Re: MD: Choice between Aiwa AM-F70 and Sharp MD-MT90
Stilson Snow wrote:It's a long, boring story that has no point except I have the choice between and ONLY between the Sharp MD-MT90 and the Aiwa AM-F70 and I'm not sure about which one to choose. I have no other choices (the long story) so, please, if you respond, please don't recommend other units. The Aiwa was a good unit but it is old. The Sharp was just recently released. Also check the equipment browser http://www.minidisc.org/equipment_browser.html LAS - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: MD/CD Car Stereo Recommendation
BEGIN QUOTE By this you mean the Sony units interface with CD changers? That's cool. That might be a better thing for me really instead of a hybrid deck. That, and it's probably cheaper in the long run, and more flexible. END QUOTE=== Another way to go is to buy a Sony CD/tuner unit that can work with a UniLink-capable CD changer, then get that fab Sony MDX-65 6-disc MD changer. This small changer can be installed under the front seat or in the glove compartment or centre-console armrest / storage compartment or boot (trunk); and can play 6 MDs. It even makes clever use of the buffer by reducing the amount of dead-air during disc change. In Europe, Pioneer made a rebadged version of this MD changer and it can be integrated with any Pioneer IP-bus head unit (any model with P in the model number). It still offers the same features that the Sony design was known for. If you trawled the MD-L archives, you may see a fair bit of mention of this MD changer, including use of the RM-X69RF controller to interface it with various car stereo systems that are equipped with AUX inputs. As well, SoundLinx, a company who makes aftermarket interface kits for some European OEM car stereos sells interface kits for hooking up this changer to some of these OEM car stereos like the Ford 5000 / 6000 / 7000 RDS series head units used in European Ford cars during the mid-90s. With regards, Simon Mackay - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD inferior to MP3: it's not computer-literate
las [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Granted, you have to spend a LOT more money on a vinyl system, and put a LOT more care into it, to get sound comparable to a CD system, but that's another story. You would have to spend so much money that it would not be practical for all but the wealthiest people to afford it. It costs a lot for a good vinyl system, but not that much. A few thousand dollars will let you buy a CD-based system or a vinyl-based system that can offer comparable sound. While she agrees that it is possible to make make a record that sounds as good or better than a CD, the equipment needed all the way through the chain and the care that would have to be take make it so impractical. But that doesn't make any sense. What equipment and care? How is it so different from a standard master? Also, she states that analog tape has so many inherent problems that adversely affect the final product. I respect your daughter's opinion, but that sounds more like Sony/Phillips marketing than reality. Take a look at the equipment many audiophile record labels use -- the equipment they use to make CDs that sound much better than CDs made elsewhere. I think you'd be surprised how much analog equipment (and tape) is used. We're not talking about cassette. We're talking tape masters -- the same ones used on the vast majority of CDs every produced. It's only recently that some studios have gone all-digital. Your not really keeping the sound as sound. You are converting waves to magnetic signals and there in lies your first road block. But those magnetic signals are analog signals -- there is no conversion going on, which is the first roadblock to CD/digital sound being accurate. The second being the D/A conversion that occurs later. Vinyl is analog to analog. Yes but the storage used to store the analog signal is magnetic, not physical and converting vibrations to electricity causes a great deal of distortion. Says who? Again, that sounds more like digital propaganda than reality. CD is analog - A/D processor - CD. Yes but first of all, the high end converters that are used today are so good at doing what they do that they can make a very accurate copy. Better than most analog tapes. Again, says who? If that was the case, people who care about sound wouldn't buy new DACs all the time. There is no objective evidence that CD is better, There is. There is loads of objective evidence. All of those specifications. But that doesn't mean that subjectively a CD will sound better. What specifications? All you have to do is read the PR sheets for each new wave of CD format to see why the previous was inferior and the current one is one step closer to the real thing. And all those specs don't mean that *objectively* a CD will sound better. As I wrote in an earlier message, I know what I've heard, and I know what a lot of other people have heard, and it's not because of any particular love for the sound of vinyl. Also, today almost all studios use all digital storage. You said this several times, but it's not necessarily true. In fact, many of the audiophile records labels still do everything using analog equipment. It's true that lots of the big labels (who put out mostly pop/rock/country/RB) use all-digital equipment, but even they will tell you that it's more for convenience than because they did the comparisons and found that they can produce better-sounding albums with digital. In fact, one of the biggest advantages of digital-based studios is that they can alter the recordings more easily -- something that happens a lot on mass-market pop, etc., but that doesn't happen much on high-end recordings. You mentioned that older vinyl recordings sound better to you. No I didn't. Even Lenny Kravits, who used to insist that everything be vintage and analog has given up. Someone must have convinced him that it wasn't worth the hassle. LOL, maybe someone told Lenny that rock music generally isn't the kind of music that really benefits from audiophile recording methods. My daughter said, as she was laughing about your statements of having to spend a lot of money to get the results, That may be true in some analog utopia, but not in the real world. Again, as I've said over and over, I challenge you to go to a high-end audio shop that has a *good* vinyl system, and do your own blind tests. Then come back and tell us truthfully that vinyl can't compete with CD. There are other things you said that are open for debate. Belts will wear and stretch over time, thus affecting the accuracy of speed. Haven't you ever had to retension a belt on your car because of this? Again, belt wear and tear is part of the maintenance of a good vinyl system. I've said from the beginning that such things are part of having a vinyl system. That's not the issue here. The issue is whether or not vinyl can sound as good as CD (actually, the issue was originally that MP3 sounds better than vinyl, which is not true no matter how
RE: MD: MD/CD Car Stereo Recommendation
