[Optical SP vs SonicStage SP]

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

[APE/CUE --> SonicStage]

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 !

[APE/CUE --> SonicStage]

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.

[Which ATRAC bit rate corresponds to a specific Mp3 bit rate?]

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?? ???

[New SS 3.3 (Full Installer version)]

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.

[Optical 256k Vs. S.S. 256k]

Hardware compression is probably better when units are first released but after time the software has the benefit of being able to catch up in terms of quality as algorithms are optimized, etc.

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.

[Optical 256k Vs. S.S. 256k]

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