Visual Inspection of SQ

[stargazer_tom1]

Hi guys,

Has anyone else out there compared hi-sp to aac, wma or mp3 using adobe audition? I have and i find that aac and wma at very high bitrates ie ~300kbs look stunningly good compared to hi-sp. To me so much is lost with ATRAC3+ when using this method of analysis. Is the visual stuff that's missing what ATRAC is "throwing" away as we wont be able to hear it anyway or is the codec poor at retaining subtleties of the original recording?

Thanks guys as usual

[Avrin]

Pure visual analysis can only help to detect really poor quality in some cases. A nicely-looking graph, on the other hand, doesn't guarantee good quality.

And don't forget that Hi-SP is not the same thing as software-encoded ATRAC3plus @ 256 kbit/s.

[md user]

Pure visual analysis can only help to detect really poor quality in some cases. A nicely-looking graph, on the other hand, doesn't guarantee good quality.

And don't forget that Hi-SP is not the same thing as software-encoded ATRAC3plus @ 256 kbit/s.

Quite right, listening opinions are what matter, not 'cold numbers'.

See Here for some public perceptions of quality for these kind of codecs..

mdmad.

[Azureal]

And don't forget that Hi-SP is not the same thing as software-encoded ATRAC3plus @ 256 kbit/s.

Arvin, can you explain the details of this statement?

[Avrin]

Software-encoded ATRAC3plus @ 256 kbit/s has a much wider frequency response than hardware-recorded Hi-SP. Virtually all frequencies up to 22,050 Hz are preserved, while Hi-SP has a much lower cut-off frequency.

I once did a frequency analysis of various ATRAC3plus bitrates. Here's the topic (the results are not very precise, but still can provide some insight): http://forums.sonyinsider.com/index.php?showtopic=18292

Edited March 20, 2010 by Avrin