Hi Mike, I think all MD head units can control CD changers, at least the Kenwood's ones. If you have place for a changer (MD or CD), then go for it, but remember that Sony is not only manufacturer to have such products available. For sound quality, for example, Kenwood products are better. I mentioned JVC's CD/MD head unit because it is really convenient to have the possibility to insert a CD or a MD directly in the unit rather than to have to go to the boot to remove or insert discs. Francis -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Lastucka Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 2:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MD: MD/CD Car Stereo Recommendation By this you mean the Sony units interface with CD changers? That's cool. That might be a better thing for me really instead of a hybrid deck. That, and it's probably cheaper in the long run, and more flexible. --- Mike Lastucka, B. Tech - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD/CD Car Stereo Recommendation
Just from my own experience. I have an old car with a very old sound system. It doesn't have a CD player, but it can play cassettes. I bought a portable MD-recorder a couple of months ago (a Sony MZ-G750). Very nice little player with FM-radio. Then I got the Sony CPA-9C Car connection pack. With this little investment I can now use my MD-player in the car and even in my boombox in the bedroom which can play cassettes too. There is a disadvantage to using the Cassette Adapter: it is a little bit noisy due to the fact that the adapter runs continuously in the player. BTW, in the Netherlands the Cassette Adapter can be bought seperately from the other gadget for portable MD-players: a power plug for the cigarette lighter. I didn't get one because I thought the power plug was much too expensive. Off-topic: I have had to laught with the discussion about titling. Having grown up in the vinyl and cassette era, I don't bother with titling at all. Writing down the titles on labels is more useful to me. I never look at the player when it's playing anyway. I also own a Sony MD-DX3 combo which reads CD-Text. Very interesting, but I have only one CD with Text anyway. But at least the deck will copy titles to MD. But I don't miss the titles at all. Maybe my standard is too low, but I never heard anyone complain in the pre-CD era that the couldn't see which track was playing with an LP. We just looked at the album cover. iMark - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD inferior to MP3: it's not computer-literate
macdef wrote: First off please excuse me for not addressing you by your name, but I didn't notice it anywhere and I didn't want to refer to you as MACDEF. las [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Granted, you have to spend a LOT more money on a vinyl system, and put a LOT more care into it, to get sound comparable to a CD system, but that's another story. As you stated, this debate could go on forever. But after your apparently derogatory statements about Rock, I realize it would be pointless because we don't just disagree about analog vs digital. We are on two different planets altogether! You mentioned that older vinyl recordings sound better to you. No I didn't. Here I stand corrected. I thought that your e mail was coming from the same person who started the vinyl vs CD debate. That person was actually Gerry Morgan He stated: My older (late 1950s and 1960s) LPs generally sound better than those from the 70s and 80s. I think there is room for a discussion between you and Gerry, if you disagree with his statement. You said this several times, but it's not necessarily true. In fact, many of the audiophile records labels still do everything using analog equipment. Your talking about those vintage studios that I mentioned. What specifications? Frequency range. THD. S/N ratio. Dynamic range. Channel separation. To name a few. These are objective specifications. Often they may not correlate with the subjective findings of your ears and brain. So subjectively to some people vinyl will sound better than digital. You keep mentioning analog to analog. But the analog sound that you hear live, is not the same analog sound that you hear on the recording. Because of the limitations of analog storage, frequency response must be cut off and the original sound must be compressed so that you do not over saturate the analog tape. This is actually more critical in classical music than the Rock that you seem to dislike. The dynamic range of Rock is generally not that great. But in classical music it can be far more dB than analog tape and vinyl can handle. Take the 1812 Overture. You have passages where the volume is so low that you can almost not hear the music. Then you reach a point where cannons are often actually fired. You keep mentioning the on going improvements in things such as ADC and DACs. But that is just akin to all of the improvements that analog made over the years. In fact the improvements in analog sound are much greater than those from the first CDs to the present. Poor quality mikes. Hum that was louder than the music. Going from speakers with a frequency response of 1500cps / 3000cps to speakers that almost go down to 20 and almost make it to 20,000. The same applies to the early stylus and cartridge. Dynagroove The constant inability of record companies to decide whether thinner or thicker vinyl produced better fidelity. I'm sure that if digital storage hadn't come along, new advances in analog would have been developed that would make analog recordings today as different as Tom Edison's tin foil player is to today's vinyl recordings. But research in the area of improving analog was abandoned once digital became the accepted means of storage and playback. The last major improvement in analog sound that I can think of was the invention of HiFi video recorders. Their sound quality was considered a vast improvement over vinyl and other types of analog storage. Once they managed to take advantage of the fast speed of the recording and playback heads of video tape, the difference between the sound quality of a tape recorded at faster linear speed became insignificant in comparison. All the things that you mentioned about places like Ambrosia Audio are impractical in the real world. Motion picture film is analog and even video majors would have to concede that a high quality film image still can not be matched by video. In theory film could always be superior to video, because for each step that you make in improving the quality of video, whether it is digital or analog, you could always double the size of the film and thereby double the resolution. But as in audio, there are practical limits. When you get to the point where you are describing the dimensions of film in feet or yards rather then mm, you have something so impractical to work with and so costly that it could not be used in the real world. But to me one of the most significant improvements in analog sound of the 20th century was the advent of stereo (once they learned how to use it correctly and stopped making those ping pong effect recordings). I have a feeling that our debate may actually have more to do with musical preferences than analog vs digital or vinyl vs MP3 or CDs. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD/CD Car Stereo Recommendation
