Re: MD: More Info about Xitel MD-Port AN1 and DG1
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Peter Forest wrote: Due to the recording mechanisms of some MD recorders, the MD-Port DG1 is known not to be compatible with the units from Sharp, JVC, or the Sony MZ-R3 and MZR-50. It may also not function with home recording MD decks. This is interesting. Does anybody have any ideas as to why this might be the case? It should be transmitting a normal SPDIF signal (using an internal TOSlink transmitter), but evidently it is not because of the compatibility problems. Any ideas what it is sending (or not sending) that is causing this? Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Sony MD mono workarounds...
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, David W. Tamkin wrote: I So, removing the first sample of the right channel before feeding into the I MD will restore the original when it is monauralized. That's what I thought, but it gave poorer results than removing one sample from the left channel's leading silence. Maybe the W1 does the reverse of what the 520 does? Possibly. Alternatively it may have a different problem... Right now I have a choice to make when the situation arises: record to the R3 and use an older ATRAC algorithm (Sony 3.0), or record in stereo and not save the disc space. Lopping off one sample gives unpredictable results. Hmm... do you have access to a JE5xx deck to test it on? Otherwise I would agree that using something without these mono problems for mono recording is a good idea :) I will try my experiment on as much equipment as I can find, but at the moment that is only what I own myself. I am going to test my friend's Sony MZ-R50 fairly soon though (hopefully). Again, I apologize for my reply-speed. My network server/firewall died after I got back and I had to reinstall everything from scratch. Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Sony MD mono workarounds...
My apologies for the slow reply. Also I will be away for the next 5 days, but I will try to respond to any messages when I get back. On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, David W. Tamkin wrote: OK, I'm confused. I thought originally that you said that the Sony machines were combining the right channel of sample N-1 with the left channel of sample N. So lopping off one sample of leading silence from the right channel would move sample N(R) to position N-1(R), where the MD recorder would pair it with sample N(L). My wording was not exactly optimum. A diagram should help. Original signal, flat with a noise spike (think of the signal as 'moving' in the direction of the arrow with time) | | L --| | --- | | R --| ^ Input samples taken here The signal which the MD combines to make the mono output is | | L --| | --- | | R --| ^ Input samples taken here So, removing the first sample of the right channel before feeding into the MD will restore the original when it is monauralized. But when I tried it with a mono track that peaked at 100%, lopping off a sample from the start of the right channel cut the peak to 98.5%, while doing it from the left channel instead cut it to 99.1%. The only thing that got proper results was the R3's method of dropping the right channel. What did a straight mono recording with no phase shifting give (or is that what you are measuring things relative to)? Unfortunately I'm having no luck with the files you uploaded; they don't seem to come out right for me. What happens to the files? For the mono one, does the level meter stay on full throughout or does the reading start to decrease steadily after about the first 5/6 seconds of the recording of the file? Also, when you say that the mono track peaked at 100%, do you mean the actual original, or when it has been recorded in stereo to the MD (comparing with the level after stereo recording to the MD would eliminate the effects of the ATRAC, which could possibly account for or at least affect the results). I have been thinking about this - what is strange is that, assuming the MD did not have the problem I have described, the same (frequency-dependant) volume loss pattern would occur when the signal was phase shifted in *either* direction, which is not happening. If the MD did have the problem, there would be a 'worse' direction and a 'perfect' direction when phase shifting and a straight not-shifted recording would be somewhere in the middle. Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Sony MD mono workarounds...
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Timothy P. Stockman wrote: I beleive the ADC outputs a normal stereo signal. The channels are combined in the digital domain *after* the ADC, at least on the JE520. On the JE520, probably, but I was referring to the R3, which probably isn't combining them in the digital domain (should have made that clearer). Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Sony MD mono workarounds...
David - did you do all the transfers digitally? If so, I am a little puzzled... it certainly worked on my JE520. Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Sony MD mono workarounds...
On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, David W. Tamkin wrote: | If so, I am a little puzzled... it certainly worked on my JE520. What is "it"? Lopping off one sample from one channel in the leading silence? (And again, which channel should we take it from?) I didn't do this - I used the sine wave signal to do my testing instead (see the page on the MDCP, there are some .wav files containing some of the signals I used). Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Sony MD mono workarounds...
