Which ATRAC Bitrate do you feel...

[RobA]

Gives the best trade off between Sound Quality and Battery Life? I've always been using HiLP (ATRAC3plus @ 64kbps). But have just recently been doing some experiments with ATRAC3 @ 132kbps, and quite honestly, I can't tell any difference between the 2. So that's why I prefer HiLP over ATRAC3 @ 132. If I did start using ATRAC3 @ 132, battery life would also probably take a hit.

How about you guys? Can you tell a difference between ATRAC3 132 and ATRAC3plus 64?

[Guest Stuge]

Atrac 3 is older than Atrac 3 Plus .Atrac3 plus is much better than Atrac 3 ,but Atrac 64kpbs IMO is not good for listening .Since you have space I will suggest you to select Atrac 3 132kpbs

[RobA]

Atrac 3 is older than Atrac 3 Plus .Atrac3 plus is much better than Atrac 3 ,but Atrac 64kpbs IMO is not good for listening .Since you have space I will suggest you to select Atrac 3 132kpbs

That's what I was thinking. What is the real difference between ATRAC3 and ATRAC3plus as far as sound? And if I was too use ATRAC3 132 files (I have them already saved on my computer, along with all my HiLP files) on my HD1, how much would battery life take a hit?

[mmp64]

If you can't tell the difference between HiLP and LP2, then go ahead and use HiLP. You get etter battery life and more tunes. ATRAC3+ is more sophisticated than ATRAC3 - I personally don't believe their claims that suggest HiLP = MP3 128 and/or LP2 - but if it works for you, that's all that matters. It really depends on what kind of music you are listening to, and what kind of earphones/headphones you use.

[RobA]

After doing some testing with speakers at very high volume using line out, I can hear that LP2 is better than HiLP. All the songs on my HD1 are now in LP2. And after reading Stuge's review of the HD3 saying he got 27 hrs of playback using 132kbps, I'm psyched. I'm surprised it lasts that long at a higher bitrate like LP2, but that is simply fantastic.

[RobA]

Atrac 3 is older than Atrac 3 Plus .Atrac3 plus is much better than Atrac 3 ,but Atrac 64kpbs IMO is not good for listening .Since you have space I will suggest you to select Atrac 3 132kpbs

Stuge, I recently read that ATRAC3plus 64kbps was made to replace ATRAC3 132kbps. Is this correct? Meaning that the 2 are equal?

[Guest Stuge]

Stuge, I recently read that ATRAC3plus 64kbps was made to replace ATRAC3 132kbps. Is this correct? Meaning that the 2 are equal?

I haven't read any such thing .They are not equal.Rob,as said before Atrac3 132kpbs sounds much better than Atrac3 Plus 64kpbs ,but if you compare Atrac3plus 128kpbs and Atrac3 132kpbs ,then Atrac3 plus 128kbps is much better .(Atrac3 plus 128kpbs is not compatible with NW-HD1)

[rocklegend_]

I haven't read any such thing .They are not equal.Rob,as said before Atrac3 132kpbs sounds much better than Atrac3 Plus 64kpbs ,but if you compare Atrac3plus 128kpbs and Atrac3 132kpbs ,then Atrac3 plus 128kbps is much better .(Atrac3 plus 128kpbs is not compatible with NW-HD1)

2 questions for ya...

1...In what way is Atrac 128kpbs better than Atrac3 132kpbs.

2...Is Atrac3plus 128kpbs compatitible with the NW A3000 as I´ve just bought one and and it should be delievered any day now.I wanted the A808 but 8 gig aint enough so the next best thing I could get was the A3000 even though it´s not a popular unit on this site....

Tanx

[RobA]

I haven't read any such thing .They are not equal.Rob,as said before Atrac3 132kpbs sounds much better than Atrac3 Plus 64kpbs ,but if you compare Atrac3plus 128kpbs and Atrac3 132kpbs ,then Atrac3 plus 128kbps is much better .(Atrac3 plus 128kpbs is not compatible with NW-HD1)

Here's a chart from sony themselves:

Although I should probably take it with a grain of salt, since everyone seems to think 132k sounds better than 64k.

[dura_]

I tried 128 vs 256 on my HD1 two years ago; the 128 had some small but annoying distortion in the treble.

BTW, the hit on batterylife by larger bitrates is serious with HD-players, where the HD has to be accessed more often for a given playtime if the btrate rises. The difference in flashplayers is much smaller, irrelevant IMO.

[RobA]

I tried 128 vs 256 on my HD1 two years ago; the 128 had some small but annoying distortion in the treble.

BTW, the hit on batterylife by larger bitrates is serious with HD-players, where the HD has to be accessed more often for a given playtime if the btrate rises. The difference in flashplayers is much smaller, irrelevant IMO.

I think though that because ATRAC3 is older it uses less power than ATRAC3plus, making Lp2 and Hi-LP equal as far as battery life is concerned, I'm still weaning back and forth on which bitrate I should use. All my songs were originally transcoded from mp3's ranging from 128-192kbps, if that makes any difference.

[gotthat]

rocklegend NW-A3000 isn't a bad player, many people have brought this when it was released, there were many posts where people gave many good comments on the A1000/1200/3000 player definitely, it's just people may like different things, i agree with stuge on his comment about Atrac3plus 128kpbs

[Guest Stuge]

Here's a chart from sony themselves:

How does it tell that Atrac3 64kpbs is better than Atrac132kpbs ?

I tried 128 vs 256 on my HD1 two years ago; the 128 had some small but annoying distortion in the treble.

