PCM vs. Atrac 3 256k (quality comparison)

[LowEnd]

Hello all!

Being a musician for 20+ years, I've always just recorded off the board to cassette but it is time I move into the digital world. At the beginning of April I decided to delve into the MD world and was excited to find that I may be coming to MD at a good time with HI-MD coming out. I've been reading these boards and learning what I can. But I have a question that I'm sure has probably been discussed to death, but to beat a dead horse... could anyone give me a comparison of recording in PCM compared with say the best quality compression (which I believe would be the Atrac 3 256k, correct me if I'm wrong).

It would be nice to stick a 1 gig disc into the player, set it to 256k compression and record the entire night without having to switch tapes. Although 1.5 hours of PCM recording time will be plenty to switch between sets but I'm wondering if the quality is that noticable between PCM and 256k.

I'm guessing it has to do with how discerning your ear is and I imagine I'll have to try it myself and make my own opinoins but I'm curious of other opions on the subject. If there is a thread I can read concerning this, please point me in the right direction.

By the way... I've preordered the MZ-NH1

Thanks!

[devo_ji]

I don't yet have a ton of experience recording on MD but from what I have heard you probably will be more than happy with the compressed ATRAC recording. Then if you really want the best possible use the PCM and change disks.

From what I have read experienced listeners sometimes like the sound of the more compressed 128 bit MP3's over the CD original. I havn't tried this myself yet but it indicates to me that the 256 bit ATRAC should be just fine.

[anont]

It's tough to quantify sound, and it depends on the quality you want. MD compression definitely sounds very good, but on a close listen, definitely has a different sound than the source CDs they're recorded from. If you care enough about the sound that you have some kind of home studio, you probably don't want any compression artifacts at all. But if you're getting out something just for fun or for future reference, the quality-loss is so minor than it won't get in the way.

Sony has changed its mind about uploading issues before, and I'd want to hear other reviewers say that they can digitally upload their recordings, no problem, before comitting to Hi-MD.

I do home recording myself. For some purposes, MD is great, like when I just want to make a quick recording of a rough demo. However, for general purposes, I think some kind of Hard Drive system designed for home studios would be much better. There won't be compression artifacts, you can do higher than CD quality recording, and time limits won't be an issue.

So overall, while I think MD is a handy thing for a musician to have, I don't think its suits your purpose. At the least, it's probably worth cancelling the pre-order, and then reading other people's comments and reviews before purchasing.

[PDOG58]

From what I have read experienced listeners sometimes like the sound of the more compressed 128 bit MP3's over the CD original.  I havn't tried this myself yet but it indicates to me that the 256 bit ATRAC should be just fine.

From an audio listening test that I read, ATRAC3plus @ 64Kbps is actually BETTER than MP3 @ 128 Kbps. So, I can only imagine how nice 256 would sound.

http://www.sony.net/Products/ATRAC3/tech/l...test_report.pdf

[anont]

From an audio listening test that I read, ATRAC3plus @ 64Kbps is actually BETTER than MP3 @ 128 Kbps. So, I can only imagine how nice 256 would sound.

http://www.sony.net/Products/ATRAC3/tech/l...test_report.pdf

I don't have access to any 64 kbps ATRAC3 files, but I really doubt the truth of Sony's listening tests - MP3 is pretty good. I know Microsoft was able to manipulate it so 64kbps .WMA tested better than 128kbps .MP3 files, when a simple listen shows that that's not at all true.

[LowEnd]

Thanks for the replies!

I mainly record my band for making demo's and being able to burn CD's for others in the group for listening back. I don't really have a Home Studio... just a decent computer with audio editing software etc.

I'm also wondering if anyone has used "Core Sound" Low Cost Binaural mic's for recording live music? I have a pair of those and I'm just waiting for my HI-MD unit to give them a try. A buddy of mine has a pair of these mics with a minidisc and he recorded a Jeff Beck concert that came out pretty darn good. I tried plugging these mics into my mic jack on my computer but they didn't seem to do that well. Hopefully that little test doesn't represent the mic's recording capability. Does anyone have a favorite mic that they use for live "bar band" type of recording?

