[Tim D]

Mp3 is prevalent because it was first. The others are also popular for being free. WMA because its Microsoft. ATRAC3 compression has roots that are far from being "free".

Lower bit-rate ATRAC has less annoying audible distortions than the warble affect of lower bitrate Mp3.

And MacDEF wasn't exactly equating them...just providing more like a "cutoff" in his opinion.

I think 256kb is fine in portable use but I would probably do 320 if I had a good Mp3/CD player to play with my Ety's.

He also said "<256"...this means less than 256kbits. As well as poorly encoded 256kbits. So I suppose well-encoded 256kbs is inclusive and would probably compete more with LP2. I find 192kbit Mp3 encoding to be just that...a quality in between 128 and 256.

I have played with compression and felt ATRAC3 did better at lower compression rates.

 

[BlindSeer]

I'm not denying that ATRAC3 does better at lower bitrates than similar bitrate MP3s. I'm just saying that I have my doubts that LP2 exceeds the quality of 256K MP3s, which MacDEF seems to imply by saying that 320K MP3s and LP2 are acceptable for portable use, but 256K MP3s are not.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

I don't want to get into a big compression debate, and I've never actually heard LP2, but when you equate it with 320kbps MP3s, I have to be skeptical. LP2 is technically has a bitrate of something like 132kbps, right? So if it sounds so amazing at such low bitrates, why aren't ATRAC3 encoders at all prevalent as opposed to MP3, WMA, or even Ogg Vorbis? And especially if at 66kbps, as you say, ATRAC3 approaches the quality of 256kbps MP3s.

Standard ATRAC ("SP") is 292kbps, LP2 is ~132kbps.

The thing to remember is that MP3 encoders are basically developed by different individuals, or at the most, small companies, and aren't very mature yet. ATRAC has been the recipient of 10 years, and millions of $$$ in Sony R&D. It's simply much more mature. ATRAC is clearly superior to MP3 at similar bitrates (and even when the MP3 has a higher bitrate). As I mentioned above, in my testing LP2 is comparable to 192k, or even some 256k, MP3.

As for why ATRAC isn't as "widespread" as MP3, etc., it's because ATRAC is Sony's property, and to use it you need to pay Sony hefty fees.

 

[BlindSeer]

Alright, thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Mumrik]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim D So you wanna be different eh? Here strap one of these on...its l33t!

OMG! Those stupid turtle things were on sale here recently! I laughed my ass off

 

[Raymond Kim]

What is that? Is that supposed to be a portable multi-cd player?

 

[Xevion]

No, it is a boom box that fits on your back. JBL makes it.


As for mp3s and portable use, I have a non audiophilic friend who thinks 96k is adequate. That is absolutely gross sounding, even on the car radio through a tape conveter.

192k is fine for most portable use, 160 could be for really simple material, and 256k is perfectly adequate for all portable use. (Encoded through LAME that is). I prefer 192 LAME to 256 and even 320k Xing, and sometimes I can't tell the difference between 256k LAME and CD, but usually can.