![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Shouldn't be every occurence of "128 kbit/s" bitrate replaced with 132 kbps? Has someone more information? Picasso Pablo 11:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
.oma files, which add DRM encryption, use ATRAC encoding, but not always the other way around. For years, MiniDisc players did not have DRM and used ATRAC. It wasn't until recently, with the advent of the NetMD and recorders that could upload files through a non-audio interface, that DRM has been used.
Likewise, SCMS, which has always beeon used on the MD, as well as DAT and DCC and is also a form of DRM, isn't strictly part of ATRAC. Because of this, if Sony decided to make a video game system or car stereo or new type of telephone and needed to compress audio, they could use a chipset supporting ATRAC and not use any form of DRM if they wanted to.
-- Jkonrath 21:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Talk:MiniDisc. I think that there's a contradiction between the two articles.-- Amir E. Aharoni 21:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The double blind test referenced used VBR MP3, which is stated in the article. But VBR generally does sound better than constant bit rate, so surely to say that this test shows that 132 kbps ATRAC3 sounds worse than 128 kbps (CBR implied) is invalid. -- Nathan ( Talk) 00:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Without knowing the exact details of the tests (double blind or otherwise) it's impossible to really make a judgement about ATRAC. It is also essential to consider the bit rates as well. I have seen it claimed that Codec X is better than Codec Y, yet this may apply - if at all - only at low bit rates, or a specific bit rate. Thus WMA probably does sound better than MP3 at 32 kbps, but at 64 kbps there may be much less difference. At higher bit rates the differences between codecs tend to be slight.
One must also look into the conditions of each test more carefully. One test which was done by experts from the BBC, and several other broadcasting stations, and appears to have been done satisfactorily, "showed" that no one could tell the difference between original source material and audio encoded at 192kbps. Investigation shows that the original source material was only a few seconds long - as this presumably makes the testing feasible - and possibly did not contain audio sufficiently challenging to show up any significant differences. Most music will encode well - with most codecs - at 192kbps, but if you watch the encoder (say an MP3 encoder) operating in VBR mode on complex music you may notice that there are occasional patches which encode at 256 kbps. Listening to these patches usually reveals that these are critical audio highlights. Usually the edge is taken off these if they are encoded at 192kbps or lower.
One concern I have about ATRAC is the possibility of transcoding artefacts, as the audio may be repeatedly processed when using tools such as SonicStage. At times one wonders if sufficient care has been taken with even simple things, like anti-aliasing filters. However this is somewhat speculative, and without doing many tests one cannot claim that this is definitely the case.
There may well be problems with ATRAC, but without knowing the exact details of the test which "proved" this, then it's really unwise to make strong judgements.
Maybe it's best just to use whichever system works for you! I have heard some really good ATRAC recordings, and some really poor ones. At the end of the day, compression does discard information, so it's a compromise between perceived quality, storage space and transfer times, and users have to decide what's convenient for them.
David Martland 07:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
When I came to this article this afternoon looking for some technical information, the layout of the article caught my eye as it seems to fail to completely adhere to the NPOV requirements. Looking further, a number of lines were deleted as of April 1st and other lines changed(all without citations), significantly shifting the tone of the article. The revision prior to this also seems to be weighted however, so I am not convinced the edits of April 1st were malicious, but I am not an expert in compression in any way, so I can not objectively determine what the proper description should be.
Overall, I find this article lacking in both a proper NPOV position and in citations for the double-blind tests mentioned, and hence am nominating it for a NPOV check as part of a larger process to correct the shortcomings in this article.
User:163.120.75.137 15:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand that the ability to have gapless transitions between tracks is a major feature of ATRAC that is not supported by many other compression methods. To me, this is at least as important as differences in perceived sound quality that are so small that people argue interminably about them.
I think the article should refer to this in some way. Is there someone who could do that knowledgeably? Unfortunately, I'm not qualified to do that with the level of rigour that I would hope from Wikipedia.
