RobA Posted June 3, 2007 Report Share Posted June 3, 2007 What sounds better for playback and is more friendly for battery life in your testings? Sony claims ATRAC3plus 64kbps = ATRAC3 132kbps, true or false? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raintheory Posted June 3, 2007 Report Share Posted June 3, 2007 It's highly subjective... In my personal experience, I think LP2 (Atrac3 132kbps) sounds better than Hi-LP (Atrac3+ 64kbps).Let your own ears decide though.As far as battery life, the lower bitrate will probably result in better battery life. Whether or not this would be a noticeable difference is beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belletristik Posted June 3, 2007 Report Share Posted June 3, 2007 For battery life, I would assume that since Hi-LP is reading less data is would be more efficient, but I've never tested this theory.Where sound quality is concerned, I've never really been able to tell them apart, myself. This charttaken from the Hi-MD FAQ claims that they are essentially equivalent, and that they are also the equivalent of the first-generation ATRAC SP mode. I would be curious to have the opinions of the audiophiles out there, or at least those who have decent hearing (which is certainly not my case)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobt Posted June 3, 2007 Report Share Posted June 3, 2007 Numbers mean nothing, as always, and this has been hashed to death, try it with a song or group of songs you know well, hit shuffle and listen, if you can't tell the apart, you can figure the rest,Happy hunting,Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommypeters Posted June 14, 2007 Report Share Posted June 14, 2007 That Sony chart is well away from reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmp64 Posted June 16, 2007 Report Share Posted June 16, 2007 That Sony chart is well away from reality.Yes, agreed, and the fact that they made HiLP the default bitrate on SS hurt them, IMHO. A lot of people never change the default setting - so if you compare HiLP 64k to AAC 128k (iTunes) - there really is no comparison. Maybe if you use stock earphones it is harder to tell the difference, but still... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobA Posted June 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2007 (edited) I've done numerous testings and come to the conclusion that on music that has alot of highs and lows, LP2 sounds better than HiLP clearly. That chart is most definitely false. But on most songs I have trouble telling much difference. On my HD1 I encode everything in LP2 (since I have the storage to do so), on MD's I use HiLP. Edited June 16, 2007 by RobA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZosoIV Posted June 16, 2007 Report Share Posted June 16, 2007 It depends on the type of music being encoded, too. With a lot of the crap kids listen to these days (all words and no instruments, compressed as to be very LOUD), I wouldn't be surprised if 64k sounded passable. On the other hand, take a good classic rock recording or some acoustic jazz from the 50s or 60s and even LP2 sounds like ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syko Posted June 16, 2007 Report Share Posted June 16, 2007 I'm an audiophile, and this is what I think...Atrac3 132k is much much better than Atrac3+ 64k. Try recording music in atrac3+ 64k with very high stereo separation, compare it to 132k atrac3 and tell me what you think. The amount of artifacts heard especially at 10kHz+... I'd rather eat glass, to put it simply. I would also say that I hear more artifacts in 132k atrac3 than in a well-encoded 128k mp3 file, so atrac3 is definitely not my favourite audio format. Atrac3+ actually steps up this quality though, with atrac3+ 64k sounding much better than atrac3 66k, but it definitely doesn't compare to 128k mp3 as Sony claimed in a test, nor 132k atrac3. It sounds more like mp3 at 92k, maybe less. I'll admit atrac3+ 64k as good stereo replication comparable to mp3 92k, but the artifacts it still generates, unavoidable due to low bit rate is still awful.It's only 192k atrac3+ that I find audio quality acceptible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoGeR Posted June 17, 2007 Report Share Posted June 17, 2007 Hmm syko, I think I beg to differ. 128kbps MP3 sounds slightly better than Hi-LP no doubt, but not as bright or clean as LP2 132kbps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZosoIV Posted June 17, 2007 Report Share Posted June 17, 2007 (edited) Hmm syko, I think I beg to differ. 128kbps MP3 sounds slightly better than Hi-LP no doubt, but not as bright or clean as LP2 132kbps.Depends on the encoder. Most MP3 encoders don't sound very good at 128kbps CBR, but one outshines them all: LAME 3.97. LAME is an open-source encoder that is constantly being tweaked and improved. Using the -V5 --vbr-new preset (which gives about 130kbps VBR), listening tests have found it to be on par with MPEG-4 AAC at 128kbps - or transparent on many samples. Tests done around 192kbps (using -V2 --vbr-new) show it to be transparent on almost anything. I actually find ATRAC3 132 sounds grainy or watery with a lot of music, something that a properly-encoded (i.e., with LAME) MP3 around that bitrate won't suffer from. I never use ATRAC with my RH1, only MP3 or PCM. Edited June 17, 2007 by ZosoIV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strungup Posted June 17, 2007 Report Share Posted June 17, 2007 Actually ,...I my give Zep dude here the nod , I have the LAME3.97 framework on my Mac , I directed Audacity to use it instead of the other Lamelib encoder . And I have to admit this one does sound better and runs smoother , Lamelib would often times hang depending on file size . LAME tho hasnt givent me any probs yet . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGHMW Posted June 17, 2007 Report Share Posted June 17, 2007 (edited) Actually ,...I my give Zep dude here the nod , I have the LAME3.97 framework on my Mac , I directed Audacity to use it instead of the other Lamelib encoder . And I have to admit this one does sound better and runs smoother , Lamelib would often times hang depending on file size . LAME tho hasnt givent me any probs yet .Hey dude, do you happen to know where (online) I can get a free download of LAME3.97 for PC, so I can encode my own music onto MP3 format? It would really and I can share my music (as AK47) with all of you or on a message board similar to this.Thanks,Ray Edited June 17, 2007 by BIGHMW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strungup Posted June 17, 2007 Report Share Posted June 17, 2007 (edited) http://lame.sourceforge.net/index.phpandlinks to stuff dealing with LAME or Progs that use LAMEhttp://lame.sourceforge.net/links.php Edited June 17, 2007 by Guitarfxr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted June 18, 2007 Report Share Posted June 18, 2007 * Moved to Software Discussion 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.