Jump to content

Hi-LP -> Mp3 64kbps ???

Rate this topic


xeroxide

Recommended Posts

Ok, I've heard many discussions about comparisons etc (mainly of Hi-sp vs 256kbs mp3) but what about Hi-LP vs Mp3 64kbps?

I mean, they are at the same bit-rate, both have inferiour quality when compared to something like pcm but... how do they compare (in all truth and honesty - i know there are a lot of fans out there supporting one format or another) to each other. I want your honest opinion.

By giving a comment the "both sux" sounds both elitist and ignorant of the fact that it IS A RATIO OF approx 20:1!!!!

In my honest opinion, mp3 fails at this bit-rate, on any headphones (cheaper sets sound better in this case blink.gif ). I have always been a fan of Mp3 (until i found out about ogg vorbis and i have never looked back!) I have the Imation Ripgo Mp3 burner and it was great. at 64kbs however, wma proved to be more sucessfull. When I got my md, i was curious to see how well this wonderful ratio of 20:1 would compare. I was delighted!. I listen to a lot of classical (i play violin) and for once, a violin solo does not sound tinny when playing on the higher strings.

I have tried different mp3 encoders and the best was (suprise suprise) LAME.

i found it more bareable to convert to Mp3-pro rather than the standard mp3 however, it still does not quite match the quality of atrac3+

I believe this would be the best format for a ratio of 20:1 if it were not for the stupid copywrite protections sony have put in place.

Older mp3 encoders I only shudder when i hear what it does to the music at this compression level. having perfect pitch, I hear a piece supposedly in Dmaj modulate to different keys (and sometimes even different speeds!!!!) yes, Mp3 has gone a long way, but can go further still as proven by Sonys format. Damn sony for the protection devices which only hinder a brilliant and useful piece of technology

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i believe that the kind of compression that atrac does is much better than the comporession for mp3. atrac makes things softer as the bitrate decreases, but mp3 garbages them up. atrac3+ 48 kbots is much better tha 48 kbits mp3, in my opinion (although i do my stuff in 192 kbps tongue.gif, i sometimes do 48 to distribute on the net)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi-LP is ok for music on the move, but if you listen to it properly there are loads of artifacts in the sound (on par with 128kbs MP3 in my opinion.)

Putting music through the PC converted to 132kbs (LP2) delivers much better results. If only you could do this with the recorder without the very awkward sonicstage software... :wacky:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, yeah. Sony should get rid of SonicStage entirely.

The interface is cluttery, it's buggy and worst of all, its combined too much in one to be of any use (does anyone actually use sonicstage as a player of choice... i don't think so!)

When I listen to music, it's usually travelling in the city. Ambient sounds sometimes almost overpower, so quality... is not that much of a concern.

What is a concern is that I must fit all my music on one disc (will only fit with Hi-LP compression)

Would like to try it in LP2 but since it's a 1gb disc, i don't think that's possible since the format can only be Hi-md mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like PCM. PCM likes me. :grin:

Anyhow, I would definitely say that ATRAC3+ 64kbps is superior to MP3 at the same bitrate, even a good MP3 encoder. MP3 is rarely used at such low bitrates, I guess no one thought to make it sound like less crap than...

Any codec that compresses something 20:1 is not going to sound good, no matter what you do. I think Sony actually put more effort than most to make low-bitrate tracks sound better, but still... I would not listen to music at anything below Hi-SP (if I even had a Hi-MD unit) and probably would record everything PCM if I could obtain enough discs. Although, if I did that, I'd just get an iPod, because then I'd have to use SonicStage. Ugh. I like my MD deck.

Listen to PCM. It is your friend! :laugh:

Would like to try it in LP2 but since it's a 1gb disc, i don't think that's possible since the format can only be Hi-md mode.

You can record to Hi-MD 1gb discs in LP2 mode.

However, the SonicStage encoders are much, much worse than the hardware encoders inside the MD unit itself. Ye have been warned... :happy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of my first posts but I am a long term MD user.

I've just bought myself a MZ-NH600 as a casual mobile user. Cheap but adequate

I've recently started to use the ATRAC3+ 64kbps format and I'm very impressed with the quality. Side by Side to the CD you can tell the difference being less open and more compressed (makes sense) but for the everyday user the quality is more than adequate. I have made use of the 48kbps format but the extra 16kbps makes a world of difference and is worthwhile. I've found 256kbps very good quality but on the move 64kbps is the daddy offering excellent quality with stacks of storage.

