Nicolas1400

I want to import some audio CDs into MD, using old SP mode, so i can play them in a MDS41 deck. Wich is the BEST way? (I don´t care about speed) Sometimes i feel that optical realtime SP recordings sounds better than importing tracks via SS or SimpleBurner. Anyone knows? Bye NICOLAS

Thanks dex Otaku for your quick answer. I don´t know the WAVPACK format, i just heard it somewhere.. but i never give it a try. I am very familiar with the APE/CUE and FLAC formats due to their popularity. [the 95% of the loseless albums over the net are APE or FLAC]. But i think it´s a great advantage if the WAVPACK have that error managment you talked before. Also i was informed APE was the better-compression codec, but it´s great if WAVPACK can do a better job i´ll check it and tell you !

Which is the fastest way to import an APE/CUE album (one APE audio file, and one CUE sheet file) into SonicStage 3.3 without burning cds? I have gigs and gigs of ape albums and i need to find a simple method to import them.

Everybody knows the best way to store atrac files on our discs is PCM/APE/FLAC/AAL--->ATRAC But sometimes, we have a great difficult-to-find album in mp3 format, and we cannot get the original (loseless) format of it. I´d like to make a conversion bitrate table, where we can say what´s the best bitrate option (atrac) for every mp3 bitrate we EVENTUALLY could have. (Yes, i really HATE mp3) The idea is to store the mp3 audio in atrac files, getting the best balance quality/disk space. For example, it would be very stupid to store mp3@128 as atrac@256 (we´ll get extra disk space without any quality improvement). As a start... let say, mp3@128 --> atrac@64 (as i read in the forums) mp3 bitrate - best atrac bitrate option 128 64 160 . 192 . 224 . 256 . 320 . VBR?? ???

Is there any difference between the very new full installer version of SS 3.3 and the one i´ve downloaded last week? I suppouse no, cause both of them are v3.3. Anyone knows? I don´t want to re-install SS, and reboot once again... unless this new realease have *some* new features.

I feel hardware recording will always be better than software encoding/transfering. The main fact is that hw recording is a real-time 1x process, so the unit have more time to encode data... and probably it can make an n-pass encode, that will be always better than a quick software encode process.

I started transfering cd-a via optical recording , using a dvd player unit, and recording in hi-sp 256 mode. I had found the audio quality is really GREAT , i hardly can tell a difference between the original PCM sound, and the hi-sp recorging made by the mz-nh900. I assume the hardware 256 ATRAC compresion is better than the sofware 256 ATRAC compresion made by S.S. Is there any valid explanation? Any similar experience? Byeee Nicolas