83.70.87.26 05:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, enough with the indenting. What I'm saying is, MiniDisc is gapless, but ATRAC alone by itself isn't. -- KJ 01:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
atrac can suport gapless playback but only if you convert from a format that already have gapless like the red book from a audio cd, which means means that if you convert a audio cd to ATRAC it will have gapless playback in any player that suport the ATRAC format, i know this cause i have a nw e003 that´s not the best walkman, but it works, so the format is gapless, he just can´t take out the silence spots that the MP3 puts on the track, but you can, using a program like NERO wave editor, there you take the silence spot and save it in wave for an example, them you convert to ATRAC and enjoy gapless playback.
enven if what you re sayng is true, we can still enjoy ATRAC in gapless, and mp3 we can't, ATRAC won! end of history! cause mp3 can oly be gapless in pc in programs like windows media player because he starts the next song before the song is playng end, but if you put it in a portable player this does not work, but ATRAC is gapless in every WALKMAN! so you can enjoy gapless anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.U.N.K.E.R.0 ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
How about a list of computer programs that can play or encode ATRAC3 files? All this information about the codec is pretty much useless if you can’t actually use the codec. — Frungi 16:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
does anyone knows where i can find an AT3 to MP3 converter? or just a windows based AT3 player please? thanks. Wikiprout 02:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see if anyone would object to me adding a link to our site, The Lossless Audio Blog? Our site tries to bridge the gap between the forums and the various Lossless Audio Guides by providing information on getting started with lossless audio formats as well as current news and information. Because the Wiki pages for lossless audio formats are such a great place for those learning about the various formats I feel that our site compliments this and have heard from a lot of users voicing the same opinion. If you have any questions or concerns let me know.
Thanks for the consideration! Windmiller 12:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you think ATRAC contributes to Vendor lock-in? Would it help to have a category identifying Category:Non-interoperable systems? The issue is being voted on, please contribute your vote / opinion: here. Pgr94 23:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Below taken out because based on a guess without referance, not good practice for an encyclopedia!
While ATRAC3plus at 64 kbit/s is quite competitive, such a strong result seems quite surprising, considering that another Sony-funded test concluded that ATRAC3 at 132 kbit/s produces similar quality to MP3 at comparable bitrate (see upper section), and that it is unlikely that ATRAC3plus at 64 kbit/s and ATRAC3 at 132 kbit/s would provide similar quality citation needed.
This entry seems to be free from any comparison of ATRAC to other formats, or the availability of ATRAC on non-Sony gear. -- 24.249.108.133 05:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I browsed the article briefly, and as I understand it there are no software players (i.e. Windows- or Mac-based applications) for this format. Am I correct? Also, the article says, "Sony has all but dropped the ATRAC related codecs in the USA and Europe and their SonicStage powered 'Connect' Music Service (Sony's equivalent of iTunes) on 31 March 2008." Dropped in favor of what exactly? SharkD ( talk) 03:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Under the ATRAC1 section the information between the parentheses that has a citation needed tag, I think it's only trying to clarify the definition of transparency in this context. Perhaps if it were differently worded, for example, replacing the text between the parentheses with "transparency meaning that it is not possible for most listeners tell the difference between the encoded sound and it's source". Would this be more NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Phool ( talk • contribs) 08:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
This article busies itself ONLY with technical details, probably in far too much detail for an Wikipedia entry (WP:NOTMANUAL).
It should discuss ATRACs role in consumer media, its reception in the marketplace, competing standards (and products).
There is not a single word on how Sony's decision to use a proprietary format probably doomed its efforts to gain market share. Not a single word on the flop that is the minidisc. No general discussion around the folly of trying to hold back the digital revolution.
90.229.34.175 ( talk) 07:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Used in PS4, PSVita consoles. at9 extension. Can not find much info except FMOD and Audiokinetic Wwise middleware support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OxybelisR ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Adaptive Transform Acoustic Coding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Which file extensions do each ATRAC1, ATRAC3, ATRAC3plus, ATRAC9, and ATRAC Advanced Lossless use?
Filename extension .aa3 | .oma | .at3 | .at9
--
Chief38956 (
talk)
15:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
This section seems to be sourced solely on a bit of ad copy and/or runs into WP:PRIMARY issues. With the format being briefly lived and, if forum posts are anything to go by, limited to PC playback and barely put to use, it seems impossible to find a better source. Should a {{ Promotional source}} tag just be tacked on and left to languish? — VariousDeliciousCheeses ( talk) 13:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved as requested. Dekimasu よ! 05:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Adaptive Transform Acoustic Coding → ATRAC – Wouldn't it be better for the title to be simply ATRAC based on WP:COMMON + considering these initials aren't used for another topic + this title format is also used for WAV and FLAC instead of the full names? Morita Akio ( talk) 11:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
"All digital Walkman players outside Japan no longer worked with ATRAC after September 2007"
Does that mean 'Outside Japan, all digital Walkman players people had bought stopped playing tracks in ATRAC in September 2007' (similar to the way that Microsoft's DRM schemes have stopped people using things they had bought for their music player/ebook reader at least twice) or 'they could no longer buy new ATRAC-encoded tracks'? The reference probably makes it clear, but it's in Japanese and I don't want to rely on a not very good machine translation. Lovingboth ( talk) 21:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Shouldn't be every occurence of "128 kbit/s" bitrate replaced with 132 kbps? Has someone more information? Picasso Pablo 11:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
.oma files, which add DRM encryption, use ATRAC encoding, but not always the other way around. For years, MiniDisc players did not have DRM and used ATRAC. It wasn't until recently, with the advent of the NetMD and recorders that could upload files through a non-audio interface, that DRM has been used.
