Valder Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 I am looking at getting one of the HiMD players as my son has confiscated my 505. Now I am in the process of recording all of my CDs in SS2 and want to know if I should be using the ATRAC3Plus or the old ATRAC3?! Looking at the FAQ I see that the 64kps of Hi-LP supposedly sounds as good as LP2, but in the real world has anyone compared them? Val Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breepee Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 Havn't tested it myself, but judging from other's experiences and my own "gut feeling", I'd stick to Atrac3 LP2. It's bitrate is just twice as high. A codec (Atrac3Plus) which is (for example) 10 percent better, is not going to compete with that. Of course if you're going to reformat old 80minute discs, you can even record in HiSP an put as much music on it as you did with old formatted LP2 discs. That's even better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gino Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 I have tried it, and feel that Hi-LP isn't as good as LP2. It sounds like the high range freqs are tinny and compressed in Hi-LP. For example, I listen to a lot of classic Jazz, and find that w/ LP2 it sounds fine, but w/Hi-LP the hi hats and cymbal brushes sound warbly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmp64 Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 I've done a lot of comparison, and have decided to stick w/ LP2. To be honest, to my ears, I can't tell much difference between Hi-SP and LP2. So given that LP2 is compatible w/ my NetMDs and my HiMD, and is roughly half the size of Hi-SP - it was kind of a no-brainer. Of course, there are others who think Hi-SP is superior to LP2. Only you can judge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valder Posted May 30, 2004 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2004 I listen to alot of jazz as well and hearing that one response is enough. I had the MZ-NH600D HiMD in hand tonight at Best Buy. They had about 25 of them in stock, but I think I am going to wait for the MZ-NHF800 and the Tuner remote. I like to have a radio with me on my Business trips so I can tune into the local NPR stations when I don't feel like listening to music. Thanks for the responses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamewing Posted May 30, 2004 Report Share Posted May 30, 2004 I cannot tell much of a difference between HI-SP and LP2 either. Just for kicks, tonight I transferred 400 songs to the 1gb disc in LP2 mode. WOW, 400 songs! OH, and the device being powered via USB in much better than what I had to put up with using a S1 netmd model. I really used up many AA's with that machine (it went back after a week). On an iPod mini using 256bit encoding for MP3s (about 1MB per minute) I can get about 225 songs!!! Not too shabby Sony. Of course the SS 2.0 still sucks big weenies compared to the ease of iTunes. When will Sony learn? Also, iTunes can natively display kana and kanji info downloaded from Gracenote, while the english version of SS 2.0 cannot. Instead I am treated to a bunch of ????????????s. Lovely. Sony is a Japanese company, yes? Oh, the irony. While I have used the NH600 for a few days, I am sure of a few things: 1. The NH600 is going back due to the lack of inputs AND THE CRAPPY PLASTIC CASE!!!! I am so happy with the solid aluminium case on my R70, R900, R909, and the DR7 models. Why does Sony feel the need to provide such cheaply constructed models? I HAVE HELD THE IPOD MINI and it has a truly SOLID CONSTRUCTION THAT RIVALS MY DR7! 2. The transfer rates are very slow compared to firewire. I understand the limitations of the optical heads writing speed, but the speed difference cannot be ignored. 3. The new jog-dial (at least on the NH600) is TERRIBLE compared to the jog dial on the R909 model. The NH600's dial is hard to turn and POORLY located on the front of the machine. What worries me is that the others seem to have the jogdial on the front too. Hmmmm. 4. The dang thing is loud when transferring data as the head seems to have to move after ever 10 or so songs, no matter if they are in seperate groups or just a listing of 100+ songs. Kind of annoying. 5. The USB data drive benefits are nice in theory, but it took me almost 30 minutes to transfer 1gb of data to the disc. While this makes it okay for data archiving, it really doesn't say much for using it an extra hard drive. 6. SS 2.0 is still a RESOURCE HOG!!! I hate to say this, but after using this machine, the NH600, I will be returning it to Target and buying: 1. ipod mini 2. r909 or dr7 as a back up I have a CD/MD combo deck that allows me to fairly quickly make a MD (4x) with no extra DMR nonsense. I lose the titling, but hey, that is okay. I a worried that Sony's offering is too little, too late to make a difference. While they sat on their collective duffs infighting amongst themselves trying to decide what is acceptable in a digital musical device, Apple has pretty much taken the proverbial horse by the reigns and left everyone else in the dust. I hope I am wrong as I, like many here, would like to see the MD survive in the States. I guess it is a waiting game. OH I DO HAVE A QUESTION!!!! In the past, all the new sony MD models were released in Japan first. Why is this not the case with the HI-MD models? Thanks in advance. Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leland Posted May 31, 2004 Report Share Posted May 31, 2004 I think they planned a US release first to try to slow the progress of the Ipod. In Japan, MD is more popular than the US, although Ipod is big too. If they had to prioritize one battlefront to begin with, the US is where they are losing the most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breepee Posted May 31, 2004 Report Share Posted May 31, 2004 I cannot tell much of a difference between HI-SP and LP2 either. Just for kicks, tonight I transferred 400 songs to the 1gb disc in LP2 mode. WOW, 400 songs! On an iPod mini using 256bit encoding for MP3s (about 1MB per minute) I can get about 225 songs!!!That's a completely unfair test, you should use the same bitrate (eg HiSP track on the MD). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamewing Posted May 31, 2004 Report Share Posted May 31, 2004 That's a completely unfair test, you should use the same bitrate (eg HiSP track on the MD).Actually it IS a FAIR contest. I am not trying to split hairs and say nah nah, ATRAC sounds better at the same bit rate, nah nah. We already KNOW this to be true. Or it seems so to my ears. What I stated was that for a comparable sound I can listen to an mp3 encoded at 256 vs a LP2 encoded song. They sound comparable. With what understood it is just a matter of comparing the number of songs that an iPod mini can hold vs. a HI-MD disc. The HI-MD can hold around 350 - 400 LP2 songs of various lengths found on most CDs. The iPod mini can carry about 200 - 225 per GIG, so it can hold about 800 - 900 songs (I made an error and didn't account for the 4 GIGS earlier, my bad). So, with equal quality sound: iPod mini = 800 to 900 songs on 4GB hard drive HI-MID = 350 to 400 songs per HI-MD disc 2 or 3 HI-MD discs can hold more info than one iPod mini. Not bad at all. THAT was what I was saying. Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doosmac Posted June 1, 2004 Report Share Posted June 1, 2004 sorry can't find a way to delet my post....please ignor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breepee Posted June 1, 2004 Report Share Posted June 1, 2004 What I stated was that for a comparable sound I can listen to an mp3 encoded at 256 vs a LP2 encoded song. They sound comparable. With what understood it is just a matter of comparing the number of songs that an iPod mini can hold vs. a HI-MD disc. Well, to me defenitely not. MP3 on 256kbits sounds WAYYYY better than LP2, when playing through the same HiFi equipment. I can reasonably say that this is the most logical conclusion there is, because it's just not real that Atrac could or would be so much superior than MP3. It's common knowledge that all major codecs (MP3, OGG, AAC, Atrac) sound approx. the same on the same bitrate (little difference here and there. I would say that OGG sounds the best, then MP3, then Atrac and then AAC). I've conducted a blind listening test and I can concur with this statement. But, by picking a high bitrate (like 256 and over) everything sounds very close to raw CD-sound (on par, I'd say), so that's the reason MD/Atrac is fine for me. If you experience otherwise, I think it's something with your ears, or maybe somewhere in between. 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.