What format/bit rate for NW-A3000?

[JamieB]

Hi there-

1st of all, great forum!

Right, down to business. I've had my NW-A300 since December, and spent a TERRIFYINGLY long time transferring my entire CD collection across, compressed into 132Kbps ATRAC3 format, as I was unsure as to how much space I would use. Turns out, I have about 9-10 Gig free.

I have been using the stock earbuds, but find them very uncomfortable (I used to use Sennheiser PX200's with my old D-Ej955) and found them alright. I use a small, cheap amp to boost the output of the Walkman (as I did with the Discman) but I am unsure whether this setup will work well if I purchase a set of Westone UM1's, ER6i's or similar.

I'm also a bit concerned about re-ripping my entire CD collection into Atrac3Plus at 256Kbps eg, my girlfriend went ballistic last time I did it, if I do it again (especially near Valentine's day) then I may be in serious trouble!

What do you guys recommend? Would re-ripping the CD's into a higher format be justified? And what are your experiences of the NW-A3000 with the upgraded IEM's?

Cheers, Jamie B

Edited February 16, 2006 by JamieB

[JamieB]

It doesn't have to strictly be someone who uses an NW-A3000, anyone who uses Atrac on their MD or HDD device who has any advice, feel free to chip in! Thanks, J

[Guest Stuge]

You can use Atrac 3 132 if you want to save space want a decent sound (Only if you wabt to store your files other than music files like .exe,Game etc).But if you don`t want to use a removable disc than Atrac3 plus 192kpbs is recommended .Also future of Atrac is really in doubt because in many devices Sony has left atrac .

You can also transfer music in Atrac3 plus 128kpbs in A3000 & Atrac3 plus 128kpbs seems better than Atrac3 132kpbs

Also GYm can be used to Save music files from your device (only mp3 ).

My Hd5 is halfed filled with Mp3 & Half filled with Atrac3 plus 192kpbs.

[hp1975]

So Stuge what you're saying is that if you have an A3000 then Atrac 3 Plus 192 is the best bit rate to got for if you are not worried about space? I have all my CDs ripped at 128 which I assumed was in Atrac3 plus format though when I look at the track details on the player it just says atrac not atrac 3plus?

So..is Atrac3 plus 192 noticeably better quality than Atrac 3 plus 128 and;

How do you verify what codec you have used to encode the track (after it has been ripped and transferred)

Cheers

HP

[JamieB]

I doubt I will ever use my A3000 as a HD, I thought I'd use the highest bitrate possible, but when I was faced with the MOUND of CD's I thought I'd better make sure they all got on there.

Are you saying that re-ripping them in MP3 may be a better idea? I just thought that Atrac3 would give longer battery life (which I've noticed isn't exactly brilliant as it is). I think I will try and rip the same song in several different formats, then listen to each and see if the pay-off in size versus SQ is worth it. If there is a remarkable difference, then I guess I'll be re-ripping my whole collection again. Sigh.

On a different note, what headphones do you guys think would be the best? Er6i or UM1? I had also thought about CX300, but don't know if they would be a significant step up from the standard buds.

Thanks for the help, Jamie

[hp1975]

Jamie,

I thin I'm going to do the same and see which bitrate offers the best compromise of space vs eq.

I have a pair of Shure's E2c headphones. They are the In ear Monitor types and are absolutley fantastic at cutting out background noise. I find they offer quite a level response, maybe just a touch bright at the top end. The bass is notioceable but certainly not bloated like the Sony ERX 7 (whatever the number is) in ear plugs. I like them and you do start to notice bits of songs you have never noticed before.

H

[Guest Stuge]

hp1975,

You can see the bit rate in the properties of the song in SonicStage ..

Yes, Atrac3 plus 192kpbs is much better than Atrac3 plus 132kpbs .

Since I used a3000 for just one week two months agao .So now I don`t reme,ber much about it .But like in HD5 it show the bit rate of the song as well .

JamieB,

I think i have created some confusion according to me if you have audio cd`s of aparticular songs then it doens`t matter much whether you listen song in Atrac or Mp3 but if you only have mp3`s then it`s not recommended to convert it .

Atrac has its own downfall because you can`t exchange Atrac files with your friends but you can do mp3`s with GYM .

