In article ,
The Artist wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...ic/3855745.stm

Sony claim their new walkman stores 3,000 more songs than the top
model iPod. To the layperson, this sounds impressive. However the hard
disc is half the size - the comparison is between ATRAC3 @ 48Kb & AAC
@ 128kbps. Using the same bit rate, the Sony actually stores half the
number of songs. Sony of course claim ATRAC3 is more efficient.

It is. Cross-codec bitrate comparisons are as informative as
cross-processor megaHertz comparisons. Listening tests must be
performed.

A quick google, however, came up with a public listening test that put
ATRAC3 at the bottom, worse even than mp3 (as encoded by modern
encoders, which admittedly has been a subject of much effort):

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multifo...sentation.html

--
Matthew Weigel
the email address is real
the contents of the post are not

In article ,
The Artist wrote:

"Matthew Weigel" emitted :

Sony claim their new walkman stores 3,000 more songs than the top
model iPod. To the layperson, this sounds impressive. However the hard
disc is half the size - the comparison is between ATRAC3 @ 48Kb & AAC
@ 128kbps. Using the same bit rate, the Sony actually stores half the
number of songs. Sony of course claim ATRAC3 is more efficient.

It is. Cross-codec bitrate comparisons are as informative as
cross-processor megaHertz comparisons. Listening tests must be
performed.

I'm not saying same bitrates should be used. The issue is Sony's
claim. It's widely reported by listeners that AAC is competitive at
high compression rates.

Whoops- that "It is" I left in there, before I looked at the results-
rephrase that to "it could be." :-)

I do know there's been quite a bit of effort (by WMA, and others
intended for 'portable' use) to sound less bad at very low (128) bit
rates, but it seems that more storage yielded much better gains than
bitrate-cutting for solving the "more songs of tolerable quality"
problem.

So I guess I'm saying I don't think it matters a titch which sounds
better at 128kbps, anyone with enough music (in AAC or ATRAC3, neither
of which is swapped online much) to worry about fitting 3,000 more songs
onto their device *absolutely* won't be happy with it.

--
Matthew Weigel
the email address is real
the contents of the post are not

In article ,
The Artist wrote:

Yeah, agreed, but what I'm focusing on is the validity of Sony's
claim. AAC has a good reputation at 128kbps. Does ATRAC3 at 48kbps
even approach the same quality?

*shrug* ATRAC3 players are hard to come by, so I can't relate personal
experience; all I can point you to is that listening test. Based on
that data, and assuming that ATRAC3 does relatively better at lower
bitrates, I'd put 48kbps ATRAC3 as about as "good" as 64kbps mp3, which
is significantly worse than 128kbps AAC.

I'd go for RAW PCM if I had an iPOD ;-)

Believe me, I've considered it.

--
Matthew Weigel
the email address is real
the contents of the post are not

Matthew Weigel said:

In article ,
The Artist wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...ic/3855745.stm

Sony claim their new walkman stores 3,000 more songs than the top
model iPod. To the layperson, this sounds impressive. However the hard
disc is half the size - the comparison is between ATRAC3 @ 48Kb & AAC
@ 128kbps. Using the same bit rate, the Sony actually stores half the
number of songs. Sony of course claim ATRAC3 is more efficient.

It is. Cross-codec bitrate comparisons are as informative as
cross-processor megaHertz comparisons. Listening tests must be
performed.

Proove it mr. Wiegel!
Back, then, when I invented lossles's compression in the Army my,
intention was to shove the snake oil, with tons through your throat's,
NOT!

A quick google, however, came up with a public listening test that put
ATRAC3 at the bottom, worse even than mp3 (as encoded by modern
encoders, which admittedly has been a subject of much effort):

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multifo...sentation.html

Been there done that mr. Woggle.
This "test" is invalid as per my ABX webshiiite regulations you vinyl
and tube, biggots are all the same LoT;"s ! ;-(

"The Artist" wrote in message


Yeah, agreed, but what I'm focusing on is the validity of Sony's
claim. AAC has a good reputation at 128kbps. Does ATRAC3 at 48kbps
even approach the same quality?

Given that ATRAC3 did relatively poorly at 128 Kbps in the tests summarized
at http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multifo...8/results.html , it seems like
there is no way it would be any better at 48 Kbps.

My feelings in the matter is summarized as follows: My NJB3 is loaded with
..wav files.

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 04:38:22 +0100, The Artist
wrote:

Yeah, agreed, but what I'm focusing on is the validity of Sony's
claim. AAC has a good reputation at 128kbps. Does ATRAC3 at 48kbps
even approach the same quality?

Keep in mind that Sony is talking about atrac3 *plus* at 48 kbps, not
regular atrac3. However, at 48 kbps, atrac3+ is nowhere near even mp3
at 128 kbps, as determined by a personal listening test:



This lame mp3 version and setting was compared against AAC at 128 kbps
he

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/128exte...sentation.html
http://www.rjamorim.com/test/128extension/results.html

So 48 kbps atrac3+ 128 lame mp3 128 AAC

Some people may find atrac3+ quality at 48 kbps acceptable for casual
listening, but not me.

ff123