Mark Ligtenstein wrote: Just from my own experience. I have an old car with a very old sound system. It doesn't have a CD player, but it can play cassettes. There is a disadvantage to using the Cassette Adapter: it is a little bit noisy due to the fact that the adapter runs continuously in the player. The other disadvantage is the limited specifications of the cassette player itself. BTW, in the Netherlands the Cassette Adapter can be bought seperately from the other gadget for portable MD-players: a power plug for the cigarette lighter. I didn't get one because I thought the power plug was much too expensive. You can do the same in the US. My experience with cassette adapters are they have to be viewed as disposable products. No matter which brand I have bought, none of them have lasted too long. Off-topic: I have had to laught with the discussion about titling. Having grown up in the vinyl and cassette era, I don't bother with titling at all. Writing down the titles on labels is more useful to me. I never look at the player when it's playing anyway. That's interesting. I also grew up in that era and also really couldn't care less about titling. LAS - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: MD inferior to MP3: it's not computer-literate
macdef wrote: Michael Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is grossly irrelevant to assume 128 Kbps MP3 as the standard while assuming 292 Kbps as the MD standard, then say MD sounds better than MP3. This is all too obvious yet people insist on such obviously unfair comparisons. I never do. I equate MDLP to 292k, MDLP2 to 192 or 256k, MDLP4 to 96k. At those levels, MD sounds better on each. I've read that standard ATRAC is 292 Kbps. Why do you say 192 or 256k for MDLP2 - which rate is actually used for MDLP2? The 256 Kbps MP3s I trade sound the same as standard 5:1 ATRAC, because it's the same compression ratio and generally, all the leading compression algorithms perform approximately the same as far as fidelity vs. ratio. I would disagree. ATRAC is superior to even the best MP3 encoders. Even my friends who aren't audiophiles can tell the difference between standard MD and 256k MP3. My blindfold headphone tests between WAV and MP3 CBR showed no audible difference between 224 Kbps MP3 and the input .wav, with the encoder I used. I have top-percentile hearing and know how to use the gear. Because my ability to hear artifacts has rapidly improved, I bump up to 256 Kbps, though I consider 224 Kbps to be practically perfect even for critical headphone listening in a quiet environment. Bitrates can be deceptive -- I've heard 224 Kbps that sounds as bad as 128 Kbps (actually I suspect it was re-compressed). I back away from 320 Kbps because some of today's 1st-generation MP3 CD players can't play 320 Kbps MP3s. My mind is not completely closed on this -- I fear I am cursed with good enough hearing so that I will learn to hear the artifacts you claim even at 320 Kbps. I'm an audio fanatic but nowhere near as much as some people. I also don't get the whole thing about titling. Having to spend any time at all to title a copy is technologically absurd and obstructs the ease of using MD. Why should I have to title my MD tracks when the titles have already been entered and uploaded by someone else in CDDB? You should also acknowledge that most people do not have the ability to plug in a computer keyboard to type in titles. My setup is more typical -- I have a $330 brand new top of the line Sony 900 portable, yet Sony expects me to use the jog dial to spend 15 minutes laboriously titling tracks -- the included Xitel digital interface is the perfect example of digital hype versus digital reality that falls short of potential. Why in the hell doesn't Xitel transfer the MP3 ID3 track titling? I am not impressed. Xitel today offers no advantage over an analog connection (plus the trackmarks malfunction sometimes). You are too forgiving -- have you tried to trade 30 albums at a time on MD versus MP3 -- when including titles? Titling is one of the biggest glaring flaws of MD versus MP3. MD does titling in the most stupid, boneheaded, manual, tedious, time-consuming way possible. MP3 titling is a godsend and puts MD titling to shame. I found that it was easier to trade 30 titled MP3 albums (on CD-R) in one shot than to trade just 5 titled albums on MD. MDs are a dead-end for trades and each time you do copy an MD you lose the titling and introduce another generation of lossy compression -- unlike MP3s. With MP3s, once you have a copy of the album, you can trade it bit-for-bit with much less effort than copying one MD to another, because the titles are transferred inherently as the ID3 tag part of the MP3 file -- no lossy compression, and no need to manually re-add the titles. When considering copying albums, MD is a comparatively poor quality, dead end, and manually intensive medium (as currently packaged). Once you have an MP3 computer with CD burner set up for MP3 CD-R trades, MP3 is bit-for-bit accurate, ultra-fast, and intelligent medium. I've experienced glimpses of the best potential for MP3s, and it's much greater than even most MP3 advocates claim. MP3 technology is now in its 1st generation and has huge growth potential. Sony knows this. MD is now in perhaps its 3rd-5th generation, and has little growth potential that is as significant as adding some of the features that MP3 introduced, such as sticky titling that is not left behind when you do a file copy. Sony deliberately crippled MD and restricted its potential features (such as bit-for-bit MD cloning without another ATRAC generation) to appease the RIAA (that group of industry lawyers specializing in ripping off musicians and crippling technology). But now Sony's restriction of MD capabilities is biting Sony in the ass, because MP3 technology does not deliberately cripple itself like Sony did to MD. MP3 files are copied bit-for-bit, of course including the titles. Micronics MD titler http://www.mironics.com/default.asp?get_Click=productget_Pointer=3 First of all, for me MP3 and MD are equally easy/a pain, because I can plug a PS/2 keyboard (which I bought for $2) up to my MD recorder and title songs. So it's just as
MD: MD and MP3 technologies are merging
Michael Hoffman wrote: Your points will not be valid for very long at all. We're about to be hit by a tidal wave of MP3-capable CD players and related combinations of technologies and features. Mike Lastucka wrote: Which is fine for people who like to cart around what I consider to be bulky players. MD units for me are far more discrete, imho. What are you talking about? What are your unexamined assumptions? Have some vision, some imagination. Do I need to post a list of links to innovative new combinations of technology in the latest products? Evidently you need a concrete visual proof of the crossover that is happening between MD and MP3 features and behaviors, to let go of the cliche clouds of connotations of what MD is and what MP3 is. http://www.musicmatch.com/download/radiomx_intro.htm ~~128 stereo Kbps (ATRAC3?) internet radio (I'm listening now). No interruptions, just brief station IDs, start of songs do a 1-second fade-in, can skip about 10 songs before you must wait or switch stations to skip some more songs. A hint of the future. I consider 128 Kbps stereo typical FM-quality. http://www.realnetworks.com/company/pressroom/pr/00/sony.html - RealNetworks plans to integrate support for Sony music technologies into RealJukebox, including ATRAC3, its sound compression format, as well as OpenMG copyright protection technology, the Sony Memory