NW-A805 and Atrac 64k

[aob9]

For the first time ever I have listened to ATRAC 64k and I chose my NW-A805 as the target. I am amazed at the sound quality of this codec at such a low bitrate. My reason for filling my player up at 64k is because of space limitations as I'm heading on a holiday for a few days ( the 2 gig version was all I could afford at the time).

I usually listen to MP3@192k and consider myself fairly fussy about SQ.

I have been very vocal about a firmware upgrade for my A805................................I'm not too sure now

[juli_]

For the first time ever I have listened to ATRAC 64k and I chose my NW-A805 as the target. I am amazed at the sound quality of this codec at such a low bitrate. My reason for filling my player up at 64k is because of space limitations as I'm heading on a holiday for a few days ( the 2 gig version was all I could afford at the time).

I usually listen to MP3@192k and consider myself fairly fussy about SQ.

I have been very vocal about a firmware upgrade for my A805................................I'm not too sure now

Wow, I would never have thought such a low bitrate could possibly be any good, but then I've never tried it. Might have to test it now out of curiosity!

EDIT: I just compared a 256k with a 132k and didn't notice any quality loss at all, and I've always been really fussy about SQ!! I can't believe I didn't ever test out the lower bitrates in the first place, I just naturally assumed they'd sound bad. . . and they don't.

Edited September 18, 2007 by juli

[aznbro85]

Yeah, I've been doing the same thing now for many years. I rip my CDs twice, once in 320kbps MP3 so I can fiddle around with those files. I also ripped everything into ATRAC3plus @ 64kbps. It sounds much better when you rip CDs at that instead of transcoding mp3s/wma/etc into that format. But that's usually the case i guess, less manipulation = less sound loss, haha