[JFK]

A french guy of MDfr has made an ABX blind test between Atrac3+256, wav, aac, mpc, ... if u wanna try it out search links on the newspage of minidisc.org (his "surname" is dlb, and is name is like david pierson or something like that). Don't worry he has made an english version!

[anont]

A french guy of MDfr has made an ABX blind test between Atrac3+256, wav, aac, mpc, ... if u wanna try it out search links on the newspage of minidisc.org (his "surname" is dlb, and is name is like david pierson or something like that). Don't worry he has made an english version!

These tests aren't trustworthy, because I (and most other people interested enough in sound to go to a MD discussion board) have different standards of music listening than the average person pulled off the street. I hear that 64kbps .WMA=128kbps .MP3, when that's obviously not true. I hear that 128kbps .MP3s are approximately CD quality, when that's also obviously not true. I have to believe that either these musical tests are somehow manipulated, or that the average person who signs up for these tests has a tin ear and evaluates more on volume than accuracy (Windows Media player encodes the songs to be loud, which is maybe why it tests so well - loud music sounds better).

It just doesn't make sense that Sony would have a Hi-MD compression model twice as effective as the other well-researched compression formats, especially when Lo-MDs sound so similar to MP3.

[larry_llama]

I read this:

"By also adopting a non-compressible, linear PCM

recording, “Hi-MD” compatible products enable users to enjoy the recording and playback of

high-quality sound, close to the quality of commercial audio CDs."

Here:

http://www.minidisc-canada.com/pdf/SonyHi-MDSpec.pdf

and wonder why the HiMD PCM uncompressed recording is merely "close" to CD quality... does anyone know why this is stated in this fashion?

I am DYING to read some reviews of these units!

[JFK]

>>anont

I think you do not understand what I said. Those tests are independant from Sony. Sony do not tell dlb to make a test as ITS tests... Samples have randomly been chosen. Moreover, for a better egality between codecs bitrates used are the same. Just take a look, you will understand what I mean.

[symphara]

Maybe this helps a little..

I've installed SonicStage 2 yesterday and, since it has the ability to convert CD tracks into ATRAC3plus files, I did a few comparisons between codecs out of curiosity. Mind you, this is purely subjective, non professional stuff.

I've used: WinXP on PC with DVD/CDRW, Sony MDR-300 headphones (pretty good), and one Handel Fireworks Music CD (classical, heavy on strings).

Codecs: ATRAC3plus encoded with SonicStage 2, WM9 encoded with Windows Media Player 9, OGG (very recent version, if not latest) encoded with CDEx. All the rips were straight from the CD.

---------------------------

Results

Good news: ATRAC3plus sounds pretty good.

The 64 and 48kbps modes sound similar to the former LP2 mode. However, I didn't really detect much of a difference between the two (48 and 64), which was surprising. Neither sound like the original CD tracks, the difference was quite obvious - more bass, some frequencies disappeared, the sound stage was not as full. I thought that in the 48k mode the sound volume was flattened (i.e. sections supposed to appear quite soft were audibly lauder).

The 256kbps mode is similar to the former SP mode and by all accounts very close to the original. Unfortunately I couldn't make a comparison between Hi-SP and SP as SonicStage 2 doesn't convert tracks to SP mode.

Anyway, I couldn't really tell the difference between the CD tracks and the Hi-SP encoded tracks. Everything was in place, sounded rich and detailed. Maybe better phones and a better soundcard than the one on the IBM Thinkpad T40 would reveal more.

Bad news: both WM9 and OGG beat ATRAC3plus (again, my opinion after this small test). Why:

~64kbps WM9 and ~64kbps OGG (I could only get approximate bit rates) simply sound better than ATRAC3plus Hi-LP (64kbps). At least for classical music. I didn't have the same strong impression that frequencies are missing, as in the case with ATRAC tracks. The volume level (for ~48 kbps WM9/OGG) definitely behaved as in the original. Actually I thought OGG rocks. At 128kbps OGG still sounds very close to the original.

~256kbps WM9 and OGG sound great, just like the 256kbps Hi-SP mode.