Alo at higher bit rate you will not find difference b/w The two codecs

[JamieB]

If I get a chance over the next few days I'm going to rip a few tracks I know really well in to various compression types, have a listen with my Senn PX200's and the stock buds, amped and un-amped, and post a report on here.

It is a bit frustrating that nowhere seems to have the mid-range IEM's for trial, I guess I'll have to just keep reading around and see which would suit me best. I think that the ER6i's are looking the best bet so far, I can get them a little cheaper than the UM1's as well.

I'll post again with my findings in a bit, Jamie

[JamieB]

Well. I had a very quick go last night at comparing my 132kb Atrac3 version of a few Nils Lofgren songs from his 'Acoustic Live' album, with 192kb Atrac3, 352kb Atrac3+ and 352kb Atrac3 Lossless (using amped/unamped PX200 and stock Sony earbuds) and I have to be honest, I couldn't hear a HUGE amount of difference.

One thing that was obvious was that I need new headphones though! The sibilance from the Sony earbuds was painful, I had a go with Coldplay's 'Spies' track, and when Chris Martin was singing the treble in certain sections was not good at all (with the stock buds).

I think the only option is to take the plunge and get some upgraded IEM's, and then re-try the listening test. I'd be more than pleased if I don't have to re-rip my entire CD collection.

Jamie

[hp1975]

Thanks for the feedback Jamie, the PX200's are no slouches so i suspect it was fair comparison as they are good enough to notice any differences. I am going to try the same thing with my Shure IEMs this weekend. Will let you know.

H

[JamieB]

Oh yeah, I've had a quick listen in work to the 352kbs Atrac3+ file again, but it isn't marked on the player under 'detailed information' as 352kb Atrac3+, just 352 kb Atrac. Is this correct? I noticed that they aren't classed as Atrac3+ in Sonicstage on the compression options screen either. Am I being totally useless? This is with SS 3.4. Cheers, J

[hp1975]

No they aren't marked clealry in the options screen when ripping but if you look at a tracks properties and click on the 'file info' tab the left hand bos shows exactly what codec has been used.

[Zombie1000]

This isn't exaclty a useful comment but I take the attitude that storage is cheap nowadays when ripping cd's and so I just rip them all at 320kbps MP3 them I am sure they are of the best quality they can be and will be compatible with many devices. Maybe 320kbps is a little over the top but it's not exactly filling my hd and my NW-A3000 is only half full as it is.

[Guest Stuge]

Hello Guys

Atrac 3 plus 352kpbs is added in ripping option in Sonic Stage ver3.4 .

[NoOneHome]

There seems to be some confusion in some of the posts above regarding formats. Hopefully this will help you.

Sony's earlier format is the ATRAC3. Their new format is Atrac3plus which uses much more sophisticated algorithms. As a result you get smaller files with better quality. Atrac3plus 64k is Sony's direct replacement designed to replace Atrac3 132k, and although having different bitrates are near enough on a par (with some exceptions) due to the newer Atrac3plus algorithms.

It's fair to say that Atrac3plus 128k is better quality than ATRAC3 132k. If your player supports A3+ 128k (A3000 does) and you want a good space/quality balance, go for A3+ 128k (or higher).

For info, 132k is the only old ATRAC3 format still supported for importing CDs in the new SonicStage & ConnectPlayer (for backwards compatibility with older players). All other ATRAC3 formats have been dropped.

PS. The statement about Sony dropping Atrac3plus is incorrect. Although they've added support for WMA & MP3, Atrac3plus still remains an important format, not least for the following reasons:

- It's almost exclusive in being able to offer gapless playback on it's players (very important to me as I have 40+ gapless albums, dance compilations, ambient & chillout stuff - which would be spoilt on MP3 and iPod players). The need for gapless support is not small - there's even an internet petition to make the iPod gapless capable, with 6,000+ signatures last time I looked.

- If space is important, it's still one of the only formats that can create 64k tracks that are worthy of listening to. eg. a 2gb Sony flash player is on par with a 4gb hdd based iPod mini - being able to store the same number of tracks in half the space usually without any noticable loss in quality.

Hope this helps

Edited February 26, 2006 by NoOneHome