction with 48 kbps for audiobooks, if they have musical background. And thank you for further explaining M-S encoding / joint stereo. I did not know radio signals were manipulated so extensively. It does not bother me anymore the RH1 can't record in mono.

Speaking of audiobooks, I like the feature on the RH1 that cues to every tenth track on a disc with no Groups, by pressing Group+ on the remote.

Edited March 28, 2007 by Karl Myer

[rayzray]

Thank you greenmachine....

....I only wish mono recording would be possible on the RH1 to get more on a disc.

i tried something once;; if you want only speech (info) mono and can't do it;;

i would record half the book on the "Left" channel;; and the other on the "Right" Channel;; then only plug in the Left ear budd to hear half the book;; and the "Right " Budd to hear the other half of the book..

of course i did that with a BIG a**ed 4 track reel-to-reel tape recorder;; but,, that technique should work..

and;; it frees your other ear to hear the world;; and traffic if you are driving;; and rattle snakes if you are hiking..

Late edit]]

like;; if a book is on two cassettes/cd's or just copy that cd again;; and play both into you RH1 at the same time as u record it onto the RH1;; one into the right channel and one into the left ch;;

Edited March 28, 2007 by rayzray

[alexis]

My opinions about MP3/ATRAC3+:

1) sound quality: ATRAC3+ is infinitely superior in terms of audio quality at 64kbps. At higher bitrates, the difference is less obvious. ATRAC3+ is also technically more modern (first MP3 specification: 1991, first MP3 encoder:1994, first ATRAC3+ codec: 2003)

2) compatibility: ATRAC3+ is more compatible with sony hardware than MP3 - say, if you wish to listen to your recordings, you can use any Hi-MD player from Sony. Furthermore, only the RH1 (and maybe the DH10P, somebody corrects me?) can play MP3s without sound quality loss. On the other hand, MP3 is more compatible with other MP3 players (!), at the expense of having to use the obnoxious SonicStage software

3) Gapless playing: ATRAC3+ has true gapless playing, which comes in handy for live performances, clasical music, or mixed albums (house, dance, etc...)

4) computer independence: ATRAC3+ SP and LP can be recorded/edited without the need for a computer - good for people who are more music freaks than computer freaks

5) Macintosh support: the Macintosh software from sony allows download of MP3 only, which is a good reason to use MP3 as a music format for Macintosh owners

6) unreliable MP3 support: not all MP3s play successfully on Minidisc players - test before!

Further tips & tricks:

* using lower bitrates causes less often disc access and thus gives longer battery life - good for listening on the go

* using older minidisc formats/units may be very useful as they can be bought second hand quite cheap and give extra flexibility/mobility

My advice:

Have high quality music sources (buy CDs, DVDs), convert these to whatever format that suits your purposes best (like, ATRAC3+ LP on an HiMD to have 34 hours of good music on the go, ATRAC3+ SP to have superior quality for some of your favorites, SP or LP2/4 to keep compatible with older Minidisc units (car stereo/deck), MP3 to give to your friends, etc... Having uncompressed, superior quality (and DRM free) source material is the best way to avoid format wars and to be safe for the future.

I don't recommend using Minidiscs as music archiving media. The proprietary interface and SonicStage are too restrictive and only constrain the user. At the moment, Minidiscs are only good as recording media and playback-only media.

[Strungup]

My opinions about MP3/ATRAC3+:

5) Macintosh support: the Macintosh software from sony allows download of MP3 only, which is a good reason to use MP3 as a music format for Macintosh owners

6) unreliable MP3 support: not all MP3s play successfully on Minidisc players - test before!

I don't recommend using Minidiscs as music archiving media. The proprietary interface and SonicStage are too restrictive and only constrain the user. At the moment, Minidiscs are only good as recording media and playback-only media.

Your an idiot, I have MD's that are ten years old and still play perfectly , and sound exactly the same as they did the day I recorded them , and If I need to get it into my Comp and edit I have the Patience to record it real time into my souncard losing precious little in sound quality . Further Mac soft will let you download Wav and MP3 on the RH1 , which is what the "Working Musician " needs ( of which I am one , and a Studio engineer) MD Makes the Perfect Archive , as that it does not get subjected to Magnetic feilds, or debris , or scratches , or corrupted hard drive "Ooops I got a Virus and have the reformat my harddrive" You can record from ANY SOURCE YOU WANT TO , With level controls , and fine tuning that your iPod will never do( oh yeah there is a guy trying to get advice on how to restart his iPod on another forum. gee , lets see Dead iPod , hmmmm= lost music collection,

And at this very moment , I am "Archiving " the last of Internet Radio ......YES on MD !!!!