On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, PrinceGaz wrote: In what was admittedly a v.quick test under less than ideal conditions, obviously an analogue stereo to stereo remained so, while all the other analogue recordings were a mix of the left and right channels. There was no measurable difference in the recording level whether I used the amp or the MD to do the mono conversion, from the overall level of the stereo analogue recording. Whether the MD doing the mono bit supressed higher frequencies I cannot tell, at least not while my PC is sitting turned on here with me! If the stereo signals are being mixed to produce the mono one for analogue recordings only, I assume they are being combined before going through the MD's ADC, in which case the volume loss should not happen anyway (assuming identical stereo input channels). Has anybody managed to reproduce my experiment yet? I hope that somebody does otherwise there might be a fault with my JE520, which is out of warranty (expired 9 months ago). Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Sony MD mono workarounds...
On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, David W. Tamkin wrote: (1) what is the "it" that certainly worked on your JE520? What I meant here was that my observations listed on the MDCP page for 'bad' hardware in relation to the test samples there were made using my deck and the wave files on the MDCP page, meaning that testsig-lshft.wav gave full volume output on the level meter throughout playback, whereas for testsig.wav (the mono original), the volume decreased as the frequency increased. Note that it is a bad idea to play these loud as they contain slight clicks/pops which may damage delicate speakers. (2) if we want to fool a Sony MD recorder into matching the correct samples for monaural recording, should we lop off one sample from the leading silence in the left channel or one sample from the leading silence in the right channel? The right channel - then the MD will receive the first left-channel sample with the second right-channel sample, and for monauralizing, "the sample used from the left channel is one sample earlier than the corresponding sample from the right channel", meaning that it then puts it's second left-channel sample with it's first right-channel sample, restoring the original signal. If there is a flaw in this logic (it's 11.15 at night), please tell me. Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Sony MD mono workarounds...
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, Timothy P. Stockman wrote: When recording mono from analog, it appears that it would be best to mix to mono before the signal reaches the MD, then connect only one input channel of the MD, leaving the other unconnected. To get the level correct, the digital record level would have to be set at +6 dB (higher is OK; lower digital record level coupled with higher analog signal level might cause ADC overload, which is *not* indicated by the "over" indicators). Yes, I agree - this seems to offer the best solution. Recording mono from digital would require a similar proceedure, done with an audio editor on the PC: mix to mono and place the resulting mono mix on one channel of a stereo WAV file and silence on the other channel, then boost the digital record level 6 dB at the MD. If there is an audio editor in the chain, why not fix the problem directly by doing a phase shift of one sample in the editor? If you have (or have had) a Creative Labs soundcard then the older versions of Wavestudio supplied with the card can do this. I'm pretty certain that most audio editing software can. Then there would be no need to adjust the volume (which has a slight loss of audio quality due to the multiplication involved). Meantime, I'll be eagerly awaiting word on which Sony decks have this problem, and if (or when) Sony has it fixed for good! As am I - I could only test the JE520 because that is the only MD recorder I have. It would also be interesting to see if Sony portables have the same problem (and other manufacturers' equipment). Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Scale Factor Edit
Another question: is it compatible with existing hardware? From what I've heard it is storing information on the disc, and the actual volume reduction is happening on playback, so can existing hardware read the information and do the volume adjustment? Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: monauralizing algorithms: An Explanation
On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Ralph Smeets wrote: Why should it be a bug? It could be a way to get around the following problem: L = -R Ie, The left channel has the opposite phase of the right channel. Thus (L+R)/2 would result in 0 With (L(t)+R(t-1))/2 you keep a signal! You have a good point here, but I would assume the algorithm is trying to emulate what would happen if the audio was played through a normal analogue mixer (or a set of speakers, for that matter), and in both these situations if the left and right channels had opposite phase, they would cancel out (ie (L+R)/2 = 0). Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: monauralizing algorithms: An Explanation
