paperclip

.

@ Talisin. Thanks for doing that. This is just a hobby so yeah, get some sleep and have a life beyond this, there is always time and I'm in no hurry. @SFBP: I made a mistake, I should have included the Hi- before SP. I never attacked you, I did question your conclusions and the data used to make them. Comment's like "That's my boy! CD->WAV->LP2 really really doesn't work." shows your ego over-rides your objectivity. That is not even close to an ad hominmen attack. I expected more from a moderator and if I bother you move along and quit mucking up this thread. I'm trying learn something and you are getting in the way. Now that I've demonstrated Sonic Stage ripping is not the problem in obtaining good LP2, I can look at the conversion step. Ripping and compression are two different things.

@Talisin: I know it's a lot of work but I'd be interested to see the results of the test just using various forms of LP2 (hardware encoded, NetMD download via Sound Forge, Sonic Stage via wav and Sonic Stage via AAL). I can do the testing myself, I just thought with your large group of listeners, the results would be more interesting.

SP is hardly "clearly" anything. In fact, 39% of listeners prefer LP2 (via AAL) over SP. He used AAL @ 256, Do you even read a whole post before letting your ego out? MD doesn't write at varying bit depths, that was the point I made.

That is an interesting test, thanks for sharing your work. I find things like these interesting. It seems that SP might be pretty hard to beat and SS LP2 rated dead last. I don't know if there is any statistically valid conclusions to be drawn and in the end it's always best to let your ears be judge. I'm going to have to do some testing of my own. I'd like to see if I can tell any difference in SS LP2 vs. hardware encoded LP2 and AAL (256) vs. wav. There is something special about Hi-SP if is transcoded twice (to LP2) and sounds better than SS LP from wav. I found LP4 transcoded (in Sound Forge)from Hi-SP (real-time, optical) to sound more accurate and it made no sense to me at all.

Good one!

There is no ripping speed option for wav files. Furthermore after some testing this weekend, both encoding options for AAL produce an almost bit perfect copy. (Files ripped from CD to AAL 256kbps, both Normal & High then extracted to wav files, then compared with an EAC rip) Do some testing of your own, I doubt you will be able to hear any difference as the files are practically identical. I don't get why there is still any debate, I've spent considerable time trying to get good data to compare, I don't understand why it is so easily overlooked for unsubstantiated claims and superstition. But hey be my guest. I'd address the 24 bit vs.16 thing but there is even more superstition surrounding that question and I'm sure any data illustrating that subject will received in the same way, so I"m not going to bother. That is a simple math problem and there no way MD is writing data to a disc at differing bit depths. I'll gladly read what's posted on the subject but do not wish to join that debate after this one.

Yep, other than post real examples and a screen shot you are correct.

What data do you think the codec uses? If it's from a CD, it's a 16 bit wav file. It's that simple. A CD player putting out an analog signal is a wholly different animal. Oversampling while ripping would defeat the purpose, how could it compare the data it's reading for accuracy if it changes it from what is on the disc? I'm wholly unaware of Sonic Stage having any speed or quality options in converting a wav file to ATRAC (or importing it directly in wav format from a disc) and that is what the OP is trying to do. Why do you insist on making it so hard when there is a simple solution? Again, post your results. Maybe we can figure out why you have a problem and I don't.

I don't know what you mean by name-calling unless you are setting up an ad hominem argument? Ripping just doesn't oversample anything, it just reads the data on the disc. Dithering only applies when reducing word lenght which makes no sense in your example of increasing word lenght. Unsupported claims do nothing to further the hobby. Post the results, methods and repeatability like I've done.

Good luck, post your solution.

A ripping program doesn't even sample a signal, it just reads data. Your claim that a 16 bit file might not compress to a low bit rate codec defies all logic really. And (on a undamaged) CD the output can and usually is, bit for bit exact between EAC and Sonic Stage. What do you think Sonic Stage is using to creat the ATRAC file? It's reading 16 bit data. If you compare 16 & 24 bit wav files compressed with ATRAC, you will find their files sizes are exactly the same. I've done the testing to proof the results. I don't know why you want to spread mis-information on a hobbyist website like this?

I much prefered the brown and grey colors of the older Sonic Stage but the program itself is actually quite good now and I use 4.3 daily.

So then they don't work?

If they both work, what's the problem?