AAC WMA ATRAC3 which is best

[mog the cat]

i have ordered a sony nw a806 mp3 player and was wondering what format was best for encoding music.

from my tests i have done i have concluded that AAC is better than WMA, however i cannot realy tell much of a difference between AAC and atrac 3, although i did think that atrac 3 sounded clearer at lower bit rates. i have asked someone else to do the listening test and they were able to constantly pick out between 160 and 192 kilbytes per second in AAC and WMA. they say that AAC is better than atrac 3 so i think i will trust them.

also does the encoding software make a difference, the AAC files done with itunes are smaller than those of the same bit rate done with sonic stage somehow.

[ceres]

i have ordered a sony nw a806 mp3 player and was wondering what format was best for encoding music.

from my tests i have done i have concluded that AAC is better than WMA, however i cannot realy tell much of a difference between AAC and atrac 3, although i did think that atrac 3 sounded clearer at lower bit rates. i have asked someone else to do the listening test and they were able to constantly pick out between 160 and 192 kilbytes per second in AAC and WMA. they say that AAC is better than atrac 3 so i think i will trust them.

also does the encoding software make a difference, the AAC files done with itunes are smaller than those of the same bit rate done with sonic stage somehow.

Go with aac as your files will be compatible with more than just sony players. [insert pause here]

Sonic Stage AAC encoder is of unproven quality and wraps a 3gp container around the raw aac sound files ----> useless with other players and software.

Sonic Stage SOMETIMES reads itunes tags and never nero aac tags so you will have to 1) encode the files and 2) tag them with sonic stage. Tagging with Sonic Stage is a real pain as the search cd info feature produces incoherent results. Let´s say you have 10 tracks, all belonging to an album. chances are you will have to pick and tag each and every singe song as sonic stage usually doesn´t recognise the tracks to belonging to one album. One of the reasons I dislike Sonic Stage,

[navsimpson]

I would say stick to MP3 - preferably using the EAC/LAME combo if you don't mind it being a little difficult to initially figure out. Sonicstage supports ID3v2 tags and embedded album art. Plus, the sound quality you'll get will be at least on par with AAC, if not better. MP3s are by far the most universal format, so to me that makes the most sense.

-Nav

[mog the cat]

I would say stick to MP3 - preferably using the EAC/LAME combo if you don't mind it being a little difficult to initially figure out. Sonicstage supports ID3v2 tags and embedded album art. Plus, the sound quality you'll get will be at least on par with AAC, if not better. MP3s are by far the most universal format, so to me that makes the most sense.

-Nav

I have heard 20 kilobyte mp3 compared to 20 kb wma and i can safely say that the other formats are leages ahead of mp3 in terms of sound quality per megabyte.

i am currently deciding wether i should use ITUNES to rip music and then import it using sonic stage.

can you just drag and drop the files into the sony nw a806 without any software like you can the psp. i have heard you cant but if someone could confirm this it would be good.

[markey]

I have heard 20 kilobyte mp3 compared to 20 kb wma and i can safely say that the other formats are leages ahead of mp3 in terms of sound quality per megabyte.

i am currently deciding wether i should use ITUNES to rip music and then import it using sonic stage.

can you just drag and drop the files into the sony nw a806 without any software like you can the psp. i have heard you cant but if someone could confirm this it would be good.

No, unfortunatley you can't drag and drop with the A806. You will need Sonic Stage.

[RobA]

Definitely go for ATRAC3/plus. ATRAC is proven to sound better than other codecs at similiar bitrates, and ATRAC3plus 64kbps is proven to sound BETTER than MP3 128kbps!

Go for ATRAC of course, after all, it is a sony player, and ATRAC is part of the reason sony shines. Using ATRAC will also give you longer battery life of course.

[ceres]

Definitely go for ATRAC3/plus. ATRAC is proven to sound better than other codecs at similiar bitrates, and ATRAC3plus 64kbps is proven to sound BETTER than MP3 128kbps!

Go for ATRAC of course, after all, it is a sony player, and ATRAC is part of the reason sony shines. Using ATRAC will also give you longer battery life of course.

where is the proof? If I might ask

[RobA]

where is the proof? If I might ask

This:

http://www.sony.net/Products/ATRAC3/tech/T...tening_test.pdf

And this:

http://www.sony.net/Products/ATRAC3/tech/ITS_test_report.pdf

Show that ATRAC3plus and ATRAC3 are superior to MP3 and WMA at similar bitrates, and that ATRAC3plus 64 is very slightly better than MP3 128.

[grenert]

This:

http://www.sony.net/Products/ATRAC3/tech/T...tening_test.pdf

And this:

http://www.sony.net/Products/ATRAC3/tech/ITS_test_report.pdf

Show that ATRAC3plus and ATRAC3 are superior to MP3 and WMA at similar bitrates, and that ATRAC3plus 64 is very slightly better than MP3 128.

