Topic: Effect of MD compression on .wav comp

[zowie]

If you took a moment to read the improvements of ATRAC3plus over ATRAC, you might understand why.  I don't currently have access to a Hi-MD deck, but I remember it sounding much better than my old MD decks that use SP/ATRAC.

Read them where?

[madman]

If you took a moment to read the improvements of ATRAC3plus over ATRAC, you might understand why.  I don't currently have access to a Hi-MD deck, but I remember it sounding much better than my old MD decks that use SP/ATRAC.

Read them where?

The Hi-MD FAQ on minidisc.org has some information on ATRAC3plus vs ATRAC.  Then again, a lot has to do with equipment.  I even hear a difference between my sharp portable recorder and my Sony home deck.  I'm pretty certain it's easy to tell Hi-SP vs SP, if I ever get access to Hi-MD again I'll do a more scientific comparison.

[tms]

Here's the first report from a co-worker.  He's a music lover with a decent stereo, mid-range consumer grade stuff, ~$1000 worth of speakers, cd player and receiver.  I gave him a CD with the two sets of samples and the text file, here's what he says:

"I listened to these both in my car (sitting in the garage, not driving) and at home by listening to the first few seconds of each track and then forwarding to the next.  30 seconds was too long for me to remember the sound.  Sometimes I thought one might sound a little different, maybe brighter or tinny-er (?) but when I went back and listened to the other matching track it sounded the same.  I don't want to guess which one is which, I can't tell the difference, they sound the same to me."

[Karl]

I can't take your above test (I'm on dialup  ) but I used to record MD.  In the height of it, I recorded with a portable Sharp DR-7.  I would then transfer to PC via md deck Sony MDS-JE510.  I could hear differences between that and lossless.  Basically, the high frequencies were not as clear.  But I really doubt most Joe Schmoes' would be able to tell the difference.

[WiFiJeff]

  But I really doubt most Joe Schmoes' would be able to tell the difference.

That's the problem with these "comparisons," isn't it.  "I gave my co-worker a glass of Chateau Lafitte and a glass of Gallo Chardonnay and he couldn't tell the difference" is less a statement about the quality of wines than about the low-lifes I work with.

Jeff

[tms]

If you took a moment to read the improvements of ATRAC3plus over ATRAC, you might understand why.  I don't currently have access to a Hi-MD deck, but I remember it sounding much better than my old MD decks that use SP/ATRAC.

Read them where?

The Hi-MD FAQ on minidisc.org has some information on ATRAC3plus vs ATRAC.  Then again, a lot has to do with equipment.  I even hear a difference between my sharp portable recorder and my Sony home deck.  I'm pretty certain it's easy to tell Hi-SP vs SP, if I ever get access to Hi-MD again I'll do a more scientific comparison.

Sony went thru so many variations of ATRAC compression, but they're all based on the same FFT algorithm.  The recorder I used for this is the MZ-S1, the manual says it uses ATRAC3 for LP2 and LP4, and ATRAC type R for SP.  

The minidisc.org website describes ATRAC3plus as just another upgrade of the compression algorithm, they call it ATRAC4.  But if that's what a Hi-MD recorder uses to acheive 64kbps compression it doesn't much matter because it's going to sound like 128kbps mp3 according to sony's research (ass).

Hi-SP on a Hi-MD deck which is 256kbps is going to be the same as the newest SP types on a plain jane MD recording at 292kbps.  They are using the same compression algorithm, they didn't reinvent the underlying mathmatics.  They may have tweaked it slightly to suit the new hardware, but they didn't go back to the drawing board and reinvent a new algorithm.

So sure, MD is obsolete.  For that matter so is Hi-MD since Sony is not developing the line any further.

The variability you hear between equipment, are you using analog or digital connections?  The difference might not have anything to do with the compression but instead the A/D and D/A in the recorder or deck and the amplifier.

FWIW this comp was done with all digital connections.

[tms]

  But I really doubt most Joe Schmoes' would be able to tell the difference.

That's the problem with these "comparisons," isn't it.  "I gave my co-worker a glass of Chateau Lafitte and a glass of Gallo Chardonnay and he couldn't tell the difference" is less a statement about the quality of wines than about the low-lifes I work with.

