| Author |
W800i - Napster and iTunes Support? |
sapporobaby
Joined: Sep 14, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Finland. Kuwait maybe :)
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2005-08-25 18:11:47, slattery69 wrote:
i did some testing not so long ago as i was always against mp3 players as i thought they just couldnt cut the mustard against my hifi set up (which they cant).
but i decided that the gym s music was becoming to much to bare so decieded to bite the bullet and get an mp3 player.
i did test with most of the major brands and sound formats including mini discs aac mp3 etc
what i found was acc was by for the most reveling musically of all the compression systems and if you used the apple lossless it was quite superb.
so i bought an ipod and could nt be happier, i convert everything to aac wouldnt dream of using most of the the other formats as they just dont seem to convey the music properly
maybe im been a bit snobby but i guess its what your use to. its a pain for original poster as he has his collection in wma format ,but its really only 2 chooses youve got. buy a compatible player or reconvert from the cds to aac for your w800/k750
|
|
Exactly. I have a pair of B&W Matrix speakers and I push them with an NAD amplifier. When I play a CD and then an .aac, the sound quality for the same volume setting is virtually indistinguishable. ATRAC can not match this quality in sound.
*edited on a Mac of course. Mac: There is no substitute*
N82(YES), iPhone 3G, Shure es530, Nikon D300, more stuff. No more SE stuff, why am I still here? | |
|
slattery69
Joined: Jan 03, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: north east england
PM |
quite right if you listen for clarity as well. my system is a nad amp arcam cd through some mission speakers. if you pick a track from a cd with a lot going on say a piece of classical music you can pick out individual instruments. convert it to aac and play it and you can still pick out little sutle touch from instruments not as well but there, there. if i used mp3 etc i sturggle to get the same clarity |
MINDSCRIBE
Joined: Jun 26, 2004
Posts: 37
PM |
Both ATRAC & MP3 use perceptual encoding to compress PCM files, this means that both systems remove very high and very low frequencys that humans are not supposed to be capable of hearing. MP3 is a more powerfull codec in that it has a higher compression ratio. MP3 removes 90% of the original musical data during encoding! For ATRAC this ratio is much less, however ATRAC3 & ATRAC3plus use similar high compression ratios as MP3. As a historical note: MP3 is the oldest audio codec in general use!
This message was posted from a K700i |
sapporobaby
Joined: Sep 14, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Finland. Kuwait maybe :)
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2005-08-25 19:00:54, MINDSCRIBE wrote:
Both ATRAC & MP3 use perceptual encoding to compress PCM files, this means that both systems remove very high and very low frequencys that humans are not supposed to be capable of hearing. MP3 is a more powerfull codec in that it has a higher compression ratio. MP3 removes 90% of the original musical data during encoding! For ATRAC this ratio is much less, however ATRAC3 & ATRAC3plus use similar high compression ratios as MP3. As a historical note: MP3 is the oldest audio codec in general use!
This message was posted from a K700i
|
|
But this does not address the sound quality issue between .aac, and ATRAC. ATRAC simply can not compete. You are correct in that the .mp3 standard is old which is why .aac is becoming the next de-facto standard and not ATRAC. From its inception, ATRAC has been criticized by the audio community. No serious music lover would encode in ATRAC unless, a) they were forced to, or b) unless they had a Sony MiniDisc. ATRAC was invented so that 70 mins of music could be crammed down on to the MiniDisc, not for its superior quality.
*edited on a Mac of course. Mac: There is no substitute*
N82(YES), iPhone 3G, Shure es530, Nikon D300, more stuff. No more SE stuff, why am I still here? |
MINDSCRIBE
Joined: Jun 26, 2004
Posts: 37
PM |
Both ATRAC & MP3 use perceptual encoding to compress PCM files, this means that both systems remove very high and very low frequencys that humans are not supposed to be capable of hearing. MP3 is a more powerfull codec in that it has a higher compression ratio. MP3 removes 90% of the original musical data during encoding! For ATRAC this ratio is much less, however ATRAC3 & ATRAC3plus use similar high compression ratios as MP3. As a historical note: MP3 is the oldest audio codec in general use!