Hey, I like ATRAC a lot, but I'm no fool. That old "research" is Sony propaganda from ages ago. Blind test after blind test (see the Hydrogenaudio website) has shown that a quality, modern MP3 codec like LAME is superior to ATRAC3 at 128kbps (132kbps for ATRAC). ATRAC3+ at 64kbps is better than MP3 at 64kbps, but nowhere as good as LAME at 128kbps.

So, unless you are looking to cram absolutely as much music as you can at 64kbps, LAME MP3 will be better in terms of sounding more like the original. Now, there may be some quality of the sound from ATRAC that you like, but it is an artifact (maybe something like using the equalizer), not due to more accurate representation of the original source.

[pata2001]

An old (2004) multi-format public listening test result: http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html

Today, pretty much all codecs are "on par" with each other for bitrates 128kbps and up. So compatibility is the second important point, and currently MP3 is still the king. AAC comes second.

[DSP]

damn, good old atrac is really going down on the one thing it was once so famous for: SQ.

I think the codec is just to old and leaping behind the others...

Still, The old atrac (atrac2 I think??) on MiniDisc players is the best sounding combo, especially Sharp's atrac on a 24-Bit MD in a 1/Bit sharp AUVI player.... now That's soundquality!!

Vorbis is a very good codec. I don't get why sony doesn't support this codec....

greetz

[mog the cat]

An old (2004) multi-format public listening test result: http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html

Today, pretty much all codecs are "on par" with each other for bitrates 128kbps and up. So compatibility is the second important point, and currently MP3 is still the king. AAC comes second.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...userlocale=809#

after listening to wma and mp3 at low bit rates i could realy never use mp3 knowing that there are other better things out there.

i have decided upon aac at 160 kbps. I suppose i cant realy go wrong with this.

[ceres]

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...userlocale=809#

after listening to wma and mp3 at low bit rates i could realy never use mp3 knowing that there are other better things out there.

i have decided upon aac at 160 kbps. I suppose i cant realy go wrong with this.

THAT´S MS Propaganda. Heed the independent listening tests at hydrogen audio. MS sure didn´t test against lame mp3 but some now defunct coder. mp3 isn´t a good choice for really small files but very competitive @ >128kbit/s

[pata2001]

damn, good old atrac is really going down on the one thing it was once so famous for: SQ.

I think the codec is just to old and leaping behind the others...

Still, The old atrac (atrac2 I think??) on MiniDisc players is the best sounding combo, especially Sharp's atrac on a 24-Bit MD in a 1/Bit sharp AUVI player.... now That's soundquality!!

Vorbis is a very good codec. I don't get why sony doesn't support this codec....

LP2 didn't fare too well mainly because Sony hardly ever improves the codec. When was the last time Sony tuned the Atrac3 codec? Noone knows, probably never. Same thing with WMA. That is the problem with propietary codecs. In contrast, Lame MP3 is improved and tuned on a regular basis, maximizing the aging MP3 codec. Same thing with Vorbis and AAC.

There's no such thing as Atrac2.

Vorbis is open source. Sony is controlled by Sony music, who prefer to control their content, and using an open source codec does not match their interest. At least Sony developed and now is supporting AAC.

[DSP]

@ pata2001:

Yeaah, It's all about control for sony music. But it would be very good for the Electronics devision. I just thought it would be a nice feature. Sony Walkman with Vorbis support. But I understand it ain't gonna happen any time soon.

BTW: I know my sony (minidisc) history. Atrac2 does exist! Read this http://www.minidisc.org/atrac2_paper/3.html

I'm just doubting if it was ever used by sharp. There's Sharp atrac 5 and 6. But A 1-Bit sharp auvi MiniDisc player, with Music recorded @ 24-Bit sharp Atrac (5 or 6) sounds like heaven.

greetz

Edited June 7, 2007 by DSP

[gotthat]

i agree with Rob A on this one, go for atrac3 or atrac3 plus

[bangraman]

i have ordered a sony nw a806 mp3 player and was wondering what format was best for encoding music.

from my tests i have done i have concluded that AAC is better than WMA, however i cannot realy tell much of a difference between AAC and atrac 3, although i did think that atrac 3 sounded clearer at lower bit rates. i have asked someone else to do the listening test and they were able to constantly pick out between 160 and 192 kilbytes per second in AAC and WMA. they say that AAC is better than atrac 3 so i think i will trust them.

also does the encoding software make a difference, the AAC files done with itunes are smaller than those of the same bit rate done with sonic stage somehow.

It's more or less exactly what you felt. WMA is the worst by quite an audible margin, AAC is generally good throughout, ATRAC3+ is excellent at lower bitrates where quality isn't such an issue but you just want something actually listenable. But it's advantage tails off at higher bitrates as it continues to paint a slight caricature of the original material.