As for PCM fine for CD format on a good quality hi-fi but on the move it is a joke and not worth the effort. I'd buy a cd walkman if I wanted PCM for listening to audio.

I use Sonicstage, works alright for me. What other alternatives are there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand how anyone can say that 64kbps is shit, sounds perfectly fine on the move, certainly atleast equal to 128bit MP3 to me. Yeah put it through a decent hi-fi and it sounds pretty pants. 256kbps sounds pretty close to the the original to me. PCM is certainly overkill for a portable storage solution.

I'm sitting at my PC with a £150 speaker/sub/creative audigy setup 64kbps is fine to me for everyday listening. Transfer to the original MDSP and it sounds crap on my £1k hifi.

With the ability to get many albums onto a standard MD the 64 format it great, haven't got any 1GB disks yet but will probably switch to 256 when I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sbetsho, there are some people that believe they can (and may be able to) hear the difference between a PCM and a Hi-SP recording and believe that bitrate is everything and the codec choice makes no difference when encoding music.

Personally I use Hi-LP for most of my music as I usually play it on the move (I have audio books in 48K though), I do have a few discs in Hi-SP for the times when I want to listen to music & not just fill in the travelling gaps. Personally I cant hear the difference between Hi-SP and PCM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can hear the difference between linear PCM recordings and legacy SP. I can hear the difference, but it's not annoying. It's not a terribly bad difference. The difference between Hi-SP and PCM is much more marked. Hi-SP artifacts tend to be metallic and flangey and are slightly annoying, but nothing near Hi-LP. Hi-LP literally fatigues my ears. (FIY, I don't own a Hi-MD unit, so all these tests are based on listening from inside SonicStage with PC sound card.)

I blame you, Skyther, for making me so picky!

But, if I can, I'll listen to the original CD. I use my DS8 and MD for on the go because it's almost impossible to make that thing skip, it fits well in pockets (even in stretchy low-rise jeans with tiny pockets!) and it's really cute. When I'm at home, I listen to the orignal CD.

Right now, while my amp's still being built, I use my PC with my DT440s connected to listen to tunes.

Honestly, if it wasn't so huge and didn't skip like a mofo, I'd use my beat up old D-33 and my Shure E2cs for portable use. It has a nice sound to it.

:sleep: D-33 skips too easily even to use in my car... damn my bad shocks! :grin:

95 mins of music or 8 hours with slightly worse quality (I'd take the latter, altough 34 hours of ok-quality is even better)

Sony's organizational system for tracks on MDs (Groups) is horrid. I'd honestly hate to have to use that for 8 hours of music, much less 34. It's much easier to have one MD for one album. I'll admit, Hi-MD discs are very, very hard to come by... so I can understand your point of view.

But I don't agree with it. :laugh:

Maybe this is the RIAA's evil plan... to addict us all so hopelessly to bit-perfect quality that we'll never download MP3s ever again. If so, they did a good job on me... I've been buying CDs like a good girl. (Used, of course, and off eBay, but still not stolen. :grin: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having just acquired a NZ- NH700 I have conducted a number of A/B test to determine which compression I should use. I have compared the NZ-700, with my old MZ-E909 player using for reference the original CD playing through my domestic Cyrus 8 amp, Cyrus 6 CD player, connected to the amp via a high quality audio interconnect, and Wharfdale Pacific Evo 30 speakers. (Not sure if this equipment is sold in the US so for reference this combination came highly recommended by a number of UK HiFi mags, auditioned very well and cost the equivalent of $3500 so is a half decent reference system). I also have had for a number of years a Sony MXD D3 CD/MD player recorder which is connected to the amp with inexpensive phono cables. The NZ 700 & E909 were connected to the aux input of the MXD D3 which was used to equalize the volumes. The sound was set to normal on both units (there is no tone control or equalization on the Cyrus) and I compared Atrac3 and Atrac 3 plus and concluded that Atrac3 plus 64K was a very acceptable compromise so started to transfer my CD collection to my hard drive using SS 2.0 initially and the last few days 2.2. However reading this debate and others I have seen this week I began to have doubts about my choice of HIMD LP so I have just retested everything. And guess what I have come to the same conclusion. In fact, in my opinion, having been around when we were having a similar debate about vinyl and CDs, the difference between HIMD SP and the original is almost impossible to define or detect consistently in blind A/B tests. There is a small lack of gloss and dynamic and a slight softening using HIMD LP but it is only small. At this point I was using a standard Maxell XL-II 80 Pro MD. However when I ran the same comparison using the HIMD 1GB disc that came with the NH700 the difference between the original CD and the HIMD LP was reduced and although just noticeable, when switching back and forth between the two, when listening to a track played randomly from either the CD or the MD it was impossible to tell which was which. I think this is remarkable considering the MD is fed via the Sony MXD D3 and cheap interconnects.