Jeff

So what you're saying is that unless a person has $10,000 worth of home audio equipment they can't enjoy music and they are also a low-life? 

[tms]

I can't take your above test (I'm on dialup  ) but I used to record MD.  In the height of it, I recorded with a portable Sharp DR-7.  I would then transfer to PC via md deck Sony MDS-JE510.  I could hear differences between that and lossless.  Basically, the high frequencies were not as clear.  But I really doubt most Joe Schmoes' would be able to tell the difference.

Were you going digital-in or analog-in?  Could some of the difference have been due to the two different A/D's? 

[zowie]

Rant Warning!!!

  But I really doubt most Joe Schmoes' would be able to tell the difference.

That's the problem with these "comparisons," isn't it.  "I gave my co-worker a glass of Chateau Lafitte and a glass of Gallo Chardonnay and he couldn't tell the difference" is less a statement about the quality of wines than about the low-lifes I work with.

Jeff

So what you're saying is that unless a person has $10,000 worth of home audio equipment they can't enjoy music and they are also a low-life? 

By definition anyone without $10k of home equipment is a low life, and you're one if you don't know that!

Seriously, I didn't make the original statement but I'll respond.  There are some people with $10k of equipment who still can't hear the difference because they lack listening skills.  There are many people who lack good listening skills because they've never heard good equipment -- I've seen so many user reviews where the reviewer can only compare products on the basis of volume capability and quantity of bass and goofy operational features.  And there are also many people (including a few putative audiophiles I've met) who have never heard a world class symphony orchestra or chamber ensemble live in a decent hall, live jazz ensemble, etc. and don't have a good frame of reference for judging gear.   And of course if you don't know what you're missing for any of these reasons, you don't have any desire to buy more revealtory (not necessarily more expensive) equipment.

Also, I should note that I've heard $10k and $100k systems that were unlistenable, and carefully assembled $2k systems that are thrilling.

Shifting gears slightly, there are also people who can hear the difference but just don't care.  I have a lot of sympathy (or is it empathy?) for this position.  Mother Zowie for example, can play three instruments, loves music and sometimes goes to hear it live, and can certainly hear the huge difference between my playback system and her Aiwa light-show-cum-stereo, but simply lacks any desire to own anything better.  I have a very entry level car stereo (required by the realities of NYC), a 1950 RCA 45 changer that I restored, and a 1913 victorola.  None of this gear measures up sonically to MD-SP.  And yet I have an absolute ball listening to them and get tremendous enjoyment from the music.  Similarly, some of the best times of my life were with friends in high school and college sitting around listening to badly set up low end component systems, a quality of experience that has never been matched sitting in the "sweet spot" of the high end systems I've owned playing overpriced audiophile reissues.

People who can't hear the difference between Hi-MD and uncompressed audio, because of lack of listening skills or lack of quality equipment and no intention of upgrading, and people who just don't care because they enjoy the music just about as much in mid-fi as they do in hi-fi might, probably SHOULD enjoy the conveniences and cost-savings of minimal gear and compressed audio.

But I can easily hear the difference between MD-SP and uncompressed recording.  I also care very much about the quality of my masters, as do others who listen to them.  So I'm not going to make compressed recordings absent extenuating circumstances (i.e., that or nothing).  Therefore, who gives a flying it is not significant to me and a number of other people who hang out here whether one of your co-workers heard a difference between the two formats.

+t for posting the samples, because I think they are educational even if I do not believe they make a meaningful point.

[WiFiJeff]

By definition anyone without $10k of home equipment is a low life, and you're one if you don't know that!

Actually, I only said my co-workers were low-lifes, disirregardless of their tastes in wine or hifi.  For the record, I don't drink Chateau Lafitte or have a $10,000 audio system myself, I use headphones and favor Diet Coke.  But when I read reviews of gear or concerts, or wine or food, or whatever, I find you have to know a lot about the person whose subjective opinion is weighing in for that opinion to be at all useful.  And some opinions tell you more about the opiner than about the matter in question.  Clearly, lots of people find mp3 compression unobjectionable and enormously convenient.  It works better for some things than others.  I am trying to convince myself that 24/96 is reliably better than 16/44.1, it's not a first-order effect like when you go from cassette to DAT but I think I hear it.  That somebody I don't know can't hear any difference isn't a useful data point, I think.

