Hi-MD Sound Quality

[Seroka2]

Hi - I've got a question for you since you all have a lot more experience with minidisc than I do.

I recently bought an nh1. Its my first MD and first digital music player. Before that, I was using a sony d-ej01 (a good quality portable CD from about 4 years ago) with a pair of E3c earphones. It sounds great. Smooth and balanced. I was expecting the nh1 to sound as good or better(because of the eq), but it sounds a lot worse even after I play with all the sound settings. The upper midrange can be squeeky, highs are tinny and can hurt my ears unless they're turned down a lot, and the bass gets cut off. This is true for nearly every kind of music - although I notice a big difference in different production qualities. I notice the differences less when using cheaper earphones, but I don't want to do that. All my music comes from the original CD and was transferred in Hi-SP, so it should sound good.

So - my question is this, Why is the sound quality so poor?:

Is it HI-MD or the NH1 (would a Sharp be better)?

MD in general?

ATRAC?

Or is this just what all compressed music sounds like?

Would I still have the same problems with an HDD?

BTW I really like everything else about the NH1. Small, sturdy, boots up fast. The menus are okay but could use some improvements for 2nd gen (my buddy brought it back from Japan so the language is slowing me down a little). Thanks for your help. I don't want to go back to my CD player and don't want a HDD, but if it sounds better, I'll switch to it.

[Ppk3000]

It's probably the ATRAC encoding. Make sure you use Hi-SP for the closest encoded audio from its original format (Hi-SP next to PCM, but that option does not even give you 2 hours of room on a 1GB disk)

The "High Definition Digital Ampifier" built in the NH1 could be causing some problems, but personally I am not sure (haven't used a Hi-MD unit myself yet). Most people say the fancy marketing term is just for conserving battery power while others claim it increases the dynamics of the output audio, making the produced output sound more vibrant and filled with contrast but not necessarily better or higher quality.

Try fiddling around with the EQ to get the best compensated settings I suppose...

P.S. some people think the iPod (HDD player) sounds better, but I know little about it... I'm pretty sure a happy iPod camper like skyther would be happy to fill you in on that though :happy:

[Bates]

Anyone know what the quality is going to be like in the most compressed format. i.e to get 45 hours of music on 1 disc?? My guess is it must be well dodgy. Will anyone even use this feature????

[jadeclaw]

@Seroka2: What Datarate/Recording mode you've been using?

If you used Hi-LP, then try it again with Hi-SP or PCM. If the soundquality still sucks, then the amp inside the player doesn't like your headphones.

Hi-SP is good enough to sound almost identical to CD.

@Bates:

Take a look here:

http://forums.minidisc.org/viewtopic.php?p=21330#21330

Did some extensive Tests with SonicStage 2.0.

I will repeat the tests with the 2.1 on the weekend to see, if the codecs had been improved as well.

On a sidenote, the actual units can sound better than SonicStage, see this thread:

http://forums.minidisc.org/viewtopic.php?t=5235

A MDS-JE780 easily outperforming SonicStage...

[mmp64]

Yes - please tell us what bitrate you used - Hi-LP, Hi-SP, LP2, LP4 - whatever. To many people, Hi-SP is equal to or better than MP3 256K. Hi-LP sounds somewhere between 64K and 128K MP3 - I'd say it sounds like 90K MP3, if there was such a thing.

[MdMaster]

I have HiMD and i really like the sound quality of HiSP. If you set the equaliser, you even can get the sound quality better. HiMD sounds much better than any MP3 player.

[Seroka2]

I've been using HI-SP 256 and have spent a lot of time on the equalizer. It probably is better than mp3 256 - i just don't have any experience with compressed music.

[skyther]

^ You are doing what I first did on my N10 - I spent all my time adjusting the equalizer instead of listening to the music, 2 months later I realized that I had a pile of sh*t in my hands. It's not the codec, it's the amp. Regardless of what you do to the equalizer, the Sony sounds bad. Better than the N10, but still bad for a trained ear.

If you set the equaliser, you even can get the sound quality better. HiMD sounds much better than any MP3 player.

Based on what? Your limited experience? If you think tweaking tonal balance = better sound quality, you're off by the mile. Good (headphone) equipment do not need equalizers. Equalizers and crossovers are only necessary in speaker systems where there is a need for acoustic compensation due to the listening environment.