I am using my MESH PC’s Sony CD/DVD RW DW-U10A drive to transfer the CDs to my hard drive so the fact that it is Sony and therefore perhaps totally compatible might help the quality. I have found I can burn music on non audio CD-Rs via this drive using SS2.2 or Magix 2005 and play them back on the CD player of my Sony MXD D3. These CD’s are not playable on any other CD player I have tried. My PC CD drive (ATAIP 52 RW) is not able to burn music to non audio CD-rs nor is it compatible with SonicStage V2.0 or 2.2.

Finally, unlike some (most?), I have found SS completely reliable and user friendly and ideal for transferring CD’s and creating MD’s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can abx hi-sp from original, but hi-sp is completely fine for everyday listening. I claim that a sample sound shit when I can tell it from original without abx'ing. On the other hand, I don't believe those guys who claim to able to tell hi-sp from original wihtout proper abx'ing. Their behaviour is caused by so called blacebo effect

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can record to Hi-MD 1gb discs in LP2 mode.

However, the SonicStage encoders are much, much worse than the hardware encoders inside the MD unit itself. Ye have been warned...  :happy:

Please, explain how i can use the 1gb disks in lp2 mode, is it possible through hardware encoding or only through Sonic$hit ... ugghh stage?

I must admit, this sonicstage program would have failed Year 12 highschool Information Systems, its a disgrace to MD equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can abx hi-sp from original, but hi-sp is completely fine for everyday listening. I claim that a sample sound shit when I can tell it from original without abx'ing. On the other hand, I don't believe those guys who claim to able to tell hi-sp from original wihtout proper abx'ing. Their behaviour is caused by so called blacebo effect

Blacebo effect is that a take on placebo effect where you blag it and hope to hit the nail on the head? :smile:

You might be able to tell the difference between the two on a setup you are familiar with and with a source you know well due to the different qualities of the MD and CD sources; you'd know which one was which one by virtue of familiarity. Put you in a setup you are not familiar with and you couldn't tell the difference. Its fairly easy to tell the difference with the 64kbps quality due to the metallic sound on percussion but not Hi-SP. Just had a little compare and frankly there ain't no difference between original and Hi-SP compressed. What a shame that 16bit CD audio is so shite anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Properly recorded and mastered, 16-bit/44.1kHz PCM audio still exceeds the dynamic range, playback resolution, and frequency response that most consumer audio systems are capable of.

That's not to mention playback room acoustics, ambient noise levels, and limitations of the listener's hearing.

On the other hand, I'm confident that regardless of playback equipment quality or choice of recording [excluding mono material] I'd identify HiLP 64kbps from both 128kbps mp3 and HiSP, as well as MDLP.

And yes, id'ing HiSP from PCM requires actual close listening for me. I hear the difference not as flanging but as a metallic graininess, a harshness that overrides certain sounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yes, id'ing HiSP from PCM requires actual close listening for me. I hear the difference not as flanging but as a metallic graininess, a harshness that overrides certain sounds.

Glad to see someone doesn't think I'm nuts.

When listening fairly closely, I find that Hi-SP's artifacts are much more metallic (and irritating) than legacy SP's. Old-school ATRAC 4.5 may have more artifacts, but they aren't as noticeable by me and metallic noises tend to catch my attention.

Also, I agree that for real empirical information on one's ability to detect encoded tracks, one would need to ABX said samples...

Maybe it's all in my head, but I swear that I can tell if something's been compressed. Maybe I'm just nuts. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone seems to bash SonicStage - WHY?