This message was posted from a K700i |
sapporobaby
Joined: Sep 14, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Finland. Kuwait maybe :)
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2005-08-25 19:25:29, MINDSCRIBE wrote:
Both ATRAC & MP3 use perceptual encoding to compress PCM files, this means that both systems remove very high and very low frequencys that humans are not supposed to be capable of hearing. MP3 is a more powerfull codec in that it has a higher compression ratio. MP3 removes 90% of the original musical data during encoding! For ATRAC this ratio is much less, however ATRAC3 & ATRAC3plus use similar high compression ratios as MP3. As a historical note: MP3 is the oldest audio codec in general use!
This message was posted from a K700i
|
|
This is a repeat and still does not change the fact that it is incorrect. Can you back this up with anything other than your opinion, because up to this point this is all that you have been displaying. ATRAC can not compete with .aac.
_________________
"Einstein was right. Einstein was probably one of them" - Close Encounters of the Third Kind
*edited on a Mac PowerBook, of course. Mac: There is no substitute*
[ This Message was edited by: sapporobaby on 2005-08-25 18:34 ] |
MINDSCRIBE
Joined: Jun 26, 2004
Posts: 37
PM |
When ATRAC was first developed in 1991, recordings made with this codec could be easily distinguished from the original CD source material. This is not true today due to the many updates made to the codec by Sony. Recordings made with the latest versions of ATRAC are very close to the original source material as far as human ears are concerned. ATRAC3 & ATRAC3plus have received a lot of stick due the low bit rates used & silly Sony marketing hype ! However ATRAC(SP) is very transparent.
This message was posted from a K700i |
sapporobaby
Joined: Sep 14, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Finland. Kuwait maybe :)
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2005-08-25 19:52:29, MINDSCRIBE wrote:
When ATRAC was first developed in 1991, recordings made with this codec could be easily distinguished from the original CD source material. This is not true today due to the many updates made to the codec by Sony. Recordings made with the latest versions of ATRAC are very close to the original source material as far as human ears are concerned. ATRAC3 & ATRAC3plus have received a lot of stick due the low bit rates used & silly Sony marketing hype ! However ATRAC(SP) is very transparent.
This message was posted from a K700i
|
|
Once again, this is three posts from you now, that you fail to mention .aac. If ATRAC was so good, why is it not adapted and licensed? Simple, when compared to .aac, and even .mp3, ATRAC can not compete.
If you want we can move on because it seems that you can not back up your claims with facts or figures. No problem though.
*edited on a Mac of course. Mac: There is no substitute*
N82(YES), iPhone 3G, Shure es530, Nikon D300, more stuff. No more SE stuff, why am I still here? |
MINDSCRIBE
Joined: Jun 26, 2004
Posts: 37
PM |
Please ignore that double post, it was a mistake!
This message was posted from a K700i |
sapporobaby
Joined: Sep 14, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Finland. Kuwait maybe :)
PM |
@Mindshare
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/aac/
Because of its exceptional performance and quality, Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) is at the core of the MPEG-4, 3GPP and 3GPP2 specifications and is the audio codec of choice for Internet, wireless and digital broadcast arenas. AAC provides audio encoding that compresses much more efficiently than older formats, such as MP3, yet delivers quality rivaling that of uncompressed CD audio.
AAC was developed by the MPEG group that includes Dolby, Fraunhofer (FhG), AT&T, Sony and Nokia—companies that have also been involved in the development of audio codecs such as MP3 and AC3 (also known as Dolby Digital). The AAC codec in QuickTime builds upon new, state-of-the art signal processing technology from Dolby Laboratories and brings true variable bit rate (VBR) audio encoding to QuickTime.
Because of its incredible quality at a wide range of data rates and ratification as an industry standard, AAC audio is gaining wide adoption in the marketplace. For example, all of the music sold in the iTunes Music Store uses AAC, for playback on desktop or iPod. AAC has also been adopted by the major standards organizations including the ISO MPEG (MPEG-4), 3GPP and 3GPP2, DVB, as well as XM satellite radio. As a result of its support for this technology, the audio you create with QuickTime is interoperable with a wide range of devices and media players.
