lafuente85 Posted May 1, 2004 Report Share Posted May 1, 2004 You can find an evaluation between ATRAC, MP3 and WMA in the following pages: www.sony.net/Products/ATRAC3/tech/lab/TESTfactory_Listening_test.pdf www.minidisc.org/keep/TESTfactory_Listening_test.pdf I make a summary of the pdf for the people who use a finder and need to find that information: Listening Test Report For Ingenieurbüro Meter Bengel (IPB) Turnhallestraße 7A, 70565 Stuttgart ATRAC3plus and ATRAC3 comparison type 1 to type 4 Type 1: ATRAC3plus 48kbps vs. MP3 48kbps and WMA 48kbps Type 2: ATRAC3plus 64kbps vs. MP3 64kbps and WMA 64kbps Type 3: ATRAC3 132kbps vs. MP3 128kbps and WMA 128kbps Type 4: ATRAC3plus 64kbps vs. MP3 128kbps Used Equipment for listening test: Equipment Test CD:IPB Amplifier:Sony VA333ES DVD-Player:T&A DVD1230 Headphones:Sony MDRCD3000 Evaluation of the listening test: ATRAC3plus 48kbps vs. MP3 48kbps: MP3 performs really bad compared to ATRAC3plus ATRAC3plus 64kbps vs. MP3 64kbps: MP3 again performs really bad compared to ATRAC3plus ATRAC3plus 48kbps vs. WMA 48kbps: ATRAC3plus shows clearly a better rating compared to WMA ATRAC3plus 64kbps vs. WMA 64kbps: ATRAC3plus agains shows clearly a better rating compared to WMA ATRAC3 132kbps vs. WMA 128kbps: ATRAC3 shows only a slightly better rating compared to WMA ATRAC3 132kbps vs. MP3 128kbps: ATRAC3 shows a small advantage over MP3 ATRAC3PLUS 64kbps vs. MP3 128kbps: ATRAC3plus 64kbps shows almost equal quality of sound reproduction as MP3 128kbps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NRen2k5 Posted May 6, 2004 Report Share Posted May 6, 2004 Very good! It's important to note, however, that Lame may perform better at 128kbps than the Fraunhofer encoder used in this series of comparisons. Aside from that, it was carried out very well and I must agree that for <128kbps, a Fraunhofer encoder would be the best representative for MP3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lafuente85 Posted May 7, 2004 Author Report Share Posted May 7, 2004 My English is very bad, but I am going to make me understand. MP3-Fraunhofer is a coder created by a company for Microsoft for its format RIFF, it is a MP3 to which its extension is changed. MP3-LAME has an algorithm dedicated to "Joint Stereo" of a MP3. MP3-LAME is a little better, but you must consider the speed with which codifies a file. When codifying a file to "MP3-LAME 48kbps" we have a file with low quality. When codifying a file to "MP3-Fraunhofer 48kbps" we have a file of low quality but with emphasis in the high sounds. I suppose that they chose to the format that is approached to the quality of CD. A very important aspect is the time that take in codifying file MP3. Fraunhofer takes less time than MP3-LAME in codifying a file, And "Sonicstage2,0(ATRAC)" coder takes less time than the others, in equal conditions of bitreat. It is not that ATRAC is a wonder, but to codify thousands of archives would be a nightmare. :wacky: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.