|
|
Posted by Tor Pedo on 10/25/07 18:14
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 02:19:44 -0700, martin <martinaylands@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>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.
>
That's it! Borrow a really good pair and I am sure you will notice the
difference.
>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?
>
>Or would MP3 be a good compromise between the two, in terms of
>balancing quality with file size? And if so, what sample rate would
>people here recommend?
>
I would recommend a lossless format (40%+ reduction in file size) for
storage purposes on an external harddisk, but not for use on a player.
If you want to use mp3, please try 320 kbps or preferably one of the
good presets with variable bitrates. But mp3 is rather old and other,
newer codecs offer similar quality at nearly half the bitrate.
I am happy with Windows Media Audio 9.2 using a preset called VBR
Quality 98 (75% reduction or more).
However, much depends on the recording and your equipment. Use your
ears!
--
Tor Pedo
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|