Jake's recent post about Sharp ATRAC has prompted me to do my own little
nonscientific check to see if I can tell anything different between
recordings made on my two entry level models: A Sony JE 320 and a Sharp 702mk
portable.
Ever since I got the Sharp I thought the recordings I made on it didn't
sound quite right compared to the Sony records. Something I thought I
perceived was that all MDs I had, regardless of what they were recorded on,
sounded more ... colored? ... in the Sharp. I just chalked it up to the
difference in circuitry between my stereo setup and the portable's headphone
jack. But now I'm not so sure.
So here's what I did. I took two 35 second samples from two different CDs:
The first 35 seconds of Aaron Copeland's Hoedown from the Rodeo CD and the
first 35 seconds from the Cardigan's Erase/Rewind, from the Grand Turismo CD.
I recorded each sample digitally from the same CD player using the optical
out, then recorded each sample in analog on the Sony (I planned to do it on
the Sharp, too, but I couldn't find the right cable). I did all the playback
in the Sony, then in Sharp.
I certainly don't have an audiophile setup, so there's no real super-clean
environment for me to do this test. Everything passes through a Radio Shack
mixer, for god's sake. :) I did use my headphones (Sennheiser 525s) because
my speakers are very average.
Remember, this is completely unscientific and totally based on what I
thought I heard at the time.
Digitally speaking, I think the differences I heard would be insignificant
to most listeners. Had I not had my headphones on, I am confident I couldn't
have heard a difference between the Sony and Sharp digital copies.
What I did notice from the Sharp was... How can I describe it? A gurgling,
perhaps, during certain passages. It was similar in sound to the noise you
get when you listen to lower quality MP3s, only not so apparent and annoying.
That I can pick out even on the absolute cheapest of stereo systems. This, I
could barely, *barely* discern on these passages. It was most evident during
the brief loud passage on the orchestral piece, and under the sound of a
cymbal at the very beginning of the Cardigans song. One other thing I did
notice about the Sharp was that the "volume" of the music seemed to be
inconsistent with the reference (CD) and the Sony. IT was almost like it
fluttered a bit up and down a few times. Once again, it was only evident when
doing a back and forth comparison with either the Sony recording or the CD.
I personally think, overall, the difference between the two ATRACs on these
two test samples was negligible. The Sony just didn't seem to have that
'gurgling' noise, or at least it was more repressed than the Sharp copies.
Either way it's nothing to nitpick, I don't think, unless the absolute
accuracy is paramount -- and then I'd go with DAT instead :P
Anyway, I wish I could have tested the analog input on the Sharp. I was
amazed (and disappointed) at the poor quality of the analog inputs on my
Sony. I had the unit for a few months before I had a CD player with an
optical out, so all my recordings were analog. In that sense, they sounded
fine... But doing an A/B comparison to digital? Ouch, BIG difference. The
analog was slightly muffled and the high end was noticeably lacking clarity.
Something tells me that the Sharp would probably be even worse, but who
knows. I'm certainly not using nice cables for the analog side -- just the
ones that came with the unit. I wonder if nicer cables (like Monster cables
or something) would really help?
Just for kicks, I encoded the 35 second orchestral sample to MP3, digitally
via a CD ripper program. I encoded it using BladeEnc.dll in Windows, at 320
kbps dual stereo, and 128 kbps dual stereo. I did dual stereo to try to give
the MP3 format an advantage in how wide a sound stage it could present,
because those joint stereo encodes I've done in the past just sound...
Narrow, I guess...
Because I have an old, slightly noisy sound card (why yes, it IS a Creative
Labs product) I can't judge it the same because it's coming through a
different DAC... But at 320 kbps, it did seem as flawless as either the Sony
or Sharp sample. The 128 kbps fared much worse. I knew that this bitrate
squeezed too much out of music, but I had no idea just how bad it could be
compared to a) CD or b) either MD sample. Assuming I could do a fair
comparison of my MP3 samples versus the MD and CD, I would still rank 128
kbps dead last, because it just sounds so damn awful.
BTW, I was surprised to not be able to tell a difference in *overall*
quality when I played the samples in the Sharp. It may have been due to the
fact the volume just isn't loud enough to drive these big headphones, who
knows. I coulda swore in the past it made everything sound a little
different, maybe it is just me after all.
To rank them all in my completely unscientific preferential way:
* Sony digital-in is best, but /barely/
* Sharp digital-in a close second, I certainly can't tell a difference in
casual listening
* 320 kbps dual stereo MP3 - even through my sound card it was brighter and
cleaner than the analog Sony sample
* Sony analog-in - not too bright, a bit muffled but still much better than a
standard cassette tape with Dolby B
* 128 kbps dual stereo MP3 - ick, ick, ick, I'd much rather put up with the
warble and hiss of a $12 tape player than an MP3 player if this is the best
sound you could get out of one and still put in 60 minutes of music!
Comments, suggestions, etc.? :)
~~Zach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
