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: Castanets, ATRAC Type-R digitally recorded (Read 26497 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Castanets, ATRAC Type-R digitally recorded

Hello fellows,

This is my first post around here, but I've been browsing this board for quite some time, trying to get familiar with whole ABX testing scene and reading very interesting comments of various codecs.

I'm sort of a Minidisc fan (yeah yeah I know  ) and I've been using MD for some 7 years. I'm quite happy with the way ATRAC Type-R sounds, but since I have never seen a test involving ATRAC and others codecs, I decided to do mine.

As I feel quite lazy, I'll just cut and paste my original post concerning this test on Minidisc.org's forums (the original post is over there):

Quote
As I suggested in an earlier thread, I wanted to provide a true blind-listening test involving ATRAC Type-R SP, ATRAC3+ @ 256 kbps, Vorbis, MP3 Lame and MPC.

Why? Because since Hi-MD came out with Sonicstage 2.0 and Hi-MD, some have been saying it was better than plain old SP, other saying SP was still superior.

I also included MP3, Vorbis and MPC because those three codecs are considered by most people to be far superior to ATRAC and ATRAC3/ATRAC3+.


The sample used is "Castanets.wav", a 6 sec long sample, probably the most common one as it's used in most of hydrogenaudio.org's ABX tests. On hydrogenaudio.org, there's already been testing done with this sample and ATRAC 4.5 and ATRAC Type-R. But as there's no way to digitally upload SP tracks to a PC, the transfer was always done via analog. Which, I believe, can only add distortion to the resulting sound and is not fair enough.

As I happen to own a Type-R MD deck (MDS-JB940) with a digital out, and a soundcard with digital in, I was able to record this track digitally on my PC. This makes this Type-R sample, I believe, the only one available on the Internet with the highest possible quality.

The samples below are to be used with ff123's famous "ABC/Hidden Reference Audio Comparison Tool", which is available at this page: http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html

Simply download the binary package, lauch the tool and open the "config.txt" file provided with my samples. You can then choose to do a ABC test (comparing and noting 5 different samples with respect to the original wav file) or do a ABX test (trying to identify the compressed sample against the original). Feel free to do both. I have not yet done any but will post the results afterwards so we can compare.
And for those of you who have never done such a testing, you do need to have a decent pair of headphones and be in a quiet environnment. Don't do the test with any pair of speakers, especially PC speakers, chances are you won't hear any difference.

Now here's how these samples were recorded and compressed.

The WAV file came directly from its source: http://www.pcabx.com/product/mds-jb920/
This is where it was first used I believe...

The ATRAC3+ @ 256 kbps file was encoded with Sonicstage 2.1 (I don't own a Hi-MD), then burned from within Sonicstage to an Audio CD from which a WAV file was created.

The MP3 Lame file was encoded with Lame 3.93.1, using the alt-extreme preset.

The Vorbis file was done using the Vorbis Megamix II encoder, based on libvorbis 1.1 RC1 (available here: http://www.rarewares.org/quantumknot/oggenc-megamix2.exe) and which is believed by many to be the encoder of choice for Vorbis. The encoding was used with quality 6 (-q6).

The MPC file was encoded with mppenc 1.14 (http://www.saunalahti.fi/~cse/mpc/encoders/mppenc-windows-1.14.zip), using the "insane" preset.

And finally, the ATRAC Type-R preset was done by burning the original wav sample to a CDRW, playing that CDRW on my CD deck, hooked up through digital coax to my MD deck, and then recorded the sample on a blank and brand new TDK RXG disk, and captured the sample on my PC through the optical out of the deck to the optical in of my soundcard. My soundcard itself is a Terratec Aureon fun, an entry-level card which doesn't have any 24 bit capabilities. Therefore, the output of the deck was set to 16 bits so the soundcard wouldn't have to do any dithering (which would have been poorly done given the value of the card). I used Nero's Wave Editor to record the sample from the Optical In.

All of the compressed samples were then converted back to WAV.

You can download the samples at this location (approx. 5 MB): http://perso.wanadoo.fr/rmstitanic/minidisc/samples.zip

Looking forward to reading your results

If anyone of you is willing to do a more complete test using other samples, feel free to send me the original WAV file and I'd be glad to create the Type-R sample using the same method as above.