Hi-LP sounds somewhere between 64K and 128K MP3

Hi-LP is 48Kbps. I suspect you have semi-fallen for Sony's marketing ploy that ATRAC3+ is better than every other codec out there and is far superior to MP3, when it is not. 64Kbps MP3 > Hi-LP, unless you fancy filling your ears with mud.

People, read:

with a pair of E3c earphones.

You should be able to tell something from that.

[deafplayer]

hey Seroka2 have you compared hte sound to your computer's headphone output?

id be curious to know how different the same HI-SP file would sound coming from your computer

id like to get a HI-MD to record and listen to audio, but i keep hearing that the headphone amp sucks...

[skyther]

....

since when did PC sound cards become a reference point for sound quality?

If you think sound cards sound good, the NH1, or *any* Hi-MD, for that matter, will be more than enough for you.

[Seroka2]

so, you believe the problem is with the amp (even though my old portable cd was a sony) and not the codec?

do you think a sharp hi-md or the new sony hdd would be any better?

[Seroka2]

deafplayer,

without eq, hi-sp songs running through soundstage on my pc (a vaio frv37 with a what I assume is a low-quality soundcard) sound worse than the nh1, but the original CDs on the pc don't sound much better so i don't want to use the computer as a reference.

[skyther]

Haha, Sony HDD... don't make me laugh. :laugh:

Yes the Sharp will sound much better.

[DrZhivago]

:wacky:

Hm. I find MZNH1 sound better than NetMD generation of MD's. I use Sony's MDR71SL fontopia headphones. Never liked E3's while they never gave me decent bass response when used with MD. So I sold them to a happy iPod owner. . I have also found that (this is purely subjective) i get better recordings when using optical cable (eg transfer from CD player) then through SS transfer?.

[skyther]

- NH1 > N10 + N1 for SQ = yes.

- E3s bass lacking = no.

- Optical recording > SS transfer/NetMD = yes.

[DrZhivago]

- NH1 > N10 + N1 for SQ = yes.

- E3s bass lacking = no.

- Optical recording > SS transfer/NetMD = yes.

Hey skyther :happy: E3's may not lack a bass response to a you. But believe me,coming from a Sony's EX71SL they do dude. EX71's are certainly not state-of-art headphones.They don't have exceptional mid range, but boy sure they pump lotsa bass for in-ear type headphones.

Cheers

[Ppk3000]

E3's may not lack a bass response to a you. But believe me,coming from a Sony's EX71SL they do dude. EX71's are certainly not state-of-art headphones.They don't have exceptional mid range, but boy sure they pump lotsa bass for in-ear type headphones.

Cheers

Heh, interestingly enough, I am listening to music with my EX71's plugged into my (Creative MegaWorks 5.1) speaker's headphones out jack in the night right now.

These 'phones aren't bad, and it serves its purpose as a mid to lower-high range performer.

However, I feel the output sound is pre-amped in a certain way, possibly in the typical "contrast boost" pattern increasing the high/low frequency dynamics, giving nicer but not higher quality sound... that would explain for the lack of clarity in the middle range and section. Nevertheless, the quality on these would beat the stock sony MDR-E8xx series anyday.

So is the rich sounding bass really natural high quality or just tweaked? I wouldn't be too certain to call it quality. Still, they are great for casual listening and on the go (I wouldn't want to have a pair of ER's torn/destroyed by accident, so cheaper and lesser will have to the compensation :happy:)

[deafplayer]

....

since when did PC sound cards become a reference point for sound quality?

If you think sound cards sound good, the NH1, or *any* Hi-MD, for that matter, will be more than enough for you.

....wow

im sorry if i offended your obviously impecible taste by mentioning PC sound cards, sir

but the fact is not all of us have crappy, integrated sound cards

and people with in-ear monitor earphones are probably... hm.. FAR less likely to have such a crappy card, or even use its headphone amp

you might not have known that a huge amount of professionally produced (and well produced) music is actually made using PC sound cards

....sometimes they even use good sound cards!

also, using something as a reference point for sound quality does not necessarily mean that you think its good.... you compared the sound quality to that of the N10, and i wanted to know how it compared to his sound card... i never implied that all PC sound cards are the gold standard for sound... hell i didn't even know what his soundcard was

btw one reason i wanted to know how it compared is that coming from the PC the music wouldn't go through the NH1s DSP

and since when does is tonal balance not an important part of sound quality? adjusting it with an EQ to compensate for environmental noise and conditions when youre out and about with a portable player doesn't seem that crazy to me...

and depending on the music your listening to, and what aspect of the music youre listening to, it may be more or less important

EQs arent exclusively for dealing with room acoustics that affect speakers

but i dont mean to be an asshole...

its really very generous of someone with such discriminating ears and impeccible taste in equipment as yours (btw your "rigs" are extremely impressive) to spend your time showing people how incompetent they are at listening to sound.... how else would we find out?

so thank you for your advice, i will keep in mind that any HI-MD should be more than good enough for me

[skyther]

!!!