When compared side-by-side, AAC proves itself worthy of replacing MP3 as the new Internet audio standard. Take a look at these AAC advantages over MP3:
Improved compression provides higher-quality results with smaller file sizes
Support for multichannel audio, providing up to 48 full frequency channels
Higher resolution audio, yielding sampling rates up to 96 kHz
Improved decoding efficiency, requiring less processing power for decode
The Data Speaks for Itself
In numerous comparison tests, AAC comes out on top. Check out these impressive results:
AAC compressed audio at 128 Kbps (stereo) has been judged by expert listeners to be “indistinguishable” from the original uncompressed audio source.*
AAC compressed audio at 96 Kbps generally exceeded the quality of MP3 compressed audio at 128 Kbps. AAC at 128 Kbps provides significantly superior performance than does MP3 at 128 Kbps.*
AAC was the only Internet audio codec evaluated in the range “Excellent” at 64 Kbps for all of the audio items tested in EBU listening tests.*
If ATRAC was even close, it would have been mentioned.
*edited on a Mac of course. Mac: There is no substitute*
N82(YES), iPhone 3G, Shure es530, Nikon D300, more stuff. No more SE stuff, why am I still here? |
MINDSCRIBE
Joined: Jun 26, 2004
Posts: 37
PM |
I would like to add that tests have shown that AAC, Ogg, & MP3 VBR (encoded using Lame) sound better than ATRAC3 at similar bit rates.
This message was posted from a K700i |
sapporobaby
Joined: Sep 14, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Finland. Kuwait maybe :)
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2005-08-25 20:07:48, MINDSCRIBE wrote:
I would like to add that tests have shown that AAC, Ogg, & MP3 VBR (encoded using Lame) sound better than ATRAC3 at similar bit rates.
This message was posted from a K700i
|
|
Sorry about calling you Mindshare. I post in another forum and there is a Mindshare. 
*edited on a Mac of course. Mac: There is no substitute*
N82(YES), iPhone 3G, Shure es530, Nikon D300, more stuff. No more SE stuff, why am I still here? |
MINDSCRIBE
Joined: Jun 26, 2004
Posts: 37
PM |
You should not take much notice of marketing hype as far as AAC is concerned, you also take note of the fact an update of MP3 does exist, it is called MP3pro but nobody has made a free decoder for it yet!
This message was posted from a K700i |
slattery69
Joined: Jan 03, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: north east england
PM |
its not really marketing hype with aac , its peoples ears that are making the claim. many well respected hifi journalists are even making big waves of support about aac and they rarely like anything that costs under 2 grand and isnt cd or vinyl.
also mp3pro is very similar to aac (though it seems to be aimed more at making smaller files than over all quality) just with very little support for players yes you can play it on your exisitng mp3 player but it offers no benefit as the play only reads the mp3 part not the pro part. it probably will catch on but its not offering anything over and above aac from what ive read. |
sapporobaby
Joined: Sep 14, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Finland. Kuwait maybe :)
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2005-08-25 21:07:06, slattery69 wrote:
its not really marketing hype with aac , its peoples ears that are making the claim. many well respected hifi journalists are even making big waves of support about aac and they rarely like anything that costs under 2 grand and isnt cd or vinyl.
also mp3pro is very similar to aac (though it seems to be aimed more at making smaller files than over all quality) just with very little support for players yes you can play it on your exisitng mp3 player but it offers no benefit as the play only reads the mp3 part not the pro part. it probably will catch on but its not offering anything over and above aac from what ive read.
|
|
The fact that Sony opened up their MiniDisk to .mp3 was a logical and practical step. I wonder how many people would choose ATRAC over .mp3 when filling up a MiniDisk.
*edited on a Mac of course. Mac: There is no substitute*
N82(YES), iPhone 3G, Shure es530, Nikon D300, more stuff. No more SE stuff, why am I still here? | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2005-08-25 18:40
