Why Hi-sp Sounds Better Through Optical Cable

[aericeira]

well I was using sonic stage to backup my cds in hi-sp(the most important ones)

then i decided to record Madonna´s American Life through optical on the same md i recorded Ray of light through Simple burner.

let´s say there was obvious difference in the sound quality between the two.

My question is if both were digitally transfered wouldn´t they have to sound the same in terms of quality? or is simple burner offering a poorer digtal copy on purpose?

any Ideas why this happens?

I remember once i read someone posting that he found transfers Through usb better than optical I beg to differ cause this is not what i am experiencing.

thx for your time.

[dex Otaku]

The difference is that when transferring via USB, the SonicStage codec gets used.

When copying via optical, the hardware encoder in the recorder gets used.

It's possible for the SS encoder to surpass the hardware one in quality [as the software one can be upgraded easily and the hardware one can't] but the general concensus is that Sony probably optimised the software codecs for speed, not for quality.

It's been sadi a number of times before, but I'll say it again:

Sony - it would be nice to pick quality over speed as an option.

[Latexxx]

Or it is the placebo effect.

[aericeira]

Well at least to me the sound through simple burner transfer feels like stripped of treble whereas the same sound through optical sounds richer quality wise.

of course both sound great but i will try to record some songs both ways and see if i can point the difference.

[SlowMo]

my opinion:

Hardware always sounds better than software, period.*

*this applies to all kinds of sound equipment.

perhaps that's because the hardware always sounds identically, whereas software slightly changes and you don't really get used to it's sound because it's always changing. (like, if you've got a new pair of speakers, in the beginning they might sound weird, but after getting used to them they're good)

just recently i listened to a true sp-recording i made with my old sharp (cd-analog-md) and was astounded by the sound quality, seemed much brighter and clearer than Hi-Sp. but perhaps my perception of hi-sp is disturbed due to mp3 transcoding and stuff, who knows..? it's all very subjective, in the end..

[bug80]

my opinion:

Hardware always sounds better than software, period.*

*this applies to all kinds of sound equipment.

←

I did a quick listening test in the past to find out if this is true and the result was: I heard no difference between LP2 encoded on my MD unit and encoded in SonicStage 2.3. Furthermore, LP4 encoded in SonicStage sounded better than encoded with my unit.

The thing is, the encoder in your unit can't evolve, because it is fixed in a chip (plus, Sony and firmware upgrades don't match). SonicStage's encoder improves over time (see the same topic mentioned above).

You mention SP versus Hi-SP and SP being better, but that is not a fair comparison because we are talking about two different codecs here, whereas you claim hardware encoded audio sounds better than its software equivalent. Therefore, you should compare hardware encoded Hi-SP versus software encoded Hi-SP (and do a blind ABX test by the way, because the placebo effect is with us all ).

Another thing I'd like to add is: a hardware programmer always has to live with a lot restrictions in terms of chip memory, speed of the chips and the like. A software programmer doesn't have these restrictions, or at least not that much. Therefore, it is more likely that the hardware encoder is sub-optimal, not the software one.

Edited April 13, 2005 by bug80

[dex Otaku]

Another thing I'd like to add is: a hardware programmer always has to live with a lot restrictions in terms of chip memory, speed of the chips and the like. A software programmer doesn't have these restrictions, or at least not that much. Therefore, it is more likely that the hardware encoder is sub-optimal, not the software one.

←

A hardware codec can't be either optimal or sub-optimal; it either works or it doesn't.

The constraints for the hardware codec are basically that they have to do the job in realtime. This isn't about processing power, it's simply about function. You create a dedicated LSI that does the job, period.

A software codec is expected to run faster than realtime, and for most people that means as fast as they can tweak it to go, because they want to rip their CDs faster. This -is- about processing power, since the speed of the codec [perceived by most as higher efficiency, when it's actually not in many if not most cases] scales to the speed of the computer being used.

The software codec can be tuned to either do the most accurate job possible, or the fastest job possible, or for that matter anywhere in between. It's likely that SS's codecs are tuned to compromise between the two.

[Latexxx]

You forgot one thing. A portable unit has only a limited supply of power. If you create an overly complex (advanced) chip, it'll drain your battery faster than you can say 'cheese'. So hardware codecs of portable players need to be optimised for power comsumption which is in direct proportion to the amount of transistors on board.

This means that designers try to keep hardware versions as simple as possible which usually means lower quality. On the other hand, at least the older versions of SS had a codec which was only optimised for speed, not quality, thus rendering it worse than hardware versions.

Edited April 13, 2005 by Latexxx

[robin726]

Hardware always sounds better than software, period.*

*this applies to all kinds of sound equipment.

←

Opinion or not, I humbly submit that this is nonsense.

Any audio hardware has embedded software to do the job (whatever that may be).

Any PC software (because I assume that's what you are talking about) requires the PC hardware to do the job.

So there is no such thing as just hardware or just software.

Besides, just to pick one example, are you telling me there's a better hardware device MP3 encoder than LAME for the PC? If there is, I'd like to know.

[robin726]

A hardware codec can't be either optimal or sub-optimal; it either works or it doesn't. 

Hardware chips for a given function vary in ability all over the map. Otherwise all DACs would be the same. They are not.

[bug80]

A hardware codec can't be either optimal or sub-optimal; it either works or it doesn't. 

But the final result can be optimal or sub-optimal, compared to what would be possible when memory, speed and power consumption weren't an issue.

[SlowMo]

Opinion or not, I humbly submit that this is nonsense.

Any audio hardware has embedded software to do the job (whatever that may be).

←

nah, i meant that in a wider audio context, like a hifi cd-deck will most likely outperform a pc playing a cd, or mp3, or an akai s-1000 sampler will sound fatter (subjectively !) than any software sampler. -because it's got its own distinctive sound that won't ever change.

a good example for this: the snes/famicom had a faulty design in it's sound-device, that would kind of enhance the bass. when the early emulators for snes came out, they were rejected due to "bad sound". so they had to emulate that "error" too.

-hardware even sounds better, when it actually sounds worse, see ?

of course there's some kind of software behind most hardware, but there's no point in comparing SonicStage with the "software" in a hifi cd-deck, you´ll agree...

and this software behind the hardware doesn't change, so your listening gets used to the sound ad thereby is able to hear more exactly.

Any PC software (because I assume that's what you are talking about) requires the PC hardware to do the job.

you mean D/A conversion ?

see, here it starts, theres a multitude of soundcards, and most of them don't have good converters, the next thing is inside a pc case, there's lots of em-interference and stuff. so you need an external converterbox. etc.

so nothing ever sounds identically.

So there is no such thing as just hardware or just software.

vinyl ?

analogue synths ?

the less software, the better -if you will

Besides, just to pick one example, are you telling me there's a better hardware device MP3 encoder than LAME for the PC? If there is, I'd like to know.

i think it's clear now, that's not what i'm talking about. mp3 is inherently designed for software, (that is on a pc) and has made it's way to portable music due to convenience.

by hardware i meant a dedicated device that is only about that one thing.

i hope you got me now, sorry for not making my point clear in the first place, i thought it would be clear, since i added "this applies to all kinds of audio equipment"

@bug80: you're right that is a unfair comparison, but since there's neither true sp in sonicstage nor on 1gb media, hi-sp as its hi-md equivalent has got to bear that.