Stick and its portable audio players such as Memory Stick Walkman and VAIO Music Clip. This enhancement to RealJukebox is expected to ship in the Summer of 2000, and is to be designed for use with OpenMG on PCs to comply with SDMI (Secure Digital Music Initiative) requirements for copyright management. Both RealNetworks and Sony are active members of SDMI. RealNetworks also expects to provide integrated support for Sony's ATRAC3 codec technology, which will enable consumers to download and play ATRAC3-encoded music on PCs, as well as downloading such music to Sony's portable audio players packaged with OpenMG, like Memory Stick Walkman and VAIO Music Clip. Initially, RealNetworks and Sony plan to develop a version of RealJukebox for Windows 98 and 2000. Mini CD-R blanks ($0.68 US) http://www.yesbuy.net/cd-r-3--mini-cdr.html Mini CD-R blanks ($0.68 US) http://www.meritline.com/50pcsminicdr.html http://cdr4less.com/cgi-bin/smart_cart.cgi?keywords=mini%20cdr http://www.supermediastore.com/10pacmincdrb.html Mini-CD-RW: Mini CDRW blanks ($2 US, compare to regular CDRW blanks) http://cdr4less.com/cgi-bin/smart_cart.cgi?keywords=cd-rw - Not compatible with Sony Mavica CD1000 Camera. Fully ReWritable up to 1,000 times -- Silver top Mini CD-RW, in spindles (cases available separately), holds 21 minutes audio [CDDA] or 180MB of data, measures 80 mm (8cm or 3.25) round. Fits in small center depression in the tray of most CDR burners and CD-ROM players. Freecom Beatman Mini-CDR player with MP3 decoding http://www.freecom.com/ecCategory_one.asp?ID=8009type=DRIVE%5FIN Philips Expanium 401 MP3 Mini-CD-R player http://www.tecchannel.de/news/20010503/thema20010503-4303.html More hits: http://www.google.com/search?q=expanium+401 http://www.getasia.com.sg/getasia%5CGetAsiaCachePublish.nsf/Content/251DEF92E1 3C7A0248256A4D001E3376?Opendocument - Philips EXP 401 MP3-CD portable delivers over three hours of compressed MP3, UDF or AAC audio from single disc. Philips is boosting its eXpandium MP3-CD player features by shrinking the CD player itself - with a CD portable specifically designed to play 8cm (3-inch) CDs which can contain over three hours of compressed digital audio in formats like MP3, UDF or AAC. Due September 2001. MP3-CD playback (32-320 Kbps including Variable Bit Rate); 8cm CD compatibility (Audio CD, CD-R, CD-RW); Onboard decoders: CDDA, MP3, UDF or AAC. Samsung MCD-MP8 MP3 Mini-CD-R player http://www.tecchannel.de/news/20010704/thema20010704-4783.html - 180 und 230 MByte Daten. Die CDs können herkömmliche CD-Brenner beschreiben, und sie sind im Vergleich zu Flash-Medien sehr billig. Beim Direktversender Pearl, der ebenfalls einen Mini-CD-Player von Q-Sonic (289 Mark) anbietet, kostet das Medium zum Beispiel 2,30 Mark. Der Samsung Yepp wiegt 165 Gramm und misst 113 x 100 x 29 Millimeter. Er ist mit den üblichen Features wie etwa Zwischenspeicherung zum Schutz vor Erschütterung ausgestattet. Vorerst kommt der Player in Korea auf den Markt und kostet dort 193 US-Dollar. PC World July 5 2001 - Samsung Adds [Mini] CDs to Yepp MP3 Players http://www.pcworld.com/resource/printable/article/0,aid,54484,00.asp - Samsung Electronics doesn't want you to have to choose between size and song storage capacity in your MP3 player. On Tuesday, the company launched the latest member of its Yepp line of MP3 digital music players, aimed at offering a compromise between some of the most desired aspects in these devices. While small size and light weight are desirable in MP3 players, they often limit memory capacity and new memory cards can cost as much,
Re: MD: MD inferior to MP3: it's not computer-literate
Michael Hoffman wrote: Your points will not be valid for very long at all. We're about to be hit by a tidal wave of MP3-capable CD players and related combinations of technologies and features. Michael, with all do respect. once again you are making statements without specific references to what you are claiming. It would be like my saying that Sony is about to release Net MD and plans to spend millions of dollars promoting it. It also plans to drastically drop the price of hardware so that it will be almost impossible to pass it up. But I have no facts to make that claim, so I'm not making it. MP3 is hypothetically capable of portable recording just as much as ATRAC is. If that were true, there would already be portable recorders out there. Even the most advanced Pocket PC, the Compaq ipaq 3650/3670 is only capable of playing MP3 files. There is nothing stopping development of an MP3-based line of products that does everything MD does. What is the near-future potential of MP3 and the near-future potential of ATRAC or MD? So far MP3 seems to have reached a certain amount of popularity and is leveling off. Without a good source, MP3 took a hit. The shutting down of Napster certainly didn't help. And Morpheus is only a shadow of what Napster was. I'm still waiting to see how long they get away with with they are doing. Remember, Sony's Bic-lighter-sized solid-state player plays ATRAC, with no MD, and Real Audio is now starting to transmit ATRAC online, with no MD. First off, that only proves that ATRAC is just as viable an encoding system as MP3. As far as solid state goes, it may offer fast transfer rates, but what do you do once you have used up all of your kbs? Buy Sticks at $100 each? Dissolve MD into its features and subcomponents, and do the same for MP3 technologies, and we can see many new combinations. -- ideally, it can be used in a self-contained system like an MD portable recorder, but also, if you choose to hook it up to a computer, you can fully take advantage of the immense potential of GUI and computer power. This statement can just as easily be turned around to say that any audio storage should be capable of independent, portable recording and playback. I don't see any stand alone portable music CD recorders, let alone one that will store music in MP3 on a CD. I'm not saying they can't be made. But if they can, why hasn't someone come out with a prototype by now? Right now you have to have a computer. In spite of their popularity, I'm sure that I'm sure that the number of households that have some kind of musical playback unit is much higher than the number that have a computer. Michael stated: One of my main points is that any new technology must be fully computer literate How do you define new technology? Is it something brand new that has never existed before, such as a Time Machine? Or is it advancements in existing technology, like a new car with all kinds of never before offered features or tiny digital cell phones? If you subscribe to the Time Machine definition, then the PC is not a new technology. When MDs came out most PCs still had tiny speakers in them. Many without sound cards. So the PC that we have today would not be a new technology, but a continuing advancement of existing technology. This would invalidate your entire main point because for one it would depend upon the age of your computer. Since the computer is constantly evolving, we could reach a point where new computers no longer were capable of handling MP3s. Don't laugh, unless you have a very old computer, try reading from a 5 1/4 inch floppy disk! I have a fairly new scanner that I can not use with my new computer because it uses an ISA SCSI card and my new computer only accepts PCI