Jeff

[zowie]

By definition anyone without $10k of home equipment is a low life, and you're one if you don't know that!

Actually, I only said my co-workers were low-lifes, disirregardless of their tastes in wine or hifi.  For the record, I don't drink Chateau Lafitte or have a $10,000 audio system myself, I use headphones and favor Diet Coke.  But when I read reviews of gear or concerts, or wine or food, or whatever, I find you have to know a lot about the person whose subjective opinion is weighing in for that opinion to be at all useful.  And some opinions tell you more about the opiner than about the matter in question.  Clearly, lots of people find mp3 compression unobjectionable and enormously convenient.  It works better for some things than others.  I am trying to convince myself that 24/96 is reliably better than 16/44.1, it's not a first-order effect like when you go from cassette to DAT but I think I hear it.  That somebody I don't know can't hear any difference isn't a useful data point, I think.

Jeff

It's seems we mostly agree except that you are flat out wrong on the most important issue:

Diet Pepsi : Diet Coke :: DAT : cassette

 

[tms]

Rant Warning!!!

  But I really doubt most Joe Schmoes' would be able to tell the difference.

That's the problem with these "comparisons," isn't it.  "I gave my co-worker a glass of Chateau Lafitte and a glass of Gallo Chardonnay and he couldn't tell the difference" is less a statement about the quality of wines than about the low-lifes I work with.

Jeff

So what you're saying is that unless a person has $10,000 worth of home audio equipment they can't enjoy music and they are also a low-life? 

By definition anyone without $10k of home equipment is a low life, and you're one if you don't know that!

Seriously, I didn't make the original statement but I'll respond.  There are some people with $10k of equipment who still can't hear the difference because they lack listening skills.  There are many people who lack good listening skills because they've never heard good equipment -- I've seen so many user reviews where the reviewer can only compare products on the basis of volume capability and quantity of bass and goofy operational features.  And there are also many people (including a few putative audiophiles I've met) who have never heard a world class symphony orchestra or chamber ensemble live in a decent hall, live jazz ensemble, etc. and don't have a good frame of reference for judging gear.   And of course if you don't know what you're missing for any of these reasons, you don't have any desire to buy more revealtory (not necessarily more expensive) equipment.

Also, I should note that I've heard $10k and $100k systems that were unlistenable, and carefully assembled $2k systems that are thrilling.

Shifting gears slightly, there are also people who can hear the difference but just don't care.  I have a lot of sympathy (or is it empathy?) for this position.  Mother Zowie for example, can play three instruments, loves music and sometimes goes to hear it live, and can certainly hear the huge difference between my playback system and her Aiwa light-show-cum-stereo, but simply lacks any desire to own anything better.  I have a very entry level car stereo (required by the realities of NYC), a 1950 RCA 45 changer that I restored, and a 1913 victorola.  None of this gear measures up sonically to MD-SP.  And yet I have an absolute ball listening to them and get tremendous enjoyment from the music.  Similarly, some of the best times of my life were with friends in high school and college sitting around listening to badly set up low end component systems, a quality of experience that has never been matched sitting in the "sweet spot" of the high end systems I've owned playing overpriced audiophile reissues.

People who can't hear the difference between Hi-MD and uncompressed audio, because of lack of listening skills or lack of quality equipment and no intention of upgrading, and people who just don't care because they enjoy the music just about as much in mid-fi as they do in hi-fi might, probably SHOULD enjoy the conveniences and cost-savings of minimal gear and compressed audio.

But I can easily hear the difference between MD-SP and uncompressed recording.  I also care very much about the quality of my masters, as do others who listen to them.  So I'm not going to make compressed recordings absent extenuating circumstances (i.e., that or nothing).  Therefore, who gives a flying it is not significant to me and a number of other people who hang out here whether one of your co-workers heard a difference between the two formats.