Again, I couldn't really tell the difference between this and the original CD.

Unfortunately for ATRAC3plus 256kbps is a CBR (Constant Bit Rate) stream, so that rate is nailed to the wall. I was able to go with both WM9 and OGG lower than 200kbps and they still sounded like the original.

So.. ATRAC3plus is ok, even the low bitrate stuff sounds good (but again, it's not the original and that's obvious), and I'm sure it would fare better on pop/rock music. For listening to music on the run it's good enough, given that you can put 34 (or 45) hours on a disc. But the Sony assertion "64kbps ATRAC3plus sounds better than 128kbps MP3" is just a sales line. 128kbps MP3 might not be the best but it's better, judging from my previous experience with MP3 encoding. Actually MP3 VBR 128kbps is much better.

The Hi-SP mode is, in my opinion, very good. Then again, I like the old SP mode as well and I suspect the two give similar results. Recording in this mode should please anyone but the most audiophile quality-demanding applications, or iPod-wielding people who think they paid 500$ for the best thing since sliced bread! Wait until you drop it on a hard floor... so definitely Hi-MD for me

</symphara>

[jadeclaw]

I've tried that one a short time ago and the results were like this:

MD-SP sounded almost identical to CD, the difference was smaller than the difference between 2 different CD-players, so I could say, it was a draw...

CD vs. OGG: above a certain datarate, OGG was fully transparent to my ears, CBR 256k or above or VBR allowing peaks to go 320k.

OGG was quite good at 64k, better than WMA9, and waaay better than MP3 or MP3plus. MP3 just plain sucks like a black hole below 128k.

CD vs. MP3: MP3 is old. And it shows. Try MP3 at 384k. You should reach a decent quality at that datarate, but 256k is the minimum for good quality. OGG and MD outperform MP3 without any problem...

I still cannot understand, why someone wants MP3 playback on a Hi-MD - atleast not from a quality point of view.

Equipment used: HiFi-Side

CD: Sony CDP-711

MD: Sony MDS-JE500

Amp: Sony TA-F470 with Line-Direct active

Headphones: Beyer Dynamic DT-770

Computer-side:

Sony MDS-S38 as a DA-Converter, connected to a non-resampling soundcard via TOSlink. (CMedia 8738 based card.)

And my DT-770 again directly connected to the MDs phone out.

Music: Multiple jazz and classic pieces.

Everything was copied via digital or ripped directly onto harddisk.

Since I have now the lastest Nero-Suite installed, I will repeat that with MP4-AAC sometimes next week. However, first tries sounded promising...

Ok, there you have it - combined with Symphara's experience, one could say, Hi-SP and old SP are playing in the same class, so no fear about losing quality when moving up to Hi-MD.

[PDOG58]

64 and 48kbps modes sound similar to the former LP2 mode. However, I didn't really detect much of a difference between the two (48 and 64), which was surprising. Neither sound like the original CD tracks, the difference was quite obvious - more bass, some frequencies disappeared, the sound stage was not as full. I thought that in the 48k mode the sound volume was flattened (i.e. sections supposed to appear quite soft were audibly lauder).

I record a lot of talk radio or listen to comedy CDs. Given it's not so great sound quality, would you judge that the lower bit rates would be good for talk? To me, I would record talk at a lower bit rate and then record music higher.

A side comment on that: With Hi-MD, can you put differant bit rates on the same disk, or does the disk have to all be at the same quality?

[mmp64]

I record TV shows from DVD at LP4 - which I'm sure is roughly equivalent to ATRAC3Plus 64K - and the results are fine. I wouldn't use either mode for music (I have tried, and mostly I didn't like it). For me - music = classic rock, power pop (Fountains of Wayne, Badfinger, etc.) and adult contemporary (fleetwood mac, eagles etc. etc.). I'm sure it would sound even worse for classical and jazz.

[anont]

>>anont

I think you do not understand what I said. Those tests are independant from Sony. Sony do not tell dlb to make a test as ITS tests... Samples have randomly been chosen. Moreover, for a better egality between codecs bitrates used are the same. Just take a look, you will understand what I mean.