cards. As GUI operating systems continue on to the next version, each new version does not make drivers for all older hardware. So something computer literate today may not be computer literate in as little as a year (lets see what drivers are not available for Windows XP) making your new 3 years ago technology obsolete. I have thousands of dollars worth of programs written for Windows 3.11 that are no longer usable. There are Windows 95 programs that will not run under Windows 98 (and that is only 3 years). If, however if you subscribe to my second definition of new technology (advancements in existing technology) then even things that YOU would have considered new technology must be fully computer literate, may no longer be computer literate. Are brand new cars no good because they are not fully computer literate? You can't plug a cable from your car to a PC and have them talk to each other. Does that mean that we have to start making cars with such capability or cars are in your opinion, obsolete? They now have a new technology (by the Time Machine definition) called the Ionic Breeze. It cleans the air with out the use of filters. But it is not computer literate,
Re: MD: MD inferior to MP3: it's not computer-literate
Michael Hoffman's email seems to have hit the list like a Rorschach test, causing folks to take issue (at length!) with whatever part of the MD/MP3/PC-audio equation raises their hackles. So, please allow me my reading :-) Michael Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well then forget MD and stay with MP3. We must engineer our own MD-burner technology that can do it the right way -- to make MD and possibly ATRAC a lossless bit-for-bit general file transfer and storage medium, *fully* computer-centric just like MP3. Right! While I appreciate your bravery Michael, the sad fact is that we (the users) are not permitted to decide which features and conveniences modern audio gear will have. Not even the manufacturers can. In this day and age the decision has been given over to the RIAA and their friends in Congress. The only reason people can have so much fun with MP3s and CDs (8cm or otherwise) is that PC connectable CDs existed before the Home Recording Rights Act. Were it otherwise, CD would certainly be hobbled with SCMS (or worse), just as MD is, and DataPlay will be. Wouldn't you guess it is glaringly obvious to Sony what wonderful playtoys fully PC integrated Minidisc recorders would be, and the huge market potential they would have? But I take my reading of Sony's thinking from the NetMD announcement; the promiment aspect of it is not that MD can now be part of the PC audio scene, but rather that it will be able to satisfy the digital rights management requirements that simply everyone in the PC/Internet audio field is concerning themselves with. I think it is best to consider CD/MP3 as a wonderful grandfatherered anamoly that has (so far) managed to escape being corralled by the recording industry. As for whom to plead with for the features on your audio dream machine of the future, I suggest writing congress. Rick - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD inferior to MP3: it's not computer-literate
First of all, there are LPs without a cutoff of 15kHz. Second, even if all LPs were limited to 15kHz, the fact of the matter is that most humans over the age of 15 can't really hear above 15kHz anyway. So that whole argument is pretty much irrelevant. So... you have pretty much made SACD and DVD-A irrelevant. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: MD/CD Car Stereo Recommendation
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === I'd considered getting a hybrid unit (MD/CD insertable into the in-dash unit) but it's probably more practical for me to have a CD changer in the car and have the MD insertable into the face. I'm not looking at buying just yet, I need a better car first. :) No sense putting a wicked system into an 87 Mazda 626. But thanks for the input guys. You've given me some good info to go on. --- Mike Lastucka, B. Tech [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sites.netscape.net/element5/ 2048 bit DH 0x16DC15CD From: Francis Auquier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: MD: MD/CD Car Stereo Recommendation Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 10:35:45 +0200 Hi Mike, I think all MD head units can control CD changers, at least the Kenwood's ones. If you have place for a changer (MD or CD), then go for it, but remember that Sony is not only manufacturer to have such products available. For sound quality, for example, Kenwood products are better. I mentioned JVC's CD/MD head unit because it is really convenient to have the possibility to insert a CD or a MD directly in the unit rather than to have to go to the boot to remove or insert discs. Francis -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Lastucka Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 2:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MD: MD/CD Car Stereo Recommendation By this you mean the Sony units interface with CD changers? That's cool. That might be a better thing for me really instead of a hybrid deck. That, and it's probably cheaper in the long run, and more flexible. --- Mike Lastucka, B. Tech - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: MP3/minidisc recording
Hi All; I download LOTS of OTR (Old Time Radio) shows from usenet. I just picked up a MP3 CD player at Target for $60 From Koss. That is used as the input to a MDLP unit - Works decent so far. One of my computers is not tied up, solution is all AC based, (no batteries) small desk space, just all analog. Since I got into minidisc for the portability (I do not consider CDs to be portable), this is a decent solution until I can download MP3s to minidisc directly. Jon M. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Choice between Aiwa AM-F70 and Sharp MD-MT90
Stilson Snow wrote, | I like the Automatic Level Control of the Aiwa for speech, and the Sharp | doesn't have that. I like the bass boost of the Sharp for live music and | the Aiwa doesn't have that. The F70 has bass boost on playback, though you may like the MT90's implementation better. If the MT90 can apply bass boost during the recording process, that's a new one on me. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD and MP3 technologies are merging / titling
