Should I switch to using ATRAC3plus 256k from 352k?

[MDX-400]

As the title says... Currently I'm using mainly ATRAC3plus @ 352kbps (ripping from CDs) for use on my NW-HD3. However, I'm wondering if I should consider switching to ATRAC3plus at 256kpbs instead?

352k is quite a bit above 256k (96kbps more data rate to be exact) and therefore takes up ~38% more disk space. Also it should also be reading the HDD by that much more and result in more battery power consumption/shorter battery life.

Though I've loaded up a few gigs of music so far on to the HD3, I haven't really used it enough to see what the battery is like at 352k. But we do know that Sony rates the "30hr" spec. with ATRAC3plus 48k (ugh!); 352k is over 7x more data rate and likely 7x more HDD reading time.

I could spend a lot of time doing quality comparisons between 256k and 352k but perhaps other people on the forum have already done this and have insight/comments? How much worse is 256 than 352?

It's too bad the HD3 can't use ATRAC3plus at 320k (why it can use 352k and not 320k is beyond me but that's the way it is). Though 320k isn't that far off 352, it's at least a little lower.

I do like to squeeze out as much quality as I can and a 352kbps data rate does just that, but I'm wondering if the disk space savings, battery life savings, and lower wear on the HDD might outweigh the quality loss?

PS: Oh and before someone suggests "why don't you use 192kpbs?" or something like that, there's no way I'm going that low, LOL... (How people can use 132k or lower is beyond me. How Sony seems to think people will use 48k is really beyond me!)

[Guest Stuge]

I`m posting it again here also to help other people

If i had to choose b/w both the the bitrate then i will prefer 256kpbs ..First of all 352kpbs will suck all the battery & secondly if you you need that bitrate than it rather better to prefer a device that supports Flac ,Wav or Lossless formats .

[Raydeen]

If you convert from original CDs to atrac3plus 48 kbps the changes in quality are unoticiable, if you try to convert an already converteed file, then you will notice some significant changes in quality.

[pata2001]

If you convert from original CDs to atrac3plus 48 kbps the changes in quality are unoticiable,

You've got to be kidding right? 48kbps vs CD, unoticable?

[maggior]

If you convert from original CDs to atrac3plus 48 kbps the changes in quality are unoticiable, if you try to convert an already converteed file, then you will notice some significant changes in quality.

After a cursory listening test on non-hifi equipment (stock headphones, computer speakers, etc), you may find this to be true. I've never gone down to 48, but I did try the 64 bit rate on my old MD unit once. I was surprised at the quality - I expected something that sounded like AM radio.

However, I noticed that things fell apart when you cranked the volume up. I can remember listening to some discs in my car on the way to work that I ripped at 64K. I was pretty impressed. I put on Dream Theater's Falling Into Infinity and cranked up the volume. Then I was very unimpressed. The music just lost all of it's punch. It wasn't that the lows were gone or the highs were muted, it was just that the music sounded like it was missing something - it was hollow, it had no precense. Once I noticed this, I just found it unacceptable. IMO, the best it could be used for is background music.

BTW, I went through a similar experience going from ATRAC 105kbps to 192 variable LAME mp3. Not sure if the difference is due to the codec change or the bit rate change. Even on my home strereo, I can't tell the difference between the original CD and my LAME mp3s played by my iPod.