Like I said, I look forward to your comments on this, and any criticism on how I recorded or encoded the samples are welcome, after all, this is my first try at this and it's probably far from perfect

Castanets, ATRAC Type-R digitally recorded

Reply #1 –
Quote
I'm quite happy with the way ATRAC Type-R sounds, but since I have never seen a test involving ATRAC and others codecs, I decided to do mine.


http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....wtopic=24467&hl


http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....wtopic=24586&hl

ATRAC related.

mppenc 1.15r has been tested against 1.14 by many users & it improves of a few samples.

Castanets, ATRAC Type-R digitally recorded

Reply #2 –
Please beware that castanets.wav is in no way representative for the overall performance of a codec, even though it's a pretty good indicator regarding its pre-echo behaviour.
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.

Castanets, ATRAC Type-R digitally recorded

Reply #3 –
Quote
Please beware that castanets.wav is in no way representative for the overall performance of a codec, even though it's a pretty good indicator regarding its pre-echo behaviour.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=239139"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


This is something I indeed forgot to mention over minidisc.org, but I knew about its characteristics.
I also read the previous ATRAC tests for which westgroveg provided the links, but as I mentionned, Type-R sample available so far was recorded through analog. The purpose of this test is to finally be able to test Type-R with no loss in quality due to the analog recording.

Anyway, which samples would anyone of you recommend to do more intensive testing? As I suggested any sample you can provide or suggest which would make this testing more complete, I'd gladly encode them

Castanets, ATRAC Type-R digitally recorded

Reply #4 –
rjamorim's latest test set covered a relatively broad range of music. Ask him to put it online somewhere.
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.

Castanets, ATRAC Type-R digitally recorded

Reply #5 –
Well, if it helps, I couldn't ABX a single one of them.
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel, H2G2

Castanets, ATRAC Type-R digitally recorded

Reply #6 –
Although I will later add some ABX results of each codec against the original, I will start out with general rankings:

ABC/HR for Java Version 0.4b, 03 September 2004
Testname: Castanets, ATRAC

1R = /Users/Angelo/Desktop/samples/castanets mp3.wav
2R = /Users/Angelo/Desktop/samples/castanets mpc.wav
3L = /Users/Angelo/Desktop/samples/castanets hi-sp.wav
4L = /Users/Angelo/Desktop/samples/castanets sp.wav
5R = /Users/Angelo/Desktop/samples/castanets ogg.wav

---------------------------------------
General Comments:
---------------------------------------
1R File: /Users/Angelo/Desktop/samples/castanets mp3.wav
1R Rating: 4.5
1R Comment: Slight smearing on clicks. Not as "hard" as original.
---------------------------------------
2R File: /Users/Angelo/Desktop/samples/castanets mpc.wav
2R Rating: 4.8
2R Comment: Sounds almost exactly like original, but maybe there's something different about the timbre of the castanets? Not sure about this one.
---------------------------------------
3L File: /Users/Angelo/Desktop/samples/castanets hi-sp.wav
3L Rating: 2.0
3L Comment: OMG, this must be the ATRAC3plus file. Bizzare, metallic artifacts! Awful.
---------------------------------------
4L File: /Users/Angelo/Desktop/samples/castanets sp.wav
4L Rating: 4.3
4L Comment: A bit less defined than the original, not as "hard." Guitar strums sound different, too.
---------------------------------------
5R File: /Users/Angelo/Desktop/samples/castanets ogg.wav
5R Rating: 4.7
5R Comment: Almost perfect, but slight smearing on a few clicks. Too close to call?
---------------------------------------

These rankings seem to confirm my earlier findings: MP3 is good, but not as sharp, as is ATRAC Type-R. However, they still are discernible from the original. Vorbis sounds great, maybe a bit less sharp than the PCM file, as does MPC...I cannot make any conclusions here until I ABX, being that the rankings are so high. And ATRAC3plus.....well, let's just say that I expected as much after doing my own test with the same exact sample. Even MP1 would sound better on this sample!!! Damn you, Sony.