Thanks to Michael Hoffman for the links to 8-cm CDRWs for sale at cdr4less.com and yesbuy.com. I'd never yet heard of those companies and had not seen 8-cm CDRWs for sale before. On cdr4less.com's home audio CDR page they perpetuate the myth (repeated to me last week by a Circuit City employee) that home audio CDRs do not work in burners; I hope that isn't an indication of their competence, because it certainly is tempting to get a spindle of 8-cm CDRWs from them. | But what Earth still lacks is an external Mini-CDRW (8-cm only) burner. | It will be at least 5 minutes more before there is such a thing. It | should include headphone output and bass boost, and built-in MP3 | decoding. I think there might be a confusion of terms here. To me a burner is a computer peripheral, and an external burner is one that connects by cable to a USB, parallel, or Firewire port on the computer instead of needing to be installed inside the case. What you're saying there, Michael, doesn't seem to make sense about external burners but could about a portable component recorder. One obstacle is such a device would be required to use only consumer audio discs, and 8-cm consumer audio CDRs don't seem to be available yet. The 8-cm rings in the trays of today's CD recorders (again, folks, I'm talking about audio components, not about computer peripherals) go to waste because there are no 8-cm consumer audio CDRs to record on nor to trick the machines into recording onto 8-cm data CDRs. I wonder if it's possible to swap-trick a CD recorder with a 12-cm consumer audio CDR into recording onto an 8-cm [data] CDR, as long as the music fits? Michael has also written, | Why should I have to title my MD tracks when the titles have already been | entered and uploaded by someone else in CDDB? 1. The tracks on the MD may not be exactly the set and sequence of an album listed on the CDDB. 2. The tracks may not yet be listed in the CDDB. 3. The person who provided the titles to the CDDB may have made mistakes in information or in typing. 4. The person who provided the titles to the CDDB may have entered them in a format that differs from your preference in some varying or unpredictable fashion, such that the editing changes cannot be pre-coded into your title transfering software. 5. You might have made your own mix or edit, or your own microphone recording, or your own computer-composed tune, so the track couldn't possibly be in the CDDB. | MD does titling in the most stupid, boneheaded, manual, tedious, | time-consuming way possible. Apparently, Mr. Hoffman, you have only a portable MD recorder and don't know how titling is on decks with full remotes, let alone on a deck with keyboard input. I find titling on portables to be as bad as you say, but it's not the only way to title a MiniDisc. | MDs are a dead-end for trades and each time you do copy an MD you lose the | titling ... There are ways to transfer titles from MD to MD. For example, many Sharp portable recorders have the Name Stamp feature that copies the disc name and all track titles from any recordable MD to any other with the same number of tracks, and the Sony MDS-W1 dual MD deck can copy titles between discs. If the tracks are at the same addresses, in many machines one can clone the entire TOC, titles and all. | ... and introduce another generation of lossy compression -- unlike MP3s. Yes, another layer of ATRACking is introduced (unless you have pro-grade equipment that can transfer bit-for-bit in the ATRAC domain). In normal personal copying you won't have too many generations and the effect will be negligible, but it is a drawback for trading. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MP3/minidisc recording
Jon Martin wrote, | I download LOTS of OTR (Old Time Radio) shows from usenet. | I just picked up a MP3 CD player at Target for $60 From Koss. | That is used as the input to a MDLP unit - Works decent so far. | One of my computers is not tied up, solution is all AC based, (no batteries) | small desk space, just all analog. I don't know how many computers you have, Jon, and maybe one of them isn't tied up -- in fact, all but one of them wouldn't be tied up -- but another one has to be in order to write the MP3 file onto a CDR before you can move the CDR to the Koss player to dub to MD. Does the player read CDRWs, by the way? That would be even better because then you could reuse the CDRWs instead of going through CDRs. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: The MP3 versus MD stuff - a factual comparidon
Robert Lynn followed up that when the phrase the audiophile MP3 community appeared in his previous post, | That's a quote from the article at the URL I gave. Not from me at all. Thank you for explaining. That wasn't clear before. | All MDs hold 60, 74, or 80 (and I've seen 85s on the minidisc.org site). The 85s ... 86m28s at the optimum ... are actually hacked 80s. Or are there now 85m MDs manufactured as such? - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: The MP3 versus MD stuff - a factual comparidon
From what I remember reading, yeah, they were hacked 80s, but they were gonna try to get Hi-Space to make some... guess not :( -Rob - Original Message - From: David W. Tamkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 1:51 PM Subject: Re: MD: The MP3 versus MD stuff - a factual comparidon Robert Lynn followed up that when the phrase the audiophile MP3 community appeared in his previous post, | That's a quote from the article at the URL I gave. Not from me at all. Thank you for explaining. That wasn't clear before. | All MDs hold 60, 74, or 80 (and I've seen 85s on the minidisc.org site). The 85s ... 86m28s at the optimum ... are actually hacked 80s. Or are there now 85m MDs manufactured as such? - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD inferior to MP3: it's not computer-literate
Eric Woudenberg, Minidisc.org Editor wrote: Right! While I appreciate your bravery Michael, the sad fact is that we (the users) are not permitted to decide which features and conveniences modern audio gear will have. Not even the manufacturers can. In this day and age the decision has been given over to the RIAA and their friends in Congress. The RIAA may have been started to improve the quality of recorded music, I don't know. but one thing that I do know is that it has turned in to a lobby that is against the consumer and will stop at nothing to prevent the wealthy interests that they represent from losing a nickel. The only reason people can have so much fun with MP3s and CDs (8cm or otherwise) is that PC connectable CDs existed before the Home Recording Rights Act. Were it otherwise, CD would certainly be hobbled with SCMS (or worse), just as MD is, and DataPlay will be. Wouldn't you guess it is glaringly obvious to Sony what wonderful playtoys fully PC integrated Minidisc recorders would be, and the huge market potential they would have? But I take my reading of Sony's thinking from the NetMD announcement; the promiment aspect of it is not that MD can now be part of the PC audio scene, but rather that it will be able to satisfy the digital rights management requirements that simply everyone in the PC/Internet audio field is concerning themselves with. I have several additional takes on Sony's motives. The first one may be way off and is not something that I strongly believe is a factor, but I'll through it out anyway. Does the patent problem with ATRAC and Dolby make the use of ATRAC less profitable for Sony? But my major take is that Sony is now in direct conflict with itself. One the one side it is a major manufacturer of consumer audio products. But on the other hand, it is a major producer and distributor of music CDs. Sony now has to weigh the balance between selling CDs and the potential loss in income do to people making copies of their music for free using equipment manufactured by Sony. I can't remember how long ago Sony acquired CBS/Columbia. If it was way before they ever had any plans to do so, then SCMS was forced on them. But if it was after Sony had already bought (or was very sure that they were going to buy) their record company, They may have been very passive about SCAM at the least. In my twisted mind an analogy would be that not very may men are involuntarily raped by women. You can't rape the willing. I have posting way too may times on the list this past day. And I would stop if anyone even hinted that I was hogging the list. But as it turns out, my posts seem to have raised a great deal of response. Mostly from people who are disagreeing with me. But in a slow summer period where days can go buy with very few posts, I may have unintentionally livened up the board. Larry PS just as an aside it occurred to me when I mentioned women, that there have never been many female members on the list. I guess this kind of stuff is largely what intelligent, non jock men are interested in. It's like that Circuit City ad where the husband promises the wife it will just be a minute, I know just want I need. Then goes crazy when he sees all of the stuff and comes out with armfuls of stuff. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD and MP3 technologies are merging / titling
