1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NWHD5: Bitrates and Battery Life

Discussion in 'Headphones, Earphones & Portable Music' started by Giant Rabbit, Jul 27, 2005.

  1. Giant Rabbit

    Giant Rabbit
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    26
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    Ive ben lurking for a long time here - great place you have here with intelligent posters. Im afraid I don't have the same degree of audio knowledge as most of you but Id appreciate a little help on ripping tracks in preperation for my new Sony HD player.

    My 20GB Black NWHD5 with three year guarantee from Comet is on it's way to me soon (£215 in total which isnt bad considering that a month ago I just got a full £160 refund for an MD from Comet which I bought almost three years ago on which the battery flap was unhinged - they couldn't fix it and I get my cash back :D ) I am looking to rip all my CDs but am wondering what bitrate to do it in. I only have some £18 Sony earphones from Argos which I like but am thinking of getting the £30 pair (E71?) at some point. I like mostly Rock music - prog and ambient stuff especially so gapless playback was a must for me.

    I have downloaded Sonicstage 3.2 and wish to ask how on the portable player atracplus at the new 128kbps and 160kbps compares with Atrac 3 at 132kbps and also how those they all compare with MP3 quality levels. Also, what is the battery life of the NWHD5 if you use these bitrates or 192 instead of 64kbps? Will playing at 128kbps reduce the battery life by 50% since the unit is reading twice as much data? For all of you who use higher bitrates, how much battery life do you squeeze out of it?

    Thanks in advance for the help - can't wait for my first ever HDD player to arrive next week :)
     
  2. shadowritten

    shadowritten
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    You're gonna laugh, but try this:

    ATRAC3Plus at just ... wait for it ... 64kbps!

    Think I'm mad/wrong/deaf? I have a VAST classical collection - and if any type of music is going to expose flaws in bitrate encoding, this is it. Yet today, I ripped a CD of Vivaldi violin concerti (Viktoria Mullova, Onyx label), and WOW!!! Unbelievably good sound quality (plus, of course, tiny files leading to more music on my HD5H and more juice outta my battery).

    Try it, then tell me I'm right.
     
  3. sxc

    sxc
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    56
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Ratings:
    +4
    Don't rip the CDs at 160k or 128k Atrac3plus since you won't be able to transfer them to the HD5 without transcoding. Maybe there will be a firmware update to allow the HD5 to accept all the new bitrates, but don't hold your breath.
     
  4. Giant Rabbit

    Giant Rabbit
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    26
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    I was under the impression that a firmware update will soon allow the NWHD5 to cope with the new bitrates. Has anyone given it a shot?

    I dunno about Atrac+64kbps - would feel a bit of a waste when my old MD was running at 132kbps Atrac3 and my new player would have lower quality sound.
     
  5. shadowritten

    shadowritten
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Not so, my large rabbity friend! ATRAC3Plus is a newer, superior technology to ATRAC3 - so, smaller files and less bits but equal quality.

    Go on, try it. You know you ought to!
     
  6. TheBigLebowski

    TheBigLebowski
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I agree, I use 64kbps atracplus and it sounds bloody good to me...My bro has an ipod and uses 128 mp3 and my hd5 sounds equally good if not better....
     
  7. HD3

    HD3
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Might be something todo with the amount of frequencies used at one time in classical music. As theres generally less in classical than more mordern music with synthesizers and other rubbish which fill the spectrum with sound ending up in a mass of sound!

    With less sounds then theres less a need for "bits"!

    Thats my guess why it still sounds good.
     
  8. shadowritten

    shadowritten
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Didn't know that, HD3 - cheers!

    I've also got pop, rock, folk, new age and a few embarrassing soundtrack albums on my player, all at 64kbps, and all sound equally compelling. It's something to do with the longer samples the ATRAC3Plus codec takes before dropping information (I think ...)
     
  9. Giant Rabbit

    Giant Rabbit
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    26
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    Well I may yet be convinced by the 64 atrac plus and I imagine that sound quality on my MiniDisc was reduced by the fact that almost all my MiniDiscs were converted from 128kpbsMP3 to LP2. I think the dilemma I have is presenting itself because I am eager to notice an improvement of sound quality after spending £200. :D
     
  10. shadowritten

    shadowritten
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    What's the worst that can happen? You rip a couple of CDs at 64, decide whether or not you like 'em, if not, try a different bitrate. Nothing lost - everything to gain!

    Good luck!
     
  11. extremelydodgy

    extremelydodgy
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,219
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +61
    Funnily enough, to me classical has been the worst music to test ATRAC3+ 64K with. Lots of aliasing going on in the background. On a technical level it's much more impressive than MP3... just short of 128K MP3 (using an older codec) performance at half the bitrate. But in terms of 'quality' the word doesn't really have that much meaning at 64K ATRAC3+, just as 128K MP3 isn't the last word in quality.


    132K ATRAC3 and 64K ATRAC3+ don't sound hugely different, although ATRAC3 has the last word in quality. However ATRAC3 was a bit of a lemon IMO, as it didn't represent a major improvement over even mediocre MP3 codecs.
     
  12. shadowritten

    shadowritten
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'll go with you on that. I appreciate, of course, that 64kbps is very far indeed from being technically any good - but boy, it doesn't half do a good job of convincing you it's better than it really is!
     

Share This Page

Loading...