[Blizzard]

Hi!

I have a Sony HD3 player and was wondering which one is better format to use, Atrac3 or mp3? I want maximum sound quality. I'm using 320k bitrate.
If mp3 then what codec?

 

[D-EJ915]

You can only use the EQ with Atrac files (or, you can set it up, but only Atrac files will have a sound change).

 

[K2Grey]

LAME codec for mp3.

Either way will probably get similar sound quality, however, it ought to be gapless with atrac.

 

[FenderP]

ATRAC3+ at 256k sounds as good as 320k MP3. Did a few comparisons. That's the way I'd go.

 

[Blizzard]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FenderP ATRAC3+ at 256k sounds as good as 320k MP3. Did a few comparisons. That's the way I'd go.

Seems like it only supports 256k. I made 320k atrac files with sonicstage, now it is converting them when transfering. What a waste...

 

[enoch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blizzard Seems like it only supports 256k. I made 320k atrac files with sonicstage, now it is converting them when transfering. What a waste...

Those are the kind of things that frustrate me with Sony. I am a MD fan (have been for 10 years or more). But it seems like my minidisc component (Denon DMD-1000) that's hooked up to my stereo does a better job (sound quality) than any Sony software. Of course only one album fits a disc, but it still is the closest thing to CD that I can get. Using the software has always left me disappointed.

 

[FenderP]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blizzard Seems like it only supports 256k. I made 320k atrac files with sonicstage, now it is converting them when transfering. What a waste...

No it's not. The Vaio Pocket, HD3, and HD5 were designed before there were ATRAC bitrates above 256. There are now the bitrates of 320, 355, and lossless (this last one isn't supported by any player yet). 355 I hear works (not 320), but say goodbye to battery life. Bottom line: the processors were not designed with bitrates over 256 in mind.

This is why I've always just encoded at 256 and never worried about it. 256 ATRAC still sounds better in most cases than 320 MP3s.

 

[MDX-400]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FenderP No it's not. The Vaio Pocket, HD3, and HD5 were designed before there were ATRAC bitrates above 256. There are now the bitrates of 320, 355, and lossless (this last one isn't supported by any player yet). 355 I hear works (not 320), but say goodbye to battery life. Bottom line: the processors were not designed with bitrates over 256 in mind. This is why I've always just encoded at 256 and never worried about it. 256 ATRAC still sounds better in most cases than 320 MP3s.

It's actually 352kbps, not 355. But yes the 352k rate works on the HD3; 320k is indeed not available in SS for direct transfer to an HD3. However 352k is presumably better than 320k and not much different so it's easily substituted for 320k.

Though I'm sure you're correct about 256k probably being the maximum they intended at first, it's clear devices like the HD3 and HD5 can handle 352k fine for some reason (and not 320k), so I'd assume the whole reason the 352k rate exists (since it isn't much more than 320k) is because the IC/processor in those units can support and use that bitrate properly.

 

[FenderP]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MDX-400 It's actually 352kbps, not 355. But yes the 352k rate works on the HD3; 320k is indeed not available in SS for direct transfer to an HD3. However 352k is presumably better than 320k and not much different so it's easily substituted for 320k. Though I'm sure you're correct about 256k probably being the maximum they intended at first, it's clear devices like the HD3 and HD5 can handle 352k fine for some reason (and not 320k), so I'd assume the whole reason the 352k rate exists (since it isn't much more than 320k) is because the IC/processor in those units can support and use that bitrate properly.

You really couldn't do it with SS 3.3 and earlier (at least easily). With SS 3.4 you can rip directly to 352k. 256k was the intended maximum as it was the highest bitrate at the time of release of all of the major players except the new NW-Axxxx series.

I haven't done a battery life test with 352k to see how much it affects things vs. 256k.

If you want to rip at 352, get SS 3.4. It's great.

 

[tattoou2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FenderP You really couldn't do it with SS 3.3 and earlier (at least easily). With SS 3.4 you can rip directly to 352k. 256k was the intended maximum as it was the highest bitrate at the time of release of all of the major players except the new NW-Axxxx series. I haven't done a battery life test with 352k to see how much it affects things vs. 256k. If you want to rip at 352, get SS 3.4. It's great.

Have to concur. 3.4 is very good and so far has been without any problems. I use it with my D-NE10 and my Hi-MD players.

 

[panda]

for those of you with experience with the atrac format, could you give a quick comparison between 160, 192 and 256k bitrates in regards to battery life and sound quality? i'm trying to find a sweet spot to use...