It's not just about the magneto-optical devices (all MD), but thier flash counterpart, so the bitrate argument doesn't apply
There's a chance that they may have some dedicated DSP for decoding thier own codec and software based ones for the rest (MP3 & all, driven by a [arm] cpu?) or if it's all software, chance is, the decoder could be just better optimized

It makes little difference if ATRAC is good or not if you can't freely create and play the encoded files wherever you please.

I agree but at least the iTunes AAC encoder is pretty high in quality thus making for some pretty good rips and downloads from the iTunes Store. If Sony was going to force their customers into using ATRAC3, the least they could have done was make a quality format.

You can find Vorbis players easily today. (and you can easily create and play Vorbis on all platforms)

I was unlucky with Atrac. A long time ago I considered to buy one of the first net-minidisc player. Well, after a lot of research I managed to find an Atrac codec for PC. I tested it, and I find its quality well under other codecs of that time.
I'm sure Sony has greatly improved it after that, but I've lost interest in it because of the poor result in tests even here at Hydrogenaudio and above all its lack of availability.

(I was very annoyed when Sony forced its users to *transcode* their mp3 to Atrac to be playable with its portable "mp3" players!!. Now I must always double-check before buying a Sony product... :/)

There is not any reason to use it.


What is the link between the codec and gapless playback? It is a feature of your player.

I'm not arguing ATRAC is the reason. Simply put, minidisc manufacturers know they're building devices for audio quality enthusiasts, so they use better audio hardware. I own an iPod shuffle and a Sharp minidisc. The same MP3 files sound a whole hell better when recorded in the minidisc via the optical connection than when listened using the iPod.

A comparison between MP3 and ATRAC is far from being fair. ATRAC is a much older algorithm. Also, ATRAC intends --and IMHO achieves-- to keep CD quality, not being a lossless algorithm. MP3 es the MPEG1 layer 3 algorithm, this means that originally was probably thought as an algorithm to encode speach in movies, and if later it has been used for encoding music is probably because, again, people indeed don't care how awful their music is sounding.

--Being fair, people also didn't care about that when they recorded their vynil records into casettes!--

Are you sure? I remember years ago a friend claiming that when he recorded CDs onto his minidisc (via analogue connection) they sounded 'heaps better', I think he described as being like 'listening through a tunnel that's only for your ears.' Perhaps some people actually perceive ATRAC artifacts as an improvement?

Interesting then that LAME encoded MP3 continues to compare very favourably with more 'modern' lossy codecs, especially at bitrates >130k.

A cassette was certainly a lot more practical if you intended on listening to music in your car, or on your 'walkman'. And the quality wasn't that dreadful, with Dolby NR. After all, millions of people enjoy listening to FM radio today, and its not even in the same league as CDs, MP3s or even vinyl.

I don't use ATRAC (MP3 man), but at 64kbps and a year ago, which is not too long in the lossy world...

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....45&hl=atrac

Better than LAME
Better than WMA9 Standard
Better than or equal to Nero LC-AAC

Possibly better than or equal to all of those in terms of battery life (I haven't done any tests in that department, just relying on numbers from Sony's user manual). If you have a Sony flash player and can stand SonicStage, I think ATRAC is worth investigation.

By the way, I just searched for "atrac" in the listening tests forum. My test was the third result. I assume that Roberto was suggesting that the answer to your question was so easily to hand.