Likewise, SCMS, which has always beeon used on the MD, as well as DAT and DCC and is also a form of DRM, isn't strictly part of ATRAC. Because of this, if Sony decided to make a video game system or car stereo or new type of telephone and needed to compress audio, they could use a chipset supporting ATRAC and not use any form of DRM if they wanted to.
-- Jkonrath 21:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Talk:MiniDisc. I think that there's a contradiction between the two articles.-- Amir E. Aharoni 21:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The double blind test referenced used VBR MP3, which is stated in the article. But VBR generally does sound better than constant bit rate, so surely to say that this test shows that 132 kbps ATRAC3 sounds worse than 128 kbps (CBR implied) is invalid. -- Nathan ( Talk) 00:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Without knowing the exact details of the tests (double blind or otherwise) it's impossible to really make a judgement about ATRAC. It is also essential to consider the bit rates as well. I have seen it claimed that Codec X is better than Codec Y, yet this may apply - if at all - only at low bit rates, or a specific bit rate. Thus WMA probably does sound better than MP3 at 32 kbps, but at 64 kbps there may be much less difference. At higher bit rates the differences between codecs tend to be slight.
One must also look into the conditions of each test more carefully. One test which was done by experts from the BBC, and several other broadcasting stations, and appears to have been done satisfactorily, "showed" that no one could tell the difference between original source material and audio encoded at 192kbps. Investigation shows that the original source material was only a few seconds long - as this presumably makes the testing feasible - and possibly did not contain audio sufficiently challenging to show up any significant differences. Most music will encode well - with most codecs - at 192kbps, but if you watch the encoder (say an MP3 encoder) operating in VBR mode on complex music you may notice that there are occasional patches which encode at 256 kbps. Listening to these patches usually reveals that these are critical audio highlights. Usually the edge is taken off these if they are encoded at 192kbps or lower.
One concern I have about ATRAC is the possibility of transcoding artefacts, as the audio may be repeatedly processed when using tools such as SonicStage. At times one wonders if sufficient care has been taken with even simple things, like anti-aliasing filters. However this is somewhat speculative, and without doing many tests one cannot claim that this is definitely the case.
There may well be problems with ATRAC, but without knowing the exact details of the test which "proved" this, then it's really unwise to make strong judgements.
Maybe it's best just to use whichever system works for you! I have heard some really good ATRAC recordings, and some really poor ones. At the end of the day, compression does discard information, so it's a compromise between perceived quality, storage space and transfer times, and users have to decide what's convenient for them.
David Martland 07:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
When I came to this article this afternoon looking for some technical information, the layout of the article caught my eye as it seems to fail to completely adhere to the NPOV requirements. Looking further, a number of lines were deleted as of April 1st and other lines changed(all without citations), significantly shifting the tone of the article. The revision prior to this also seems to be weighted however, so I am not convinced the edits of April 1st were malicious, but I am not an expert in compression in any way, so I can not objectively determine what the proper description should be.
Overall, I find this article lacking in both a proper NPOV position and in citations for the double-blind tests mentioned, and hence am nominating it for a NPOV check as part of a larger process to correct the shortcomings in this article.
User:163.120.75.137 15:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand that the ability to have gapless transitions between tracks is a major feature of ATRAC that is not supported by many other compression methods. To me, this is at least as important as differences in perceived sound quality that are so small that people argue interminably about them.
I think the article should refer to this in some way. Is there someone who could do that knowledgeably? Unfortunately, I'm not qualified to do that with the level of rigour that I would hope from Wikipedia.
83.70.87.26 05:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, enough with the indenting. What I'm saying is, MiniDisc is gapless, but ATRAC alone by itself isn't. -- KJ 01:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
atrac can suport gapless playback but only if you convert from a format that already have gapless like the red book from a audio cd, which means means that if you convert a audio cd to ATRAC it will have gapless playback in any player that suport the ATRAC format, i know this cause i have a nw e003 that´s not the best walkman, but it works, so the format is gapless, he just can´t take out the silence spots that the MP3 puts on the track, but you can, using a program like NERO wave editor, there you take the silence spot and save it in wave for an example, them you convert to ATRAC and enjoy gapless playback.