I have been messing around with my MD recorder again this morning and I think I may have figured out what is happening. The results I posted previously show a frequency dependant loss in volume, which increases as the frequency increases. If the signals from the two input channels were out of phase with each other when they were combined, some interference would occur. The loss in amplitude depends on the phase difference. For example, if the phase difference is pi radians, or 180 degrees, the two signals cancel out. For general phase differences the amplitude is always less than the original. Hence a volume loss will occur if the two identical input channels are out of phase when added together. As the amount of volume loss increases with increasing frequency, it is clear that the phase difference is increasing with increasing frequency. As my results cover 1-20kHz, the phase difference between the two input channels is increasing over this range. As the volume is never reduced to zero, the phase difference must be less than pi radians for all input frequencies in this range, and it also must be increasing from 1kHz to 20kHz. Returning to my previous idea of the channels being out of sync. with each other, this type of phase difference could be caused by a synchronisation problem between the two channels on combination. If the two channels were out of sync. by one sample then it turns out that for zero volume mono output, the frequency of the input wave would be f/2 where f is the sampling frequency of the input signal (I will post a proof of this later). f was 44100Hz for my experiment, giving an input frequency for total volume loss of 22.05kHz. This fits quite well with my data, because the volume was very small at an input frequency of 20kHz. Because of the good fit with the experiment I decided to retry my initial experiment with a data source where the channels were out of sync. by one sample. To do this I wrote a small C program (email me if you want a copy) to read in a wave file and write it out with the left channel one sample behind the right channel (a guess: I had a 50% chance of getting it right), and redid my experiment at a frequency of 16kHz. This time the volume loss was greater than before. So, I tried it the other way round: the right channel one sample behind the left channel. Voila! there was no volume loss! I retested all the frequencies I used in my experiment from 10-20kHz and none suffered any volume loss with this adjustment. So, to conclude, Sony's monauralizing algorithm has the channels out of sync. by one sample, with the left channel one sample in front of the right channel. I don't think this is occuring in the SPDIF data stream because the synchronisation information embedded wouldn't allow this. Instead I think there is a bug in Sony's DSP software. I will post a more mathematical proof of this at a later date. Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: monauralizing algorithms: An Explanation
On Sun, 6 Aug 2000, Eric Woudenberg wrote: May I ask that you please write up your findings carefully and let me post it as its own web page on the MDCP? Sure. I'll get on to it tomorrow. It would be interesting to try this experiment on some other equipment, a portable, and a machine from a different manufacturer. Definitely. Unfortunately the Sony deck is the only recorder I have. I'll look into borrowing my friend's Sharp 702 at some time. I would suspect (hope?) that MD equipment from other manufacturers does not suffer from the same problem. Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: monauralizing algorithms
On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, David W. Tamkin wrote: And a volume of -1.2 dB will still light up the last bar, I believe. Yes... I think the values marked on the scale are the top levels for each bar. All right; where do I get a different tone generating program? It can write .wavs, right? Then I could copy those to CDRW (on the computer's burner, not on the standalone, since my soundcard has only analog ports) and record them to MD, then back to CDRW on the standalone, then rip them to the computer again for analysis ... aw gee, it's complicated. For an alternative, if you have Windows, why not try the Winamp tone generator plugin: the disk writer will allow it to produce .wav files for burning CDs. I'm glad my work was appreciated :) Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: monauralizing algorithms
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, David W. Tamkin wrote: | Unfortunately I have no way of getting the SPDIF back into the computer | again so I'll have to rely on the MD's level meter. With no digital ports on my soundcard, the only way I can get the data back into the computer is to copy the MD to CDRW and rip from the CDRW. Now if only I could get a few unpestered minutes to try it! (It involves recon- necting cables and other such steps that demand clear thought.) Ah, but I can't get it from the MD to the CDRW because my CD-recorder is on my computer. | What I'll probably do is feed it with a ~250Hz tone so the level is stable. | If I don't get a horrible headache I will post the results :) Please don't get the headache, and please do share the results. OK... I have been fiddling with the tone generator for about 2 and a half hours now. My Setup: XMMS Version 1.2.2 Tone Generator Plugin (it's just an "x = a sin wt" sine wave generator) Soundblaster 16 Sound card with homemade digital output board Homemade coaxial cable Sony MDS-JE520 MD Deck (ATRAC 4.5) Sony coloured MD (red) [no, I haven't tried it with other colours :)] What I did and what happened: keep-out-of-trouble DISCLAIMER: I cannot guarantee the accuracy of these results. They may be due to another part of the hardware, not the monauralizing algorithm in the MD recorder. /keep-out-of-trouble First, I tried a 250Hz tone as I had said in my previous email. I checked the tone generator plugin source code to ensure that both channels would be identical (the code is in C, email me or see http://www.xmms.org/ if you want a copy, the plugin is included in the main xmms package), which they were, and ensured that the MD was recording in mono with the level set on 0dB (flat) on both the MD deck and the sound card. This caused the tone to register at full volume (the 0dB mark on the MD's level meter). I recorded a short ten-second burst of this tone, and played it back. However, no noticable volume loss occured. So, I tried increasing the tone frequency. Here are the results (all done using short ten-second recordings) : Frequency/Hz | Number of level meter bars below 0dB --- 250 | 0 1000 | 0 2000 | 0 3000 | 0 4000 | 0 5000 | 1 6000 | 1 7000 | 1 8000 | 2 9000 | 2 1| 2 11000| 2 12000| 3 13000| 3 14000| 4 15000| 5 16000| 6 17000| 7 18000| 7 18500| 8 19000| 9 2| 10 Note: The level meter scale is *not* linear For reference the meter has 18 bars from "negative infinity" to 0dB on each channel (plus one larger one for 'over'). The numbers in the table are the number of unlit bars from and including the 0dB bar (the 'over' bar didn't light up at any time). I thought that this frequency response may be due to the MD's ATRAC so I reran the entire test with stereo recording. The meter remained on 0dB. No noticeable volume loss occured even at 20kHz. Conclusion: The volume loss appears to be frequency-dependant, as the frequency increases, so does the loss in volume. Due to the amount of home-made hardware involved I think it would probably be best if somebody else (David?) tries this as well (using a different tone generation program) to see if we can get similar results, before we start to draw any real conclusions / blame Sony. Next puzzle: how do we explain this? Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: monauralizing algorithms
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, David W. Tamkin wrote: I had done an L-R on the original source track before copying it to MD, and it flatlined. If recording to MD in mono knocks the channels out of sync, there is no way to tell afterward, because the MD recording is marked as mono and will play back with two identical channels. Recording to MD in stereo won't tell us any details about the volume loss, because the volume loss won't occur. I didn't mean that exactly: recording a source with two identical channels in stereo and then comparing them afterwards would help to determine where and if a synchronisation loss was occuring - if after stereo recording the two originally identical channels were out of sync. with each other then the synchronisation loss is occuring somewhere between the computer and the MD's DSP, meaning there is probably nothing 'wrong' with the algorithm being used to combine the two channels for mono recording. Of course the ATRAC may work differently on each of the two channels for stereo recording... Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: monauralizing algorithms
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, David W. Tamkin wrote: If the explanation were that the tracks got out of sync, then the soft parts of the redundant stereo input would become louder as they got mixed with louder volumes. Moreover, how can the two channels of an S/PDIF signal get out of sync like that? Every frame contains the left channel and the right channel information that should be played at the same time. Ah... if the whole thing is softer I would certainly point the finger at the 'monauralizing' algorithm. I agree with you - if the problem was with channel sync. then the lows would be higher and the highs lower. My idea with the SPDIF channels getting out of sync. is before encoding of after decoding - here the channels can be separate and if they were buffered separately it is possible (but unlikely) for them to get very slightly out of sync. However we're talking about a DSP here so unless it's really screwed up it will be able to get the synchronisation right. I Of course the ATRAC may work differently on each of the two channels for I stereo recording... If ATRAC is destroying the peaks, why doesn't the same effect show up in stereo-mode MD recordings? It has to be something in the algorithm for shorting stereo to mono. When I have a .wav file on hard disc with two identical channels and I convert it to mono, the amplitudes are preserved. That was a comment on my idea for testing the channel synchronisation of the SPDIF data stream really, in that a post-stereo-recording comparison might not be of any use because the two channels may have got compressed differently (this shouldn't happen if the DSP is well designed and the channels are exactly the same though). I am digging for alternative explanations here... most of what I have suggested is very unlikely indeed: the most likely cause is almost definitely the stereo-mono conversion. OK... I'll stop trying to think of things now. I would certainly be very interested to find out what algorithm Sony are using. I plan to do a few quick tests myself (probably tomorrow) using my MDS-JE520 and (homemade) computer digital out. Unfortunately I have no way of getting the SPDIF back into the computer again so I'll have to rely on the MD's level meter. What I'll probably do is feed it with a ~250Hz tone so the level is stable. If I don't get a horrible headache I will post the results :) Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: demor-- er, monauralizing algorithms (was volume loss)
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, David W. Tamkin wrote: How do mixing routines in sound editors calculate their results? Do they just take the arithmetic mean of the amplitude? I'm not sure but I expect that some do. An alternative explanation for the reduction in volume: It's possible that in your case the Left and Right channels are getting slightly out of sync. with each other somewhere during the recording process. To see if this is the case you could record in stereo from a source with two identical channels and then do an L-R comparison after recording to the MD. If they were out of sync. then this would tend to reduce the amplitude causing what you are observing. Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: demor-- er, monauralizing algorithms (was volume loss)
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, PrinceGaz wrote: I've found the best way to do monaural recording is to unplug one of the RCA connectors (for a tape recording whichever has the lowest recording level-- there is generally some discrepancy 'tween channels) and take it from there. No L/R interference, easy to set up, worked fine with an audiobook (better than letting my R3 convert the two channels into mono). Is the volume OK (maximum) - if so, the recorder is probably averaging the two input levels to get a mono signal. It's a pity that this isn't very easy with SPDIF :) Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: JE520 transport mech repairs?