True I have onlty been using it for a couple of weeks but it has been faultless. It's easy to use, it transfers back and forth perfectly, sounds fine on the PC and, as I said in my previous posting, even at HI LP, the difference between the original CD and the MD played through a good HIFI system is minimal. (If you haven't tried a comparison through a HIFI system you should - don't assume).

So what is wrong with SonicStage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MP3 support is a big part of the deal for most MrToad, and Sonicstage sucks 200% in that regard. For the nerds, I suppose the software is over-simplistic.

Like you, I find Sonicstage very straightforward and relatively user-friendly to use when transferring CD's. The ripping time is fast, and the quality (to Hi-SP) is good. No questions there. I think it's not a bad program to use if your Sony machine is your only player, and all you're doing is ripping from CD's. The problem comes when I try and do anything more with my music, such as stream it around my home and try and use my Sonicstage rips with other players... because I can't.

Some people's objections against the current version of Sonicstage may be ideological than practical, but for me it's a definite practical problem. The way that Sonicstage treats music data that YOU have ripped, which YOU own in the form of a CD and converts it into something that's shackled by extensive DRM without you having a say in the matter is a real obstacle for getting more out of the music held on a PC.

It's also about what else you have exposure too. In how it works and what it does, Sonicstage looks somewhat amateur when compared to iTunes.

EDIT: MrToad, I have no idea what your set-up is. In my experience though, portable is how the Hi-MD machines should stay where their sound is if not top quality then very agreeable. The better the equipment you hook them up to, the worse they sound. With PCM data, connecting it up to the Stax headphones and comparing it to the iPod, I was truly surprised at how comparatively bad the Hi-MD's sounded from a detail / staging / other technical view. Worse than an iRiver, and that's saying something in my experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sbetsho, there are some people that believe they can (and may be able to) hear the difference between a PCM and a Hi-SP recording and believe that bitrate is everything and the codec choice makes no difference when encoding music.

Personally I use Hi-LP for most of my music as I usually play it on the move (I have audio books in 48K though), I do have a few discs in Hi-SP for the times when I want to listen to music & not just fill in the travelling gaps. Personally I cant hear the difference between Hi-SP and PCM.

Well.. I can, and I'm pretty :| about it, the gain of quality to loss of recording time is not good enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this sonicstage program would have failed Year 12 highschool Information Systems

Ajaja! You Aussie too mate?

the difference between the original CD and the MD played through a good HIFI system is minimal. (If you haven't tried a comparison through a HIFI system you should - don't assume).

I hope by Hi-Fi you don't mean one of those Sony "Hi-Fi" component systems. unsure.gifblink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bhangraman thanks for your comment. You are correct in that I am, for the moment, only using my NH700 as a portable device although I do use it through an amp and speakers for convenience occaisionally. I can see that I to might become more scathing in the future when all my downloads (or is it uploads) are locked away in SS and unavailable to other applications. However on the quality of the sound front I stick by my original comments. I think for the amount of compression HIMD LP is remarkable. And for the record and in response to skyther's somewhat sarcastic comment regarding my HIFI system I quote from my earlier message in this thread. My system comprises a Cyrus 8 amp, Cyrus 6 CD player, connected to the amp via a high quality audio interconnect, and Wharfdale Pacific Evo 30 speakers. This combination was highly rated by the UK HIFI press and audition better to my ears than anything else I listen to around the same price. This system retails for the equivalent of $3500 so although by no means the most expensive system in the world it is still creditable and capable of highlighting problems with source material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I don't think my setup is better than yours; in fact I believe it not to be... a pretty basic wall powered pimeta and my cans, beyerdynamic DT440s...

... and yet I can identify Hi-SP from PCM any day. Oh, and my cans tend to make all the problems in low-bitrate compression even more obvious. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Sorry skyther - still new at this and missed the relevence of the smilies :laugh: nothing wrong with sarcasm though :rasp:

Incidently just been away for a week. My NH700 was my only source of music, in the car and through another domestic system and I still think HIMD LP is very acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it works for you, that's wonderful, and you should be happy that you can enjoy your product as much as you can.

For others, such as skyther and myself, it doesn't work for us, and so we don't use it.

