1kyle Posted July 30, 2005 Report Share Posted July 30, 2005 Thanks all to the link to SS 3.2 === Question hereFor Ist Gen Hi-MD units which don't have 320 kbs playback would there be any degradition in quality converting from 320kbs to 256 kbs in copying a track from the library (CD's ripped @ 320 kbs) or would is still be better to rip the CD at 256kbs in the first place and then copy directly to the MD.Simple Burner hasn't yet been upgraded for the higher bit rates either.IMO the 320kbs is definitely better than 256kbs when playing from a computer -- this --especially with relaxation of some DRM issues could obviate the need for using PCM except for special cases.Cheers-k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenmachine Posted July 30, 2005 Report Share Posted July 30, 2005 Transcoding lossy codecs is generally worse than direct encoding. If you would notice the difference is a different question though, but since your hearing seems so incredibly sensitive to be easily able to discern Atrac3+ at 256 and 320 kbps, i guess you would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azureal Posted July 30, 2005 Report Share Posted July 30, 2005 I have done some transcoding from source rips at ATRAC3plus 256 down to ATRAC3 132, sound quality-wise I don't hear a problem, the 132 disks sound fine for that rate.The real issue in my mind is the fact that SS does not just transcode on the fly and transfer the file to the HiMD disk, it actually stores the transcoded version of the file on the HD with the higher rate file. You end up with multiple copies of the track/s stored taking up space ....Thanks all to the link to SS 3.2 === Question hereFor Ist Gen Hi-MD units which don't have 320 kbs playback would there be any degradition in quality converting from 320kbs to 256 kbs in copying a track from the library (CD's ripped @ 320 kbs) or would is still be better to rip the CD at 256kbs in the first place and then copy directly to the MD.Simple Burner hasn't yet been upgraded for the higher bit rates either.IMO the 320kbs is definitely better than 256kbs when playing from a computer -- this --especially with relaxation of some DRM issues could obviate the need for using PCM except for special cases.Cheers-k← Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1kyle Posted July 30, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2005 Transcoding lossy codecs is generally worse than direct encoding. If you would notice the difference is a different question though, but since your hearing seems so incredibly sensitive to be easily able to discern Atrac3+ at 256 and 320 kbps, i guess you would.←Actually I omitted the most important stuff ----playing from a Computer Into a Decent high end sound system.There's not a very discernable difference when just playing through normal Computer type speakers etc.Cheers-K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenmachine Posted July 30, 2005 Report Share Posted July 30, 2005 I'm very aware of that, nevertheless don't think i could successfully abx anything from 256 kbps upwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROMBUSTERS Posted July 30, 2005 Report Share Posted July 30, 2005 I have done some transcoding from source rips at ATRAC3plus 256 down to ATRAC3 132, sound quality-wise I don't hear a problem, the 132 disks sound fine for that rate.The real issue in my mind is the fact that SS does not just transcode on the fly and transfer the file to the HiMD disk, it actually stores the transcoded version of the file on the HD with the higher rate file. You end up with multiple copies of the track/s stored taking up space ....←Actually under the settings panel when you go to transfer the audio there is a checkbox that you can un-check which stops SS from saving extra copies on your HDD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAVickers Posted August 1, 2005 Report Share Posted August 1, 2005 (edited) The real issue in my mind is the fact that SS does not just transcode on the fly and transfer the file to the HiMD disk, it actually stores the transcoded version of the file on the HD with the higher rate file.←Hey there.Does it still do that even if you turn off "Delete the converted files from the hard disk after transferring" ? It's in Tools | Options | Transfer | Advanced.[attachmentid=500]Michael Edited August 1, 2005 by MAVickers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted August 2, 2005 Report Share Posted August 2, 2005 It shouldn't after selecting that option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.