These 'phones aren't bad, and it serves its purpose as a mid to lower-high range performer.

How dare you! :whatever: These phones are mid-fi at best. :laugh:

increasing the high/low frequency dynamics, giving nicer but not higher quality sound... that would explain for the lack of clarity in the middle range and section

I wouldn't call the bass 'tweaked' - that's what equalizers do, as in artifically boosting the tonal balance. The EX71s have supressed mids which give the impression of a "boosted bass" response. Bass is not everything... You'll get poor vocals and musical dynamics with the EX71s because all you hear is the treble and bass. But yes, you're on the right track.

Etys are fine for use on the run, in fact, to my experience, they've been pretty rugged. If something gets torn, you *can* send them back to ER to get it fixed, instead of buying a new pair.

[deafplayer]

deafplayer,

without eq, hi-sp songs running through soundstage on my pc (a vaio frv37 with a what I assume is a low-quality soundcard) sound worse than the nh1, but the original CDs on the pc don't sound much better so i don't want to use the computer as a reference.

thanks, thats good to know

and your soundcard sucking helps, it says a lot more than if you told me your 1000$ setup sounded better than the NH1

HI MDs quality is looking worse and worse the more i read... this sucks

[skyther]

but the fact is not all of us have crappy, integrated sound cards  

and people with in-ear monitor earphones are probably... hm.. FAR less likely to have such a crappy card, or even use its headphone amp  

you might not have known that a huge amount of professionally produced (and well produced) music is actually made using PC sound cards  

....sometimes they even use good sound cards!

Seperate professional equipment from consumer level stuff. Possibly only 1 person here has anything within the likes of a RME or EMU 1212, and that's not me. A sound card is just a add on daughterboard for a PC with ICs on it. A properly shielded design with high quality components will work well, but chances are no one here will have their hands on one. What you said will explain why 60-70% of modern CDs released clip like mofos; because some idiot sets the levels up high because he thinks compressed dynamic ranges + loud = good. Same goes for the poor arse equipment he uses to master the recordings.

also, using something as a reference point for sound quality does not necessarily mean that you think its good.... you compared the sound quality to that of the N10, and i wanted to know how it compared to his sound card... i never implied that all PC sound cards are the gold standard for sound... hell i didn't even know what his soundcard was  

btw one reason i wanted to know how it compared is that coming from the PC the music wouldn't go through the NH1s DSP

That doesn't make sense. You're asking for him to compare it with something you might have not even heard. Even on-board sound will vary in quality. All sources in a computer go through a DSP. The source is decoded with software which has to be fed into a DSP which 'translates' it into a format the DAC can work with. For a good number of soundcards, resampling is often involved. That, in itself, is a highly lossy process.

and since when does is tonal balance not an important part of sound quality? adjusting it with an EQ to compensate for environmental noise and conditions when youre out and about with a portable player doesn't seem that crazy to me...  

and depending on the music your listening to, and what aspect of the music youre listening to, it may be more or less important  

EQs arent exclusively for dealing with room acoustics that affect speakers

All earphones isolate to a certain degree. With ear/headphones, you ARE the environment. What you say is correct, EQs can be used to compensate for the environment change for external use, but most people use it to give an artifically boosted tonal response, which doesn't help sound quality. Every extra stage of DSP will result in a further reduction of sound quality. So, no, using an EQ to tweak your tonal balance will not help sound quality. You are only increasing the volume to certain frequency ranges which only results in muddying the detail because of the extra processing.

but i dont mean to be an asshole...

You're not one, don't worry... :happy: I'm merely tired of people miseducating others with rubbish. Not that I can stop it, it's a common trait of every forum.

[bhangraman]

The NH1's sound in my experience vs iPod is listed in my review over on head-fi. On it's own and with PCM data, I think it's perfectly OK.

