I recently bought a Sony NWS706 MP3 player and have been transferring
a few of my CD's to it via its own SonicStage software (I should
mention here that I'm a complete beginner when it comes to MP3 and the
like).

I used ATRAC 64kbps at first, because my player only has 4Gbytes of
memory, and I've lots of long works, like symphonies.

The quality seems fine, but according to so many people I've read on
the Internet, 64kbps is such a low sampling rate, quality *should* be
pretty bad.

Today I transferred a few short works using both ATRAC 64kbps and
ATRAC Lossless, and have been trying to hear the difference between
the two. I can't say I can detect any, but the few seconds needed to
switch between them makes comparison difficult. Also, I'm wondering if
I'd suddenly notice a difference should I happen to buy a better pair
of headphones in the future.

The convenience of having a lot of music on my player, and not having
to fiddle about transferring stuff as I need it, is very attractive,
but I want good quality as well.

With this in mind, I'd like to hear people's opinions on these two
formats - is the quality of ATRAC Lossless worth the extra space?

"martin" wrote ...
I recently bought a Sony NWS706 MP3 player and have been transferring
a few of my CD's to it via its own SonicStage software (I should
mention here that I'm a complete beginner when it comes to MP3 and the
like).

I used ATRAC 64kbps at first, because my player only has 4Gbytes of
memory, and I've lots of long works, like symphonies.

The quality seems fine, but according to so many people I've read on
the Internet, 64kbps is such a low sampling rate, quality *should* be
pretty bad.

Today I transferred a few short works using both ATRAC 64kbps and
ATRAC Lossless, and have been trying to hear the difference between
the two. I can't say I can detect any, but the few seconds needed to
switch between them makes comparison difficult. Also, I'm wondering if
I'd suddenly notice a difference should I happen to buy a better pair
of headphones in the future.

The convenience of having a lot of music on my player, and not having
to fiddle about transferring stuff as I need it, is very attractive,
but I want good quality as well.

With this in mind, I'd like to hear people's opinions on these two
formats - is the quality of ATRAC Lossless worth the extra space?

Assuming you know that ATRAC has nothing to do with MP3.

ATRAC is Sony's *proprietary* music compression scheme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrac

It likely has a miniscule market share compared to MP3
(and the Apple-proprietary schemes, etc.) For that reason,
it is possible that few/none of the people who regularly read
these newsgroups has as much experience with current
ATRAC performance as you. You may want to try asking
your question in an MD-specific discussion forum where
ATRAC is more well-known.

Of course, the basic answer to your question (regardless
of which compression scheme) is to use the rate that best
accomplishes your personal tradeoff between size and
quality. If *YOU* can't hear the difference, save space on
your limited media. What difference does it make what
OTHER people hear? Of course, if you were encoding
audio for distribution to others, the decision factors would
potentially be different.

Sony appears to have announced that they concede defeat
in the ATRAC vs. MP3 wars....
"Sony ditching proprietary audio format...."
http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci...nclick_check=1

[ news:rec.audio.opinion deleted as useless for serious
discussion, IMHO ]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"martin" wrote ...

I recently bought a Sony NWS706 MP3 player and have been transferring
a few of my CD's to it via its own SonicStage software (I should
mention here that I'm a complete beginner when it comes to MP3 and the
like).

I used ATRAC 64kbps at first, because my player only has 4Gbytes of
memory, and I've lots of long works, like symphonies.

The quality seems fine, but according to so many people I've read on
the Internet, 64kbps is such a low sampling rate, quality *should* be
pretty bad.

Today I transferred a few short works using both ATRAC 64kbps and
ATRAC Lossless, and have been trying to hear the difference between
the two. I can't say I can detect any, but the few seconds needed to
switch between them makes comparison difficult. Also, I'm wondering if
I'd suddenly notice a difference should I happen to buy a better pair
of headphones in the future.

The convenience of having a lot of music on my player, and not having
to fiddle about transferring stuff as I need it, is very attractive,
but I want good quality as well.

With this in mind, I'd like to hear people's opinions on these two
formats - is the quality of ATRAC Lossless worth the extra space?