David W. Tamkin wrote: I think there might be a confusion of terms here. To me a burner is a computer peripheral, and an external burner is one that connects by cable to a USB, parallel, or Firewire port on the computer instead of needing to be installed inside the case. I'm pretty sure that the term burner is just a slang term possibly coined by someone in the recording industry because they thought that it sounded cool. Technically any device that is capable of creating a CD with something on it from a blank CD could be called a burner. I'm not sure and I'd have to check with my daughter, but there may be professional equipment capable of making or burning an audio CD from a digital source such as a DAT independent of the need for a computer. But I don't think that I have ever seen a manufacture use the term burner either on the box it came in or on the unit itself. CD Writer also really can't be used generically because it is a trademark name of HP's drive. Even CNET has copped out listing them as CDR/CDRW drives. It doesn't make sense. They should have been called CD writable and CD re-writable. In one the R stands for Recordable, in the other it stands for Re followed by Writable. I would have named them CDWR and CDW thus keeping the term writable constant. Also in computer terms, one never records to a drive. You write to it. It is only in audio that the term recordable is used. Lawrence - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD inferior to MP3: it's not computer-literate
las [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As you stated, this debate could go on forever. But after your apparently derogatory statements about Rock, I realize it would be pointless because we don't just disagree about analog vs digital. We are on two different planets altogether! Larry, I *never* made any derogatory statements about rock. The only thing I said is that rock music generally isn't the kind of music that really benefits from audiophile recording methods which is absolutely true. Granted, there are a few rock recordings that will (which is why I said generally) but the fact remains that classical and jazz and vocals all benefit from high-end recording and mastering techniques far more than rock does. I'm a huge rock fan, and rock music compromises the vast majority of my CD collection, but that doesn't make me blind to the fact that a MFSL Gold version of U2's Unforgettable Fire doesn't really sound much better than the standard release, or that a well-recorded rock album doesn't sound much better on my good system than it does on my 2nd system. That's not a dig on rock at all -- it's simply looking at the instruments and styles of the genre. As you yourself have said, rock has limited dynamic range. Here I stand corrected. I thought that your e mail was coming from the same person who started the vinyl vs CD debate. No problem. That person was actually Gerry Morgan He stated: My older (late 1950s and 1960s) LPs generally sound better than those from the 70s and 80s. I think there is room for a discussion between you and Gerry, if you disagree with his statement. I neither agree nor disagree -- there are some older recordings that are simply phenomenal. However, there are also a lot of really bad ones ;) I think that a well-recorded vinyl album of today is better than a well-recorded album from the 50s and 60s. The one advantage some of those older recordings had is that they put a lot more care into recording them. The big labels don't seem to do that anymore -- you often have to go to smaller labels to get well-recorded stuff. Frequency range. THD. S/N ratio. Dynamic range. Channel separation. To name a few. These are objective specifications. Often they may not correlate with the subjective findings of your ears and brain. So subjectively to some people vinyl will sound better than digital. That's the whole point -- specs are meaningless when it comes to actually listening to music. You can't say that CD is hands down better than vinyl based on specs alone. People (cough... Sony/Phillips... cough) can throw out all the specs they want about vinyl, CD, MP3, MD, cassette, SACD, DVD-A, etc., etc., etc. But if one sounds as good as the other, does it matter? Larry, until you've taken me up on my suggestion to go to a high-end audio shop and done a double-blind test of vinyl vs CD on a good system, all you're doing is repeating propaganda from Sony and Phillips. Like I said previously, in 1981, they claimed that CD was perfect sound... yet how many improvements have the come out with in the past 20 years? Funny... I didn't think perfection could be improved. Obviously it's not the perfect format they claimed, despite the specs. You keep mentioning analog to analog. But the analog sound that you hear live, is not the same analog sound that you hear on the recording. Because of the limitations of analog storage, frequency response must be cut off and the original sound must be compressed so that you do not over saturate the analog tape. Again, I think you're incorrect about frequency response must be cut off and the original sound must be compressed -- a good analog master is as audibly full-range as any other medium and any alleged compression is inaudible. I find this especially interesting considering that the vast majority of all CDs ever produced have been pressed from analog masters. My SACD versions of Miles Davis Kind of Blue and Isaac Stern's rendition of Vivaldi were both pressed from analog masters recorded in 1959 and 1973, yet they sound better than any other jazz or classical CD I have heard, even those newer ones that were digital all the way through. One of the best-recorded, most realistic rock/pop CDs I've ever heard is The Cowboy Junkie's The Trinity Sessions, recorded and mastered in analog. You keep mentioning the on going improvements in things such as ADC and DACs. But that is just akin to all of the improvements that analog made over the years. In fact the improvements in analog sound are much greater than those from the first CDs to the present. Which is irrelevant to our discussion, Larry. The potential of all mediums have improved over time. My point about CD improvements is that CD specs have remained constant since 1981 -- yet somehow there has been wave after wave of better sound. If specs told the whole story, that would be impossible. But research in the area of improving analog was abandoned once digital became the accepted means of storage and playback.