My point was, other widely-quoted independent studies have yielded results that are obviously false. So I'm a little suspicious about independent studies, especially when their claims are so hard to believe. You'd probably get a better picture from just trying it out yourself.

[jadeclaw]

I record a lot of talk radio or listen to comedy CDs. Given it's not so great sound quality, would you judge that the lower bit rates would be good for talk? To me, I would record talk at a lower bit rate and then record music higher.

64k is sufficient for talk radio, especially AM-Radio - But Music needs more bits. See further down.

A side comment on that: With Hi-MD, can you put differant bit rates on the same disk, or does the disk have to all be at the same quality?

Different datarates could share the same disc. Different modes not.

That means, Hi-SP and Hi-LP on the same disc is ok, LP2/LP4 and one of the Hi-MD modes on the disc not... ( why not? when someone got a Hi-MD-recorder, please test )

Now the central point:

A comparison of the different codecs and datarates:

I took the same track and encoded it with everything, SS2 had to offer.

PCM - the original track.

Hi-SP 256k - to my ears, it was fully transparent. However, listening through the whole track, the PCM orignal had a little more openness. Hardly to describe, A-B comparison doesn't reveal it, it runs on a subconscious level - It feels better, more relaxed, easier...

Still, Hi-SP delivers an excellent result.

Hi-LP - 64k - It sucks. I don't know, how some people think that this is better than MP3@128k. Compression artefacts and discoloration is well audible. I say, for speech or recording of analog shortwave transmissions only. Sorry, but digital shortwave(DRM) even sounds better... ( That uses MP4-AAC-SBR)

Hi-LP2 - 48k - It sucks even more. Speech and analog telephone only. Carbon mic anyone?

NetMD LP2 - 132k - very good FM quality. It sound rougher than Hi-SP but for listening on the road or in the car, it is more than adequate. Regarding the bad results for Hi-LP, I cannot understand, why there is no Hi-MD mode with that datarate. It would have been a good compromise between quality and running time.

NetMD LP'3' - 105k - Rougher as 132k and sounding more compressed, losing more of the recording room. However, still far superior compared to Hi-LP. I would recommend that over Hi-LP anytime...

NetMD LP4 - 66k - It sucks. Less highrange than Hi-LP, gargling sound like someone singing underwater... Sorry, speech only.

So, on a scale between 100% and 0% the ranks are as follows:

PCM : 100% (It's the Original)

Hi-SP 256k : 99%

Old SP 292k (MDS-JE500) : 97%

NetMD LP2 - 132k : 90%

NetMD LP'3' - 105k : 85%

Hi-LP - 64k : 40%

NetMD LP4 - 66k : 30%

Hi-LP2 - 48k : 20%

In comparison, my old ST-S370 FM-Tuner still manages around 87%

and my Galaxis DVB-C Digital receiver would got 95%.

Ok, that's it for today, tomorrow I'll repeat that for MP4-AAC using the same datarates.

[[StrangeByte]]

Different datarates could share the same disc. Different modes not.

That means, Hi-SP and Hi-LP on the same disc is ok, LP2/LP4 and one of the Hi-MD modes on the disc not... ( why not? when someone got a Hi-MD-recorder, please test )

One moment... you can put atrac3 132kbps and 64kbps files on hi-md too... thats equivalent to LP4 and LP2. However, these md's can't be played back on non-himd units (like NetMD or MDLP units)

[jadeclaw]

"]One moment... you can put atrac3 132kbps and 64kbps files on hi-md too... thats equivalent to LP4 and LP2. However, these md's can't be played back on non-himd units (like NetMD or MDLP units)

Yes, you can. See here:

http://www.minidisc.org/hi-md_faq.html#_q93

However, to play back these on old equipment, you have to set the recorder into NetMD-mode before transfer. MDCenter.nl reported that.

And of course, use standard discs as well.

[jadeclaw]

So, now here is the promised report about MP4-AAC

and how it fares against ATRAC.

I took OGG-Vorbis in as well, as this codec is completely free

and available on a multitude of Operating systems,

including Windows, FreeBSD, BeOS(Zeta) and of course Linux.