Perfectly OK however when evaluating the absolute quality needs to be clarified in terms of how it was tested. The test was originally conducted via a PCM optical recording of the source material from a Sony SCD-XA777ES deck. The NH1 was then switched to Line Out mode, and the Stax Omega II / SRM-007t combination attached to it using a high quality 3.5mm -> RCA converter and the Siltech FTM-4SG interconnect. The iPod Mini was also attached in the same manner and the two were compared against the original being played out of the XA777ES. I think that with roughly $10,000 retail's worth of very well-reviewed gear hooked up as above, even our most humbly esteemed skyther would find it difficult to pick holes in the front end / basis of comparison.

The NH1 showed a surprising deviance from the original material (and not for the better) when compared alongside the iPod, which itself was surprisingly close to the original. Said surprising differences were in almost every aspect that the audiophile looks for: accuracy, staging, dynamics, etc. I now think the problem is the digital amp (which the data would go through regardless of whether you are using Headphone or Line Out), as even with Sonicstage 2.1 and the secured PCM format it exhibits the same problem. Prior to using 2.1, I got out another NH1 just to be sure that my regular-use unit was not faulty and it seems to be OK (both machines however would have been manufactured within hours if not minutes of each other).

The music, when heard without the source material to compare does not sound 'wrong' and is good enough. However when you incorporate a mode which supposedly assures top quality, I'd expect more than 'good enough'.

Reading his posts, I'm not sure how much of skyther's postings are actual experience or the result of results inferred from postings on boards such as Head-Fi. However the bottom line seems to be that if you want your music to sound as much like the original as possible in a very portable format, an iPod/iPod Mini (the only other potential contender at the moment as far as I'm concerned is the Rio Karma, but I have not owned that yet) in conjunction with the Apple Lossless codec most definitely offers such a capability.

The iPods are far less optimal though if your perception of quality is determined by the EQ setting that you choose... but since [bitchy audiophile holier-than-thou sneer on] this would mean that you can't tell what is quality in the first place, the actual quality of the base sound would be largely irrelevant as long as it doesn't totally suck.[bitchy audiophile holier-than-thou sneer off]

As far as the soundcard comparison is concerned, I have an RME HDSP9632 fitted to a desktop and an Echo Indigo available to fit one of my Sony PCG-TR series laptops. Even before we get to a comparison with those cards however, I have to say that when used as a Line Out the NH1's amp might (and I say might as it wasn't a scientific test I conducted) even be found wanting when compared to the integrated SoundMAX audio of the TR's when playing back the same material from Sonicstage. I was very surprised to say the least.

[skyther]

I don't worship Head-Fi, so don't make it sound like I do. I've done a comparison myself, so I'm obviously basing claims on my experience and not gossip.

[Christopher]

I love it when you two pick at each other. It's entertaining [and not to mention usually a good read if you keep it within the bounds of sanity]. :happy:

[just don't cause one another to leave, otherwise I'll bap yeahs]

[bhangraman]

I'll be sure to keep it under control... especially since I have a totally unfair advantage :rasp:

[mmp64]

Well, to this mud-eared idiot, ATRAC/ATRAC3+ played on my NetMD and Hi-MD players DO sound better than MP3s played on my MP3 players (Nomad Zen Xtra and RCA Lyra) And I'm talking matching bitrates - comparing LP2 to 128 MP3, Hi-LP to 64K MP3, and Hi-SP to 256 MP3.

[skyther]

Hrmpf. I'm a student with a limited budget. Totally unfair indeed.

Oooo, Nomad gets put down. I disagree hands down. I don't like Creative, but the Nomads are Nomads when it comes to butchering MDs.

[DrZhivago]

I have done some MZNH1 sound tests yesterdee. I recorded Sade Greatest Hits CD onto MZNH1 in PCM, using optical cable connected to my Sony CD player. Reference listening equipment was Panasonic portable CD player and :wink: EX71 in-ear headphones. So I listened original CD through Panasonic CD player and then through recorded Hi-MD disc through MZNH1. Overall, there wasn't that much difference to the orginal CD dynamic wise. Though, I found MZNH1 sound, to be bit more hissy.

Could that be DSP thingy?

