Jump to content

Best way of ripping CDs to MDs? (SS, NetMD, HiMD, Optical etc?)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Ive got a collection of CDs which i want to convert onto MDs and was wondering which way is the best way?

previously i was using my CMT-C5 but somehow my RH1 doesnt seem to like the first few tracks of each MD although all my other players seem to read them fine(?) so i switched to using Sonic Stage 4.3 ultimate in NetMD mode.

but i just read something that said that NetMD SP mode is more like LP2 so quality is actually degraded even though it too takes up the entire length of a standard MD. Is there an alternative besides connecting a cd player to the MD in order to maintain SP quality?

Also, am i right in saying that using the HiMD mode for transferring files in sonicstage can preserve the quality of the files providing i set them in the export options?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic has been done to death. Glad to give you the bottom line, though. For my taste, rip to Atrac Advanced Lossless (High Quality, not High Speed - somewhere in the settings) and save that on your PC.

You can use EAC to make the rip, then import the WAV files into SS. After that I still compress to AAL.

But the AAL is a pretty good start as about half the work needed to make a decent sounding MD is already done. Save things in AAL (use the 256kbps base, 352kbps doesn't buy you anything) on the PC, then extrude to LP2 or Hi-SP (if you have a HiMD unit).

Don't use SS to rip CD's directly to WAV, however SS->LP2 is not too bad. Simple Burner can do that, too (but doesn't function under Windows 7 or any Windows 64-bit - there's a bit of ambiguity since we can not definitively say that W7/32 won't support it).

SP is not a computer-friendly codec, for whatever reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen, can you give me a link to understand your words "352kbps doesn't buy you anything" ?

No link needed. Here's what I know:

1. No portable (or deck? but I don't have Onkyo) can really take advantage of 352. On the portables I tried, there's no significant difference from 256kbps (Hi-SP).

2. Ripping to AAL 256 or 352 makes no difference except that converting from 352 to 256 takes more work - when you copy AAL/256 to portable SS simply throws away the "lossless" part

3. If you convert back to WAV from AAL either 256kbps or 352kbps will generate about the same result. That's why it's called "lossless"

4. No device actually PLAYS AAL - the ones that do simply throw away the lossless part. I may easily be wrong about this, so perhaps someone can provide proof that there's a difference. I don't think any of the devices that claim to natively play AAL can actually reproduce those frequencies anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The actual best answer to your question is on your head, record the same song at different bitrates, put it in a player of choice, hit random playback, and see if you can tell the difference, chances are you won't be able to. If you do, choose the one that fits you best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is why I stick on SP or even LP2 with classic MD. WizardofOz - who own a Hi-MD Onkyo deck - used to listen to Hi-MD dics recorded even in PCM so all make me think that it is very a subjective subject. Until Sony is not decided to make a MDS- RH333ES :lol: we will not have a clear answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with sfbp.

If you MUST use a computer to transfer CD's to MD's, saving a copy of the music in "AAL High Quality" as your "base" is recommended. Then you can export in various bit rates.

For mere mortals, a direct transfer with simpleburner is the answer. Fewer things to manage and remember. It will be LP2 quality by default.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And for you, do you notice a difference between SP 292kbps and Hi-SP 256kbps ?

I'm not sure if the question is directed to me. But I don't have ONE hi-md unit. I only have the Z05 and many many MDLP players :dance3:

From a logical point of view, SP 292kbps would sound better. First, the bit rate is higher. Second, we had the discussion in another thread on how the Sony engineers used their ears to test the quality in the beginning, and then they just tried to achieve some spec based on mathematics and statistics. So, I would think the higher bit rate and "human-tested" quality will be better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think there's a REASON why SP sounds so good. Unfortunately that same reason causes it to be difficult to deal with as a codec (quite apart from licensing issues from Dolby). There's some magic in the choice of the 292kbps so that it's a very simple mathematical transformation for the data from 1411kbps to 292. I believe this, but cannot be sure of it.

Effectively what I am saying is that somehow the choice of bit rate means that the transformation between ATRAC and 1411 PCM doesn't generate much dithering (interpolation) of bits.

I think they kept most of this in the later ATRAC codecs but that there was something mathematically perfect about the original one. It's likely that much of that was in the ATRAC hardware.

I emphasise again that this is just a layman's (my) "hand-waving" explanation - and it may be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...