Ok, let's start qualitywise:

PCM - the original. That's our reference again with 100%

MP4 256k : completely transparent, except for a very slightly smaller soundstage,

aside from that, no artefacts, nothing.

A good 99% and identical to Hi-SP qualitywise.

OGG 256k : Same as above, 99% as well. Plus it's free!

MP4 128k : Slightly rougher than the original,

difference to the original can be called marginal.

A good deal better than LP2-132k. A good 95% for that.

OGG 128k : Same performance, 95% as well.

And both are much better than MP3@128k...

But it is the low rates, where things are getting interesting.

MP4 96k : Same perfomance than LP2-132k, a little bit smoother,

the same 90% in quality.

The same is true for OGG@96k as well. 90% too.

MP4 - 64k : Audible artefacts, but less critical than Hi-LP@64k.

the old LP4 can't compete here. It is near LP2@105k. 70% for that

OGG - 64k : A step better, stronger high range here.

I'll prefer it over MP4 here, Music is still quite enjoyable here. 80%

OGG - 48k : Still considerably better than Hi-LP 64k,

it is still near LP2 105k. 70% for that one.

MP4 - 48k : High range suffers here + audible artefacts. Still above LP4.

The codec tries to smooth things out, but that doesn't really helps here. 50%.

MP4 - 32k : It sounds rough and the high range goes down the drain. 35%

Still better than LP4 since the gargling sound effects are mostly absent.

Hi-LP 48k sound smoother but not really better. If you like AM-Radio, then this is for you...

Final conclusion:

While I don't claim to have the 'absolute' ear, I have to declare

OGG-Vorbis as the winner here, especially when things get narrow.

Sony has still much work to do on their codecs.

While 256k delivers the quality expected for a modern product,

OGG and MP4-AAC show, what state of the art is in the area at or below 128k.

However, OGG and MP4-AAC gain, if a varable bitrate is allowed,

but to create equal conditions, I nailed both on a fixed rate.

In addition, SoundStage 2 crashed multiple times throughout the tests

and had to be restarted again and again. This thing is less ripe than a green banana...

And now I deinstall it, as it seems to create intermittend crashes of other applications as well.

[symphara]

I record a lot of talk radio or listen to comedy CDs. Given it's not so great sound quality, would you judge that the lower bit rates would be good for talk? To me, I would record talk at a lower bit rate and then record music higher.

Yes, in my opinion the lower bit rates are even ok for music. I converted a few tracks from a Perl Jam album (the Oct 31 2000 San Francisco concert) to 48kbps ATRAC3plus mode and they sound fine.

As I suspected, pop/rock sounds better than classical in low bit ATRAC rates. Not that classical is un-listenable in 48kbps anyway. I also tried a few classical piano tracks and the result is enjoyable enough.

Note that by "fine" I mean fine for car/music-on-the-go, it's not HiFi. I guess it depends on the music/sound ratio that makes you happy. I love great music even on a bad quality recording, while the opposite never happens. A lot of people will complain unless the quality is perfect or very close, so check the category you fall into.

Anyway, it will most certainly work well for voice.

A side comment on that: With Hi-MD, can you put differant bit rates on the same disk, or does the disk have to all be at the same quality?

To my understanding yes, provided that you don't mix NetMD and HiMD modes.

</symphara>

[Christopher]

jade, thank you for the comparisons; I have no doubt they will be useful for most. :happy:

Sorry to hear about your woes with Sonicstage - was this with iceeedtea's build?

[jadeclaw]

No, Kurisu,

it was the original install from Sony's Connect site.

It crashed during playback, it crashed when accessing the connect site, scrolling through a longer list of titles caused 1 second lockups, sending Sysmetrix' CPU-load display rocksolid against the roof - on an Athlon XP 2500+ ...

Being used to the stability of non-Microsoft programs and Linux, I would classify SS2 just above alpha preview.

[Christopher]

Try iceeedtea's build for me. I've never had an issue with it.

[jadeclaw]

I'll try it, but not tonight, as it is close to midnight here...

