Question about Quality: Real time recording vs. SonicStage

[danielbb90]

What provides better quality?

Optical cable realtime recording or sonicstage?

(I searched and can't find what i'm looking for!)

Thanks,

Danny

Edited March 24, 2006 by danielbb90

[A440]

Better quality doing what? Recording from a CD to Hi-MD?

I would think you'd get the same or better quality via SonicStage/SimpleBurner. PCM via SonicStage should essentially just transfer the .wav file. Hi-SP or Hi-LP compression will either be compressed in your computer or on the unit; I'd guess that the computer compression has the chance to be better because there's more processing power in your computer. But whether it actually is....well, try it. I doubt you (or I) would notice any difference, if indeed there is one.

[sebastianbf]

I asked the same thing once. I cant remember who told me that SS codecs should always work better, don't know why though.

[streaml1ne]

SonicStage has the potential to be better than the DSP on any given unit as the codec there can be upgraded. The DSP/codec in a recorder is set in stone once the device is created (barring firmware updates which rarely happen). Another consideration is that the recorder will resample ALL inputs to 44.1kHz, even optical. This can change the sound signature of what you're recording.

[atrain]

with all the technological improvments since netmd came out i doubt there is any reason to do realtime at all unless your computer access is limited. i know there are some who are set in there habbits too, who enjoy the time spent listening during recording, not just after.

[1kyle]

with all the technological improvments since netmd came out i doubt there is any reason to do realtime at all unless your computer access is limited. i know there are some who are set in there habbits too, who enjoy the time spent listening during recording, not just after.

Why is it that people only think that a COMPUTER has to do this stuff.

There's nothing wrong with real time if you have to use it. Whilst the real time recording is running you can be out in the garden, out at a Pub / sports venue etc etc.

I know it might sound strange to a younger generation but there IS life outside computers and Mobile Phones.

All these things are tools and undoubtedly very good tools but it's not the only way even if you HAVE a computer.

Real time optical out to Optical In will be fine --although titling tracks afterwards is a chore (that's where SS and a computer shines).

If you are Listening to a recording on high end gear (most computers are pretty dreadful for high quality music listening --they can play DVD's passably and some games have acceptable sound but for high quality music forget computers) then here if you want to make a copy real time is fine.

(Some decks will also do 2X DIGITAL CD===>MD copying as well).

As for quality there won't be any significant difference in either method provided the bit rate isn't dropped too low for example copying SP @ 292 to LP2 @ 132 kbs.

Cheers

-K

Edited March 24, 2006 by 1kyle

[atrain]

Why is it that people only think that a COMPUTER has to do this stuff.

There's nothing wrong with real time if you have to use it. Whilst the real time recording is running you can be out in the garden, out at a Pub / sports venue etc etc.

I know it might sound strange to a younger generation but there IS life outside computers and Mobile Phones.

All these things are tools and undoubtedly very good tools but it's not the only way even if you HAVE a computer.

Real time optical out to Optical In will be fine --although titling tracks afterwards is a chore (that's where SS and a computer shines).

If you are Listening to a recording on high end gear (most computers are pretty dreadful for high quality music listening --they can play DVD's passably and some games have acceptable sound but for high quality music forget computers) then here if you want to make a copy real time is fine.

(Some decks will also do 2X DIGITAL CD===>MD copying as well).

As for quality there won't be any significant difference in either method provided the bit rate isn't dropped too low for example copying SP @ 292 to LP2 @ 132 kbs.

Cheers

-K

i think you just confirmed my point, i'm not saying don't do it, just that there is no reason to do it for higher quality recordings.

[rayzray]

i prefer "Real TIme" most of the time; it's funner; and more gratifying.

all this optical crap is like fake milk; you can't beat mother's milk; and you can't beat "Real Time"!

and while you're at it; try "tweaking" a bit; like color your music; they do it in recording studios before they dupe you into buying it; why not un-dupe yourself and do it.

Edited March 24, 2006 by rayzray

[danielbb90]

Thanks guys!

[KrazyIvan]

I read an article a while back on the differences of recording digital optical VS. USB recordings. USB recordings were pushed as being superior because there was no jitter to compensate for as in optical digital recordings. I really doubt somebody could tell the difference in a blind A-B test.

[Deanage]

The only 2 reasons I can see why real-time optical recording would be better than USB is that you can use a dedicated CD deck for slightly better sound quality and the CD isn't spinning at "super speed", thus reducing the chances of getting errors (although you would presume the chances of that happening with today's optical drives is miniscule).

I use real-time because I gave up on SS a long time ago (don't have 3.4 yet), and my first MD walkman was an MZG-755 (pre Net-MD). Old habits die hard, I guess.

Oh! Also, If you have a CD deck capable of holding multiple CD's, you don't have to swap them all the time. Just program the songs you want, hit record and walk away.

[Embio]

Why is it that people only think that a COMPUTER has to do this stuff.....

....I know it might sound strange to a younger generation but there IS life outside computers and Mobile Phones.....

Cheers

-K

I'm 18 and use real time almost exclusively with my Sony PCDP :-D

[Sony_Fan]

Better quality doing what? Recording from a CD to Hi-MD?

I would think you'd get the same or better quality via SonicStage/SimpleBurner. PCM via SonicStage should essentially just transfer the .wav file. Hi-SP or Hi-LP compression will either be compressed in your computer or on the unit; I'd guess that the computer compression has the chance to be better because there's more processing power in your computer. But whether it actually is....well, try it. I doubt you (or I) would notice any difference, if indeed there is one.

I don't know if Simple Burner is as good as SonicStage. SS 3.4 has the "high" recording setting that Simple Burner does not. So, it's possiblet that better sound quality may be achieved in SS 3.4. Unfortunately, you have to import the file and then transfer. It takes twice as long than Simple Burner.