( research what the RIAA has just done , NPR.ORG has a wonderful article)

[alexis]

Your an idiot,

Think what you want about me, but please keep it for yourself.

I have MD's that are ten years old and still play perfectly , and sound exactly the same as they did the day I recorded them , and If I need to get it into my Comp and edit I have the Patience to record it real time into my souncard losing precious little in sound quality . Further Mac soft will let you download Wav and MP3 on the RH1 , which is what the "Working Musician " needs ( of which I am one , and a Studio engineer) MD Makes the Perfect Archive , as that it does not get subjected to Magnetic feilds, or debris , or scratches , or corrupted hard drive "Ooops I got a Virus and have the reformat my harddrive" You can record from ANY SOURCE YOU WANT TO , With level controls , and fine tuning that your iPod will never do( oh yeah there is a guy trying to get advice on how to restart his iPod on another forum. gee , lets see Dead iPod , hmmmm= lost music collection,

About MDs to keep recordings: MDs are excellent long-time-music-keeping devices - I also have ten years old MDs that still play perfectly. But remember the past: first, nothing could be taken out of an MD (except using some decks with digital out output - real time only, PCM only, no ATRAC upload). Then came NetMD and the sony software, which made MD upload possible under strict restrictions. Then came (after almost 15 years) unhindered upload of legacy Md recordings using the RH1. I find CDs much more flexible and universal than MDs, even if they are more prone to damage. When talking about ease-of-use, admit it: just copying MP3s from one disk to the other, or to USB sticks, or whatever media is much more user-friendly than using SonicStage or performing real-time recording (this point has been a long-time discussion theme on this forum).

About Mac software, it allows PCM transfer too, but this is not the question in this forum (MP3 vs. ATRAC3+). In any case, keeping a music collection on MD in PCM format is either unpractical (legacy MDs = 30min PCM sound) or expensive (new HiMDs = $6 for 2 hours PCM sound). However, the Mac software is much easier to use than SonicStage. It manages MP3 files (download only) or PCM files (upload from PCM recordings or MP3s) quick and easy. The same thing plus real download and upload from MP3s and ATRAC3+ files would be the perfect tool.

About Minidisc recording: Minidiscs has excellent recording abilities: I even recommend them as recording device. However, I would recommend archiving recordings made on MDs on other media (except if using a Mac, where PCM upload is quick and easy).

To sum it up, I am a full advocate of Minidisc format(s), but still recommend to base a music collection on another technology, for ease of use and format- and vendor- independence.

What if Your MD player breaks one day? What if Sony drops support for MD? What if sony drops support for newer operating systems one day?

As I said, I recommend keeping source material on open, non-DRMd, universal media, in a safe place, and to use copies on other media for other uses (that is where Minidisc shines). I remember the time in the 80s, where I used to buy 30cm vinyl LPs just to copy them onto tapes, which I used regularly on home and portable systems. I am still doing it that way, using CDs and HiMDs now.

[Strungup]

Think what you want about me, but please keep it for yourself.

About MDs to keep recordings: MDs are excellent long-time-music-keeping devices - I also have ten years old MDs that still play perfectly. But remember the past: first, nothing could be taken out of an MD (except using some decks with digital out output - real time only, PCM only, no ATRAC upload). Then came NetMD and the sony software, which made MD upload possible under strict restrictions. Then came (after almost 15 years) unhindered upload of legacy Md recordings using the RH1. I find CDs much more flexible and universal than MDs, even if they are more prone to damage. When talking about ease-of-use, admit it: just copying MP3s from one disk to the other, or to USB sticks, or whatever media is much more user-friendly than using SonicStage or performing real-time recording (this point has been a long-time discussion theme on this forum).

About Mac software, it allows PCM transfer too, but this is not the question in this forum (MP3 vs. ATRAC3+). In any case, keeping a music collection on MD in PCM format is either unpractical (legacy MDs = 30min PCM sound) or expensive (new HiMDs = $6 for 2 hours PCM sound). However, the Mac software is much easier to use than SonicStage. It manages MP3 files (download only) or PCM files (upload from PCM recordings or MP3s) quick and easy. The same thing plus real download and upload from MP3s and ATRAC3+ files would be the perfect tool.

About Minidisc recording: Minidiscs has excellent recording abilities: I even recommend them as recording device. However, I would recommend archiving recordings made on MDs on other media (except if using a Mac, where PCM upload is quick and easy).

