From: "las" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> After reading the FAQs, I'm not very impressed with Atrac 3. I would say
> from the description that is sounds lousy. Digital artifacts that you can
> hear?
First off it's probably best if we all call it ATRAC3 - without the space to
differentiate it from ATRAC 3 (the algorithm used in 3rd generation Sony
units like the MZ-R3). There are peeps that claim to be able to tell the
difference between standard MD and CD, dunno if they are using an R-Type
decoder for the MD but personally I'd be hard pushed to differentiate tween
ATRAC 4.5 and CD.
> Just how important is the bit rate? I never realized that ATRAC used a bit
> rate of almost 300! I have downloaded Mp3s in several different bit rates
> and really didn't hear a difference.
At bitrates of about 192kbps and above, you'll need a decent setup to "hear
the artifacts", assuming with mp3 you used one of the good encoders (the
Fraunhoffer one seems to be considered the best all round coder). If youre
just encoding to listen while on the move 128kbps will be fine or if space
is at a premium, like on naff MP3 porties, you could get away with 96 or even
64kbps, though 64kbps may only be adequate for journeys in a noisy bus or
busy streets :-)
> The high bit rates seemed to double the file size but did nothing to improve
> the sound quality. The lower bit rate (like 64-which I sometimes had to use
> because it was the only way I could find the song I wanted) sounded the same
> too.
I'm tempted to ask just what you are playing, and what you are playing it
through. Perhaps really rare old recordings, mono, encoded at 64kbps with
joint-L/R (just like how ATRAC3 LP4 uses joint-L/R) will sound okay-- being
a mono source, I *guess* the joint channel encoding will allow an effective
bitrate of near 128kbps, if anyone knows better please correct me.
> So if you reduced the bit rate of an MD player to 64 you should be able to
> ge about 5.6 hours of music on an MD without having to resort to all of the
> drastic things done with Atrac 2 and 3.
Personally I would expect ATRAC3 to sound better than present MP3 encoders
at each bitrate. Why? Because Sony et al can put massive R&D resources into
the algorithm compared to most companies involved with developing MP3 coders.
With LP4 and an 80min disc, you will be able to get 5hrs 24mins (nearly) of
music at 66kbps. I must admit I too am amazed at Sony's lack of foresight in
not having bytes "reserved for future use" and that they literally throw away
10% of the disc space in both LP modes.
> If you are going to copy Mp3 files to Atrac 3 with all of that compression
> and manipulation, the end result is likely to sound like sh!t.
If you're gonna take a 64kbps MP3 and stick it on a MD in ATRAC3 LP4, I would
guess most of the damage had been done in the MP3 encoding, sticking it thro'
the ATRAC3 LP4 encoder won't help but probably won't harm too much.
> I really know very little about the effect of the bit rate on the sound
> quality, only what I heard using Mp3s. So if someone knowledgeable in this
> area has more to say on the matter, I am very interested in learning about
> it.
> Larry
To be honest I'm more or less replying on what seems logical, not so much
on actual training in the complicated field of lossy data-compression. So if
most of what I've said above is total rubbish, please correct me as I'd much
rather learn the facts than live in ignorance!
Yours,
PrinceGaz.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