EDIT: ABX results (more to come)

ATRAC3plus vs Original: 20/20, p<.0001***
ATRAC-R vs. Original: 20/20,  p<.0001***
MPC vs Original: 15/20,  p=.02*  (Did I really hear a difference between MPC --insane and the wav?!?! Maybe it was the tiramisu I just ate  )

* Significant at the 95% level
** Significant at the 99% level
***Significant at the >99% level

Castanets, ATRAC Type-R digitally recorded

Reply #7 –
@Cygnus X1

Thanks for your results. I will post mine soon...
I'm curious as to whether you noticed any difference between my Type-R sample and yours or not

Castanets, ATRAC Type-R digitally recorded

Reply #8 –
Quote
@Cygnus X1

Thanks for your results. I will post mine soon...
I'm curious as to whether you noticed any difference between my Type-R sample and yours or not
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=239416"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



No problem

I just tried ABX'ing my sample from yours, and could not reliably hear a difference. Since pre-echo is an encoder flaw, and not (usually) a decoder one, capturing a signal digitally might result in a cleaner recording in terms of SNR, but will not hide transient smearing. Therefore, the recording path should have no effect on the "classic" pre-echo sound that is listened for in castanet samples. While it is possible that the DSP chip used for your deck is different than the one in my recorder, it doesn't seem like Sony has done any extra codec tuning since Type-R was released in 1998.

Castanets, ATRAC Type-R digitally recorded

Reply #9 –
My results:

Code: [Select]
ABC/HR Version 0.9b, 30 August 2002
Testname: ATRAC TYPE-R / ATRAC3+ Hi-SP / MP3 LAME / VORBIS / MPC Comparison

1R = castanets hi-sp.wav
2L = castanets mpc.wav
3L = castanets mp3.wav
4R = castanets ogg.wav
5L = castanets sp.wav

---------------------------------------
General Comments:

---------------------------------------
1R File: castanets hi-sp.wav
1R Rating: 1.0
1R Comment: First guitar note is strangely smeared. Annoying.
Castanets are awful: very agressive, with bad, "electric" noise. It sounds clearly worse than pre-echo to my ears.

0.0 /5.0 is a more realistic note.
---------------------------------------
2L File: castanets mpc.wav
2L Rating: 3.7
2L Comment: "piou-piou" sound, typical artifact of mpc with this sample
---------------------------------------
3L File: castanets mp3.wav
3L Rating: 1.8
3L Comment: like 1R, first guitar note is completely smeared. Castanets are smeared when isolated (0.6 - 1.5), but are then ~ok.
---------------------------------------
4R File: castanets ogg.wav
4R Rating: 4.0
4R Comment: 
---------------------------------------
5L File: castanets sp.wav
5L Rating: 2.3
5L Comment: first guitar note is smeared, but also distorted and unatural. Apparently, there's a stereo problem: there's a moving noise, really audible on the right channel during this first note. Weird...

Castenets suffer from an audible loss in sharpness, and they sound dull, synthetic.
---------------------------------------
ABX Results:
Original vs castanets hi-sp.wav
    16 out of 16, pval < 0.001
Original vs castanets mpc.wav
    14 out of 16, pval = 0.002
Original vs castanets mp3.wav
    16 out of 16, pval < 0.001
Original vs castanets ogg.wav
    9 out of 16, pval = 0.402
Original vs castanets sp.wav
    16 out of 16, pval < 0.001


Note that I failed to ABX vorbis megamixII with this sample (on a quick-ABX test). It's in my opinion the only encoder free of artifact (it doesn't necessary mean free of distortion). Atrac3plus is nice as low-anchor; old-Atrac is much better, though it's not really good on this sample (artifacted, smeared and also synthetic).

Anyway Kouby, thanks for creating and uploading this DDD sample of an atrac recording. Other samples are really welcome

Castanets, ATRAC Type-R digitally recorded

Reply #10 –
OK, here are my ABC results (ABX will come later on). Sorry if the comments are not as specific as those of guruboolez for instance, but I don't have that much experience in naming artefacts or encoding drawbacks. In fact, is there a guide anywhare for all those terms? 