Honestly, though, I don't think anyone who would prefer Hi-LP over Hi-SP if there wasn't a chronic shortage of 1GB discs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... there are some people that believe they can (and may be able to) hear the difference between a PCM and a Hi-SP recording and believe that bitrate is everything and the codec choice makes no difference when encoding music...

Well, shame on them. Probably locked up in a cupboard all their lives and finally let out for fresh air :laugh: :laugh:

but seriously, I'd almost go to the opposite extreme (not quite though). The codec is what matters most. It defines (to a large extent) the clarity, harmonic resonance and timbre. The bit-rate or put in laymans terms... number of samples taken per second is only important in achieving high frequencies effectively.

I've heard many ppl claim that lower bitrates effect the bass... but I ask how. The number of samples taken in a lower frequency should have more reference points taken and should be more than enough to reproduce an identical waveform.

To me, the higher frequencies sometimes sound "tinny" and its hard for me to tell (probably playing too much violin... too close to my ears - long term effect :rasp: )

I've been a long time fan of Mp3, but I have bent in favour of Ogg-Vorbis. Same quality at 128, Ogg-Vorbis is better (in my opinion). Same bit-rate, different encoder. I was then a fan of WMA for 64kbps on my Imation Rip-Go Mp3 player (mp3/wma 8cm-cd player/burner).

I've done some fft tests which were suprising. I found that Ogg vorbis is closest to the original waveform across the spectrum. Next came Atrac 3+, then finally came Mp3 (all tests done at 256kbps and 64kbps).

if anyone wants, I can do a blind-test analysis in my spare time. Converted all formats into wave and compressed using flac or some other lossless audio format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard many ppl claim that lower bitrates effect the bass... but I ask how. The number of samples taken in a lower frequency should have more reference points taken and should be more than enough to reproduce an identical waveform.

Umm... the last time I checked, AAC/MP3/ATRAC = 44.1kHz. Codec = COMPRESSION, sample rate = D/A conversion.

Music is recorded as a single waveform, not 'seperate' waveforms of varying frequencies. A higher sampling rate (as far as uncompressed formats go) lets you capture higher frequencies (>22kHz) and reduces the need for interpolation and therefore improves quality of the reproduced waveform.

Lower bitrates affects both treble and bass frequencies because the cutoff points for the high and low pass filters are brought closer together, effectively reducing the recorded frequency range. Sample rates for all codecs are the same, but the frequency cutoffs are not. The number of audio 'snapshots' taken are still the same.

Increasing bitrates has much greater potential at improving audio quality than changing codecs will. A better codec just handles compression with higher perceived efficiency - it's smarter at picking what to keep and what to dump. Bitrate allows a codec more freedom with what data to keep - the more it keeps, the more like the original it sounds. Since it keeps more data anyway, the 'efficiency' of the codec becomes a lot less relevant to the quality of the final product.

Nevertheless, your point is moot. PCM is PCM, ATRAC is ATRAC. One is the original, another is processed. It's not even a question of the codec.

Regarding your last point, I wonder if you're comparing the true fidelity of the codec, or the 'which-seems-to-sound-good' aspect. ATRAC/3/3+ have been known to employ heavy colouration, which gives it lower fidelity (as a representation of the original track) but makes it sound 'good' anyway. This is done to a much greater extent than MP3 (LAME) does. So once again, are you sure you tested for the true fidelity of the codecs or are you just merely stating what you think sounds good to your ears?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Music is recorded as a single waveform, not 'seperate' waveforms of varying frequencies.  

I didn't say it was seperate.

However stereo is another matter right?

A higher sampling rate (as far as uncompressed formats go) lets you capture higher frequencies (>22kHz) and reduces the need for interpolation and therefore improves quality of the reproduced waveform.

Couldn't agree more...

Lower bitrates affects both treble and bass frequencies because the cutoff points for the high and low pass filters are brought closer together, effectively reducing the recorded frequency range. Sample rates for all codecs are the same, but the frequency cutoffs are not. The number of audio 'snapshots' taken are still the same.

Thankyou for clearing that up, i was getting confused with sample/bitrate

Increasing bitrates has much greater potential at improving audio quality than changing codecs will. A better codec just handles compression with higher perceived efficiency.

The problem with music, it's all about perception.

