Music Companies Bemoan New High-Cap Portables 347
An anonymous reader writes "New Scientist reports: 'The music industry this week condemned the launch of two recording systems that will let people copy between 30 and 100 hours of music onto a single disc.'" The Sony system is supposed to use "ultra-efficient data compression system used in MiniDiscs" to fit "30 hours of MP3 music" on a CD-R. (I thought MD used ATRAC rather than MP3, and that ATRAC's standard bitrate was 285.3 Kbps -- can some MD gurus bring us up to speed?) Philips' system skips CDs, and instead uses a DVD burner, with the resulting disks playable in a to-be-released portable player. I wonder what kind of DRM features the companies will use to cripple each system.
ATRAC3 (Score:5, Informative)
MDLP (Score:4, Informative)
Ultra-efficient ATRAC? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:MDLP (Score:5, Informative)
However, I'd like to clarify that the md and mdlp units use the same media, with the same mechanical recording system - the change is in the bitstream and the playing software.
I would suspect that sony is probably placing ATRAC3 on a CD and playing that. Simply an issue of software which is generally cheaper to develop than hardware.
Sony's encoding (Score:5, Informative)
Sony is currently using ATRAC3. It is capable of encoding up to 320 minutes of stereo audio at a bitrate of 36kbps.
To quote from minidisc.org: "[ATRAC3]differs substantially from the original, existing ATRAC system, having twice the transform window size (1024 samples [23.2ms], vs. 512 samples [11.6ms]), encoding tone components separately from other spectra, splitting the input signal into 4 bands instead of 3, and using Huffman coding on the final bit stream to squeeze out redundancy." However, Sony has probably gone to a new version of ATRAC3 for this new application of writing to CDs.
Sony has basically scrapped the idea of using minidiscs as a data storage medium, at least to the genral public. However, Sony did release a digital camera that wrote to MDdata discs, and there are some professional recorders that record multitrack MD data discs. It is interesting that they're only now starting to apply ATRAC technology outside of the MD format.
For more info on MD and ATRAC encoding, i reccomend Minidisc.org
Try this... (Score:0, Informative)
OpenMG (Score:4, Informative)
Expect as least that much hassle with the Sony unit. Do a search for "OpenMG" for the full horror story.
-P.
Re:ATRAC3 (Score:5, Informative)
MP3s encoded at 128kbps CBR (constant bit rate) using an encoder such as Xing WILL result in poor-quality mp3s, easily discernible by the averagle listen using poor quality equipment. However, an mp3 encoded using a recent version of LAME (i recommend 3.90.2) and "--alt-preset standard" will find that the resulting files are virtually indistinguishable from the source CDs (even to audiophiles), at an average bitrate of around 192kbps. This is superiour compression to ATRAC, and the LAME psychoacoustic model is significantly better tuned IMHO.
For more information on ALL lossy and lossless codecs by people who really know their stuff, check out the message boards at Hydrogen Audio [hydrogenaudio.org].
ATRAC, ATRAC3 bitrates (Score:2, Informative)
Codec is used in Sony's Minidisc recorders and the RealAudio 8 compression format.
Versions used by Minidisc:
There are different implementations, they are called:
They have the same bitstream syntax (ATRAC1), but different quality (like MP3's Xing vs. Lame). ATRAC-1 had many problems (pre-echos, metallic sound, 15 kHz bandwidth). The ATRAC-3 implementation was the first with good quality.
Versions used by RealAudio 8:
Links:
Re:so.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Remotely comparable with Vorbis? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:ATRAC3 (Score:5, Informative)
>>>>>>>>
I don't know about that. With my Sony D66's (not quite audiophile quality, but very nice) I can hear a significant difference between a 192 kbps MP3 and the CD. At 256 kbps, I really have to be looking for it, so that's what I encode at. Through my speakers (Klipsch 4.1's, again not audiophile quality, but nice as far as PC speakers go) I can't really tell the difference at 192 kbps unless it's a type of song that MP3 just doesn't encode well. I think the main thing here is that: a) headphones will reveal quality differences much more than comparably priced speakers, and b) PC audio systems suck enough that a good pair of speakers aren't the bottleneck when comparing compression standards. If you go to a pair of really accurate headphones (like the in-ear ER-4's) even non-audiophiles will hear the difference. And at less than $300, it's not like we're talking about some $5000 home theater system here.
Re:I Must Be Missing Something (Score:3, Informative)
Portable + MP3 DVDs = Sony MPDAP20U (no DRM) (Score:3, Informative)
Re:ATRAC3 (Score:1, Informative)
Hi, the parent post was referring to alt-preset standard, which is a VBR encoding method. You can't simply say that a --alt-preset-standard song is 192kbps, it will vary between 128-320 kbps in my experience. Whatever method it uses to determine the correct bitrate for a particular segment is very good, and has never caused any artifacts for me. Please give it a try, and don't try to compare it to CBR bitrates.
Re:Sony is Schizophrenic (Score:5, Informative)
As Slashdotters have been saying for a while now, technological advancements like MP3, etc. will eventually force the music labels to change their business models, no matter how hard they kick and scream. They may win concessions that will piss off people like those here, but at some point they simply will not be able to sell nearly as many CDs at the same high prices they've been pushing, no matter what. Now, here are Sony and Philips, who not only sell creative works, but also sell the hardware needed to play the media. While their music publishing arms might suffer, the overall conglomerates still stand to stay in business even if music sales plummet to zero, since they'll still sell the hardware needed to play it. Suppose they decide to just write off the already-dwindling gravy train from publishing, and instead go all out on the hardware, seeing it as where the real money either already lies or eventually will?
Of course, somebody will figure out a way to make money from the music itself (even if it can no longer generate the kinds of revenues it has in the past). Even so, tech changes should ultimately transform the business; tech changes have always signalled changes in business models, and while some will die, others will arise. I just hope the music publishers don't gunk things up too much with the legislation they'll undoubtedly buy in their death throes as they try to stave it off.
Re:I Must Be Missing Something (Score:3, Informative)
Some formats that sounds great at 96 Kbps:
AAC-LC (from MPEG-4) (the one in QuickTime 6.1 is pretty good, but not the one from 6.0)
WMA9 2-pass VBR
RealAudio 8 Stereo Music
Ogg Vorbis and a tweaked lame --abr can certainly do more than good enough for workout music at 96 Kbps as well.
Some of the next generation stuff, like AAC-SBR, shoot for "sounds like CD quality" at 48 Kbps or lower.
Re:Sony is Schizophrenic (Score:2, Informative)
Wired did an article [wired.com] about the fighting within Sony. Basic idea: Sony can keep fighting itself and fail, or it can embrace new technology and win.
Re:ATRAC3 (Score:2, Informative)
You're right mostly (Score:1, Informative)
A big drawback of this whole deal is you are essentially taking a lossy compression and compressing it again with another lossy compression. It sounds decent if you start with a pretty good MP3, but low quality MP3s recorded onto a MD player sound like crap. CDs ripped right to the MD player sound tight though.