[BlindSeer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Neruda I suppose the most important thing about the treo is that it's incredibly small compared to all the other HD players.

Yeah... you might want to take one more look at www.treoplayer.com.

 

[Vertigo-1]

LMAO...no wonder the Treo never came out...

 

[Odin]

First I wanna know what bit rate does MD have? I thought MD format music are only 1/5 the space of CDs (WAV). So.....

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

First I wanna know what bit rate does MD have? I thought MD format music are only 1/5 the space of CDs (WAV). So.....

Standard MD is 292 kbps, LP2 is ~132kbps, and LP4 is ~66kbps.

However, keep in mind that those are *ATRAC* bitrates -- ATRAC is significantly better than even the best MP3 encodings at the same bitrate. I have found LP2 to be equivalent to 192 and 256k MP3, and standard MD better than *any* MP3 encoding. LP4 is comparable to 96k or 128k MP3.

Also keep in mind that what proportion of a WAV file an encoder is (1/5, 2/5, 3/5, etc.) is pretty much irrelevant. What is important is how well an encoder can compress a file without losing audible information. A file that is 1/5 of the size of the original CD track can sound much better than one that is 4/5 of the original if the former uses a much better encoder.

 

[Odin]

But how come the bit rate compression that my OpenMG jukebox is only 132, 105 and 66? It IS ATRAC3

 

[Mike Walker]

MP3 is FAR better than many people give it credit for, particularly many minidisc fans (which I consider myself to be. I'll bet I own more md gear than most who declare it "infinitely superior" to mp3!)

It is my belief that ATRAC3 IS better than mp3 at low bitrates (below 160kbps). But mp3 reaches a "sweet spot" at about 192kbps (when properly encoded, with the latest Fraunhofer codec) where it begins to sound as transparent as ANYTHING. And above 256kbps double-blind listening tests have shown that, despite what many people believe, the vast majority of people can't hear ANY difference between mp3 and original, uncompressed cd. Mp3 is THE STANDARD WAY of distributing audio between independent production studios (one of which I own) and radio stations these days. And I FREQUENTLY receive comments from production managers at my client stations that my mp3 files are of higher audio quality than uncompressed audio which they produce in-house (even at a MAJOR MARKET fm station which airs ONLY uncompressed audio because they don't want to compromise audio quality. They UNcompress my mp3 files to .wav, and play them next to uncompressed music and original audio, and think my stuff sounds BETTER!).

My point? Mp3 (at higher bitrates) is FAR better than it's detractors (most of whom are thinking of the RATTY 128kbps files swapped on the 'net by teenagers) care to admit! We all hear mp3 EVERY DAY on tv and radio, and no doubt on things which most of us would consider to sound excellent if asked.

'Nite all. I'm going to bed (it's 1:46am here in North Carolina).

 

[MacDEF]

Sorry, Mike. What you say may be true for some MP3 haters, but not of me

Maybe the vast majority of people can't tell the difference between MP3 and Redbook, but I sure can. I have yet to be fooled in any comparison, including blind.

And while we do hear MP3s every day on TV and radio, how many of us think those sources sound "excellent if asked?" MP3 is a great encoding method for those sources.

BTW, I'm not sure how much MD gear you have, but I have three portable recorders, a portable player, a minisystem, and a deck. I also have about 2GB of MP3s, most ripped by me personally at 192 or 256k -- it that enough?

 

[Odin]

I don't get it Mike, I really WANT to support MP3s but how can it sound better then the original? You take piece of wood, chop it to pieces and then glue stuff back on it, will it still be the same?

 

[coolvij]

Odin: Mike said that HIS high-bitrate MP3s beat THEIR uncompressed stuff.....some production tricks to "jazz up" the sound were used, no doubt

I personally think all MP3s sound a little thin and shrill - perhaps it's my setup (PCDP-JMT Penguin-Senn 495s) that does this, but I doubt it.

That shrillness is not present with ATRAC files.....

In general, tho, I find MP3 to do better with the human voice. Bass is about the same, but ATRAC really kills, IMO, when it comes to preserving some soundstage, treble "liveliness," and balance - everything sounds like the CD, just less detailed. MP3 sounds different - so I scrapped it.....

And I used to be a HUGE MP3 proponent.....

