Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
ATRAC v ATRAC Lossless
I recently bought a Sony NWS706 MP3 player and have been transferring
a few of my CD's to it via its own SonicStage software (I should mention here that I'm a complete beginner when it comes to MP3 and the like). I used ATRAC 64kbps at first, because my player only has 4Gbytes of memory, and I've lots of long works, like symphonies. The quality seems fine, but according to so many people I've read on the Internet, 64kbps is such a low sampling rate, quality *should* be pretty bad. Today I transferred a few short works using both ATRAC 64kbps and ATRAC Lossless, and have been trying to hear the difference between the two. I can't say I can detect any, but the few seconds needed to switch between them makes comparison difficult. Also, I'm wondering if I'd suddenly notice a difference should I happen to buy a better pair of headphones in the future. The convenience of having a lot of music on my player, and not having to fiddle about transferring stuff as I need it, is very attractive, but I want good quality as well. With this in mind, I'd like to hear people's opinions on these two formats - is the quality of ATRAC Lossless worth the extra space? |
#2
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
ATRAC v ATRAC Lossless
"martin" wrote ...
I recently bought a Sony NWS706 MP3 player and have been transferring a few of my CD's to it via its own SonicStage software (I should mention here that I'm a complete beginner when it comes to MP3 and the like). I used ATRAC 64kbps at first, because my player only has 4Gbytes of memory, and I've lots of long works, like symphonies. The quality seems fine, but according to so many people I've read on the Internet, 64kbps is such a low sampling rate, quality *should* be pretty bad. Today I transferred a few short works using both ATRAC 64kbps and ATRAC Lossless, and have been trying to hear the difference between the two. I can't say I can detect any, but the few seconds needed to switch between them makes comparison difficult. Also, I'm wondering if I'd suddenly notice a difference should I happen to buy a better pair of headphones in the future. The convenience of having a lot of music on my player, and not having to fiddle about transferring stuff as I need it, is very attractive, but I want good quality as well. With this in mind, I'd like to hear people's opinions on these two formats - is the quality of ATRAC Lossless worth the extra space? Assuming you know that ATRAC has nothing to do with MP3. ATRAC is Sony's *proprietary* music compression scheme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrac It likely has a miniscule market share compared to MP3 (and the Apple-proprietary schemes, etc.) For that reason, it is possible that few/none of the people who regularly read these newsgroups has as much experience with current ATRAC performance as you. You may want to try asking your question in an MD-specific discussion forum where ATRAC is more well-known. Of course, the basic answer to your question (regardless of which compression scheme) is to use the rate that best accomplishes your personal tradeoff between size and quality. If *YOU* can't hear the difference, save space on your limited media. What difference does it make what OTHER people hear? Of course, if you were encoding audio for distribution to others, the decision factors would potentially be different. Sony appears to have announced that they concede defeat in the ATRAC vs. MP3 wars.... "Sony ditching proprietary audio format...." http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci...nclick_check=1 [ news:rec.audio.opinion deleted as useless for serious discussion, IMHO ] |
#3
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
ATRAC v ATRAC Lossless
"martin" wrote in message
oups.com... Today I transferred a few short works using both ATRAC 64kbps and ATRAC Lossless, and have been trying to hear the difference between the two. I can't say I can detect any, but the few seconds needed to switch between them makes comparison difficult. Also, I'm wondering if I'd suddenly notice a difference should I happen to buy a better pair of headphones in the future. snip With this in mind, I'd like to hear people's opinions on these two formats - is the quality of ATRAC Lossless worth the extra space? I've been using Minidisc for some years, and ATRAC Lossless is a new one on me. I'm happy with music and other recordings captured in HiSP (one of the HiMD ATRAC modes) on any of my Sony HiMD recorders. I've also used the lossless PCM mode, and recently I've tried a 9V battery box so as raise the electret mic clipping level, and to remove any distortion from the built-in preamp. -- M Stewart Milton Keynes, UK |
#4
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
ATRAC v ATRAC Lossless
Malcolm Stewart wrote:
