Optical 256k Vs. S.S. 256k

[Nicolas1400]

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

[mercury_in_flames]

I find the sound levels are sometimes higher when i record it via optical.

Edited November 15, 2005 by GregTheRotter

[streaml1ne]

I assume the hardware 256 ATRAC compresion is better than the sofware 256 ATRAC compresion made by S.S.

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.

[Nicolas1400]

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.

[greenmachine]

It's simply the faster cpu of your 'puter that accelerates encoding, it doesn't mean that it's less accurate.

[Breepee2]

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.

That's just pure nonsense. Speed has absolutely nothing to do with accuracy.

SS has been known to encode worse though than the hardware, but I though that all changed with SS3.3?

[dex Otaku]

I've seen debate on this since I first started with SS 2.1, and yes, SS's codecs have improved [look in the tech section for my recent thread on unscientific testing].

Software encoding does have the advantage of being easily upgradeable, however, the intent of software vs. hardware is obviously different for the vast majority of users.

Hardware encoding, while being basically set in stone once the unit is manufactured, is intended specifically to do the best job possible to meet the expectations of those who are making first-generation recordings [or encodings, depending on how you look at it].

Software encoding is intended for quickly copying a track from your computer to a portable device, whether by 1st-gen encoding or transcoding from another format. There are numerous possibilities that affect the quality of software codecs' output, including choosing to optimise for speed rather than quality, and choosing to optimise the encoder for transcoding from another format - such as MP3 or WMA, which have artifacting profiles of their own which a transcoder could be made specifically to do the best posible job with, with as little further degradation as possible.

It has been generally opined that Sony went for speed rather than quality.

[Sparky191]

Theres a new options of high quality for 256kps HiSP in 3.3. Did you try that?

[garcou]

That's just pure nonsense. Speed has absolutely nothing to do with accuracy.

do not agree.

I've made several test with MXD-D4 CD/MD deck : 1x speed dubbings of CD (in sp atrac type r) are deeper spacialized and more transparent than 4x speed dubbings . The difference isn't very important but obvious.

[dex Otaku]

do not agree.

I've made several test with MXD-D4 CD/MD deck : 1x speed dubbings of CD (in sp atrac type r) are deeper spacialized and more transparent than 4x speed dubbings . The difference isn't very important but obvious.

They made the encoder that way. Speed still has nothing inherent to do with accuracy.

[Christopher]

Theres a new options of high quality for 256kps HiSP in 3.3. Did you try that?

Has anyone given their thoughts on these new alter-egos? Would be interesting..

[dex Otaku]

http://forums.minidisc.org/index.php?showtopic=13102

Was just a quick test.

Also, note that "high quality" is only available when ripping from CD, not when encoding/transcoding within the library - and there is no quality setting for atrac3 rates.

[jadeclaw]

SS has been known to encode worse though than the hardware, but I though that all changed with SS3.3?

Compared to my NH700, it changed with (IIRC) SS2.3, especially at LP2 and lower.

However, newer rigs like the RH10 or the Onkyo home decks could have reversed that again.