Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist (Read 22841 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Quote
In some respects it's unfortunate that MP3 has become the ubiquitous standard for digital music, since it's simply not a great codec from an audio quality standpoint. The ATRAC system for instance, produces far superior sound quality even using lower bit rates.


http://www.trustedreviews.com/mp3/review/2...-On-The-Move/p5

Could someone with a non gmail/hotmail/yahoo email please post a message on their forum letting them know that they are wrong.

I can't do it because I use gmail.

This is quite a big UK technology review site and they shouldn't be able to get away without researching what they write.

So someone please post some test results for them.




PS you may have to tell them that LAME is the MP3 candidate!

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #1 –
Let them talk. Atrac is dead anyways.

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #2 –
I laughed whenever I read this: "MiniDisc purported to offer "near" CD quality music by employing Sony's proprietary ATRAC (Adaptive Transform Acoustic Codec) compression codec, and to this day I maintain that ATRAC is one of the best quality codecs out there."

I am the first to admit that I don't have the best ears but even I could easily ABX ATRAC3 at the 128kbps bitrate (or maybe it was 130kbps, I don't remember as the last time I tested ATRAC3 was back in 2003 when Apple released their AAC encoder).  That was oh so long ago too and I am sure other audio encoders such as Nero AAC, Lame mp3, and iTunes AAC have taken huge leaps in terms of audio quality.

It is sad to still see these Sony fanboys/junkies/whatever support ATRAC3 to the death.  I remember helping someone with their PSP and they claimed that ATRAC3 was the superior format over Lame mp3 and iTunes AAC.  They needed help ripping their CDs to a format that the PSP would play and they insisted on ATRAC3.  I then pointed them to listening test results published here showing that pretty much all other lossy formats were better than ATRAC3.  He then replied by saying the tests were flawed and that he could hear the difference simply by switching back and forth between tracks.  Needless to say I tried explaining that blind ABX tests were but he wouldn't have it.

Didn't Sony stop supporting the ATRAC3 format not too long ago whenever they closed their online music store and their SonicStage software?  Either way, it is sad to see people still supporting this format especially whenever standard WMA has scored higher.

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #3 –
Why are they necessarily wrong, or sad, or laughable.  Maybe ATRAC just sounds better to them; it is subjective after all.  In my test a year and a half ago, ATRAC3plus beat LAME and WMA9, and probably pipped Nero LC-AAC, at about 64kbps.  It depends on the circumstances.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....c=48445&hl=

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #4 –
Thing is, the standard Atrac bitrate is 292kbit/s, which most 'audiophiles' use if they use MD. No wonder that sounds good/great/better than 128kbit MP3.

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #5 –
Quote
The ATRAC system for instance, produces far superior sound quality even using lower bit rates.

Maybe this was true, back in the days (before Lame became popular)?

But in that case it should have said "produced"

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #6 –
Quote from: steveh on
Why are they necessarily wrong, or sad, or laughable.  Maybe ATRAC just sounds better to them; it is subjective after all.  In my test a year and a half ago, ATRAC3plus beat LAME and WMA9, and probably pipped Nero LC-AAC, at about 64kbps.  It depends on the circumstances.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....c=48445&hl=


Part of the problem is that they used the generic ATRAC term which could mean ATRAC3 (which I could easily ABX at my tested 128kbps bitrate).  They also said that ATRAC was superior even when using lower bitrates.  Well I would consider 128kbps a lower bitrate and ATRAC3 definitely wasn't superior.  Listening tests here at HA have also confirmed this.  Now, I believe the ATRAC3plus encoder was the one that was vastly improved over ATRAC3 and it was the only one that could reach bitrates over 192kbps.  It has been a long time since I even looked at ATRAC but I thought that Sony's Music Store offered tracks at the 292kbps bitrate and they were encoded with ATRAC3plus.

Either way Sony has stopped supporting ATRAC3.  I wonder why they would stop supporting something that is far superior.  That is why it is laughable.  It is not like ATRAC is a physical format.  Sony still could have supported it through simple software updates.  Even their new portable audio players don't support the ATRAC3/ATRAC3plus audio format.  Their codec support is listed as "MP3, WMA, AAC-LC, Linear PCM."  So to me, it is laughable whenever someone touts the quality of a dead audio format whenever its quality has been questionable (at least for me, with ATRAC3) at "lower bitrates" and the company that developed the format doesn't even support it with their players.

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #7 –
Quote from: kornchild2002 on
Either way Sony has stopped supporting ATRAC3.  I wonder why they would stop supporting something that is far superior.

They stopped supporting Beta, didn't they?

