Jump to content

Dos Hi-SP 256K really HI than the oringinal SP?

Rate this topic


DD

Recommended Posts

Well, I dunno.

The codec is better, it uses a larger window size (1024 for ATRAC and 4096 for ATRAC3+), but to my ears they sound about the same; both indistinguishable from CD audio on my admittedly substandard equipment.

Although it is interesting to note that with my Shure E2cs in a very quiet room with my eyes closed, I can tell between Hi-SP (from SS and my PC) and PCM easier than I can tell SP (from my DS8) from PCM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Due to substantial differences in how the two encoders work, I'd say that 256kbps atrac3+ is likely to be less lossy than 292k atrac.

I do have issues with HiSP as encoded by SonicStage vs. by the encoder on the recorders themselves, but hopefully this will improve with time.

It's worth noting that atrac SP was originally developed in the early 1990s, whereas atrac3+ was developed in the last couple of years. Atrac has been improved over the years, yes, but there's only so much you can improve once the data format and decoder are frozen [i.e. upon the initial release of MD, in 1992-93].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not less lossy in terms of data but maybe more 'efficient' is the key word here in the sense that it works (marginally) better than old ATRAC at psychoacoustic compression techniques.

At it's current iteration, SP is still a superior codec (IMO) given it's higher bitrate, but ATRAC3+ will improve later. The difference won't be noticable for 99% of people, I myself wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Hi-SP and SP without an A to B comparison. This is common to every other lossy codec around, in the same way that --alt-preset-insane LAME would be better than 256kbps VBR OGG, but the noticable difference at such bitrates would really be negligible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not less lossy in terms of data but maybe more 'efficient' is the key word here in the sense that it works (marginally) better than old ATRAC at psychoacoustic compression techniques.

Thank you. This is more correct. It's not there's there's less data loss, it's that there's likely to be less perceptual or perceived loss.

At it's current iteration, SP is still a superior codec (IMO) given it's higher bitrate, but ATRAC3+ will improve later. The difference won't be noticable for 99% of people, I myself wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Hi-SP and SP without an A to B comparison.

I think it would be interesting to do a real ABx comparison between HiSP and SP. If I had the equipment to make the test files, I'd do so. [i have nothing with an optical digital out]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hehe, as skyther pointed out in another board, this is based on his own experience. And my own early tests (using SS as I don't have a Hi-MD) tend to confirm that SP still sounds a bit better than Hi-SP.

I intend to do a full ABX test involving Hi-SP (recorded with Sonicstage), Type-R SP (I can digitally record from my deck to my PC) and others competitors such as Lame, MPC and Vorbis, at high quality settings. Such a test has never been done I believe, it could be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be fairer to HiSP to test it by the same method as SP - as encoded by hardware.

HiSP vs. SS HiSP would be another thing altogether.

edit: This is assuming that while SS's encoder is opined thus far to be inferior, its decoder [since there are no decks with which to transfer a hardware decode] is up to snuff. Not sure where to stand on that, yet. I guess the question is - does playing HiMDs via USB get decoded by SS or by the player?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have noticed that, compared with the total SS work (SS do both ripping and converting), I had the EAC instead of SS to do the ripping. My workmate and I cannot tell the difference between the two ".wav"s, but we both acknowleged that the A3+256 from the EAC wav is better than the one from SS. Do anyone agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean you imported the EAC-ripped .wav to SS and converted it to A3+256?

Well, when you don't notice a difference in the two .wav files, but then in ATRAC3+ that sounds strange.

the difference in the ripping process (ss vs eac) is not really affecting the classical "quality" (lossy compression artifacts), but rather ss could add pops or clicks because eac has a more sophisticated error correction and a error in ripping usually ends up as a "click".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have done quite a few re-formatted 74/80 min discs in Hi-SP mode and the quality is awsome for a 'compressed' format. I can actually hear new notes out of my music that I've never heard from years of playing the same albums on a CD player! And I get around 140mins on a standard 80min disc! :ninja:

Now if Sony would only get off their backsides and make a full-size Hi-MD deck....... :happy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have done quite a few re-formatted 74/80 min discs in Hi-SP mode and the quality is awsome for a 'compressed' format.  I can actually here new notes out of my music that I've never heard from years of playing the same albums on a CD player!  And I get around 140mins on a standard 80min disc!

If you can't hear it in the original, then it is a compression artifact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can't hear it in the original, then it is a compression artifact.

Not necessarily. His CD player home setup may not be as good at reproduction as his Hi-MD portable + 'phones. Or he may be using speakers at home, which I've found I can hear more actual music with my DS8 + MD33S (SP mode recordings) combo than I can with my PC speakers off a CD even though the music is compressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...