Cheers

[deafplayer]

stupid double post

[deafplayer]

oops sorry for hte double post

Seperate professional equipment from consumer level stuff. Possibly only 1 person here has anything within the likes of a RME or EMU 1212, and that's not me.

you certainly dont need something that expensive to get sound better than a consumer portable player

also as im sure you know pro and consumer sound products are no longer neatly sperated into totally different price and performance ballparks

What you said will explain why 60-70% of modern CDs released clip like mofos; because some idiot sets the levels up high because he thinks compressed dynamic ranges + loud = good. Same goes for the poor arse equipment he uses to master the recordings.

what does using PCs have to do with the current trend of over-compressing music? digital equipment gives a shitty clipping sound compared to analogues saturation, which i can only guess might be what youre alluding to, but thats not why people are choosing to compress and raise levels

I'm merely tired of people miseducating others with rubbish. Not that I can stop it, it's a common trait of every forum.

uh.. yeah, exactly

That doesn't make sense. You're asking for him to compare it with something you might have not even heard. Even on-board sound will vary in quality.

it makes sense to me........ im trying to get a better idea of how good the HI-MDs will sound and this gives another reference point... the more of which i have the better.... i haven't heard most of the reference points people use but that doesn't mean they dotn contribute to a better general idea of how good it will sound

and i know computers have DSP.. depending on your computer and software you can bypass or turn off some of that processing

All earphones isolate to a certain degree. With ear/headphones, you ARE the environment. What you say is correct, EQs can be used to compensate for the environment change for external use, but most people use it to give an artifically boosted tonal response, which doesn't help sound quality. Every extra stage of DSP will result in a further reduction of sound quality. So, no, using an EQ to tweak your tonal balance will not help sound quality. You are only increasing the volume to certain frequency ranges which only results in muddying the detail because of the extra processing.

its a good thing youre here to educate us about sound quality cus its not like thats a subjective matter of taste or anything...

my ear canals may be the acoustic environment for the earphones, but it is hardly seperate from the outside environment in terms of external noise

and that ambient noise tends to be far more intrusive interference than colouration from the acoustic properties of a room that you seemed to say EQ was exlusively made for

just because the sound from your source isn't bouncing around the room doesn't mean that room's sound contitions aren't relevent

if im riding a subway with a constant background noise that drowns out certain parts of the music that i particularly want to hear, and i use the EQ to boost those parts, allowing me to hear, say, a rhythm guitar that was previously impossible to follow.... i dont think im going to care if some detail is lost because, riding a subway, im not going to be looking for the decay of reverb on the cymbals, im going to be struggling to hear melodies

in that context i would say tonal response gains importance in sound quality

in the same way excellent high frequency response might let you hear a players fingers sliding on the strings at home

youre now hearing something you didn't before, something you want to hear

its just that in a subway car that happens in a very messy and imperfect setting, and in necessarily less refined ways

the idea of getting better sound quality is to get more enjoyment out of your music, right? for some people that might mean practically being able to see the trumpet playing in that spot in your room, for others, riding subways with earbuds, they might be looking for something different, and detail and fidelity may not matter as much in that listening situation

not to mention it also depends on what music youre listening too

[dex Otaku]

what does using PCs have to do with the current trend  of over-compressing music? digital equipment gives a shitty clipping sound compared to analogues saturation, which i can only guess might be what youre alluding to, but thats not why people are choosing to compress and raise levels

Indeed. Bit-pushing is usually done for one purpose and one purpose only: to make the music sound louder. Of course, they do it at the sacrifice of -real- dynamic range. It's the same as why the last stage before transmitting on radio is putting the entire mix through a compressor/limiter - so things sound loud and clear on cheap, shitty equipment.

On the other hand, it also means not having to compress so much for playing on the radio; the damping of or outright elimination of some transients that psychoacoustic compression schemes [i.e. mp3, atrac, etc.] have difficulty with; and of course having that average SPL level on output that is much higher than the noise floor of the average person's playback equipment.

I hate it, personally. But then, most of the musicians [the non-folk musicians] I've toyed around with recording with always ended up asking, "Can't you make it louder? This doesn't sound as loud as my Radiohead CD."