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #8 –
Quote from: pdq on
Quote from: kornchild2002 on

Either way Sony has stopped supporting ATRAC3.  I wonder why they would stop supporting something that is far superior.

They stopped supporting Beta, didn't they?


Yes they did and Toshiba stopped supporting HD-DVD.  That being said, hardware support is very different from software support.  Sony could have easily added ATRAC3 support to their DAPs' firmware.  I think the only devices that Sony makes now that support ATRAC3 are the PS3 and PSP.  Software support (especially for a codec) does not require the same amount of resources as supporting a whole new physical format.  It takes far less effort to support the ATRAC3 audio format than it did for Beta or that it does for Blu-ray.

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #9 –
At the end of it all, quality is subjective and a matter of personal taste.be it whatever codec..Sony's stupid DRM and conflict with its own music company put a lid on ATRAC, along with their bad marketing which effectively killed ATRAC, this is very well known. They still support ATRAC in their new devices (Japan only models).
I hv always found this forum to be gr8 and hv no disputes abt Lame quality. At the same time, it is very noticeable, reading at all those topics which deal with closed codecs, there is a trend in this forum to go ballistic. It is almost as if that his forum consists of only open source based codec junkies...(apologize if I step over toes)...one does not listen to the same song or music all the time..our listening tastes change based on our moods at that point in time..so do preferences to codecs..in the end it produces music (to some ears atleast)!..just like all of us are entitled to our opinions, so does the guy who wrote the review..why keep flogging a dead horse..hv always noticed this whenever it comes to wma, apple aac or atrac..Sometimes one wonders whether this forum is abt audio or is it one to promote onlu open source based audio codecs ? hmm....

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #10 –
nvee: the reason many people dislike proprietary codecs is that once the owner has lost interest in developing the format (or even supporting it), the users are left with a load of useless, DRM crippled files.

I don't think HA is only interested in open source. Nero AAC is well respected, as is TAK. I imagine that any codec that shows signs of a future and listens to its users would be welcome here.

Edit: If you really want a laugh visit minidisc forum as atrac lovers scratch each others heads about what can be done.

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #11 –
The journalist sounds like a complete utter Sony fanboy and in my opinion they almost worse then Apple fanboys (no offensive to Apple product owners). I have to admit that I have not even tried out ATRAC and never will since it is a very closed format like WMA is. But I did try out a walkman demo setup a few years ago, that had some ATRAC3 tracks, that I also had aswell encoded on LAME 3.96 at --preset standard, and my first thought was the ATRAC3 sounded bad, but it was very likely to be a placebo, but the walkman demo setup had a very good pair of headphones though. But dam Sony fans really sometimes do make me sick, they even defend them even if half of there products are overpriced crap or just mediocre but overpriced, aswell thinking that Sonic Stage is not a bad music player  . But at least they not as bad as some of the Apple fans, that worship Steve Jobs like if he was god or something.
"I never thought I'd see this much candy in one mission!"

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #12 –
Quote from: simonh on
nvee: the reason many people dislike proprietary codecs is that once the owner has lost interest in developing the format (or even supporting it), the users are left with a load of useless, DRM crippled files.

I don't think HA is only interested in open source.

HA has no trouble accepting Windows Media Audio.

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #13 –
What is this, 1998? ATRAC is as dead as 8-track. There's nearly no MiniDisc units being manufactured anymore (I think Sony still makes a single unit, the famed RH1), Connect is gone, and their newer MP3 players won't even play ATRAC without transcoding to MP3. (Which is an ironic twist of fate - remember when Sony players would only play MP3 if it was transcoded to ATRAC?).

Old-style 292kbps MD (which is probably what this guy was extrapolating his experiences from) did indeed sound better than 128kbps, MusicMatch encoded MP3 files - but then again, what doesn't anymore? At low bitrates, ATRAC/ATRAC3/ATRAC3plus is no better than any other codec - as numerous listening tests confirm.

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #14 –
Quote from: simonh on
nvee: the reason many people dislike proprietary codecs is that once the owner has lost interest in developing the format (or even supporting it), the users are left with a load of useless, DRM crippled files.

I don't think HA is only interested in open source. Nero AAC is well respected, as is TAK. I imagine that any codec that shows signs of a future and listens to its users would be welcome here.

Edit: If you really want a laugh visit minidisc forum as atrac lovers scratch each others heads about what can be done.


I accidentally discovered HA while googling and ever since there has been no looking back. Going through the forums has resulted in enriching my listening experience. Nero/TAK do understand the expertise offered here and how HA is a defacto standard when it comes to rating quality of codecs/encoders.

