ATRAC3 and MP3 Comparison Question

[Zephir]

Assume that the bit rate is the same, does ATRAC3 plus or MP3 sound better on the nw-a806?

[pata2001]

AAC. I would think using Atrac will technically give you better battery life, but I doubt that you can distinguish the differences between MP3/Atrac/AAC at 128kbps and above.

[Zephir]

AAC. I would think using Atrac will technically give you better battery life, but I doubt that you can distinguish the differences between MP3/Atrac/AAC at 128kbps and above.

Haha, that's true. The reason why I would use Atrac is to save space, otherwise, if I ever get my hand on an nw-a808, I would use AAC. thanks

[Zephir]

Well, to save space on my nw-a806, I have decided to either go with 160kbps atrac3plus or 192kbps atrac3plus. Is there any noticeable different between listening to 160kbps atrac3plus and listening to 192kbps atrac3plus? Thanks in advance.

[juli_]

Well, to save space on my nw-a806, I have decided to either go with 160kbps atrac3plus or 192kbps atrac3plus. Is there any noticeable different between listening to 160kbps atrac3plus and listening to 192kbps atrac3plus? Thanks in advance.

I can hear the difference between 192 and 256 quite clearly, mainly because I listened to the same tracks side by side. Higher bitrate seemed to be louder and have more detail, but maybe the difference between 160 and 192 isn't so audible. Try copying some favourite tracks you know very well at differing bitrates and then decide which you'd be happy with. That's what I did, and I settled for 256 as I don't need tons of space for my collection, it's not that big.

[pata2001]

Well, to save space on my nw-a806, I have decided to either go with 160kbps atrac3plus or 192kbps atrac3plus. Is there any noticeable different between listening to 160kbps atrac3plus and listening to 192kbps atrac3plus? Thanks in advance.

Rip your tracks to LP2 (Atrac3 132kbps) and do a comparison with the original source, see if you can hear the difference. If not, LP2 will save you more space, more compatible than Atrac3plus, gapless, and give you even better battery life than Atrac3plus. Or, use Lame MP3 --preset fast medium or --preset fast standard. MP3 has VBR mode, which is more efficient in filesize and quality compared to the ancient CBR-only Atrac. I don't see any advantages using Atrac3plus unless if you want to go lower than 128kbps.

[Zephir]

Rip your tracks to LP2 (Atrac3 132kbps) and do a comparison with the original source, see if you can hear the difference. If not, LP2 will save you more space, more compatible than Atrac3plus, gapless, and give you even better battery life than Atrac3plus. Or, use Lame MP3 --preset fast medium or --preset fast standard. MP3 has VBR mode, which is more efficient in filesize and quality compared to the ancient CBR-only Atrac. I don't see any advantages using Atrac3plus unless if you want to go lower than 128kbps.

Well, I really have to consider the size of my player, which is not alot, so mp3 may be a little bit too big for my player. I tried to put some song into the player using 192kbps atrac3plus and it sounds pretty much the same as the mp3 version (to my non-audiophile ear of course )

Maybe when I upgrade to a higher capacity player then I'll use mp3. For now, I guess I have to stick to what I have. HD player is also a no go because I'm afraid I may drop it from a considerable height and damage the harddrive inside.