[PDOG58]

[Fray Adjacent]

I guess some people don't care if they sacrifice quality in the car... I however, am not one of those people. Now, I don't have a $2000+ stereo system in my car, but I do like it to sound good.

What I have now is a Sony MP70 head with the stock 7 speaker Infinity setup in my Tiburon. The head unit has a line in, which I have plugged into my NetMD player, but it just doesn't sound good. I can't get enough boost on the signal, so I end up having to crank up the MD player, which doesn't sound very good when the volume is maxed out.

As for HiMD, I may plug the unit I will get into my car stereo to see how it sounds. Since I will be holding out for the NH900, I'll get to see if the HD digital amp helps.

Then I will patiently wait to see if Sony (or someone else) releases a car HiMD player. I will then likely sell the MP70 head in favor of HiMD. That way all of my mobile audio will be on one format. I will also stick with HiSP for most of my music, as the capacity of one disc will be more than adequate for me (almost 8 hours is great for one disc, IMHO).

[symphara]

I guess some people don't care if they sacrifice quality in the car...  I however, am not one of those people.  Now, I don't have a $2000+ stereo system in my car, but I do like it to sound good.

Don't get me wrong, I like as much quality in the car as I can get - however unless you're driving something in the region of a brand new Mercedes S430 or better chances are the road noise will cut a lot of the reproduction quality. Hence it's pointless to have something rendering 99.999+% of the original sound when you can only hear 92%.

</symphara>

[JFK]

I was saying about dlb's test that :

- he give you the samples (download),

- you blind-listen,

- you give him back the ABX result file,

- he give you which extract is which format

U do the test, you do not read his commentary, you are the actor not the spectator! :wacky:

:grin:

[crazeybt1]

oh yeah i'm scratching my head again...hmm....while reading this "page" uhh. can't find the quote..uhh..but some1 wanted to know if different bit rates could b on a disc....well yah..i suppose so..if former MD Units could do it y go backwards ne who...i was reading this quality thing n i'm just thinking...it's hard to make some judgements...cuz yall using head phones...in i'm thinking ...y don't some one creat a headphone made for that kinna stuff..i mean a headphone using a direct link VIA..optical...LOL i haven't heard of ne yet if ne one have please direct me.. but doesn't that just sound cool..that way u know there's absolutely no loss of quality between ur plugs n head phones not only that but i 've done some testing myself..with my MDR G52 (collest tuffess headphones in the world)..n i had to squeeze them to my ear to hear it all..u know...so have u guys been using headphones that fits over ur ears cuz i'm sure u'd get better results....n just another lil idea..u know they got those digital uhh don't remember what u call them "ampmeter" or something they use to test electricity n what now some have this meter with a needle or the the digital meters..with 2 wires sticking out 1 red 1 black....blah u get the picture..i'm thinking they should create something to that extent again using optical..which can give a reading of the quality..in bit rate.. :grin: ..

don't worry it's ok to let ur imagination run rampant..that's what this world been created on... :laugh:

[jadeclaw]

:wacky: Ahem. Does everyone on Antigua talks this way?

Seriously, if you would sort your thoughts and put them into complete sentences before clicking on submit, it would be easier for us to understand, what you mean.

Ok, on to your bucket of thoughts:

oh yeah i'm scratching my head again...

A good shampoo helps here. :wink:

hmm....while reading this "page" uhh. can't find the quote..uhh..but some1 wanted to know if different bit rates could b on a disc....

True, NetMD can do this and Hi-MD does it too. And Hi-MD can create recordings compatible to old equipment as well.

... i mean a headphone using a direct link VIA..optical...LOL i haven't heard of ne yet if ne one have please direct me.. but doesn't that just sound cool..

Try this one. It has Dolby surround as well and is a wireless one...

with my MDR G52 (collest tuffess headphones in the world)

You mean cool, right? But cool seldom mean high quality.

just another lil idea..u know they got those digital uhh don't remember what u call them "ampmeter" or something they use to test electricity n what now some have this  meter with a needle or the the digital meters..with 2 wires sticking out 1 red 1 black.