Re: MD: MD and MP3 technologies are merging / titling
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === I think the term burner came because of using a laser to physically burn the digital information in to the disk, although I believe that only applies to certain devices, technically, although that's what everyone seems to call them. At 04:01 PM 8/5/01 -0400, you wrote: David W. Tamkin wrote: I think there might be a confusion of terms here. To me a burner is a computer peripheral, and an external burner is one that connects by cable to a USB, parallel, or Firewire port on the computer instead of needing to be installed inside the case. I'm pretty sure that the term burner is just a slang term possibly coined by someone in the recording industry because they thought that it sounded cool. Technically any device that is capable of creating a CD with something on it from a blank CD could be called a burner. I'm not sure and I'd have to check with my daughter, but there may be professional equipment capable of making or burning an audio CD from a digital source such as a DAT independent of the need for a computer. But I don't think that I have ever seen a manufacture use the term burner either on the box it came in or on the unit itself. CD Writer also really can't be used generically because it is a trademark name of HP's drive. Even CNET has copped out listing them as CDR/CDRW drives. It doesn't make sense. They should have been called CD writable and CD re-writable. In one the R stands for Recordable, in the other it stands for Re followed by Writable. I would have named them CDWR and CDW thus keeping the term writable constant. Also in computer terms, one never records to a drive. You write to it. It is only in audio that the term recordable is used. Lawrence - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD/CD Car Stereo Recommendation
Mike Lastucka wrote: Getting a bit away from the whole MP3/MD debate, can anyone on the list recommend a car stereo that plays MDs /and/ CDs? If you're in the US, the only one available is the JVC KD-MX3000, and you can't get it new as it's a 1998 model which was discontinued in 1999 or 2000. You can get factory refurbs here though http://www.crazyg.com/ I bought one for my girlfriend, and it's a real nice deck. The LCD is BRIGHT and readable during the day, it's much better than the Sony MDX-C7900 that it replaced. In my car I have a Sony CDX-C90 CD head unit and an MDX-65 MD changer. This setup works great, and the MD's are easy to change as I put the changer in my console armrest. I like the MD changer better as I can switch discs without digging and fumbling around for the disc I want to listen to. I had an MDX-400 4-MD indash changer which I really liked, but it was unreliable and was in the Sony service center more than it was in my car. Shawn - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: MiniDisc Weekly News for 5 August 2001
MiniDisc Community Pages News for 29 July 2001 o Martin Roberts finds a plethora of MD [1]portables and [2]home units at QED (UK), including the [3]Sharp MD-MT99 for 151 w/shipping. He also finds the [4]Sharp MD-MT877 for 180 (plus shipping) from Empire Direct (UK). [1] http://www.qed-uk.com/cgi-bin/q?b-grp=208v-bar=9 [2] http://www.qed-uk.com/cgi-bin/q?p-cat=12b-grp=209v-bar=9 [3] http://www.qed-uk.com/cgi-bin/q?b-grp=208b-code=99sv-bar=9 [4] http://www.empiredirect.co.uk/productdetailsnew.asp?modelcode=SHA-MDMT877B MiniDisc Community Pages News for 1 August 2001 o Franck Durtschi spots a new European midi system MD deck [1]MD-SS41 from French vendor, Hifissimo. [1] http://www.hifissimo.com/store/search.cgi?user_id=40database=Base.dbtemplate=lecteur_md.tpml0=22726 o [2]www.discountdiscs.co.uk are offering the Xitel DG2 PC-MD interface to customers in the UK and rest of Europe for GBP 59.50 and GBP 65 respectively. The interface is also available from [3]QED-uk.com at GBP 50.92. [2] http://www.discountdiscs.co.uk/ [3] http://www.qed-uk.com/cgi-bin/q?b-grp=208b-code=dg2xv-bar=9 MiniDisc Community Pages News for 3 August 2001 o There's been much talk of cracks for Macrovision's Safe Audio CD anti-piracy technologyy of late. Ken Tidwell notes a [1]CD-Freaks article and a [2]Roxio technical note on the 'Burst Mode Copy' method. Marc Herbert spots [3]criticism of a rival Cactus system. [1] http://www.cdfreaks.com/document.php3?Doc=48 [2] http://www.roxio.com/en/interest/music/aboutdae.html [3] http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns1105 o Ken Tidwell also expands his [4]MiniDisc iTunes page with details of Home Theater wireless AV. [4] http://avitunes.kentidwell.com/ o Conor Lalor adds a German version of his [5]MD Labels site, in addition to the French and English versions previously announced. [5] http://www.mdlabels.f2s.com/ MiniDisc Community Pages News for 4 August 2001 o The MPzip is the first mini-CD MP3 player, Joe Hui gives it a [1]thorough review. Its near-CD player bulk and poor battery life (~1-2 hr) hardly make it an MD slayer, however the allure of easy, unimpeded computer access to its media gives an MD fan pause. (Courtesy Michael Hoffman) [1] http://hardware.dmusic.com/reviews/mpzip/printer.php o [2]www.doctorminidisc.com is closing its doors soon and has some closing offers on stock. [2] http://www.doctorminidisc.com/ MiniDisc Community Pages News for 5 August 2001 o Tony Kwong gives a brief but useful [1]review of the Griffin iMic, a USB audio input device for Macs. [1] http://www.minidisc.org/imic_review/iMic_MR.html Minidisco- Free-range MiniDiscs, Humanely Raised http://www.minidisco.com/ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