To sum it up, I am a full advocate of Minidisc format(s), but still recommend to base a music collection on another technology, for ease of use and format- and vendor- independence.

What if Your MD player breaks one day? What if Sony drops support for MD? What if sony drops support for newer operating systems one day?

As I said, I recommend keeping source material on open, non-DRMd, universal media, in a safe place, and to use copies on other media for other uses (that is where Minidisc shines). I remember the time in the 80s, where I used to buy 30cm vinyl LPs just to copy them onto tapes, which I used regularly on home and portable systems. I am still doing it that way, using CDs and HiMDs now.

The issue is as you said but are mistaken in understanding , MD being not a good ARchive media, There are soo many MD players if my player breaks it doesnt harm my collection ,. not one bit , Just get another player , You have to jump thru hoops to upload from your iPod , download is drag and drop or sync , but to upload no no no Apple doesnt like that idea, that would be (God Forbid ) "Sharing"

Line out on the MD is DRM free, and Practically noise free, Real time isnt an issue for an Audiophile, it is an enjoyment. It is only a problem for those who wish to say " My mp3 collection is bigger than yours." Well My Wave Files are BIGGER and BETTER and I can do more with em. Like import them to Ableton live, or Protools, or Cubase , or Traktion or any other multitrack recording software or Studio setupout there and get the results I really want , you cannot do that with mp3 , and as for the arguement that this isnt about wave , my waves came from Atrac, HI MD format , Standard MD format , LP , SP , whatever , and are sonically useable , whereas mp3 has soo many artifacts in them that in studio reference monitors , you would cup your ears and turn it off.

Even if support drops for MD from Sony , There are SOOO many used MD's out there it would take all of 5 minutes to replace one, example , I bought a Kenwood MD Recorder in the junk bin at a place called HardOff , no accessories but working for 840 yen. get your calculator out . I believe the rate is 115 yen to the dollar.

the list of MD Players and recorders on my ID is very Incomplete , I have a supply ,

I log stuff to HiMD just to catch it , but I will rerecord it on a Legacy recorder so it will play on anything. mp3 is only good for portable audio and streaming audio . All I repeat ALL of the music you buy , or has been produced was produced in a format Much more maleable than mp3 , I will agree that ATRAC is Sony SOftware exclusive , But the line output is universal and its clean.

As for the personal comment , I will retract but I want you to know that the way you slammed MD as an Archive really pissed me off , it is on the Technical ascpect , the Perfect Archive media , there isnt one better , mp3 will get corrputed after awhile, MD is embedded and permanent , every time you defrag a harddrive or move a file bits/bytes are lost , that to me is the worst form of archiving .

By the way , I still have my Vinyl , not a scratch over 150 LP's , 300 plus MD's And two Harddrives packed with um dare i say it mp3's

Edited March 29, 2007 by Guitarfxr

[Richard]

You have to jump thru hoops to upload from your iPod , download is drag and drop or sync , but to upload no no no Apple doesnt like that idea, that would be (God Forbid ) "Sharing"

To be fair I don't think storm_shadow specifically mentioned the Ipod in any of his posts, he was referring to the ease of use of the Hi-MD music transfer for Mac software that comes with the RH1 versus Sonic Stage and consequently this ease of use may be a deciding factor for Mac users of the RH1 to encode to MP3 rather than Atrac3+.

[Strungup]

To be fair I don't think storm_shadow specifically mentioned the Ipod in any of his posts, he was referring to the ease of use of the Hi-MD music transfer for Mac software that comes with the RH1 versus Sonic Stage and consequently this ease of use may be a deciding factor for Mac users of the RH1 to encode to MP3 rather than Atrac3+.

I appreciate that Rich but the iPod reference is just the ubiquitus mp3 standard , dont get me wrong , I have the MicroTrack 24/96 and a buttload of audio gear that would be absolutely uneeded by the average user , so I have heard the quality of all of them .

Atrac versus mp3 in a nutshell , is that over 320 kbs ,that is where it gets down to frequency analysis , below that 128, 64 etc Atrac is audibly better ,

My beef with him was the archive issue where he stamped his foot down and said that is was NOT a good archive media which would be misinformation to ANY newbie or someone contemplating the MD purchase . When in fact you can ply frisbee across a parking lot with an MD to your Buds in another car , it bounces off the door they get out , pick it up , throw it in the deck and start jammin.

MO drives are just big MD'S .......with the wrong format