Assuming you know that ATRAC has nothing to do with MP3.

ATRAC is Sony's *proprietary* music compression scheme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrac

It likely has a miniscule market share compared to MP3
(and the Apple-proprietary schemes, etc.) For that reason,
it is possible that few/none of the people who regularly read
these newsgroups has as much experience with current
ATRAC performance as you. You may want to try asking
your question in an MD-specific discussion forum where
ATRAC is more well-known.

Of course, the basic answer to your question (regardless
of which compression scheme) is to use the rate that best
accomplishes your personal tradeoff between size and
quality. If *YOU* can't hear the difference, save space on
your limited media. What difference does it make what
OTHER people hear? Of course, if you were encoding
audio for distribution to others, the decision factors would
potentially be different.

Sony appears to have announced that they concede defeat
in the ATRAC vs. MP3 wars....
"Sony ditching proprietary audio format...."
http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci...nclick_check=1

[ news:rec.audio.opinion deleted as useless for serious
discussion, IMHO ]


While I don't have any experience with ATRAC, like MP3, AAC, and
Oggvorbis, etc, ATRAC is a lossy music compression format,so all the
same general rules apply. They all lose some quality from the original
source.

The original poster should conisder if they will ever upgrade the sound
equipment they will play their music on. One day, the lossy format may
rear its ugly head. With lossless, you know you're saving the file at
its best.

I used to save all my music in 320 kbps LAMEd MP3 format, one of the
best mp3 encoders out there. Over time I noticed while listening to
those MP3s via my stereo that:

1. The mp3 files distorted much sooner than normal. I couldn't play the
music as loud as before.

2. There definitely was a slight loss in dynamic range. Music didn't
"hit" me quite as hard as the original.


On my ipod nano I never noticed at all, not even when mp3s were saved to
192 kbps.


Also, I keep all my music in a lossless format because itunes is the
base for my home music server connected to my stereo. Every so often, I
clear out the nano and put another group of songs on it. I'm not the
type who needs to carry his entire music library with him wherever he
goes. If I do need to do that, then I'll get a bigger ipod

If that is the type of person that the original poster is, then maybe
they'll have to deal with the lossy format given the small capacity of
the player.

Hope this helps

CD

"martin" wrote in message
oups.com...
Today I transferred a few short works using both ATRAC 64kbps and
ATRAC Lossless, and have been trying to hear the difference between
the two. I can't say I can detect any, but the few seconds needed to
switch between them makes comparison difficult. Also, I'm wondering if
I'd suddenly notice a difference should I happen to buy a better pair
of headphones in the future.
snip
With this in mind, I'd like to hear people's opinions on these two
formats - is the quality of ATRAC Lossless worth the extra space?


I've been using Minidisc for some years, and ATRAC Lossless is a new one on
me.
I'm happy with music and other recordings captured in HiSP (one of the HiMD
ATRAC modes) on any of my Sony HiMD recorders. I've also used the lossless
PCM mode, and recently I've tried a 9V battery box so as raise the electret
mic clipping level, and to remove any distortion from the built-in preamp.

--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK

Malcolm Stewart wrote:

"martin" wrote in message
oups.com...
Today I transferred a few short works using both ATRAC 64kbps and
ATRAC Lossless, and have been trying to hear the difference between
the two. I can't say I can detect any, but the few seconds needed to
switch between them makes comparison difficult. Also, I'm wondering if
I'd suddenly notice a difference should I happen to buy a better pair
of headphones in the future.
snip
With this in mind, I'd like to hear people's opinions on these two
formats - is the quality of ATRAC Lossless worth the extra space?

I've been using Minidisc for some years, and ATRAC Lossless is a new one on
me.
I'm happy with music and other recordings captured in HiSP (one of the HiMD
ATRAC modes) on any of my Sony HiMD recorders. I've also used the lossless
PCM mode, and recently I've tried a 9V battery box so as raise the electret
mic clipping level, and to remove any distortion from the built-in preamp.

--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK

Sony's Sound Forge 9.0 comes with a number of ATRAC codecs including
lossless and surround/multi-track.


Later...


Ron Capik
--