MD simple burner vs Sonic Stage 3.3

[Sony_Fan]

I just bought a new computer and I want to start transfering music to my RH10 but which method should I use:

1.) MD simple burner (Hi-SP)

2.) Sonic Stage 3.3 (ATRAC, Hi-SP)

3.) Sonic Stage 3.3 (ATRAC loss less, Hi-SP)

Would there be a difference in sound quality between them? Thanks.

[The Low Volta]

1.) = speediest and very good if you do not want to start an .omg (atrac) music library on your PC

2.) takes more effort and time, the HiSP codec could be improved since previous versions (and also in comparison to SB) but I haven't really noticed it yet so it does not warrant the extra time/effort for me (perhaps in the future it might, but then again there might be a newer SB with the improved codecs etc as well)

3.) totally useless IMHO: the lossless part is only used by the PC for playback in SS, the transfer to HiSP is exactly the same as in method 2.) but a bit faster as you will have a HiSP part 'ready' in the lossless file. But if you ever want to transfer in another bitrate the HiSP version is used (not the lossless file) so it is recoding and SQ-loss! Further more there are currently no atrac-devices that can play lossless. So really useless unless you want to manage an atrac library in SS, mainly listen through PC and SS and only transfer in HiSP

still, I only use the SB method as I'm mostly to impatient for double work

[metal]

Some copy protected CDs cannot be ripped by SS, but no problem with MD simple burner.

[pauljones52]

if ripping at HI LP definatly use sonicstage 3.3 as you can set recording quality to high which improves sound quality noticably. The difference is not really noticable at HI SP but I still use sonicstage to errr on the side of caution as it is newer than simpleburner. After I have transfered I just deleate the files from the computer so no space is taken up. If you are going to be frequently changing music on your disc I would use simpleburner, but if your going to make discs and keep them with the music for a long time use sonicstage.

[dex Otaku]

Low Volta:

I was always under the impression that SB used the same codecs as SS [part of why SS must be installed before SB can work]. The main differences at the moment, from what I see, are simply that the SB interface has no been updated to reflect the availability of 352kbps or the "quality" setting.

I could be wrong, but it always seemed like a fair assumption to me.

Incidentally, Chris G, as with Low Volta I usually use SB to copy my CDs. SS gets pulled out when I want to transfer MP3s asis, or upload tracks I've recorded myself.

The only music I maintain [atrac/3/plus] copies of in my SS library are copies of compilations I've made; they remain properly gapless, and the only place I ever copy them to from this source [since I always keep lossless-packed disc images on DVD-ROM as well] is HiMD at any rate.

[The Low Volta]

dex:

(as so often ) you could really be on to something here... I actually never gave it any thoughts why SB required SS so indeed perhaps SB is using the codecs from SS

... in which case I'm even happier with my current way of transfering as any improvements in the HiSP codec could also be present in SB.

now if only someone with better knowledge of computers than me could confirm this

[dex Otaku]

It's more difficult to determine version info with SB than SS - SS lists complete info, whereas SB doesn't really list anything except the program version and OpenMG module version.

Still, even though it was/is based on assumptions, I always thought that the following were shared between SS and SB:

* OpenMG module [actually a separate entity]

* CD-Reading and CDDB modules

* atrac3/plus codecs

* NetMD / HiMD access modules

[pauljones52]

This may be the case, but dont forget there is no option to set the recording quality to high like there is in sonicstage.

[MDGB2]

When installing SonicSuck...erm..Stage 3.3 on my machine, SB was updated as well. Still listed as v2.2, but I assume the codecs for Hi-SP etc are the same as SS.

As Connect player seems to still be a fair way off, and talk of more new SonicStage versions, one day we may also get SB with all the bitrates listed.

Allow it to transfer files (mp3/wav/wma etc.) as well as CDs and problem solved...

Edited January 19, 2006 by MDGB2

[ATELETRONICS]

When installing SonicSuck...erm..Stage 3.3 on my machine, SB was updated as well. Still listed as v2.2, but I assume the codecs for Hi-SP etc are the same as SS.

As Connect player seems to still be a fair way off, and talk of more new SonicStage versions, one day we may also get SB with all the bitrates listed.

Allow it to transfer files (mp3/wav/wma etc.) as well as CDs and problem solved...

can you pick the quality setting in ss 2.3??

[MtnBkr]

I, too, use SB for ripping CD's as I have no need to land the music on the harddrive. The question remains, does the quality setting of high in SS provide better quality playback than SB??

[pauljones52]

Dont know if any scientific tests have been carried out, but read the forum below

http://forums.minidisc.org/index.php?showtopic=12882&st=30

Has a number of comments on about the sound quality of normal vs high e.g, jadeclaw:

"Another notable point: Sony finally listened. You can now select the coding quality during import.

Set it to high. CD-Import takes noticeably longer, but especially the lower datarates profit here.

So, remember to select 'High' on the recording quality, it is well worth the wait.

Soundwise, I can recommend to upgrade."

[jonny mac]

I, too, use SB for ripping CD's as I have no need to land the music on the harddrive. The question remains, does the quality setting of high in SS provide better quality playback than SB??

