How do you make Hi-LP recordings from Atrac3 files

[Leland]

I just got a NH600D to play around with. One of my big decisions regarding sticking with MD or getting a HDD based player is that I have all my music in SS so with Hi-MD I don't have to rip all my CD's again. Here's my problem:

If I record to a Hi-MD formatted disc from source files that are recorded as NetMD LP2 132 kbps, the disc gets written in LP2 mode, not Hi-LP. I know I am asking for transcoding issues, but Hi-MD might only be appealing if I can get the kind of music densities per disc that Hi-LP affords.

Does anyone know a practical way to work around this? I can convert the tracks to Atrac3plus 64kbps, but in order to get the thing to record in Hi-LP after that, I have to delete the original LP-2 file from the SS library. The only way I can see to convert files and delete the original LP-2 version is one at a time. With nearly 6000 songs, that is no more practical than ripping my CD's again.

Any ideas?

[doclloyd]

According to minidisc.org, it looks like you can send LP2 files to a disc formatted for Hi-MD. According to this link, http://www.minidisc.org/hi-md_faq.html#_q93, you could get almost 5 hours of LP2 music on an Hi-MD disc. That's something that's quite tempting to me... not having to re-encode a lot of music just to be compatible with Hi-MD and not NetMD isn't appealing yet.

[Guest NRen2k5]

Do yourself a favour and re-encode the source recordings to Hi-LP rather than reencoding the crummy LP2 copies.

[Leland]

Well thanks for the suggestion, but if I wanted to re-encode, I would probably migrate to a HDD system.

SO, assuming I want the benefit of Hi-LP capacities, can anyone with a NH600D confirm what I have noticed in my original post, that to do so I either have to re-encode my music or convert the format in SS then delete the original ATRAC3 file, one song at a time?

Come on here! I almost never ask for help :ohmy:

[Gino]

I dunno if this helps, but when I got my 600d I began to encode all my cd's to ss 2 in lp2 (132 kps). Before I transferred the files, I clicked on the properties button at the bottom left of the MD side of the trnsfer screen. There, I intialized the MD in the recorder (1 gb disc) for Hi-MD. That seemed to allow me to transfer the lp2 files to the MD recorder in Hi-MD mode.

Hope that helps.

[Leland]

Thanks Gino. Of course that works, but based on my experience, that just means that SS is transferring the music as LP2 (ATRAC3, NOT PLUS) to your MD which will give you half the capacity of what is claimed for HI-MD in Hi-LP mode.

I am writing a post about my impressions overall of HiMD based on various factors. Thanks to anyone who might have ideas about my original question, but now it is moot, because I have determined from personal listening tests that HiLP is not acceptable quality (ed: I have since moderated my position on this and would rather say HiLP was dissapointing). What do you expect from 64 Kbps. I guess I was optimistic that this was going to be acceptable. I now have to concur with recent posts that this is marginal. LP2 is good. I can live with that for all my music. Hi LP frankly sucks. (again, editing here, I was a bit harsh based on high expectations I had for HiLP)

I cannot understand why Sony doesn't give us control over this, and above all, I can't understand why we don't get an ATRAC3plus option that is at the 128 (or thereabouts) rate. Sad.

Back to Gino's suggestion: If you are transferring music at the LP2 rate, great. This sounds good. Any transfers at this quality level or above is fine.

Simply don't believe you will get good quality from the HiLP mode at 64 kbps.

[sxc]

I agree it would be good to get Atrac3plus at 128

When you say Hi-LP sucks, are you listening to a track encoded from CD to Hi-LP or a LP2 track encoded to Hi-LP.

I find that my files which are from CD or MP3 which get encoded to Hi-LP are quite acceptable for portable use. Definitely not Hi-Fi, but when in public places, I can't get enough silence to appreciate the difference.

Yes you will not get the same number of songs on a disc using LP2, compared to Hi-LP, but on a 1GB disc you will still get about 15hrs of LP2, which is much much more than on NetMD. And on a standard 80 min MD, you will get about 5 hrs on a disc.

[Leland]

I tested it by recoding a couple ways, but all from the original CD. I previously tried the conversion mode, but for the sake of this test, I re-ripped a couple of CD's from my collection.

In one test, I ripped from CD directly to SS in Hi-LP and transferred that to the HIMD. In another test, I ripped directly to SS in PCM mode and then had it convert to Hi-LP automatically during recording. I thought the second method might provide a way to always select what mode to transfer in, but once it converts once, it saves the Hi-LP file and next time simply uses that since it can. If you have two compatible file formats, it still doesn't let you pick which to use. Unless you delete all other options, the only choice is what it picks or 48 kbps, which I think I would never use.

So, when I say sucks, OK, I was a little emotional. In many environments it will be OK. The problem is, if I need my whole database to be coded in Hi-LP to get it to transfer at that rate, then I only get that and never better. Sometimes I will want better.

My debate has been to go with HiMD, move to Ipod or do something else. The big barrier I have is this SS database of LP2 quality music (good enough for me, I don't mind this quality). By sticking with MD, I don't have to rip all my music again. But if all I get is 16 Hrs per disk, its much better than before sure, but perhaps not better enough.

I think what I will do is wait to see if Sony markets their HDD based ATRAC 3 player in the US. That might allow me to use my current database, but with 20 GB (more if other models come out) I can carry everything I want in a tidy package. That might be the best for me. Wish it was easier.

