Sparky191

I doubt it would support ATRAC. Only Sony would. Google on Sony HDD and you might find what you want. http://www.sony-europe.com/view/View.actio...ssReleaseDetail http://www.sony-europe.com/PageView.do?sit...e=1109586898095 http://www.akihabaranews.com/en/news-13709...o+recorder.html http://www.cybertheater.com/sony-giga-juke...-deck-nac-hd1e/ http://crave.cnet.co.uk/digitalmusic/0,390...49288787,00.htm

What do you mean?

When using HiMD - PCM is the antiskip buffer compressed? This might be related to this http://forums.minidisc.org/index.php?showt...&pid=110081

I don't know the answer to that, but I've neer experienced it with MD and SonicStage. I have had it with MediaMonkey, when ripping MP3's but not with Audiograbber ripping WAV's or MP3's. Give Audiograbber a whirl for your CD's. Or just use SonicStage. Do some listening tests etc.

I don't think what you are looking for are called Media Centers. Thats something different. What you are looking for are called Hard Disk Recorders. http://www.superfi.co.uk/index.cfm/page/mo...Product_ID/2292

Compressing one compressed format into another is called transcoding. You try and avoid it. But if you can't hear it does it matter? Your choices are use ATRAC or use MP3 and adjust the EQ. Best quality is always from the original source before any lossy compression has been run. From the original CD if possible. You can make high quality MP3's. You just need to know how to.

I've noticed with himdrenderer054 it doesn't name WAV's from the tag? Could this be added? Would be handy when making audio CD's that the WAV's are named. As a work around I can rip to FLAC then in MediaMonkey convert to WAV which does rename them as per the tag. I could burn direct from FLAC using Media Monkey but I prefer Nero and my old copy of nero doesn't support FLAC. So I use WAV's himdrenderer054 also doesn't write out the filename for MP3 etc. Which is a pain if you've a filetree player or don't use tags. Again I can use MediaMonkey to rename the files based on the tags. Be handier if himdrenderer054 did it though. In the meanwhile mediamonkey saves a lot of time.

This wasn't working for me but after restarting SS its now working. And HIMDRenderer pickes up the edited titles ok

A440 has said it already. AFAIK these are the only ways. 1) On a MD > RH1 > SonicStage Library (keeps tags) 2) On a MD > Other HiMD analog recording > SonicStage Library (no tags) 3) SonicStage Library > SonicStage or Hi-MD Renderer > WAV (no tags) 4) SonicStage Library> Hi-MD Renderer > MP3/FLAC (with tags) So option 1 with 4 is the best (assuming they are tagged already)

What makes sense? You'll have to convert them regardless to put them on a HiMD. Depends how picky you are about SQ.

While variable bitrate VBR is great (better SQ for the same or less disk space) I had problems with it on some equipment. My iPod Shuffle (1st Gen) and the Pioneer MP3/CD players we have in the cars didn't like VBR, so I've gone back to CBR for the time being.

Generally with better equipment your more likely to be unsatisfied with low bitrate lossy files. Personally I don't see the point of using ATRAC anymore. I use higher bitrate Lame MP3's. Sound good enough and work with everything. If I had the space I'd also keep my music in FLAC. For the time being my CD's are my lossless Archive. I only use ATRAC for recording and then convert them to WAV then MP3.

I just combine them myself in SonicStage.

ding, about 88mb?

I'm not a time facist as some people are. While I think I'd have stopped for a couple of minutes, I doubt I would have had time to stay any longer.

What the Yahwhosiewotsits does "abt 88 Mo" mean?

So in summary this is what jonfinlayson has tried. Excuse my attempt to clarify and simplify ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1) original live recording on HiMD, vs original recording transfer to PC and back to HiMD. 2) an original recording vs same recording after transfer to my PC and back to HiMD. (I'm ignoring the transfer in and out of SS). Result = "The differences here were marginal...I would not be making a fuss about them" IMO since all (1& 2) of this is done digitally there should be no difference at all. Keep the original recording on one MD but transfer the copy from the PC back to a second disk. Label them Original/Copy etc. Then get someone to swap them while you do a blind ABX test. See how many times out of 10 you can pick the original. As people have difficulty picking between PCM and 320kps I would be surprise if you can here the difference between PCM vs PCM. If you can then maybe there is a fault in your equipment. There is no generation loss with digital data. Lets look at the 2nd part of that test ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 3) The CD made from the original recording is dictinctly poorer "contrary to earlier belief I now have to look at the transfer from WAV to EAC and burner" Ok if you make a CD copy of a original commercial CD and the copy is sounds the same, (you said this earlier) then theres nothing wrong with WAV > EAC> CD. It exactly the same software and hardware. When you copy a CD on the same CD drive it makes a WAV copy from which it creates the CD copy. Then it deletes the WAV. 4) I suggested this test earlier. Take an original commercial CD, make a copy of it as PCM on a HiMD. Now listen to the the HiMD on the HiMD and CD on the CD player Its exactly the same data but which do you prefer?

I always read about it as being fake SP. That the LP2 data was padded out to make a SP file. I've never posts that its transcoded to SP. But from that (very interesting - cheers raintheory) link it makes sense that if it decodes the file to PCM size then on the disk its SP size it would make sense to simply record it as SP as that functionality already exists on the device and doesn't need written from scratch. Padding it out would be much harder and mean creating new functionality and tbh why bother.

Do you have link with that info? AFAIK it transcodes it only once to LP2 but puts a SP file wrapper on it. Which is different to what you are saying.

Thats what I thought. Avrin what gives?

I'm confused. How is MP3>LP2>SP worse then MP3>SP. Does it transcode a 2nd time or something?

Be interesting to see if its any good. Its sounds similar in concept to Cowons BEE MP or Creatives Sample Rate Conversion.

As was said above, yes you can but it will be MP3>LP2 which personally I wouldn't be fond of. Some people don't mind though. If your only using the old players where you don't want to risk the the M200, in the gym or whatever, then its probably good enough for that. The M200 can play MP3s without converting them, you probably know that. Nice unit let us know where you got a good deal on it.

So you currently you only hear it by playing back through SS? Not really that useful. That NW-A800 looks tasky doesn't it. I wonder with the e-series have it in hardware too. http://crunchgear.com/2007/04/11/sony-e-se...hat-play-music/ http://www.sony.jp/CorporateCruise/Press/200704/07-0411/

Can we see the statistics? What do mean by a glitch?