krbusby Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Okay, you guys all talk in bits and compression and yadda yadda. I'm not that bright. So I'm asking for a very basic answer to, I hope, a simple question: Does recording directly from CD through optical to minidisc make for a better sounding end product than ripping the CD to FLAC, converting to lossless wave, and then using SonicStage/NetMD to write the minidisc? I need to mention that I have the SonicStage import numbers set as high as possible but am writing the minidisc in SP for compatibility with my deck. Thanks for any responses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfbp Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 I think it depends on how the optical out of the CD dithers the >16 bit information that is undoubtedly present on CD's (why else would they have been talking about 20-bit oversampling 23 years ago), unless I have completely misunderstood. MD is inherently 24-bit (floating point) whereas CD is (at least in principle) 16-bit fixed point. If the CD reproduction system does a better job than straight conversion, then recording to the MD (possibly via ANALOGUE inputs, I'm really not quite clear on this point) may beat any wholly "digital" pathway involving ripping. I don't know. Some of this stuff seems very arcane to me. Maybe all I am saying is, try it, and whatever works the best, use it, and tell us about it - we may not be surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krbusby Posted February 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Ya I'm already thinking about some tests to do after I get out of my sick bed. (I'm a big baby when it comes to being sick). On 2/23/2012 at 7:05 AM, sfbp said: I think it depends on how the optical out of the CD dithers the >16 bit information that is undoubtedly present on CD's (why else would they have been talking about 20-bit oversampling 23 years ago), unless I have completely misunderstood. MD is inherently 24-bit (floating point) whereas CD is (at least in principle) 16-bit fixed point. If the CD reproduction system does a better job than straight conversion, then recording to the MD (possibly via ANALOGUE inputs, I'm really not quite clear on this point) may beat any wholly "digital" pathway involving ripping. I don't know. Some of this stuff seems very arcane to me. Maybe all I am saying is, try it, and whatever works the best, use it, and tell us about it - we may not be surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THIS SUCKS Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 dont rip SP to your standard md from sonic stage! its really just 132kbps lp2 with extra bits added so it can play on older players. use the optical cable instead for true SP 292kbps. it will sound much better! almost perfect to the original cd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobt Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Your ears are the ultimate judge, my take is each transcoding you do loses something, personally I would use a relatively high bitrate and go with sonic stage all the way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krbusby Posted February 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Thanks. I noticed those numbers, especially the 132kbps, and thought that seemed a little low. On 2/23/2012 at 5:03 PM, THIS SUCKS said: dont rip SP to your standard md from sonic stage! its really just 132kbps lp2 with extra bits added so it can play on older players. use the optical cable instead for true SP 292kbps. it will sound much better! almost perfect to the original cd. And that's really it. I just needed to know the facts and I'll add my ears to the picture as well. As far as I can tell using SS and listening to the end result on any of my MiniDisc players is still a much better end sound than an mp3 player. Maybe it's the amp and processors Sony uses. Maybe it's simply a built in 'effect' of the players. Definitely more separation of instruments, more depth. On 2/23/2012 at 6:02 PM, bobt said: Your ears are the ultimate judge, my take is each transcoding you do loses something, personally I would use a relatively high bitrate and go with sonic stage all the way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paperclip Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Why not record the FLAC files to SP in real-time, from whatever playback method you use, and skip a few steps? Sonic Stage SP is only 132 kbps and is not the best option. In fact, unless you plan on making LP2 mixes with Sonic Stage I'd skip that step altogether maybe. I always use digital for real-time recording. I know some folks say that analog recording might be better but I'm not convinced. In the end let your own ears be the judge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krbusby Posted February 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 This is beginning to look like the most logical way of doing it. My biggest reason was how long it takes to mark the tracks and edit the info. I was using Songbird to play through my MacBook's digital out into my JE320. Guess I'll go back to doing that. Thanks for the feedback. On 2/23/2012 at 9:53 PM, paperclip said: Why not record the FLAC files to SP in real-time, from whatever playback method you use, and skip a few steps? Sonic Stage SP is only 132 kbps and is not the best option. In fact, unless you plan on making LP2 mixes with Sonic Stage I'd skip that step altogether maybe. I always use digital for real-time recording. I know some folks say that analog recording might be better but I'm not convinced. In the end let your own ears be the judge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paperclip Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Maybe there is a plug-in to put a pause between tracks like Winamp, to give you the track marks? I know nothing about Apple stuff however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THIS SUCKS Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 you can record in sp without sonic stage if you use winamp with wincue to pause the playback between tracks set it to 3 seconds and use tos link digital cable for the recording all the track marks should be in the right places. just use sonic stage for the track titles and to create the groups you want to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan22 Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 If I connect my portable with an optically recorded SP disc to my computer and use sonicstage to title the tracks, will my files remain as true 292 kbps SP or will it somehow transform them to 132 kbps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krbusby Posted February 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 The files will be untouched, except for the name changes. On 2/27/2012 at 12:57 AM, Juan22 said: If I connect my portable with an optically recorded SP disc to my computer and use sonicstage to title the tracks, will my files remain as true 292 kbps SP or will it somehow transform them to 132 kbps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THIS SUCKS Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 i made over 300 mds this way. i still have 100 blanks to go! 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.