If a codec/encoder does not measure up..periodic listening tests/ABX etc do prove the point. Being a proprietory codec alone does not make it low quality. Sony lost out due to its own problems and by the time it woke up it was too late..hence it did not make business sense to back a dead format..and they joined the bandwagon. iTunes adapted by selling DRM free music..Sony followed suit..walmart did it..u can't adapt..u r a dodo..

Until the recent past, Nero was more known for its CD/DVD burning product. If they had to venture into music, they need a stamp of approval that represents wide acceptance..I assume that it was natural for them to leverage HA's specialization and it provided a realistic test bed for improving their encoder..I too use Nero a lot..

Taking a hypothetical scenario..sometime in the late future, Nero decides close up its encoder like iTunes and to de-support its free encoder, since it is poaching on potential consumers for its all-in-one jukebox/ripping/burning product or probably its encoder core has achieved as much improvement as is possible...will it suddenly be rated as low quality just bcos it de-supported it..will all the prior tests become false ?

My point is..a proprietory codec need not necessarily be low quality by default..listening tests are there to prove it...rating a quality due to personal dislike becomes biased..when people discovered DRM in them, many knowingly stuck to it, while others moved...Sony, for its part, provided a tool for converting DRMed music to MP3 b4 it closed off atrac

...I imagine people come to this forum to know more about a codec and to get a fair evaluation of where a codec is good and where it can fail..so that they can get the best listening experience of their choice..

I have browsed the minidisc forum..its a different plateau altogether..but I can't help noticing that they are doing a good job of supporting each other when there is none..so when somebody from there wants to know abt Atrac from HA (read as experts)..most times they get burnt..instead of giving a fair assessement and allowing them to make a judgement..

"HA has no trouble accepting Windows Media Audio. ".....most related topics turn into M$ bashing... there are enough sites to entertain ourselves with M$ bashing..

ATRAC is dead..so let it go and lets move on....

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #15 –
Quote from: nvee on
Taking a hypothetical scenario..sometime in the late future, Nero decides close up its encoder like iTunes and to de-support its free encoder, since it is poaching on potential consumers for its all-in-one jukebox/ripping/burning product or probably its encoder core has achieved as much improvement as is possible...will it suddenly be rated as low quality just bcos it de-supported it..will all the prior tests become false ?


No, Nero's AAC encoder would not be scored lower.  The reason why ATRAC3 scored so low is because that is what the blind ABX results showed.  No one knew that the ATRAC3 file was being played, if they did then the test wasn't truly a bling ABX test.  The quality scores did not look at how open the format is.  Hell, WMApro has received pretty high marks at the 128kbps bitrate and that format is supported even less than standard WMA.  So HA doesn't have a problem showing results where a closed format has high scores.  That being said, the iTunes AAC is not a closed encoder.  Apple's DRM scheme is closed but the iTunes AAC encoder is still free to use and the files produced fit within the AAC standard.  I would call the iTunes AAC encoder closed if it only worked on Apple products (not the case) and it didn't fall within mpeg-4 AAC standards.

This is a lot different from Sony's ATRAC format in that you had to use Sony software to encode it, Sony hardware to play it (or the handful of other MiniDisc players from other manufacturers), and Sony's software to copy said tracks to a portable player.  Not only that but those other manufacturers of MiniDisc players had to pay Sony to use their ATRAC decoder.  You don't see Apple charging Microsoft to use a AAC decoder with the Zune or PS3.  So I don't think it is fair to call the iTunes AAC encoder closed.  Yes, you must use iTunes to encode the files but you can still use programs like EAC and dbpoweramp which have the ability to accurately/securely rip an audio CD, open iTunes, encode and tag the files, and then close iTunes.  You can also use QuickTime Pro to do your audio encoding and Max (a CD ripper) for Mac OS X can even use the Core Audio AAC encoder which is the same as the iTunes AAC encoder.  So there are programs that get around using iTunes.

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #16 –
Quote from: /mnt on
The journalist sounds like a complete utter Sony fanboy and in my opinion they almost worse then Apple fanboys (no offensive to Apple product owners).  ...  But dam Sony fans really sometimes do make me sick, they even defend them even if half of there products are overpriced crap or just mediocre but overpriced, aswell thinking that Sonic Stage is not a bad music player  . But at least they not as bad as some of the Apple fans, that worship Steve Jobs like if he was god or something.

LOL  Yeah, it's funny that there are fanboys still defending Atrac, even when Sony themselves are abandoning it and moved on to AAC. Even for the Japanese players, Sony offers HE-AAC support for those requiring low-bitrate music, so I don't see the point of Atrac anymore.
twitter.com/pika2000

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #17 –
Quote from: nvee on
sometime in the late future, Nero decides close up its encoder like iTunes and to de-support its free encoder

This does seem likely, since its license prohibits redistribution.

