[ZMU817]

So, I'm having somewhat of a half-assed little breakdown over my music, because a lot of my songs were transferred to my sony player in ATRAC 64kbps and... I didn't notice! and im just really bummed about it, because I had a little pride in appreciating quality over my friends, and I still do, I cant stand the crap headphones they use, but I dunno.

For reference, I couldnt tell it apart from the 192kbps WMA it was transcoded from.

I might do some more tests, but...

I guess I should be glad, with such a low bitrate, ill never fill up the 40GB, and I can get music online instead of buying the CD...

I still really enjoy my music, tho, and thats what matters.

I'm thinking about selling my Shure e2c and Grado SR-60 and just getting some Koss Ksc-75s

spend the money on music

or gas.

anyway, I just wanted to get that out there, not that it really matters, and probably wont incite discussions

but there ya go

 

[003]

There is something wrong if you can't tell that it is 64kbps. The quality REALLY starts to go down the chute at 96kbps ,I believe there is nobody on this earth that wouldn't be able to hear how bad 64kbps is unless there is something wrong somewhere.

 

[ZMU817]

huh, well maybe sonicstage is referencing the original file, but uh... lemme see, actually

now im worried that i just suck at this listening thing

I mean, 128mp3 sounds like crap to me

ack, now im just confused

 

[003]

No, nobody can suck that bad. 64kbps sounds far to bad for you not to notice it. I know you are thinking "oh these audiophiles assume everybody has the same ears they do and can hear very small things", but please dont. 64kbps is simply far to bad for you not to notice.

 

[ZMU817]

Yeah, I think SonicStage was just pulling some magic with pretending to play the 64k file, because it does sound pretty bad on the Vaio Pocket. Arctic Monkeys has no seperation anymore, and simply isnt fun to listen to even on Grados, and Arcade Fire had no atmosphere, it was just notes.

So now im re-transferring my music in 132kbps ATRAC3

160kbps ATRAC3 wasnt working for somereason

Some things dont make sense in sonicstage

oh well, I like it well enough

Still considering trading in my grados for ksc-75 tho, but I guess thatll go in the headphones forum

 

[ZMU817]

but I Must add, it Was *okay*, 128mp3 has all kinds of digital noise that just make music irritating to music, 64Atrac just makes it boring is all

which is impressive, really

have you tried Atrac?

 

[breez]

I've heard this before. ATRAC generally sounds less offensive at low bitrates than MP3, but reaches perceptual transparency later.

 

[si_fu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZMU817 huh, well maybe sonicstage is referencing the original file, but uh... lemme see, actually now im worried that i just suck at this listening thing I mean, 128mp3 sounds like crap to me ack, now im just confused

I haven't personally heard the ATRAC format, but I would assume it's more 'efficient' than mp3. My 128 wma's are much better than some 192 mp3's I have.

You shouldn't worry too much; enjoying the music is fundamental and as long is at it's good to your ears is all that's important

You might say you should consider yourself lucky compared to some of the populace that goes chasing around little nuances and differences in bit rates and then come up with a theory and hypothesis, all the while completely bypassing what's important.

 

[spudman]

I have the pocket vaio and mistakenly used 64k atrac for an album (Beck's Sea Change). While I don't think 64k mp3s are listenable for much more than audio books, the 64k atrac files sound pretty good to me. If I am using sonicstage normally, I'm trying atrac advanced 132k lossless as opposed to higher vbr files when I am doing MP3s using foobar with LAME. Both are satisfactory for my needs and I can take a ton of music on the pocket vaio's 40 gig drive. Rarely am I in a listening environment where there is not a least a little ambient noise that would cover up any differences I'd get with higher bit rates, I think.

 

[trains are bad]

Has anyone tested Hi-LP for sound quality? I assume it's too bad for music. I also assuem Hi-SP is acceptable, because on Hi-MD it's the only step between Hi-LP and PCM.

 

[hardstyler]

No you are not mad. I've heard similar stories about ATRAC, apparently it sounds good at lower bitrates and doesnt't take much space.

 

[shigzeo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 003 There is something wrong if you can't tell that it is 64kbps. The quality REALLY starts to go down the chute at 96kbps ,I believe there is nobody on this earth that wouldn't be able to hear how bad 64kbps is unless there is something wrong somewhere.

don't worry, i have used the hi-md and encoded at 64kbps just to see and found it to be the sweet-spot of atrac3+. 132 was okay, but 64kbps did not differ that much from it. however, if i ab'd between same trac in 256 ATRAC and 132 ATRAC, i never mistook it using shuffle function or ffwding till i could not tell what trac was to come up. but 64 was very impressive to me as it sounded much better than any 64 i had used before, any 96 i had heard and indeed i had trouble with it against the regular ATRAC 132 sometimes. anyway, maybe it is not only you who is off... could be me as well, let's combat this weakness together! cheers

 

[ZMU817]

I transferred all my music at ATRAC132, sounds great to me

The only bad part being that now my music only takes up 3.1GB, which is kinda having me regret my purchase. But hey, finding a song among 1000 others is hella easy on a player designed to navigate through 10,000, eh?

Oh well, having it in my jacket pocket and using the remote doesnt bother me at all

 

[Sparky191]

Some people are less fussy than others.