Recording Wave Files

[stevet]

I see you can record a stereo track wave file (16bit 44.1K) in MP3 mode.
The MBR also has the ability to import this file into Track data (Normal Mode).

The manual mentions on page 114 that the data will be converted to track data.
Does this statement imply that it will automatically compress the wave data to hifi MT2 track data?

I imagine it will auto convert to MT2.  If so, it's to bad you can't remain in the uncompressed wave file.  Well, I guess it would need to be a faster processor to accomadate wave files in track mode.

Another reason I imagine that it will convert to MT2 is that in track mode (Normal mode) there is no wave file creation mode, only in MP3 mode.

Having said that, I imagine using the MBR in MP3 mode and set to record a stereo wave file is the best quality possible as a stereo field recorder out of the MBR.

Also, I see you will not be a able use Master Mode on the created wave file without converting to track mode compression.

So...
The best bet for the recorded stereo wave file is to load it into you favorite software.. Sonar, Cubase, etc and use other mastering plugins.

OR, you could just say "screw it" and stick to recording in hifi MT2 mode which sounds good.  It would of been nice if they offered the MT1 or M16 Master mode (Linear) that Roland offers on higher end stuff.

[64Guitars]

I see you can record a stereo track wave file (16bit 44.1K) in MP3 mode.
The MBR also has the ability to import this file into Track data (Normal Mode).

The manual mentions on page 114 that the data will be converted to track data.
Does this statement imply that it will automatically compress the wave data to hifi MT2 track data?

Yes. Track data is always stored in whichever RDAC format you selected when you created the song (MT2, LV1, or LV2).

OR, you could just say "screw it" and stick to recording in hifi MT2 mode which sounds good.  It would of been nice if they offered the MT1 or M16 Master mode (Linear) that Roland offers on higher end stuff.

RDAC uses a lossless data compression scheme combined with varying sample rates (32 kHz to 96 kHz) to produce much smaller files with very little loss in fidelity. I doubt that most people could hear a difference between MT2 and an uncompressed wave file. For those who may not be familiar with "lossless" data compression, it means that, when uncompressed, the resulting data is exactly the same as the pre-compression data. It's like compressing a file with WinZip or WinRAR, then unzipping it and comparing the resulting file to the original. They will be identical. So, any slight difference in fidelity between MT2 and M16 (both use 16-bit samples, by the way), will be due to MT2's varying sample rate, not the data compression. But Roland have done such a good job of varying the sample rate that most people won't be able to hear any difference.

I'd like to see the option of recording uncompressed wave files in future BRs, but not because I expect it to sound better. Rather, I'd like to be able to drag tracks back and forth between my computer and the BR without having to convert them. The Zoom HD8 and HD16, for example, already have this capability.

[stevet]

Lossless audio implies there is no difference between non compressed linear audio and a compressed version once decompressed. Zip files like you mentioned are lossless. They offer the exact one-for-one of the original.

This has been a Roland rumor ever since the VS series started many years ago.

If RDAC was completely "lossless", why have MT1 and MT2 modes, not to mention also LV1 and LV2 modes. 

As you know, based on redundancy itself, audio is not easy to compress without giving something up... hence all the lossy formats..  MP3, Ogg ,Vorbis, AAC, Musepack .etc....

I can hear losses in many lossy formats. Some are better than others.. goes without saying. As far as RDAC, I'm sure it's one of the best.. at least their MT1.

Having said that, I'm also a fan of representing analog wave forms in it's highest ability possible.

I remember how bad CD players sounded when they first hit the shelves in the early 80s. They were harsh and brittle as hell. Of course the first ones had no oversampling and relied on a brick-wall-filter to minimize the aliasing artifacts.