[astranovus]

just transcoded some 192kb/s mp3 files to atrac3 plus 66kb/s,
the 192 were dj radio rips, so no redbook available.

and before you cruxify me it is usable.

the sound is slightly muffled compared to the 192 file but no distortions,

i have tested listening scenarios on the bus with the churning noises of public transport the 66kb/s codec is usable,

sony claims it is equivalent to 128 mp3 which seems to nearly be the case,

i also gonna try encoding some atrac3plus 66kb/s from redbook,which i assume shall be really good.

i'll keep you posted

the prospect of 37hrs of battery life with atrac3plus 66kb/s sounds very tempting

 

[doomlordis]

you will get better results with 64kbps atrac3+, for commuting it is fine, better straight from cd though and 128 mp3 to 64kbps atrac3+ has noticable artifacts , i would say 192 is minimum.

 

[astranovus]

i've just tried 66 from redbook, definitely an improvement,

so i might stick to 66kb/s for commuting

the amount of songs you could fit onto a 2gb sony flash player with this codec is insane

 

[HeadKase]

Blecch, I couldn't tolerate anything less than 256K Atrac, though when I went higher it still got better. Rather than having your music sound like it's coming from an AM radio, better get a DAP with some memory, no?

 

[gshan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadKase Blecch, I couldn't tolerate anything less than 256K Atrac, though when I went higher it still got better. Rather than having your music sound like it's coming from an AM radio, better get a DAP with some memory, no?

OP mentioned the purpose is for listening on a loud bus.

 

[photek]

I personally hate this codec, nothing good comes out of it. But there is no doubt it sounds better at those low bitrates than anything else I've tried. But I know that 128kbps ripped properly with the latest Lame encoder will sound much better than those 64kbps atrac+ or bitrates close to that. The size of those atrac files is tempting, its really small and it sounds good at those sizes, but for me the quality sinks too much that it hurts the enjoyment, and I'm the type of person who actually likes 128kbps (when most people dispise 128). Its a nice codec for 128mb flash mp3 players, or even 512, and using cheap earbuds on a cheap player. But for a DAP with plenty of space or cd/mp3 player and head-fi approved headphones I skip atrac for mp3.

 

[astranovus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadKase Blecch, I couldn't tolerate anything less than 256K Atrac, though when I went higher it still got better. Rather than having your music sound like it's coming from an AM radio, better get a DAP with some memory, no?

do you ever read my initial posts?

your answers never take my OP into consideration, you did this in the other codec thread,

i am pretty certain you cannot abx 192 from redbook, and if you think you can you are kidding yourself, so a statement like i can't tolerate less than 256k is rubbish,

on a loud bus your music pleasure is pretty bad anyway even with iems ( i use cx300s), so i'm looking for the right codec, if a low codec is sufficient then additional battery life should be a warm welcome

 

[TheMarchingMule]

Well, two things I gotta say here:

1.) Sony sucks, and their ATRAC format...just no. (My opinion, although many will agree)

2.) You never re-rip/encode a lossy format from a lossy format.

I mean, if you're happy with it, cool. It means you can't tell all that you lost in that double-encoding.

 

[astranovus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtheisticFreedom 2.) You never re-rip/encode a lossy format from a lossy format. I mean, if you're happy with it, cool. It means you can't tell all that you lost in that double-encoding.

same goes here again, read my initial post

"the 192 were dj radio rips, so no redbook available."

hence the transcoding

 

[HeadKase]

Quote:

Originally Posted by astranovus do you ever read my initial posts? your answers never take my OP into consideration, you did this in the other codec thread, i am pretty certain you cannot abx 192 from redbook, and if you think you can you are kidding yourself, so a statement like i can't tolerate less than 256k is rubbish, on a loud bus your music pleasure is pretty bad anyway even with iems ( i use cx300s), so i'm looking for the right codec, if a low codec is sufficient then additional battery life should be a warm welcome

Sorry it still doesn't make sense. You're saying there's no musical pleasure to be had from listening to music on a loud bus, so the music and your gear may as well sound horrible also? I'd go instead in the direction of more isolating phones and higher quality rips to make it more enjoyable. But no problem with me, just duct tape two AM radios to your ears if you prefer.

Then you say that you're pretty sure that I can't tell the difference between 192 on lossless so I must be lying that I don't find 192 acceptable for my tastes? How can you be "pretty certain" what my hearing can distinguish?

Your answer to everything seems to be that you have a tin ear so everybody else should listen to lo-fi junk to make you happy. Let me guess, you're under 16 yo, yes?

 

[TheMarchingMule]

INTERNET FIIIIGHT!