enven if what you re sayng is true, we can still enjoy ATRAC in gapless, and mp3 we can't, ATRAC won! end of history! cause mp3 can oly be gapless in pc in programs like windows media player because he starts the next song before the song is playng end, but if you put it in a portable player this does not work, but ATRAC is gapless in every WALKMAN! so you can enjoy gapless anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.U.N.K.E.R.0 ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
How about a list of computer programs that can play or encode ATRAC3 files? All this information about the codec is pretty much useless if you can’t actually use the codec. — Frungi 16:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
does anyone knows where i can find an AT3 to MP3 converter? or just a windows based AT3 player please? thanks. Wikiprout 02:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see if anyone would object to me adding a link to our site, The Lossless Audio Blog? Our site tries to bridge the gap between the forums and the various Lossless Audio Guides by providing information on getting started with lossless audio formats as well as current news and information. Because the Wiki pages for lossless audio formats are such a great place for those learning about the various formats I feel that our site compliments this and have heard from a lot of users voicing the same opinion. If you have any questions or concerns let me know.
Thanks for the consideration! Windmiller 12:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you think ATRAC contributes to Vendor lock-in? Would it help to have a category identifying Category:Non-interoperable systems? The issue is being voted on, please contribute your vote / opinion: here. Pgr94 23:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Below taken out because based on a guess without referance, not good practice for an encyclopedia!
While ATRAC3plus at 64 kbit/s is quite competitive, such a strong result seems quite surprising, considering that another Sony-funded test concluded that ATRAC3 at 132 kbit/s produces similar quality to MP3 at comparable bitrate (see upper section), and that it is unlikely that ATRAC3plus at 64 kbit/s and ATRAC3 at 132 kbit/s would provide similar quality citation needed.
This entry seems to be free from any comparison of ATRAC to other formats, or the availability of ATRAC on non-Sony gear. -- 24.249.108.133 05:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I browsed the article briefly, and as I understand it there are no software players (i.e. Windows- or Mac-based applications) for this format. Am I correct? Also, the article says, "Sony has all but dropped the ATRAC related codecs in the USA and Europe and their SonicStage powered 'Connect' Music Service (Sony's equivalent of iTunes) on 31 March 2008." Dropped in favor of what exactly? SharkD ( talk) 03:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Under the ATRAC1 section the information between the parentheses that has a citation needed tag, I think it's only trying to clarify the definition of transparency in this context. Perhaps if it were differently worded, for example, replacing the text between the parentheses with "transparency meaning that it is not possible for most listeners tell the difference between the encoded sound and it's source". Would this be more NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Phool ( talk • contribs) 08:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
This article busies itself ONLY with technical details, probably in far too much detail for an Wikipedia entry (WP:NOTMANUAL).
It should discuss ATRACs role in consumer media, its reception in the marketplace, competing standards (and products).
There is not a single word on how Sony's decision to use a proprietary format probably doomed its efforts to gain market share. Not a single word on the flop that is the minidisc. No general discussion around the folly of trying to hold back the digital revolution.
90.229.34.175 ( talk) 07:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Used in PS4, PSVita consoles. at9 extension. Can not find much info except FMOD and Audiokinetic Wwise middleware support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OxybelisR ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Adaptive Transform Acoustic Coding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Which file extensions do each ATRAC1, ATRAC3, ATRAC3plus, ATRAC9, and ATRAC Advanced Lossless use?
Filename extension .aa3 | .oma | .at3 | .at9
--
Chief38956 (
talk)
15:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
This section seems to be sourced solely on a bit of ad copy and/or runs into WP:PRIMARY issues. With the format being briefly lived and, if forum posts are anything to go by, limited to PC playback and barely put to use, it seems impossible to find a better source. Should a {{ Promotional source}} tag just be tacked on and left to languish? — VariousDeliciousCheeses ( talk) 13:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved as requested. Dekimasu よ! 05:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Adaptive Transform Acoustic Coding → ATRAC – Wouldn't it be better for the title to be simply ATRAC based on WP:COMMON + considering these initials aren't used for another topic + this title format is also used for WAV and FLAC instead of the full names? Morita Akio ( talk) 11:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
"All digital Walkman players outside Japan no longer worked with ATRAC after September 2007"
Does that mean 'Outside Japan, all digital Walkman players people had bought stopped playing tracks in ATRAC in September 2007' (similar to the way that Microsoft's DRM schemes have stopped people using things they had bought for their music player/ebook reader at least twice) or 'they could no longer buy new ATRAC-encoded tracks'? The reference probably makes it clear, but it's in Japanese and I don't want to rely on a not very good machine translation. Lovingboth ( talk) 21:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)