"martin" wrote in message oups.com... Today I transferred a few short works using both ATRAC 64kbps and ATRAC Lossless, and have been trying to hear the difference between the two. I can't say I can detect any, but the few seconds needed to switch between them makes comparison difficult. Also, I'm wondering if I'd suddenly notice a difference should I happen to buy a better pair of headphones in the future. snip With this in mind, I'd like to hear people's opinions on these two formats - is the quality of ATRAC Lossless worth the extra space? I've been using Minidisc for some years, and ATRAC Lossless is a new one on me. I'm happy with music and other recordings captured in HiSP (one of the HiMD ATRAC modes) on any of my Sony HiMD recorders. I've also used the lossless PCM mode, and recently I've tried a 9V battery box so as raise the electret mic clipping level, and to remove any distortion from the built-in preamp. -- M Stewart Milton Keynes, UK Sony's Sound Forge 9.0 comes with a number of ATRAC codecs including lossless and surround/multi-track. Later... Ron Capik -- |
#5
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
ATRAC v ATRAC Lossless
Richard Crowley wrote:
"martin" wrote ... I recently bought a Sony NWS706 MP3 player and have been transferring a few of my CD's to it via its own SonicStage software (I should mention here that I'm a complete beginner when it comes to MP3 and the like). I used ATRAC 64kbps at first, because my player only has 4Gbytes of memory, and I've lots of long works, like symphonies. The quality seems fine, but according to so many people I've read on the Internet, 64kbps is such a low sampling rate, quality *should* be pretty bad. Today I transferred a few short works using both ATRAC 64kbps and ATRAC Lossless, and have been trying to hear the difference between the two. I can't say I can detect any, but the few seconds needed to switch between them makes comparison difficult. Also, I'm wondering if I'd suddenly notice a difference should I happen to buy a better pair of headphones in the future. The convenience of having a lot of music on my player, and not having to fiddle about transferring stuff as I need it, is very attractive, but I want good quality as well. With this in mind, I'd like to hear people's opinions on these two formats - is the quality of ATRAC Lossless worth the extra space? Assuming you know that ATRAC has nothing to do with MP3. ATRAC is Sony's *proprietary* music compression scheme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrac It likely has a miniscule market share compared to MP3 (and the Apple-proprietary schemes, etc.) For that reason, it is possible that few/none of the people who regularly read these newsgroups has as much experience with current ATRAC performance as you. You may want to try asking your question in an MD-specific discussion forum where ATRAC is more well-known. Of course, the basic answer to your question (regardless of which compression scheme) is to use the rate that best accomplishes your personal tradeoff between size and quality. If *YOU* can't hear the difference, save space on your limited media. What difference does it make what OTHER people hear? Of course, if you were encoding audio for distribution to others, the decision factors would potentially be different. Sony appears to have announced that they concede defeat in the ATRAC vs. MP3 wars.... "Sony ditching proprietary audio format...." http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci...nclick_check=1 [ news:rec.audio.opinion deleted as useless for serious discussion, IMHO ] While I don't have any experience with ATRAC, like MP3, AAC, and Oggvorbis, etc, ATRAC is a lossy music compression format,so all the same general rules apply. They all lose some quality from the original source. The original poster should conisder if they will ever upgrade the sound equipment they will play their music on. One day, the lossy format may rear its ugly head. With lossless, you know you're saving the file at its best. I used to save all my music in 320 kbps LAMEd MP3 format, one of the best mp3 encoders out there. Over time I noticed while listening to those MP3s via my stereo that: 1. The mp3 files distorted much sooner than normal. I couldn't play the music as loud as before. 2. There definitely was a slight loss in dynamic range. Music didn't "hit" me quite as hard as the original. On my ipod nano I never noticed at all, not even when mp3s were saved to 192 kbps. Also, I keep all my music in a lossless format because itunes is the base for my home music server connected to my stereo. Every so often, I clear out the nano and put another group of songs on it. I'm not the type who needs to carry his entire music library with him wherever he goes. If I do need to do that, then I'll get a bigger ipod If that is the type of person that the original poster is, then maybe they'll have to deal with the lossy format given the small capacity of the player. Hope this helps CD |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
ATRAC v ATRAC Lossless | Audio Opinions | |||
Normalise batch ATRAC files? | Pro Audio | |||
can mp3 be converted to atrac | Audio Opinions | |||
please help me understand ATRAC | High End Audio | |||
Compare ATRAC and MP3-pro | High End Audio |