This is called a multimeter.

blah u get the picture..i'm thinking they should create something to that extent again using optical..which can give a reading of the quality..in bit rate.. :grin:

Something like this is already available, it is called digital signal analyzer and it will show things like samplerate, signal quality and encoding used. However, connected to digital out of a MD-recorder, this analyzer will tell you everything about that signal, but nothing about the recording itself, as the digital conmnectors always handle an uncompressed audio signal. So, you have to rely on what the recorder tells you - and of course your ears.

don't worry it's ok to let ur imagination run rampant..that's what this world  been created on... :laugh:

Your brain obviously runs rampant as well... :wink:

[jadeclaw]

Kurisu, I have tested Iceeedteas build as well and it's the same shit in green.

The culprit here is OMGJBOX.EXE .

It crashes during Convert Format. It crashes during playback as well.

And the 1 second lockups are there as well.

No other Software on my system has any problems like this.

Since this seems to be a problem inside the EXE-File, Iceeedtea cannot do anything about it, Sony has to fix it.

[crazeybt1]

ouch...guess i should take this thing a lil more serious huh..thanks ne way..n no ppl from Anu don't talk like this...so don't even think that

[Sbetsho]

When I first tested LP4 back in 2001, I was dissapointed, but somehow I got used to it very quickly and nowadays I don't even notice any quality-issues, and especially when I'm going out for walk, it sounds great. Well, not fantastic, but it certanly doesn't "suck".

However, I'm dissapointed that Atrac3+ apparently isn't that good as Sony has stated, or is it? I guess I have to find out it myself later.. I think, if 48kbps Atrac3+ is on par with LP4, then I'm very satisfied.

[jadeclaw]

However, I'm dissapointed that Atrac3+ apparently isn't that good as Sony has stated, or is it? I guess I have to find out it myself later.. I think, if 48kbps Atrac3+ is on par with LP4, then I'm very satisfied.

I'm disappointed as well, I hoped, it would be atleast on par with OGG, but apparently a multi-billion company is unable to outperform a bunch of open source programmers.

So finally, I hope that the hardware codec in the recorder has a better quality at 64k.

But for that to know, we still have to wait...

[Sbetsho]

jadeclaw, how does (in your opinion) 48 atrac3+ perform against 66 atrac3? This is all that matters to me.

[jadeclaw]

Well, you have to choose between the muffly gargling sound (LP4 66k) and muffly telephone sound (Hi-LP 48k).

Since Hi-LP 48k adds carbon microphone style distortions,

I prefer LP4. Personally, I would use Hi-LP 64k as the lowest and would go to LP2 132k instead.

Remember, Hi-MD extends the running time of standard discs as well.

And of course, it depends on the type of music as well.

Hi-LP for Britney Spears, Hi-SP for Jazz, PCM for live classical music... :grin:

[Sbetsho]

Great.. as I mainly listen to pop and techno, and so far LP4 has been good enough for me.

but if 48kbps is THAT bad, I'm wondering why did Sony even include it..

[crazeybt1]

well.... the option is probably for ppl who're into monophonic recordings like myself..where i'll listen to seminars n audio books.. :smile: ...i don't need ne other frequency but mids right..not only that but in MDLP units...recording in LP4 holds more than Mono..n to my reality LP4 does sound pretty good especiially when ur recording from the start of the disc...altho it's not near the same quality when the recordings reach the end of the disc..so yeah it's a pretty good idea..they're catering for us all :cool:

[Guest NRen2k5]

From an audio listening test that I read, ATRAC3plus @ 64Kbps is actually BETTER than MP3 @ 128 Kbps. So, I can only imagine how nice 256 would sound.

http://www.sony.net/Products/ATRAC3/tech/l...test_report.pdf

+0.145 better. Yeah, that's a huge margin. (sarcasm)

[Guest NRen2k5]

Great.. as I mainly listen to pop and techno, and so far LP4 has been good enough for me.

but if 48kbps is THAT bad, I'm wondering why did Sony even include it..

For the same reason as they and Microsoft have always had - you put an absolutely terrible recording mode which allows for an insanely long recording time on your players, and then you advertise that "maximum recording time" right beside your claims of high fidelity.