Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Audio > Mini Disc Player > Re: ATRAc v ATR...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 7 of 7 Topic 2780 of 2879
Post > Topic >>

Re: ATRAc v ATRAC Lossless question

by mmp1964@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Nov 15, 2007 at 06:25 AM

On Oct 23, 9:07 am, martin <martinayla...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> (Sorry if this isn't the most appropriate NG, but I've tried others
> and not got much of a response)
>
> 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?
>
> One other question: Is it possible to use SonicStage to store ATRAC
> or  MP3 files on a CD, then load them onto an MP3 player via
> SonicStage when you need them? This would  mean that  you could have
> lots of large music files without having to worry about running out of
> space on the player or cluttering up your computer's hard-drive.
>
> However, I've heard that Sony have made this impossible to do, to
> discourage illegal copying. Is this true?

If I understand how this works properly - the reason you don't hear
any difference between a file ripped "natively" in HiLP (64k) and
transferred to a device vs. ripping a file in ATRAC lossless and
transferring to a device is because there is no difference on the
device - the ATRAC lossless file will be converted to whatever your
default device setting is (which is probably 64k for you) - so they
are in fact the same (on the device).
 




 7 Posts in Topic:
ATRAc v ATRAC Lossless question
martin <martinaylands@  2007-10-23 07:07:44 
Re: ATRAc v ATRAC Lossless question
notareal@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2007-10-24 00:05:05 
Re: ATRAc v ATRAC Lossless question
J David Garnett <youkn  2007-10-24 06:41:18 
Re: ATRAc v ATRAC Lossless question
"Jeff Findley"   2007-10-24 09:41:59 
Re: ATRAc v ATRAC Lossless question
"Gerard Faber"   2007-10-25 16:28:47 
Re: ATRAc v ATRAC Lossless question
Julian <JulianPAdamsNo  2007-10-25 10:30:22 
Re: ATRAc v ATRAC Lossless question
mmp1964@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2007-11-15 06:25:39 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan13V112 Fri Jul 25 0:25:00 CDT 2008.