[Langrath]

I have had minidisc several years. The standard mode is 256 kb/s. In newest version of minidisk you can load about 8 CDs on 1 disk of 1 GB. I am satisfied with my minidisk-player, but can a man get too many toys?
With Ipod it would be possible for me to get in all my important CDs in one charge.
I am completely satisfied with the sound of minidisc in standard mode, that is 256 kb/s.
Can you translate that directly to mp3. I mean, if I buy an Ipod, and record with mp3 in 256 kb/s can I expect to get the same sound quality as with minidisc in 256 kb/s?
If I know the answer on that, then I know how big Ipod I must have.

Georg

 

[aeriyn]

Actually, if you were to get an iPod, you could record in 256kbps AAC, which would definitely own 256kbps ATRAC3+. Even 256kbps MP3 as encoded by iTunes would be superior to 256kbps ATRAC3+.

Bottom line, if you are not doing live recording, screw the MD and get an iPod.

Size wise, the larger iPods are quite a bit larger than the Mini (the size of the Mini is much smaller than the promo pictures suggest) and they aren't enclosed in an all-aluminum shell.

Think about this also... it does not take more than a few minutes to completely fill up an iPod 20gb. Having to swap out tracks is not really the big problem like it is with MD.

 

[DigDub]

compressing atrac into mp3 will lower the quality further. if you are happy with minidisc, stick with it.

oh, and 'swapping out tracks' is not really a problem since minidisc uses well, minidiscs. you just have to change the discs.

 

[Langrath]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigDub compressing atrac into mp3 will lower the quality further. if you are happy with minidisc, stick with it. oh, and 'swapping out tracks' is not really a problem since minidisc uses well, minidiscs. you just have to change the discs.

I meant compressing a CD into mp3 256 kb/s, compared to comressing a CD into latest atrac 256 kb/s. Which of them gives best sound. Equal?

Georg

 

[bangraman]

I challenge anyone to tell the difference between the codecs in a portable environment between the two on 'normal' ear gear.


What you will notice is that the iPod has a flatter bass, and this is something which leads many to claim it has poorer sound quality. I think the opposite is the case, but the MD's interpretation of bass is certainly more pleasing to the average ear on low-end ear/headphones.


If you want the 'bloomed bass on flat EQ', you like ATRAC better and don't mind the restrictions imposed on your by it's use, then the NW-HD1 is obviously a compelling choice.

 

[blessingx]

It's a little difficult to know if you're curious about similar sounding numbers, or if you asking about transcoding.

Well if the latter, as someone who had a bunch of music locked into a propriety codec once (WMA), transcoding some tracks isn't the end of the world some make it seem. Always good to have the originals or lossless tracks around if possible though.

If the former, many might have a difficulty telling the difference between ATRAC, AAC, MP3, Ogg, etc. at 256 kbps. They all take a different approach to compressing though and if you have good ears you may like one at a lower bitrate than another. So 192 AAC may sound better than 256 ATRAC, or 320 AAC may sound worse to you.

Certainly your options on the iPod expand, having MP3 or AAC or lossless, but it's probably best for you to test on your home computer first. Download LAME and iTunes and see what you think of MP3 and AAC.

As you probably expect, the hardware has a lot to do with it too, so a 256 AAC or MP3 on an iPod isn't going to sound the same as on an iRiver.

 

[Embio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigDub compressing atrac into mp3 will lower the quality further.

no it doesnt, frankly

 

[Langrath]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Embio no it doesnt, frankly

That is a very interesting statement for me. I thought:

The first process CD to mp3 loss 1
Mp3 to wav lossless
Wav to atrac loss 2.

That makes two losses instead of one as if you transcode CD directly to atrac.

Please, explain to me.

Georg

 

[Embio]

say you use 256k/bit MP3, if its converted to the highest ATRAC3+ at 256k/bit, as far as I can see theres still the same number of bits! its just changing the encoding, and the computer doesnt decide randomly to delete the odd bit now and then.

to be truthful though, i just rip direct from CD or lossless WMA 'burned' to a virtual CD, because 256 ATRAC is far and away better than even 320k/bit MP3

 

[breez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Embio say you use 256k/bit MP3, if its converted to the highest ATRAC3+ at 256k/bit, as far as I can see theres still the same number of bits! its just changing the encoding, and the computer doesnt decide randomly to delete the odd bit now and then.

The ATRAC needs to be decoded first into the standard PCM data. Then you apply the MP3 compression which is lossy. Information will be lost as different encoders like to throw different stuff away (also the encoder may analyze the ATRAC artifacts as useful data and further lessen the efficiency of the compression).

 

[blessingx]

Embio, I'm afraid you don't understand lossly compression.

ATRAC (or Ogg/AAC/MPC/etc.) to MP3 (or Ogg/AAC/MPC/etc.) requires reencoding and lossly artifacts built on lossy artifacts. Is this as bad as many think? No, but you will technically loss quality (as defined as relationship to original), yes. Even if going 132 ATRAC to 320 MP3.