[Of course, some of them change their mind when I open a track of theirs in sound forge and then open a ripped track from radiohead, which just looks like solid clipping from beginning to end]

[skyther]

you certainly dont need something that expensive to get sound better than a consumer portable player  

also as im sure you know pro and consumer sound products are no longer neatly sperated into totally different price and performance ballparks  

Are you saying an Audigy will do? I'm afraid not. And yes they are. Pro cards are pro cards. You see a lot of consumer standard cards with 'pro features', but features != components.

what does using PCs have to do with the current trend of over-compressing music? digital equipment gives a shitty clipping sound compared to analogues saturation, which i can only guess might be what youre alluding to, but thats not why people are choosing to compress and raise levels

No. Using poor equipment to master the recording will result in the track clipping earlier. I've had tracks which are not particularly loud, but have telltale signs that they've been recording using very poor equipment and will clip throughout 80% of the track.

it makes sense to me........ im trying to get a better idea of how good the HI-MDs will sound and this gives another reference point... the more of which i have the better.... i haven't heard most of the reference points people use but that doesn't mean they dotn contribute to a better general idea of how good it will sound  

and i know computers have DSP.. depending on your computer and software you can bypass or turn off some of that processing

No it doesn't? How can you mark a reference point without knowing what it is? Asking for a comparison to a PC sound card is the same as asking for a comparison with anything else he has. You're asking for a sound judgement which doesn't need a reference point. (Hypothetically speaking) If I tell you the NH1 sounds sharper and bassier than my Revo, you're going to take it as the NH1 sounds sharp and bassy while ignoring all references to my Revo, because you wouldn't know how my Revo sounds like.

You seem to misunderstand something. You're assuming I'm 'disciminating' the fact that you use a sound card for a reference point because sound cards are not particularly hi-fi. Then you end up telling me that there are professional sound cards that are used for recording, et cetera.

1. A consumer sound card *IS* cheap. The most popular add on cards cost around USD50. You're comparing it to a product that costs around 6 times as much.

2. The circuitry is different. Hi-MD is portable. Sound cards are not, they aren't as limited to power supply requirements a Hi-MDs.

3. The intended use for each device is different. Sound cards are designed to be used with external amplification, often with speakers. It has op-amps, but most aren't really designed to run headphones. This is asking someone to compare an apple and a celery, not even an orange. Asking for a comparison to a PCDP, HDP or similar portable audio device would have made more sense. Like you said earlier, this makes as much sense as saying how the NH1 sounds like relative to a $1000 setup.

4. Your argument re. consumer vs professional sound cards is void. Consumer sound cards aren't known for sound quality, and hardly anyone will have a professional sound card, period. Your points about the fact that "there are good sound cards that are used to record what you listen to" is irrelevant to this argument. You obviously didn't expect someone to compare Hi-MD with a card of that calibre.

5. You cannot establish a reference point without knowing what it is. Sound cards can sound as poor as a $10 radio to hi-fi setups that cost a few grand. Again, you are *expecting* a comparison with a generic sound card, which even that can have fluctuating qualities, and telling me about the quality of pro cards.

and i know computers have DSP.. depending on your computer and software you can bypass or turn off some of that processing

With 9 out of 10 consumer cards you can't. Even with ASIO, in Creative's case (and this applies for also a fair number of other cards), the input signal gets resampled from 44.1k to 48k. Stuff like EAX and other environmental surround support - disabling it is not enough, you need to remove the drivers. It doesn't mean the signal doesn't go through the DSP, it just means less DSP effects are applied to it. I've been there and done that.

in that context i would say tonal response gains importance in sound quality  

in the same way excellent high frequency response might let you hear a players fingers sliding on the strings at home  

youre now hearing something you didn't before, something you want to hear  

its just that in a subway car that happens in a very messy and imperfect setting, and in necessarily less refined ways

Say, do you know what a 'basshead' is? I can appreciate your point about using EQ to *compensate* for rolloffs and environmental disturbances, but how many people do just that? You agree that an EQ will reduce quality and fidelity, but don't tell me you've never heard of people cranking up the bass and treble with their LP2 tracks and saying that they're listening to really good quality stuff, when they don't really know because they've never listened to real quality?

the idea of getting better sound quality is to get more enjoyment out of your music, right? for some people that might mean practically being able to see the trumpet playing in that spot in your room, for others, riding subways with earbuds, they might be looking for something different, and detail and fidelity may not matter as much in that listening situation  

not to mention it also depends on what music youre listening too

Now you're getting to my point. Enjoyment != quality. Enjoyment is very, very subjective. If you're bored, listening to music might be enjoyable. If you've just come home from a 10 hour shift at work, and you're tired as hell, the same CD listened to may not be as enjoyable. Quality only becomes a tiny, not-very-influential part of all the factors that affect the enjoyment of your music.