+t for posting the samples, because I think they are educational even if I do not believe they make a meaningful point.

First off, thank you for the +t!

Second, I agree with you that it doesn't matter whether anyone can hear the difference.  For archiving, it's lossy and shouldn't be used as a primary recorder.  I totally agree.  But as you also said, it's better than nothing.  I carry mine as a backup to my JB3.  That's why I did the test, to see how much different it would be if I did have to use it.

I was hoping some people with good ears and equipment would weigh in on the differences here, but no one has.  That's the reason why I'm taking the comp out to my friends and family.

So if you did listen to the samples, please PM me with your answers, I'm really interested to see which ones you think are the MD compressed.  I won't put any names with answers, it will be anonymous.

[tmerk]

Hi tms,

I'm currently weighing pros & cons of HiMD vs. something like an Edirol R-09, so I appreciate your taking the time to put this together.  My hearing isn't what it once was, and I used cheezy playback equipment, but here goes.

Song 1 choices (Bach): 2 - B is the wav source; A is MD

Certainty:  3 - strong suspicion

Observations: 

There's a snap sound at 20 seconds in 1-2 that sounds more defined/crisper in the B version than in A.

On song 1-3, a whistling (flute?) comes in at 25 seconds.  It sounds a tad washed  out/supressed in the A version.




Song 2 choices (SRV): 1 - A is the wav source; B is MD

Certainty:  2.5 - between slight & strong suspicion

Observations:  The B versions sounded a shade flatter, as if the crispy highs were somehow lost.  I started with this set of songs since I've heard the tune many times.




Song 3 choices (Del McCoury): 1 - A is the wav source; B is MD

Certainty:  3 - strong suspicion

Observations:

3-1 A sounds fuller somehow.  E.g., the banjo pick attacks at the beginning of the song sound sharper on the A version than B. 

3-2 There seems to be more richness in the voice timbre for A vs. B.


Please describe your playback system:

IBM ThinkPad T23
Windows Media Player
KOSS ear plugs ($20)


Overall conclusion, both the CD and MD versions work for me, especially for casual listening.  I guess the crisper sounds of the source versions add a little sparkle, but I had to focus hard to catch it...and, of course, I could be wrong on my guesses in which case I'd spring for an HiMD.

Thanks,  Tom

[tms]

Hi tms,

I'm currently weighing pros & cons of HiMD vs. something like an Edirol R-09, so I appreciate your taking the time to put this together.  My hearing isn't what it once was, and I used cheezy playback equipment, but here goes.

Song 1 choices (Bach): 2 - B is the wav source; A is MD

Certainty:  3 - strong suspicion

Observations: 

There's a snap sound at 20 seconds in 1-2 that sounds more defined/crisper in the B version than in A.

On song 1-3, a whistling (flute?) comes in at 25 seconds.  It sounds a tad washed  out/supressed in the A version.




Song 2 choices (SRV): 1 - A is the wav source; B is MD

Certainty:  2.5 - between slight & strong suspicion

Observations:  The B versions sounded a shade flatter, as if the crispy highs were somehow lost.  I started with this set of songs since I've heard the tune many times.




Song 3 choices (Del McCoury): 1 - A is the wav source; B is MD

Certainty:  3 - strong suspicion

Observations:

3-1 A sounds fuller somehow.  E.g., the banjo pick attacks at the beginning of the song sound sharper on the A version than B. 

3-2 There seems to be more richness in the voice timbre for A vs. B.


Please describe your playback system:

IBM ThinkPad T23
Windows Media Player
KOSS ear plugs ($20)


Overall conclusion, both the CD and MD versions work for me, especially for casual listening.  I guess the crisper sounds of the source versions add a little sparkle, but I had to focus hard to catch it...and, of course, I could be wrong on my guesses in which case I'd spring for an HiMD.

Thanks,  Tom

Thanks for playing Tom!  I PM'd you on this.

[gl0bber]

While doing the comparison try not to fall into the easy trap of confusing MD with HiMD (especially in PCM mode).  They are worlds apart.  In fact, you will find that on playback the HiMD portables will outperform most portable CD players in almost every respect.