Quote
ABC/HR Version 1.0, 6 May 2004
Testname: ATRAC TYPE-R / ATRAC3+ Hi-SP / MP3 LAME / VORBIS / MPC Comparison

Tester: toto

1L = castanets mpc.wav
2R = castanets hi-sp.wav
3R = castanets ogg.wav
4R = castanets mp3.wav
5R = castanets sp.wav

---------------------------------------
General Comments:

---------------------------------------
1L File: castanets mpc.wav
1L Rating: 4.0
1L Comment: The castanets sounds a bit higher in pitch than the original
---------------------------------------
2R File: castanets hi-sp.wav
2R Rating: 1.1
2R Comment: Very annoying artefacts on the castanets. In fact, more than extremely annoying. If this happens to be ATRAC3+, I definitely forget about buying any Hi-MD unit...
---------------------------------------
3R File: castanets ogg.wav
3R Rating: 4.5
3R Comment: Very nice reproduction, though the first guitar chord lacks a little bit in density
---------------------------------------
4R File: castanets mp3.wav
4R Rating: 4.2
4R Comment: First castanets sounds are a bit metallic...
---------------------------------------
5R File: castanets sp.wav
5R Rating: 3.9
5R Comment: Castanets lack definition and warmth...
---------------------------------------
ABX Results:


I kinda never would have thought that Hi-SP would sound so bad. It took me quite a few tries to identify each other sample, but this one was immediately recognisable....

Castanets, ATRAC Type-R digitally recorded

Reply #11 –
Quote
I kinda never would have thought that Hi-SP would sound so bad. It took me quite a few tries to identify each other sample, but this one was immediately recognisable....
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=239481"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I'm pretty sure that you don't mean this but I can't resist saying it. I don't believe that performance with castnets.wav can be extrapolated to other kinds of music.

(I'm sorry for wrong wrong prepositions.)

Castanets, ATRAC Type-R digitally recorded

Reply #12 –
Quote
Quote
I kinda never would have thought that Hi-SP would sound so bad. It took me quite a few tries to identify each other sample, but this one was immediately recognisable....
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=239481"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I'm pretty sure that you don't mean this but I can't resist saying it. I don't believe that performance with castnets.wav can be extrapolated to other kinds of music.

(I'm sorry for wrong wrong prepositions.)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=239488"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Well I'm sure we can find other samples where ATRAC3+ would perform better compared to the other codecs...yet this very poor result is not really encouraging, to say the least.

Castanets, ATRAC Type-R digitally recorded

Reply #13 –
Quote
Well I'm sure we can find other samples where ATRAC3+ would perform better compared to the other codecs...yet this very poor result is not really encouraging, to say the least.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=239491"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You need, first, to select problem samples for musepack --insane, vorbis megamix II -q6 or lame -V 0. There are not so many of them  (castanets.wav is probably one of the more problematic sample for all these advanced encoders!).

Castanets, ATRAC Type-R digitally recorded

Reply #14 –
Quote
Quote
I kinda never would have thought that Hi-SP would sound so bad. It took me quite a few tries to identify each other sample, but this one was immediately recognisable....
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=239481"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I'm pretty sure that you don't mean this but I can't resist saying it. I don't believe that performance with castnets.wav can be extrapolated to other kinds of music.

(I'm sorry for wrong wrong prepositions.)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=239488"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Given that many types of music feature sharp attacks, don't be so sure that ATRAC3plus won't crap out with other samples. Also, the type of artifact seen here is very serious for this bitrate, regardless of the sample. At 256kbps, for any circa 2003 codec to show that level of noise and signal degradation is absolutely ridiculous. Sony really needs to stop dumping its oddball media formats and inferior codecs on the market and instead refocus its strategies on providing quality products that consumers actually want. Unfortunately, the multiple personalities of hardware vendor, computer maker, record company, etc will prevent that from ever reaching fruition.

Castanets, ATRAC Type-R digitally recorded

Reply #15 –
Hear, hear.

Castanets, ATRAC Type-R digitally recorded

Reply #16 –
One possible sample might be fatboy. We all know that LAME trips on this one, but I can't say I've closely checked out MPC and Vorbis. I did once listen to the entire track this came from on my Minidisc as a 292 kbit (ATRAC-R) track, and don't remember it being as "bad" as LAME, but to be honest I didn't ABX it or anything.

Funnily enough some web sites do list this as a "minor" problem sample for ATRAC-R, but I don't think it actually changes the tone of the "sound" to the same extent as LAME does.

I think Cygnus and guru's point is valid however that while castanets is a known problem sample, most modern music has plenty of sharp attacks, and ATRAC3plus should really handle this type of problem better as a current release encoder.

All the same, if Sony had considered native support of some other codecs, we'd all be better off.

