Transcoding MP3 to ATRAC+

[mimoid]

Hello,

I am new to this forum, so please bear with me if I ask something that has been answered before.

I have a number of albums in MP3 format encoded at CBR 320 kbps. Whenever I put these onto my Network Walkman, I convert them to ATRAC3+ @256.

All around various web sites, I keep reading about how bad it is to transcode from one lossy format to another. While I certainly understand that it may in theory introduce some audio artefacts, I am simply unable to hear any difference whatsoever between the "original" MP3 files and the ATRAC-files - let it be baroque music or intricate ambient electronica.

I am using high quality headphones, my musical training is on a fairly high level and my ears are not too bad. Are all those discussions about "transcoding being the devil" related to lower bitrates - or am I missing something obvious?

Tom

[surripere]

Tom, trust your ears if it works for you then it works, don't worry about what you should or should not be hearing by transcoding. Recently I have started to use HiLP for portable listening and I get on fine with it but a lot of people on the forum would argue that this bitrate is too low for music - it's not whether they're right or wrong it's about what I'm comfortable with.

Happy listening.

Jon

[Strungup]

Hello,

I am new to this forum, so please bear with me if I ask something that has been answered before.

I have a number of albums in MP3 format encoded at CBR 320 kbps. Whenever I put these onto my Network Walkman, I convert them to ATRAC3+ @256.

All around various web sites, I keep reading about how bad it is to transcode from one lossy format to another. While I certainly understand that it may in theory introduce some audio artefacts, I am simply unable to hear any difference whatsoever between the "original" MP3 files and the ATRAC-files - let it be baroque music or intricate ambient electronica.

I am using high quality headphones, my musical training is on a fairly high level and my ears are not too bad. Are all those discussions about "transcoding being the devil" related to lower bitrates - or am I missing something obvious?

Tom

Hello fellow musician.

What Atrac does in the most Basic terms , Is It examines the Frequencies that are Audible to the human Range of hearing . And theoretically removes the parts you dont hear to reduce the file size. What mp3 does is arbitrarily remove data to reduce file size.

Hence when you encoded to Atrac you heard no difference , because only things you didnt hear anyway were removed.

I also have somewhat exeptional hearing My base line is 23hz and fairly flat up to 1.2khz where it drops 3db then rises past the flatline at 3.7 khz (Peak ) and back down to flat line from 5khz up to 17khz then a slight peak and drops off at 22khz

I have the graphs somewhere , My hearing somewhat resembles the AT 3032 exept that you would move the peak at 10khz down to 4 khz but the same levels and pattern.

I have been Using Atrac (MD ) since the first model. And recording from an Atrac machine to a WAV machine I have never needed to distinguish between the two.Whereas MP3 was always audibly different . The RH1 has a better dynamic range than most I have used , but the MZ-R50 is my alltime Fav.

Edited April 2, 2007 by Guitarfxr

[Richard]

* Moved to appropriate sub-section.

For your information any further discussion related specifically to Network Walkman devices (I realize this specific topic is still rather general) should be directed to our sister forum AtracLife

[jeffgrado]

Both of those bitrates are very high, and it would be difficult to tell the two files apart. If you were going down to atrac+ 48, then you would notice it a bit more.