The quality and closed nature are not related in any way. Codec can provide quality, yet be unusable. Unfortunately for Sony, ATRAC codec lost in both areas.

Quote
most related topics turn into M$ bashing...

So it's ok to bash Sony, but not Microsoft?

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #18 –
Quote from: Cygnus X1 on
Old-style 292kbps MD (which is probably what this guy was extrapolating his experiences from) did indeed sound better than 128kbps,


At the time of introduction (circa 1994), MD clearly lost every listening test I read against DCC, which used 384 kbps MPEG Layer 1. Let's reintroduce that instead!

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #20 –
Quote from: Trondis on
As always, much fuss about Atrac. But it doesn't always come out as the worst codec:

http://www.soundexpert.info/coders256.jsp

Yeah, but it sucks at 352 while LAME at 320kps does very well on those results:

http://www.soundexpert.info/coders320.jsp;...id=IDDIFCLEOIBC
"I never thought I'd see this much candy in one mission!"

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #21 –
http://www.trustedreviews.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3796

I can't be bothered to register - I'm sure someone from there will read this thread...

Quote
It's interesting how in such a long article, one particular thing seems to be an issue. Yes, I do feel that ATRAC is a better codec than MP3, but I could have just as easily cited OGG as a better codec, or even AAC. The point I was trying to make is that MP3 was originally developed primarily to compress audio as tightly as possible, with quality being a distant second concern.
...and ATRAC was designed to get 74mins of audio onto a 140MB disc, with quality being disastrous for the first generation players.

Quote
I'm well aware of the documented double blind tests that were carried out, but as with many such studies, there are an almost infinite number of factors involved. There have been similar tests conducted where the majority of the sample felt that lower bit rate encodes sounded better than an uncompressed track
Show me such a test. I'm aware of different tests, using different methodologies, and different quality audio (often near-transparent), where this is reflected in the results. These are not "similar" tests! To suggest their existence invalidates the quoted test is nonsense. It's like the logical leap "My car is a Skoda. My Skoda breaks down every week. Therefore all cars break down every week."

Quote
The point I was making was that at the time that compressed audio really took off, ATRAC would have provided higher quality audio than MP3 at similar bit rates.
At the time I bought my 3rd gen MD machine in 1996 (with ATRAC 3, not ATRAC3!), mp3 hadn't really "happened" - it existed as a standard, but relatively few people had encoders or decoders.

However, by the time FhG encoders were available (legally or otherwise), and other encoders were developed, many would produce quality at 256kbps that challenged my MD player. I know - I compared.

By the late 1990s, the best high bitrate ATRAC and the best high bitrate mp3 were both broadly transparent for most people on most music.

Later, we had software versions of ATRAC to test, and you've seen some of the results! At high bitrates, few people hear problems; at low bitrates, mp3 thrashes ATRAC.


It was always gapless, and the players were generally well made with nice output stages and even decent ear-phones as standard. However, as a codec...

Cheers,
David.

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #22 –
I'm pretty sure that ATRAC would have survived if Sony did not put so much restrictions on the codec, software and hardware. I own a nice Minidisc player and although the sound is awesome I hardly use it anymore, because:

- I *have* to use ATRAC
- I *have* to use Sonicstage software
- I *have* to use low bitrates (I can only use SP 292kbs if I use the digital/analog input of the device, I cannot encode through the software)
- I *can not* upload files from my player to my computer

Sony is so stupid when it comes down to these things. Who uses MD players the most? Right, journalists and musicians. What do these people want? Right, record their own stuff, and putting it on their computer.

After some time they somewhat started listening to their audience and added MP3 to the supported formats of the players and added the possibility uploading. But, they managed to cripple the decoder such that MP3 sounded worse than ATRAC (see a topic on the minidisc forums). Was this by accident? The fact that Sony did not do anything about it makes me think otherwise.

Since then I boycot Sony and didn't buy a single Sony device. I know, they probably don't care.

Atrac is far superior to MP3 says journalist

Reply #23 –
Quote from: bug80 on
Who uses MD players the most? Right, journalists and musicians.


Musicians? They used DAT not MD. I'm still amazed Sony continued to keep MD in the shops for over ten years after it became clear to everyone that it was a commercial failure. I've never seen any 'normal' consumer type use MD, everyone just went from Walkman to Discman to iPod. Philips pulled the rival DCC quickly and instead invested heavily in CD-R/RW technology from which they made a fortune.