I asked virtually the same question on another discussion board a few weeks ago - if SS has the high quality setting as well as the normal one then which one is being used by SB? The consensus was that SB is using the faster, normal setting so for better quality rips it's better to use Sonicstage. However, I can't tell the difference in HiSP and I'd doubt anyone else could. The lower bitrates will be another matter, though.

[WaywardTraveller]

Contrary to what several people have said, I don't mind SS at all...my only major gripe with its functionality is that database changes seem to be real, real slooowwwww sometimes (although my running Win98 and/or not compressing/optimizing the DB might have something to do with it).

Dex has referred to the gapless issue before, but I've noticed that the only way I can ensure a gapless album recording to MD is by using SB...it's very iffy with SS, and I read somewhere in these Forums that it depends on the sizes of the files and whether or not the song is saved on an even number of sectors...or something? Uhh, don't quote me on that last part..

But thanks to everyone in this thread for the useful info...didn't occur to me that SS might rip slightly higher-quality recordings than SB.

peace

WaywardTraveller

[dex Otaku]

Dex has referred to the gapless issue before, but I've noticed that the only way I can ensure a gapless album recording to MD is by using SB...it's very iffy with SS, and I read somewhere in these Forums that it depends on the sizes of the files and whether or not the song is saved on an even number of sectors...or something? Uhh, don't quote me on that last part..

Gapless works if:

* you rip directly from CD to atrac/3/plus [which normally handles gaplessness fine], and

* you don't transcode those rips *at all*

I have also ripped CDs as PCM and transcoded to atrac3plus with no ill effect; others have reported problems doing this. Hence the above "recommendation". Some users have reported problems with SS 3.3 not keeping trackmarks in the right places, or gaps showing up for no reason, and a variety of other strange things that I've yet to see happen with any version of SS here on my end.

Gaplessness [assuming you're encoding to a format that supports it natively, such as all of the variants of atrac/3/plus] depends more on the source you're encoding from than anything else. MP3s don't generally conform to the exact framelength followed by CDs, so there's nearly always padding at the end of tracks that makes gapless playback impossible if they're played straight. Some programs are getting more intelligent about this, such as encoders that include info on the actual tracklength and players that either use that data or simply round down to the nearest 588-sample frame [forcing tracks to conform to CD frame lengths].

I have a few complaints about how SS works in general and a number about the design of its interface, but it's come a long way since v2.1 [the first I used]. Like kurisu and a few others here, I'm rather meticulous about maintaining my system. I have never actually had any installation-related problems with any version of SS, never lost a database, &c. I did experience the upload-corruption bug with earlier versions, but haven't had any problems like that in a long time [and have uploaded literally over 1,000 tracks since the last time it happened]. That said, I still limit my uses of SS to downloading MP3s to my RH10, HiSP tracks to my NH700, and uploading recorded tracks from either. I don't maintain a large database of tracks in SS primarily because OpenMG's DRM makes doing so highly unpractical. I basically refuse to remain stuck inside the DRM loop on my computer, though in all honesty not being able to copy tracks back off the player easily doesn't bother me; I'll always have DRM-free originals as legally-owned CDs or files of various formats that do not incorporate DRM to use as a source for making new copies if need be.

I'm babbling at this point, though.

[MDGB2]

Dont know if any scientific tests have been carried out, but read the forum below

http://forums.minidisc.org/index.php?showtopic=12882&st=30

Has a number of comments on about the sound quality of normal vs high e.g, jadeclaw:

"Another notable point: Sony finally listened. You can now select the coding quality during import.

Set it to high. CD-Import takes noticeably longer, but especially the lower datarates profit here.

So, remember to select 'High' on the recording quality, it is well worth the wait.

Soundwise, I can recommend to upgrade."

To be honest, on a portable, its hard to tell the difference between the higher bitrates whether ripped on 'high' or 'fast' settings.

I've had a play around with Atraclossless @ 64kbps (Hi-LP) set at 'high' quality and it produced decent results with my 5 year old mp3 files (arrrgh!!!) but normal 132kpbs (LP2)is a lot better.

It just comes down to quality vs quantity (i.e. do you want more per disc or better sound).

[zerodB]

O/T - Dex I would argue your assumption to be correct - both SonicStage and Simpleburner require the OpenMG Secure Module - that's where all the nitty gritty audio encoding takes place - SonicStage and Simpleburner are just front ends. To that end, you can actually uninstall SonicStage, and Simpleburner will function perfectly provided you don't uninstall the OpenMG Modules as well.

[Sony_Fan]

Well, I transfered the same song in 3 formats: SB Hi-SP, SS3.3 Hi-SP, SS3.3 Lossless Hi-SP (with SS3.3 set to "high"). I honestly could not tell the difference when I listened to all 3 tracks. At times, I was trying to convince myself that SS3.3 yielded better sound quality, but when i shuffled the tracks to play randomly I couldn't determine which song sounded better. I like the fact the SB simply compresses and transfers. With SS3.3, it compresses, copies to hard drive and then transfers. When I installed SS3.3, it also installed SB so I'm guessing that they both use the same compression algorithm (Codecs). Besides, SB is the only program that launches as soon as I connect my RH10. SS3.3 does not launch. I think I'll stick with SB, for now.