Den
 

Castanets, ATRAC Type-R digitally recorded

Reply #17 –
I just can't understand why Sony bothered with ATRAC3plus at all when ATRAC Type-R is clearly superior (at least on this particular sample). What was the point? To save a few bytes? Odd.

Castanets, ATRAC Type-R digitally recorded

Reply #18 –
@den:

as a matter of fact, I did some encodings of the fatboy sample (assuming the fatboy sample was the track "Kalifornia" from the "You've come a long way baby" album, I own that CD).
It is indeed a terrible test for ATRAC, no matter which you use (SP, ATRAC3, ATRAC3+)

If you want to check it out for yourself, here's my samples: ATRAC Type-R digitally recorded from my deck, ATRAC3+ 256 Kbps (Hi-SP), ATRAC3 132 kbps (LP2) and MP3 Lame 3.93.1 alt-extreme (as well as the original WAV ripped from my CD).

Lame is the best one at this, no doubt. LP2 is simply shit...you almost can't hear the music behind the artefacts. Hi-SP is a bit better though quite disgusting too, and SP clearly exhibits artefacts as well but is also less annoying than Hi-SP and LP2. However nothing beats Lame on this (ok, I didn't do MPC or Vorbis so I can only compare to the various ATRAC/ATRAC3/ATRAC3+ modes)

Feel free to download those samples...

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/rmstitanic/minidisc/kalifornia.zip

Quote
I just can't understand why Sony bothered with ATRAC3plus at all when ATRAC Type-R is clearly superior (at least on this particular sample). What was the point? To save a few bytes? Odd.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=240189"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Well I would suspect that Sony did so to have a "high-bitrate" codec to use for hi-speed transfers over USB to Hi-MD units (something old NetMD units lack as they can only use ATRAC3 @ 132 or 66 kbps over USB). I would suspect that they didn't succeed to get the old Type-R ATRAC to work with their NetMD protocol, thus the need for a higher bitrate codec. However they've clearly failed in providing a codec that is at least as good as the old Type-R ATRAC, which dates back to 1998 and which is in my opinion a quite good codec given its age. We'll need more samples to ascertain that fact, something I'm working on...

Castanets, ATRAC Type-R digitally recorded

Reply #19 –
@Kouby

Yep that's the one. And you're right. I just checked it out on my own MD and yes it  sounds like crap. I was clearly not listening too closely last time... 

@Pepzhez

I agree with Kouby in that they probably thought they needed a higher bandwidth codec now that they had a reasonable size media size for it, that could work over USB, yet for some reason they couldn't do it with SP. I think they've missed a real opportunity here, but I'm hoping that it may improve. They did make some improvements on the original SP over the years without breaking compatibility, and some minor ones with ATRAC3. I would not be surprised if Sonicstage ATRAC3plus also improves over time.

Another point is that Sony probably took some shortcuts in Sonicstage, giving priority to speed over quality, kinda like how LAME has a fast mode. Virtually all tests so far have shown that the Hi-SP (256k) mode recorded in realtime in MD portables gives a better result than ATRAC3plus 256k ex Sonicstage. When you think about, the MD decks encode in realtime, where as Sonicstage must do it faster for transfers. This makes sense to me as a possible cause for the consistently lower scores of ATRAC3plus 256k in Sonicstage compared to hardware encoded.

I also think that SP holds up remarkable well considering its age. It was actually first released in 1994...

Den.

Castanets, ATRAC Type-R digitally recorded

Reply #20 –
My results for the fatboy sample, in case anybody cares:
Code: [Select]
ABC/HR for Java Version 0.4b4, 08 September 2004
Testname: Kalifornia MD vs MP3
Tester: Omion

---------------------------------------
General Comments: 
---------------------------------------
1R File: kalifornia-sp.wav
1R Rating: 1.4
1R Comment: Bad. Artifacts all over
---------------------------------------
2R File: kalifornia-lp2.wav
2R Rating: 1.0
2R Comment: BARF. Everything is an artifact. Definitely the worst of the bunch.
---------------------------------------
3L File: kalifornia-hi-sp.wav
3L Rating: 1.8
3L Comment: High-frequency "scrubbing"
---------------------------------------
4L File: kalifornia-mp3.wav
4L Rating: 2.0
4L Comment: OK overall, but minor static in a few places
---------------------------------------

ABX Results:
[ All 11/11 ]
[Chopped out some things to save space]
Note that my results are smilar to Kouby's; I thought LAME > HI-SP > SP > LP2. I think LP2 really deserved less than a "1", but the program wouldn't let me do that
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel, H2G2

Castanets, ATRAC Type-R digitally recorded

Reply #21 –
Allow me (a new member) to suggest backing up a bit. This recalls the old joke, "Christ is the answer!" "What was the question?"