 

[skyline889]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtheisticFreedom Well, two things I gotta say here: 1.) Sony sucks, and their ATRAC format...just no. (My opinion, although many will agree) 2.) You never re-rip/encode a lossy format from a lossy format. I mean, if you're happy with it, cool. It means you can't tell all that you lost in that double-encoding.

Have you actually owned a Sony HD player? Have you tested it with Atrac Lossless? If not you have no right dictating that "Sony sucks" and Atrac sucks. I've owned the HD1 with the firmware upgrade, used the HD3 for two months, and owned the HD5 in the past and can honestly say they were some of the better players I've ever had.

The sound quality of the HD1 was certainly just as good if not better than the Ipod 4G, and IMO the HD5 blew away the 5G and 2G Mini I had in terms of sound quality. It even bested my Zen Vision 30GB but I stuck with the Zen since it did everything well not just one thing superbly.

I also found it rather odd that you can take the time to criticize another member of his hearing when you yourself are running a $400 headphone out of a $50 amp.

 

[astranovus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadKase Sorry it still doesn't make sense. You're saying there's no musical pleasure to be had from listening to music on a loud bus, so the music and your gear may as well sound horrible also? I'd go instead in the direction of more isolating phones and higher quality rips to make it more enjoyable. But no problem with me, just duct tape two AM radios to your ears if you prefer.?

incorrect, musical pleasure yes but critical listening no.
the cx300 isolate well but there is a limit to the amount of isolation one can get,
i still don't think you get the issue here. on a plane, bus ...
you get the annoying engine noise, with 66atrac3plus you get an acceptable audio quality which is slightly muffled compared to redbook, but fortunately the new codec has no artifacts, hence in this environment it works very well

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadKase Then you say that you're pretty sure that I can't tell the difference between 192 on lossless so I must be lying that I don't find 192 acceptable for my tastes? How can you be "pretty certain" what my hearing can distinguish? ?

i'm not accusing anybody of lying. what you listen to is your perogative. but most people with extremely good gear find it impossible to abx between 192 and redbook @ home, hence on the run you have got absolutely no chance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadKase Your answer to everything seems to be that you have a tin ear so everybody else should listen to lo-fi junk to make you happy. Let me guess, you're under 16 yo, yes?

i'm well over 16, tin-ear? maybe not just using the right codec in the right place, as is intended by the codec creators.

 

[astranovus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtheisticFreedom Well, two things I gotta say here: 1.) Sony sucks, and their ATRAC format...just no. (My opinion, although many will agree)

sony sucks? - excellent informational value - not

ATRAC sucks? - ATRAC one of the best codecs available at low bitrates and excellent on the old batterylife,

this thread is about on the run non-critical listening so ATRAC it is a decent contender.

the only negative issue here is that ATRAC is proprietary

 

[MiG(TM)]

Yer seriously, what is up with 66kb/s Atrac, i mean personally, i couldnt live with it, but Geez, some people on this forum must try and listen for impurities in their music or something, sometimes people are wayyyy to picky about things.

I know this an audiophile forum, but living in britain, on a busy bus, unless u have some extremely good noise isolation then, unless u sit there really trying to be a picky chuff about sound, then 128kbps MP3, 64Kbit Atrac or whatever should be fine.

Most people also hate sony players, heh thats weird, there only some of the best sounding MP3 Players on the market, yet everyone frowns at them. THe highest battery life and Sound quality is still with sony IMO, and most people here buy shiny ipods, dont use the video functions, and suffer with the crappest EQ in existance, and then buy a god knows how much AMP to bypass the Ipod.

Atrac 66kbits just sounds a bit flat compared with normal compression, all i think it lacks is life, meaning that listening to it isnt that enjoyable..

Rock Music is no good in this format, it just sounds awful, to me, high bit rate Mp3 sounds very good with rock music, for classical music, and jazz, i dont think the bitrate is too important, as long as its a resonable amount, such as 128 and above..

The forum poster is trying to get his opinion across, yet all he gets is flamed because he rightfully adores sony products, and the amazing results they produce.

Infact, i'm a bit of a Sony Fan Boy, you could say, because i own:

Sony PSP (1.5 Firmware)
Sony Ericcson K800i
Sony NW-E3
Sony NW-A3000 (Black)

Now to me, Atrac 3 @ 132kbits is an amazing format for the size and quality of the music, really. I bet my computer could also transcode most of my music to Atrac3 and send it quicker to my Player than an Ipod + Itunes..

I dont see the obsession with Ipods, they may look good, but theres just something about the sound coming from every sony player i've had, that brings a smile to my face.