[Sbetsho]

skyther said:

Hi-LP is 48Kbps. I suspect you have semi-fallen for Sony's marketing ploy that ATRAC3+ is better than every other codec out there and is far superior to MP3, when it is not. 64Kbps MP3 > Hi-LP, unless you fancy filling your ears with mud.

People, read:

with a pair of E3c earphones.

You should be able to tell something from that.

[dex Otaku]

I know this is late in the debate to bring this up, but I have another reason for using EQ - to compensate for known hearing damage [as I have]. Oh yeah, and I know this is off topic, but .. yeah.

Funny thing is that I never use the main EQs on PA systems to tailor sound - only to eliminate feedback.

It helps that I'm very familiar with the effects of my hearing damage - which can make even $3k electrostatic headphones on studio equipment unbearable if not painful to listen to.

Anyhoo.

[skyther]

Whoops, it is indeed 64kbps. Was thinking of what they were using in the HD1. Confusing.

Chances are you're comparing Xing/FhG encoded MP3s, which I've said many times before, is useless. LAME encoded 64kbps will be close, if not superior, to 64kbps ATRAC3. If you're 'impressed' by LP4, frankly I think it's useless to comment any further. And I see that you ignored the fact that he was using E3c's.

[Sbetsho]

I meant that I was relatively impressed. And the amount of music you can fit into a minidisc is (more than) enough compensation of the loss of quality.

[skyther]

Mate, 64kbps sounds worse than FM radio. I kid you not, I'd rather listen to the radio than Hi-LP.

At 64kbps, the quality/space ratio debate no longer becomes an issue. People seek to optimize listening quality and recording time from LP2 ranges (128kbps+) to lossless (600kbps~1411kbps). Once you get to 64kbps, quality does not exist, plain and simple. The only use for 64kbps would be for talk shows, lectures etc., where something along the lines of telephone quality is sufficient. Music no longer stays as music at such a bitrate. 64kbps is less than 5% of PCM's 1411kbps, or otherwise a 1:20 compression ratio.

[bhangraman]

ATRAC3+ probably does a better job of rendering low-grade sounds than MP3 at equivalent lower bitrates (48K and 64K). But if you're listening to music as opposed to spoken word, if you have any pretensions of discussing the sonic quality whatsoever you would opt for higher bitrates.

What have we got in terms of ATRAC? Well, we've got 132K ATRAC3 which is acceptable but still does not really sit well with the word 'quality'. It is certainly not the 192K MP3-basher that MD 'maniacs' often make reference to. It is more or less comparable to 128K MP3 with 'manufactured-seeming' smoothed highs which makes the sound slightly more palatable.

256K is really where the word quality comes in, and I find it very good if played back on my main PC set-up (being largely indistinguishable from the 256K VBR MP3 iTunes rip, which is also very good).

If I were to be a regular Hi-MD user, I would have liked a <>160K ATRAC3+ option for acceptable sound without the compromises of 132K ATRAC3, and with more efficient use of space than Hi-SP.

[jadeclaw]

If I were to be a regular Hi-MD user, I would have liked a <>160K ATRAC3+ option for acceptable sound without the compromises of 132K ATRAC3, and with more efficient use of space than Hi-SP.

And that's something I don't understand.

Since changing the datarate is nothing more than giving the codec a few new parameters, that would have been a no brainer.

And giving a choice of datarates is standard in standalone DVD-recorders. Some even have an optimal mode - You give it the time needed, the recorder sets the encoder to perfectly fill the disc.

And since we're talking of software here, even a lot of other things would have been possible as well.

But again, Sony stopped halfway through...

[dex Otaku]

And that's something I don't understand. 

Since changing the datarate is nothing more than giving the codec a few new parameters, that would have been a no brainer.

...

But again, Sony stopped halfway through...

I agree. Having read a bit of the tech background on atrac3+ [it does have some truly significant advantages in how its processing is done] I'd say that a 128-160kbps mode would have likely been near equivalent to mp3 192kbps [what I consider the minimum acceptable quality - absolutely fine for portable or car use].

Sony is putting too much trust in people gobbling up their lower bitrates as acceptable, but I'm willing to bet that people will just hear crap for crap. Anyone with half a brain can look at those datarates and wonder what Sony were thinking trying to pull the wool over their customers' eyes like that.