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, J. C. R. Davis wrote: I hope it WAS the 80 minute MDs that did this. I am about to petition Best Buy to special order a JE520 as a replacement to my junked out JE510, and I would like to think that it will last more than a mere 13 months! I've had mine for 16 months now and it's still working fine. No problems so far. They might only be able to get a JE530 now though. Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: JE520 transport mech repairs?
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Jonathan Irwin wrote: I've had mine for 16 months now and it's still working fine. No problems so far. They might only be able to get a JE530 now though. Oops... I seem to have forgotten how to add up. Actually I've had it 20 months. Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: end search petition
On Wed, 31 May 2000, Eric Woudenberg wrote: I should be more explicit: would Sharp owners who have lost recordings due to the Sharp's REC-PAUSE startup please speak up? I'm not looking to justify my position, I really want to know if the Sharp's mode of operation presents problems. I have had a Sony MDS-JE520 for 1.5 years now and never had any problems with going into REC-PAUSE - if I have missed a bit of material I just hit AMS instead of Pause to restore the previous 5/6 seconds of material and then edit the disc afterwards (this is OK unless I hit record too late but I usually leave it in REC-PAUSE before recording so this is not a problem). Portables really should have this feature. Also while we are on the `features Sony portables really should have' thread, I have made a list. * Add a menu option to turn off the remote `beep' * Improve the auto track-marking features to bring them in line with decks - ie allow user to turn track marking on and off for both analogue and digital inputs (including adding an option to both the portables and decks to force the unit to ignore track marks on the digital in) * Add an optical (or coax) digital output to portables (including play only units) and put a line level output on the play only units as well as the recorders (unless they have done that already... my MZ-E25 doesn't have one though so I suspect they haven't). * Put a backlight on the internal LCD * Add menu options to allow the backlight to be turned off on the internal and external LCDs (separately) * Increase the length of the supplied headphone cord (the normal length they supply is far too short... not that I use the original earbuds anyway, but it would be useful) * Allow charging of the internal battery while the unit is in operation (this will only mean supplying a higher current PSU with the unit) And the less plausible ones... * (Very unlikely where Sony are involved) Provide a USB interface to a computer for 1x recording Any other suggestions (serious ones)? Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Differences between R70 R90
OK... here goes. There is basically very little difference between the R70 and R90 in terms of important features. The USB recording thingy is just a USB plug on one end with a digital to analogue converter in the middle and a normal analogue 3.5mm jack plug on the other end. AFAIK, it does not do MD-computer transfers of any sort. I don't know if this device is compatible with a Mac (somebody else should know). So, MP3 capability in this case means that the recorder comes with a device which will allow you to do analogue transfers of MP3 files by playing them on your computer and recording them as if they were CDs or other media on the MD. Both recorders have an optical SPDIF input socket, so they are both equally able to be able to be connected digitally to a computer. Note that the SPDIF standard only allows recording at 1x playback speed. Neither has a digital output plug so it is not possible to record digitally from MD-computer with these units. If you require this functionality then you will almost definitely need a full-size home deck. Check out the MDCP (http://www.minidisc.org/) for info on what the extra $100 for the R90 over the R70 gets you, but it isn't much. Mainly better battery life, and a nicer remote (AFAIK, the R70 has the older-style remote similar to the R55? If it doesn't then disregard that comment). Note that both have the same basic recording capabilities. If you want digital recording from computer-MD only, then Sony are supposed to be releasing a digital version of their USB thing (it may do MD-computer as well, does anybody have any recent information?) a bit later this year. The best way to do digital computer-MD transfers is to invest in a sound card with this capability (eg the Soundblaster Live or an Aureal Vortex2 card), however AFAIK, most of these will not work with a Mac. There are a variety of USB solutions available, but these are often expensive. See the MDCP news archives and equipment lists for more information. I assume you have been reading the recent posts on End Search, so you will no doubt know about what is, probably, the worst problem with Sony units. The advantage of the Sharp (and others) recorders is that they don't have this misfeature. Also, the R70 and R90 don't have illumination on the main LCD display (they do on the remote, but not on the main unit), which could prove problematic if you want to, for example, do recordings in the dark, as the remote doesn't have a recording level indicator on it. Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: oops