It'd be good for a thread like this to lay out a bit more in the way of a purpose. Perhaps it's, "I have an XYZ player and I want to know how to get reasonable sounding PDQ music with [insert energy level here] effort, to be played in the ABC environment." All 4 matter.

This thread has observed that Castanets is a bit of a "test case" with attacks that push the borders of what many codecs can do. My father-in-law, who's recently become enamored of older church music, including Gregorian chants, could care less. Even music like solo piano that can have fast attacks might only have 'em in a specific frequency range at any time, allowing (?) codecs like ATRACSx to do just fine. Probably very tough to hear this on rock guitar. VERY tough to generalize.

Many (most?) rock fans actually prefer odd-order harmonic distortion -- as caused by clipping -- that makes the music sound louder ("more present") and concert-like. It wouldn't do me any good when I listen to solo voice or small ensembles. Ugly to engineers, maybe, but de gustibus non disputandum... you're probably not an audio engineer and just want it to sound "good."

Another thread wanted to use MP3 because his cars had an MP3 CD player. Of course, car stereos are a compromise at best, and unless we're talking about your Bentley's clock ticking more loudly than anything else, the road, wind and engine noises will drown out even blatant infidelities. (Bitching about iPod/128AAC in a BMW sounding "tight" is just plain silly, if not dishonest.) Ditto if you're going to be using this for your morning jogs around the park and safety reasons prevent isolator headphones, or if you just want an easy way to have custom mixes as background for parties.

So to the original poster: let me suggest a way for you to aim at "good enough" and get on with enjoying your music.  Rip some stuff at using a codec and rate that seems reasonable and see if you're happy; tweak if necessary. Know that 20% higher/lower bitrates will only limit you to holding some marginally-interesting stuff on a portable player, and have very little impact on PC hard disk space. Get on with enjoying the music and avoid obsessing with trivial details of "what's best" in ways that probably are irrelevant to you (unless you're an aspiring engineer).

Castanets, ATRAC Type-R digitally recorded

Reply #22 –
Quote
So to the original poster: let me suggest a way for you to aim at "good enough" and get on with enjoying your music.  Rip some stuff at using a codec and rate that seems reasonable and see if you're happy; tweak if necessary. Know that 20% higher/lower bitrates will only limit you to holding some marginally-interesting stuff on a portable player, and have very little impact on PC hard disk space. Get on with enjoying the music and avoid obsessing with trivial details of "what's best" in ways that probably are irrelevant to you (unless you're an aspiring engineer).
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=243357"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


One doesn't have to be an engineer to carefully listen to compressed music and detect a codec's weaknesses. It has nothing to do with science, as it doesn't involve any technique, just a bit of hearing....

Castanets, ATRAC Type-R digitally recorded

Reply #23 –
Quote
Get on with enjoying the music and avoid obsessing with trivial details of "what's best" in ways that probably are irrelevant to you (unless you're an aspiring engineer).

If this is the way you feel you are in the wrong forum my friend. The point of this test is to find scientific proof of whether ATRAC is in fact superior to other codecs which is what many Minidisc fans claim.

The test results show that ATRAC pretty much sux but it would have been interesting to test wether other mp3 encoders such as FhG fastenc & Xing New at high bitrates like 256, 320 kbps, CBR can also outperform ATRAC.

Castanets, ATRAC Type-R digitally recorded

Reply #24 –
Quote
As I feel quite lazy, I'll just cut and paste my original post concerning this test on Minidisc.org's forums (the original post is over there):
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Weird thing: this topic has disapeared from the whole board (I also can't find it by using the search engine). Sad, because there were the only ABX tests I've ever seen for atracplus at high bitrate (see [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=27321]these additionnals results[/url] which were also posted on the same topic).

Where results too bad for keeping them public?