[Leland]

Ok, I'll probably get fired as a moderator for this, but I'm going to say something pretty inconsistent with my earlier post in this thread, but feel I must.

After what I mentioned above, just for kicks I thought I would try the 48 kbps mode, just to see. Hey, if the trade off was good enough, time on a disc with quality, who knows?

My source was my SS database which is recorded in LP2.

Then I went on a trip, and rather than listening through a fancy stereo system, I just used headphones while on a train and a plane. The phones are Etymotic ER-4S, so pretty good earphones.

Result: Frankly I was really surprised how good it was. I might even use it so I can delay a transition to something else for another product lifecycle or so. Much better than LP4 on Net MD. So, there you go. I have to weigh in as contradicting myself and saying that if I can get 45 hours on a single disc, the quality of 48 kbps is acceptable for travelling.

[sxc]

So would that mean you think 64 kbps is acceptable for travelling as well?

That is the conclusion I came to.

[Christopher]

Ok, I'll probably get fired as a moderator for this, but I'm going to say something pretty inconsistent with my earlier post in this thread, but feel I must.

:laugh:

YOUR FIRED!

:rasp:

[sxc]

Another thing - I think this point is lost on ipod afficionados.

Apple has focused on simplicity, ease of use, flexibility and features. These are all good things that should Sony should heed as well. However, Apple doesn't have any hi-fi pedigree. Sony simply makes the best of crap material....it can make low bit rates sound acceptable, whereas the sound quality from ipods with non-transcoded mp3s can often be left wanting.

[skyther]

!!!! USING ER-4s WITH LP?!!!

Damn, I'd fire you as well.

Uhm, ER-4S or 4P? I didn't think that a MD portable would power 4Ps properly.

Apple doesn't have any hi-fi pedigree

Apple didn't design the audio related components, PP did. Rest assured that the components you'll find in an iPod will be of a much higher standard with respect to "hi-fi" compared to what you get in a MD portable.

[sxc]

Portal Player has a hi-fi pedigree??

Ugh. As if.

[mmp64]

"Rest assured that the components you'll find in an iPod will be of a much higher standard with respect to "hi-fi" compared to what you get in a MD portable."

Can you give some more detail on this statement... say, w/ respect to a higher end MD, like the upcoming 900.

[skyther]

You saying Sony has better? What does Sony's MD walkman division share in common with their ES division? Other than the brand name, nothing.

Just because a company such as PP is new in the industry doesn't necessarily mean they have little experience in the field. Old dinosaurs who adapt slowly to consumer demands and market expectations don't fare as well as new upstarts with modern technology. Do I sense stereotyping? If the product is from a company as big as Sony, it must be good. They can't even produce a HDP worthy of the iPod while Rio and iRiver (again, small upstart companies) can.

Sony has been long cutting costs with the design and manufacturing of their products. MDs are a lot more customized (in terms of electronics) than the majority of HDPs. If done correctly, this could be an advantage for MD, but cost cutting + custom electronics designs don't go together very well. You get cheap DSPs, cheap DACs and cheap amp circuits. *Anyone who argues again that Class D amp designs = sound quality as a primary objective will get flamed.* Sony DACs (unless their SACD ones) don't compare well against Burr-Brown and Wolfson ones.

The NH900, IMO, is not a high end unit. You don't introduce more plastic, a 10WM, a MC33 and call it a high end unit. I thought it was fairly obvious that the cost of an iPod's parts alone is more than a NH900, yet both retail for similar prices. Putting electronics aside, even the external difference is obvious: Lucite™ [a.k.a. acrylic] and a chrome back or a full aluminium shell with the mini vs a cheap ABS plastic back and an aluminium front.

[Leland]

To sxc: Yes, I fully recant my "sux" comment and would now say that Hi-LP (64kbps) is fine for travel use. My test was a bit unfair as I was playing it throught a fairly high resolution home stereo setup. Not audiophile, but mid-range stuff bought some years back from specialty shops, not mass merchandisers.

to skytherx: Yes, Ety ER-4S. I use them for noise isolation as I fly a lot. No other way to do it.

I tried the ER-4P's but didn't like them. Even though the 4s is underpowered by a MD player, it is loud enough for me. I use it as a bit of a hedge against being able to turn it up too loud and damage my hearing: a real risk for headphone users. Sometimes I use the EQ to boost the bass a bit. I have an Airhead amp if I really need to add some boost. Even though the 4P played louder, there was a definite loss of fidelity and presence that I didn't like.

[sxc]

You saying Sony has better? What does Sony's MD walkman division share in common with their ES division? Other than the brand name, nothing.

They do share their experience. Just as Camrys benefit from Lexus designs, Sony lower end models benefit from Sony's (not so successful) competition in the higher end hi-fi market.

They can't even produce a HDP worthy of the iPod while Rio and iRiver (again, small upstart companies) can.

This is my point exactly. These newer smaller companies have produced products with great feature sets, which Sony should have done. But what the new players don't have is experience in audio reproduction. From my comparisons of Hi-MD and iPod, their respective compressions are not ideal. But Sony takes crap source material and makes the most of it.

Sony DACs (unless their SACD ones) don't compare well against Burr-Brown and Wolfson ones.

Then to be fair, let's see Portal Player compare against these big boys too. I think you'd agree the results wouldn't be favourable.