Regarding your last point, I wonder if you're comparing the true fidelity of the codec, or the 'which-seems-to-sound-good' aspect. ATRAC/3/3+ have been known to employ heavy colouration, which gives it lower fidelity (as a representation of the original track) but makes it sound 'good' anyway. This is done to a much greater extent than MP3 (LAME) does. So once again, are you sure you tested for the true fidelity of the codecs or are you just merely stating what you think sounds good to your ears?

I was not stating what sounded good to my ears, right now... even a 48kbps mp3 would sound good (ear infection).

If you've ever heard of PAS Spectrum Analyser Pro, you'll know what i'm talking about. it lets me import wav files, scan them for peak/average fft and compare them to each other. So, what i did was have an original, convert one to mp3, the other to atrac3+ using sonic stage and converted back using marcnets tool (0.22 at the time) I then imput the three files and compared using a hanning filter.

If the compressed files have deviated in anyway, the frequency spectrum changes acording to what has changed. What I found was more deviation in the Mp3 than Atrac3+

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmm.

I Believe I can tell the difference between 256k atrac 3+ and pcm. Mostly because imo the emphasis on the compression is getting a crisp mid range and eliminating bad sounds in the higher range. Whereas I love my bass and the difference is clear. Not all the time of course. 3+ sometimes just has that metallicy echoey feel to it.

On the other hand, I find that lp2 is sometimes indistinguishable from the source media (using the headphones i got with my nh1 and in a train for e.g. biggrin.gif) so im more than happy to use it for listening to outside. It absolutely fails when you ask it to do something jazzy though.

Still don't know why there's no 192k atrac option.

Also wouldn't it be nice if we could use any format we want? oh well :/

edit: oh yeah so my point is; Do I choose to listen to..

- 256k atrac3+.. makes me uneasy, bad bass sometimes?

or

-64k LP2.. Equal to 256 most of the time, 1/4 the size?

I know what I choose to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having just acquired a NZ- NH700 I have conducted a number of A/B test to determine which compression I should use. I have compared the NZ-700, with my old MZ-E909 player using for reference the original CD playing through my domestic Cyrus 8 amp, Cyrus 6 CD player, connected to the amp via a high quality audio interconnect, and Wharfdale Pacific Evo 30 speakers. (Not sure if this equipment is sold in the US so for reference this combination came highly recommended by a number of UK HiFi mags, auditioned very well and cost the equivalent of $3500 so is a half decent reference system). I also have had for a number of years a Sony MXD D3 CD/MD player recorder which is connected to the amp with inexpensive phono cables. The NZ 700 & E909 were connected to the aux input of the MXD D3 which was used to equalize the volumes. The sound was set to normal on both units (there is no tone control or equalization on the Cyrus) and I compared Atrac3 and Atrac 3 plus and concluded that Atrac3 plus 64K was a very acceptable compromise so started to transfer my CD collection to my hard drive using SS 2.0 initially and the last few days 2.2. However reading this debate and others I have seen this week I began to have doubts about my choice of HIMD LP so I have just retested everything. And guess what I have come to the same conclusion. In fact, in my opinion, having been around when we were having a similar debate about vinyl and CDs, the difference between HIMD SP and the original is almost impossible to define or detect consistently in blind A/B tests. There is a small lack of gloss and dynamic and a slight softening using HIMD LP but it is only small. At this point I was using a standard Maxell XL-II 80 Pro MD. However when I ran the same comparison using the HIMD 1GB disc that came with the NH700 the difference between the original CD and the HIMD LP was reduced and although just noticeable, when switching back and forth between the two, when listening to a track played randomly from either the CD or the MD it was impossible to tell which was which. I think this is remarkable considering the MD is fed via the Sony MXD D3 and cheap interconnects. 

I am using my MESH PC’s Sony CD/DVD RW DW-U10A drive to transfer the CDs to my hard drive so the fact that it is Sony and therefore perhaps totally compatible might help the quality. I have found I can burn music on non audio CD-Rs via this drive using SS2.2 or Magix 2005 and play them back on the CD player of my Sony MXD D3. These CD’s are not playable on any other CD player I have tried. My PC CD drive (ATAIP 52 RW) is not able to burn music to non audio CD-rs nor is it compatible with SonicStage V2.0 or 2.2. 

Finally, unlike some (most?), I have found SS completely reliable and user friendly and ideal for transferring CD’s and creating MD’s.

Why don't you just use the compression that's pleasing to your ears??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...