mil Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 I just bought my first HiMD player a few days ago. So far i have recorded a couple of disks. all the recording i have done so far is in Hi-SP mode. this means that i can fit about 8 hrs of music on one disk. In the manual it says if i switch to Hi-LP mode i can record 34 hrs of music. can anyone tell me if there is much difference in quality between Hi-LP mode and Hi-SP mode. thanks in advance! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Low Volta Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 evidently, if the same disc can hold four times as much music, this means the file size is four times as small or in other words: lots more info is cut out... this has an effect on sound quality (SQ)whether or not this quality loss hinders you in the enjoyment of the music is up to you. Just download the same piece of music in HiSP and HiLP and listen if you can hear the difference... if not, congrats, you have just won quadruple storage space. I for one can hear too much differences with the original source and even with HiSP... I use either HiSP (on my NH900) or MP3 (Lame VBR V4-new on my RH1). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielbb90 Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 But remember there are different bit-rated between these 2, like 192kbps.Just test them all untill you find one your comfortable with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobS Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 What you record will also make a difference is what bitrate sounds acceptable. A single aCapella voice is fairly easy to encode, a full orchestra much more difficult. The first would sound good at a low bitrate, the latter would be able to take advantage of a higher bitrate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparda Posted November 3, 2006 Report Share Posted November 3, 2006 Hi-SP for most people sounds the same as PCM. Hi-LP most people can hear a difference if you listen carefully. Also if the source sounds like crap there is no point in using a high bitrate, garbage in garbage out. I for one use 356 and Hi-SP. For crappy sources I use the lower bitrates. I carry around a few more discs but thats no problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mil Posted November 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2006 Okay, cheers for all that, i have got a few audio books, so sounds like it won't make much difference if i record them using Hi-LP, but for the rest ill just stick to Hi-sp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sony_Fan Posted November 4, 2006 Report Share Posted November 4, 2006 It's pretty simple. Hi-LP is equivalent to FM Stereo quality. Hi-SP is equivalent to CD quality. There's a huge difference between FM music and CD music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Ghidora Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 I think the intended use of the recording makes a big difference in what quality you want to use to encode. If I am recording something that will be played through the crappy sound system in my truck I don't worry too much about quality being top notch but it does have to be an acceptable level. I don't record in 48 kbps or anything ridiculous like that. I will use Hi-LP though because the sound system it's being played through is no better than FM quality anyway. But if I want to listen to something through my best headphones I want much better quality.I'm apparently different on source material too. If I download an mp3 from the web I don't want to make it worse by encoding it at a lower level like Hi-LP. It will sound very bad if I do that IMO because it is getting double compression. If I'm transfering someting from a CD I will go ahead and use Hi-LP because it can stand to lose a little quality if the intended use is through a crappy sound system like the one in my truck. But it will definitely be noticeable if I play it in my car which has an excellent sound system. I think these questions are just something a person will learn to deal with in time. There are no perfect answers for every situation. Just remember that it's best to try to get the best quality you can get for your situation. You don't want to find that you recorded a bunch of music on a 1 gig disc only to hear really terrible sound from it on a long ride home from out of town when you really wanted to hear those tunes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Top Cat Posted November 16, 2006 Report Share Posted November 16, 2006 It's pretty simple. Hi-LP is equivalent to FM Stereo quality.That's a far-fetched claim by Sony marketeers.IMO FM is much higher quality (at least in ideal reception conditions).And often FM is indistinguishable from CD except for background hiss. BTW some reputable radiostations refuse to air anything lower than PCM 44/16 - that must be for a reason... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sony_Fan Posted November 17, 2006 Report Share Posted November 17, 2006 That's a far-fetched claim by Sony marketeers.IMO FM is much higher quality (at least in ideal reception conditions).And often FM is indistinguishable from CD except for background hiss. BTW some reputable radiostations refuse to air anything lower than PCM 44/16 - that must be for a reason...FM quality is "equalized" from the radio station. That means that bass, treble and mids are adjusted to enhance sound quality. But a flat FM signal would be equivalent to Hi-LP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grenert Posted November 18, 2006 Report Share Posted November 18, 2006 FM quality is "equalized" from the radio station. That means that bass, treble and mids are adjusted to enhance sound quality. But a flat FM signal would be equivalent to Hi-LP.No, no way. Lots of FM stations sound bad because of compression (of dynamics, to make the station louder, not digital compression as with MP3 or ATRAC), bad reception, etc. However, a clear signal from a good-sounding (i. e., minimally processed) station is light years ahead of Hi-LP. I do a lot of recording off FM with very good tuners (Yamaha T-85 and Sony ST-S730ES) and 24-bit A-D cards (Echo Indigo IO and Edirol UA-1EX) and I can tell you that the compressed files are NOT as good as the original WAV files. FM doesn't sound better because of equalization, it is because of the lack of digital compression and its subsequent losses and artifacts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZosoIV Posted November 18, 2006 Report Share Posted November 18, 2006 FM quality is "equalized" from the radio station. That means that bass, treble and mids are adjusted to enhance sound quality. But a flat FM signal would be equivalent to Hi-LP.A clear FM signal with no analog noise, excellent channel separation, and no processing would have more in common with 32kHz PCM than Hi-LP. Remember, the main downfall of Hi-LP is he barrage of awful digital artifacts (ringing, pre-echo, noise) that it introduces into the audio. Those, IMO, are FAR more annoying than the analog shortcomings of FM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenmachine Posted November 18, 2006 Report Share Posted November 18, 2006 What about channel separation? 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.