[Fighting Phantom]

So I've recently began converting my library to Atrac3plus but it sounds like I might wanna go with AAC. Which is the best, AAC or ATRAC3?

[ceres]

So I've recently began converting my library to Atrac3plus but it sounds like I might wanna go with AAC. Which is the best, AAC or ATRAC3?

I´d say it depends on bitrate. At low bitrates Atrac shines as HE AAC consumes to much battery power. At 128 kbit´s Nero and Itunes AAC are clearly way better. At 192 atrac 3plus comes in but I haven´t seen listening tests at that bitrate.

But as AAC is very proven at 192 kbits, as is mp3 lame, I´d go for AAC.

[dutchtrance]

id go AAC, but good luck with the tagging and trying to get CronicStage to acept the tags.

[Fighting Phantom]

I´d say it depends on bitrate. At low bitrates Atrac shines as HE AAC consumes to much battery power. At 128 kbit´s Nero and Itunes AAC are clearly way better. At 192 atrac 3plus comes in but I haven´t seen listening tests at that bitrate.

But as AAC is very proven at 192 kbits, as is mp3 lame, I´d go for AAC.

Cool, I think I'll go with AAC. Recommend any good converters?

[ceres]

Cool, I think I'll go with AAC. Recommend any good converters?

Personally, I think Nero AAC is a tad bit better than itunes as it uses a real vbr scheme opposed to apple abr but I rip my cds in m4a lossless via itunes and convert internally via itunes to m4a 192kbits "Vbr". When you go via itunes you als get great album art at 600*600 pixels. You can drag the album art onto the desktop and a bmp picture will appear. The I recommend converting this image into the jpg format. You can do this with a basic tool such as MS Paint. The result can be imported into SS and you should be ready to rock and roll.

One more thing: As SS in its current version doesn´t really support apple mp4 tags you will have to "get cd info".

[Akai Kenshi]

So do walkmans playback AAC files gaplessly? And would the battery life take much of a hit?

I too have been considering switching to AAC.

[juli_]

Akai, I think gapless is only possible when you import the CD via Atrac. When I converted from wma to atrac, I got gaps - but when I imported the CD in atrac, I got gapless - gapless that it with the tiniest gap!

[pata2001]

So do walkmans playback AAC files gaplessly? And would the battery life take much of a hit?

I too have been considering switching to AAC.

So far, I can only verify the S70x series can play AAC gaplessly. AAC tracks has to be ripped via Sonicstage. AAC tracks ripped via other method (eg. iTunes) and imported to SS sre not gapless.

[doclloyd]

I will give this a try with the A808 this weekend. This would be great and I would utilize my library with my Walkman phone too! We'll see.

[doclloyd]

Well, this didn't seem to work for me... ripped the first CD from ATB's "The DJ: In the Mix 3" and there was definite gaps between tracks. ATRAC has really spoiled me in the gapless playback department.

@pata2001, What settings did you use to trip the AAC tracks into SS? And what type of music did you try it out with?

[RobA]

Why are you bothering with AAC? You have a sony walkman that is ATRAC compatible, so why not use it?

Edited June 23, 2007 by Rob A

[rocklegend_]

Why are you bothering with AAC? You have a sony walkman that is ATRAC compatible, so why not use it?

That´s exactly what I was thinking.Also what I´ve found is that Atrac 128 is better bit rate than Atrac 132

[doclloyd]

I've definitely been using ATRAC as default, but it would be nice to have the same tracks to transfer to my SE w810 Walkman phone. I basically use the phone to listen to podcasts/mixes on the go and the A808 for everything else.

[pata2001]

Well, this didn't seem to work for me... ripped the first CD from ATB's "The DJ: In the Mix 3" and there was definite gaps between tracks. ATRAC has really spoiled me in the gapless playback department.

@pata2001, What settings did you use to trip the AAC tracks into SS? And what type of music did you try it out with?

Again, I can only confirm gapless AAC playback on the S70x series, not any other network walkmen. I know that the E00x series CANNOT play AAC gaplessly. I presume anything older than the S70x couldn't either. Even the PS3 cannot play AAC gaplessly.

I simply use one of my various Super Eurobeat non-stop CDs, ripped via Sonicstage to AAC 128kbps.

[doclloyd]

Again, I can only confirm gapless AAC playback on the S70x series, not any other network walkmen. I know that the E00x series CANNOT play AAC gaplessly. I presume anything older than the S70x couldn't either. Even the PS3 cannot play AAC gaplessly.

I simply use one of my various Super Eurobeat non-stop CDs, ripped via Sonicstage to AAC 128kbps.

Right. I was hoping since the A80x series was a bit newer that it would have this functionality too. Maybe they'll add gapless for AAC in the future with a firmware update, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.