BTW, the hit on batterylife by larger bitrates is serious with HD-players, where the HD has to be accessed more often for a given playtime if the btrate rises. The difference in flashplayers is much smaller, irrelevant IMO.

How did you play Atrac3Plus 128kpbs on HD1 ?

[Lyssnare]

Hi! I have listening to MD`s since 1999 and to ATRAC3 since 2003, now I have a HiMD Walkman MZ-RH710. Then I`m a very skilled listener since 25 years and like to explore my gadgets. I have compared ATRAC3 LP2 (132kBit/s) with ATRAC3+ 64kBits/s and found out that it`s not a big difference between those two. LP2 sounds less dynamic and softer compared to 64kBit/s, not much but I noticed it, then it comes to dynamic, (music that sounds less dynamic is not always less dynamic, if the music sounds softer you think it is less dynamic but it is just softer). 64kBit/s has a little harder sound that feels more dynamic but I don`t think it is. Both sounds just a little watery, very little in fact , LP2 just a little bit more, but nothing that bothers me. 64kBit/s treble is not so stable compared to LP2, but if you are listening to popular music you don`t notice it. All in all they sounds a little bit different compared to each other but I think no one is better than the other, it`s up to You to decide. I use 64kBit/s very often most because I can store more than twice as much as LP2 on a MD, and I think the SQ will do for the most of todays popular music. This is my opinion, and no one hear exactly the same as one other, and most important, how you are listening can no other than You judge. So what You prefer is the right choice.

[RobA]

How does it tell that Atrac3 64kpbs is better than Atrac132kpbs ?

Not better, equal. The red line goes through both LP2 and HiLP claiming they are equal as ATRAC advanced.

[JustAnUnCoolCat]

Well, i think Lyssnare hinted at an important point.

It highly depends on what you encode, as to what works well with a bit rate/sample rate combo. Ok, so you dont have the sample rate choice with ATRAC, just encoding choice of bit-rate.

But definately, some of the more taxing examples of music (from across the board) definately (in my experience) test the limitations of 64K encoding (in any codec) let alone 48K.

But if you are trying to get n amounts of tracks into the balancing act of SQ vs size, then almost certainly the SQ is effectively gonna be down in the interests of keeping the audio file size compact.

But it also matters where you listen.

ATRAC3 105/132 is where i would (general purpose) go for simplicity (all ATRAC units can handle those) unless the audio content dictates differently and then i make a rational choice between listening comfort and compact file sizes.

Clearly it also depends, the balancing act, on how much you are trying to eek out max use of battery endurance and/or storage.

Even though i dont do a lot of outdoor recording using MD, got way better kit for that purpose where the recording is seriously important, now and then i still need to use a MD recorder. In which case, even if it means a disc change now and then , my lossy choice is generally ATRAC3 132 (i forget which mode that is, LP2 or something like that i guess).

But that's only because i prefer to err on the side of caution and have a better recording than i need for the end result. After all, if the recording is overly HQ (relatively speaking), that helps when it comes to any mastering and editing and audio processing. Makes all the diffference, in my mind, when it comes to spoken word.... I'd rather have something overly sharp and precise to take away and process/edit/remaster to a more compact end form than risk super low recording bit rates and find the result is barely good enough by the time i get indoors back to the edit suite.

Two very different sides of the bitrate dilemma.

[nishipi]

it's very subjective, we can even have different reviews on the SQ of a player or earphones, use whatever suits urself

[Richard]

it's very subjective, we can even have different reviews on the SQ of a player or earphones, use whatever suits urself

Good point - although personally I only ever use 132k for transcoding MP3 podcasts for my MD players. The rest of my library is in 352k or with a few albums in 256k.

[Livy]

It's a good idea to read the interview of the developers of ATRAC3+ to understand a little more about the theory. I think 128kbps ATRAC3+ is noticeably better than 132kbps ATRAC3, and even a 96kbps rate in ATRAC3+ is acceptable in many cases. Once below 96kbps, too much is missing from the music for me, even in ATRAC3+.

Edited July 28, 2007 by Livy

[dura_]

How did you play Atrac3Plus 128kpbs on HD1 ?

You're right, sorry. I meant to say I compared ATRAC3 132 kbs with ATRAC 3+ 256kbs. The difference wasn't that big, but clear enough to go for 256 kbs because of the purer treble. 256 kbs lead to a respectable 150-200 albums on my NW-HD1, A3000.

[Wolfgang Mittermeier]

Gives the best trade off between Sound Quality and Battery Life? I've always been using HiLP (ATRAC3plus @ 64kbps). But have just recently been doing some experiments with ATRAC3 @ 132kbps, and quite honestly, I can't tell any difference between the 2. So that's why I prefer HiLP over ATRAC3 @ 132. If I did start using ATRAC3 @ 132, battery life would also probably take a hit.

How about you guys? Can you tell a difference between ATRAC3 132 and ATRAC3plus 64?

What kind of earphone are you using ? Bitrate of the ATRAC I heared has never been lower than 192kpbs.

[suso]

I have tried only atrac3plus @105 and @64, and the difference is outstanding. while listening to tracks coded at 105 kbps, I don't care about the compression rate, the sound quality or whatever, I just listen and enjoy (so it means that it works ok), but the tracks at 64 kbps sound awful, absolutely a flat sound. so i'm recording only at 105. besides, it's worth to say that I use my hd3 while riding on buses, or walking on the street, or any place that may have high levels of noise, maybe if you use it with a hi-fi amp or something like that you will tell the difference with higher bitrates