 

[Mike Walker]

I never said that an mp3 sounded BETTER than the original! I said that material that I produce in MY studio, and distribute to client stations via mp3s attached to e-mail sound better than material they produce IN THEIR OWN STUDIOS that never undergoes mp3 compression. And you betcha it has to do with "production tricks to spice up the mp3s". I sure as hell am no purist when it comes to the creative process (nor is anyone I know involved with tv, radio, or music production!) The goal is making it come out of YOUR SPEAKERS the way it sounds in MY HEAD! And I'll do WHATEVER IT TAKES to accomplish this!

I sure as hell wouldn't say that ALL mp3s made at high bitrates sound as good as uncompressed, and can sure as hell pass a blind test. I said that MINE can. And they sure can.

By the way, if you've never heard anything which "sounds excellent" on tv or radio, perhaps your gear is faulty! Some of the best audio production values ANYWHERE can be found in commercial production, and production of soundtracks for tv shows and movies! LISTEN through a high quality system, to tv (or radio) PROPERLY reproduced! It can, and does sound SUPERB! (A note, fm radio is perhaps the oldest TRUE high fidelity medium, achieving a signal to noise ratio of greater than 70db, frequency response to 20khz (and beyond) and distortion below 1 percent IN THE 1930s(!!!) when Major Edwin Armstrong first introduced it!) It was the introduction of the DEEPLY FLAWED Zenith system of fm stereo encoding which made fm under all but strong urban conditions (or with a proper outdoor ariel) a hissy MESS. One other thing, AM radio was, until the early 90s, ALSO capable of frequency response to 20khz (or beyond). In the early '90s the FCC placed bandwidth restrictions on am stations requiring a hf cutoff at 9khz (accomplished with BRICK WALL filtering) to reduce 1st adjacent channel interference, and ELIMINATE 2nd adjacent channel interfrernce. It worked! But am now sounds noticably duller to those (few) of us with wideband am radios (such as the EXCELLENT GE SuperRadio III, and the earlier Sony SRF-A100 am stereo radio from the early 80s).

Live music broadcasts on fm (mono) from the early days were (so I've heard) of DEVASTATINGLY high quality, INFINITELY superior to anything offered on phonograph record then, or since!

 

[Braver]

I just love it when he talks in capitals

GO MIKE!

seriously tho, I must say, as a big MD fan (touch my md and DIE!

), those tiny Sony chip memorycard players seem very interresting for portable use. if you encode at 128, you should be able to take a nice amount of music with you. not enough for me (at least 6 mds a day) and you can't swap disks as easily, but very nice for on the go. maybe they can make md even smaller?

 

[Odin]

Braver, you can still swap memorty sticks as easily as MDs, only they're expensive though, but isn't there suppost to be a new product called "Dataplay" that's coming out Fall 2001, and it is NOW fall 2001, any one has info on that?

 

[Mike Walker]

It can actually be PROVEN that properly prepared high bit rate mp3s remove almost nothing from the original signal. And this proof is OBJECTIVE, rather than SUBjective.

"Rip" a favorite track from a cd digitally to your hard drive as an uncompressed .wav file. Save the file. Now (using a program such as Cool Edit 2000) "invert" the polarity of the waveform, and save it as a high bit rate (320kbps, prehaps) mp3 file. Close Cool Edit 2000 (or whatever editing software you're using). Now re-open CE-2K, and re-open the uncompressed .wav file. Open another "instance" (window) of CE-2K and open the polarity-inverted .mp3 file of the same song. Highlight the ENTIRE waveform, and click "edit" then "copy". Now go to the (still open) window of the uncompressed .wav file. Click to the left of the window containing the waveform (to make sure you're at the absolute beginning of the file), then click "edit" and "mix-paste", making sure that you're mix-pasting at EXACTLY 100 percent with the left and right channels matched. Notice that your waveform almost completely disappears. What is left is only what mp3 encoding removed (there ain't much there, huh?) Now crank up the volume on your speakers, and LISTEN. Do you hear ANYTHING? At 320kbps and higher, you often will hear absolutely nothing, which means that mp3 encoding removed ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (no longer subjective, we have PROVEN it!). More often you'll hear a VERY faint, whispering effect...with a hint of the rhythm of the original track. But it is very, VERY faint (if it exists at all). Again, there is almost NOTHING LEFT. Which PROVES that mp3 encoding at high bit rates removes almost NOTHING.

This PROVES that PROPERLY ENCODED high bit rate mp3 if FAR better than the format's detractors would have us believe!

 

[coolvij]

Mike: that is an excellent point - but a waveform doesn't show EVERYTHING, does it? Correct me if I am wrong, but a waveform cannot show soundstage, can it?

 

[Tim D]

Wow this is strongly reminscent of an informercial...and coolvij is the host's lackey!