[jonnywolfet]

hello all,

i have recently gone from using a ipod 60gb photo (lineout to cmoy) to a nw-hd5, and took the oppertunity to compare the mp3's i have been using to sonys atrac format.

the comparisons where done on the hd5 with shure e4c's and no amp.

i ripped a few cd's in atrac3plus 96kbps, atrac3plus 132kbps, Mp3 192kbps and 224kbps.

i will keep my impressions short.

Atrac3plus 96 kbps, sibilant, compression artifacts very noticable, treble extention cut right off. sounds like a bright mp3 at 128kbps

Mp3 192, sibilance gone, treble extention back, sounds a bit muddy and squashed, not horrible though, i can easily ignore the compression artifacts.

Mp3 224, cant easily tell the difference between this and the cd, any differences seem to be in seperation of detail.

Atrac3plus 132 kbps, now here is the surise for me, while i expected this to be similar to 128kbps Mp3, it actually sounds dead in between Mp3 192 and 224! for portable use this is definately the ticket. im well impressed!

anyone else have similar findings with atrac?

 

[mnhnhyouh]

Any chance you might do an ABX on this?

h

 

[photek]

I personally hate Atrac, with a passion.

It doesnt work with much, except Sony products and sonic stage. Although when I tried it, it wouldnt work in winamp. I burn my mp3s to discs so I can put them into a car cd/mp3 player, a dvd player with mp3 playback, my computer for easy compatiblity with any player, and it will probably work for many many devices in the future. I use the latest LAME encoder btw, which is the best encoder IMO. I find that

96kbps atrac3plus sucks horribly, I wouldnt even consider it, or anything less
132kbps atrac3 - pretty crappy too, I find its very similar to 128kbps in sound and filesize. Its just meh, not worth trading mp3 device compatiblity for

128kbps latest LAME in stereo (sounds decent enough with space to spare for more songs on a CD)
192kbps latest LAME in stereo (sounds much better, this is my fav bitrate)
128kbps old LAME in joint stereo (if you encoding this bitrate with an older encoder, better use joint stereo)

Just my opinion. I hate atrac, the sound and the compatibility. I'd only consider using atrac lossy. IDK where you get that atrac 132 fits between 192 and 224 mp3, I download songs off sonicstage and am always unimpressed with the quality, but every mp3 ive ripped at 192 mp3 sounds good if not great for me

 

[Sparky191]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonnywolfet .... Atrac3plus 132 kbps, now here is the surise for me, while i expected this to be similar to 128kbps Mp3, it actually sounds dead in between Mp3 192 and 224! for portable use this is definately the ticket. im well impressed!...

Not for me. I need to use SP (292) or HiSP (256) to get a comparible SQ as 192+ Lame encodings.

 

[virometal]

In my comparisons, ATRAC is a superior compression format to MP3 and AAC.

At a cost however, for one has to sell their soul to Sony, which considering their current and previous software, is a fate I would not wish on Bin Laden.

 

[Sparky191]

Quote:

Originally Posted by virometal In my comparisons, ATRAC is a superior compression format to MP3 and AAC. ...

Depends on the bitrate. 64kps ATRAC is not better then 192kps lame.