Sorry to waste bandwidth like this, but I made a small mistake in my last post. In fact, the R70 has a non-LCD remote, not an R55 style one, so it is even harder to use in the dark. Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: No Digital Signal
Sounds like a flat battery to me... if there is not enough power available then the LED in the optical transmitter might not be bright enough for the detector in the MD to see it properly (hence the intermittant signal) but the power LED would still be on. Try changing the battery. Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Balance problem when recording analog from crystal sound card
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Rahim Anderson wrote: Hi. I recently purchased a aiwa AM-f70 redorder unit, and so far, I've been very happy with it. I put off buying a mp3 player, ended up being talked into MD by a friend, and am rather happy. Now to the problem, at work I have a crappy little sond card, a crystal audio something or another. I have a live value at home, and am waiting for a digital IO card to see if it makes a difference in recording, but I digress, basically what happens is when I record I can hear all output (if I connect the unit to speakers or headphones) but after recording, playback is very low on the right channel. I output from winamp and have checked all other settings, and again, if I connect the unit to speakers or headphones, output is fine. just wondering if anyone has seen (or heard) anything like thi and knows a resolution. It sounds like the connector (especially if it's a 3.5mm jack) is a bit loose and is not making contact properly on the right channel at one end. The best thing to do is to test the connector you are using on the sound card (could use headphones although the volume is a bit unpredictable if you feed them from line level) using a different lead, and also to test the connector you are using on the MD with a similar method. I had a similar problem myself with my Sony MZ-E25 remote socket. I was using a home-made lead but it didn't fit in the socket properly (the jack sockets on some MD equipment tend to be a little shorter than the proper length, or maybe my lead had plugs a little too long) and I experienced a similar problem to the one you describe, so it could be that one of the plugs is not quite the right shape. Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Screws on Sharp 702
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Simon Barnes wrote: What colour would you recommend ? I seem to have run out ... You could always try green... you never know - it might even improve the sound quality... Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Sony Digital USB PC to MD Cable Coming Soon!
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000, Mattias Bergsten wrote: There already is working USB audio support in 2.3, and 2.4 is going to have it. So I wouldn't worry about that. :) Excellent! I haven't really been following 2.3 development very closely. Does the Sony device comply to the USB audio specs? Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Sony Digital USB PC to MD Cable Coming Soon!
At last! How long have we been waiting for this? Just a pity it's going to be USB (and probably expensive if Sony are making it) because I don't have any USB ports (an extra 10 UKP) and I won't be able to use it with Linux unless somebody hacks a driver for it in 2.3, which will probably take at least 8 months... On the other hand the parallel version might work but the drivers will still take ages to come out (unless Sony uncharacteristically supplies programming info... hmm...rather unlikely I think) Does anybody know if it will have a digital input as well? That's what I really need (already have a digital output on my sound card). Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Sony MDS-JB940 and Long-Play Mode
On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Daryl O. wrote: snip a long-play mode that "[c]aptures up to 5 hours, 20 minutes of stereo music on a single 80-minute MiniDisc." Does anyone know anything about this? Discs recorded in this special long-play mode couldn't possibly be compatible with older decks, right? Unfortunately, you are (almost definitely) right. Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Re: Additional Battery
I once heard some argument to the effect that rechargeable batteries are sometimes not recommended for certain equipment because their internal resistance is different (lower?) and so could drop more current into some circuits than they should take. Is this a bogus argument? It may be partly true: as far as I know, NiCd batteries (don't know about NiMH) will produce a very high current when short circuited, or with a resistance of less than one ohm across them, but most electronic equipment has much higher resistances (eg 100 ohms) so this should not be a problem. I also heard somewhere that Li-Ion batteries can be ruined by shorting their terminals, due to a buildup of pressure that can't be vented quickly enough, although I'm not sure if this is true or not. Jonathan - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: Titling with a PC using Linux
I am attempting to do this with my Sony MDS-JE520 deck, and Shawn Lin's IR codes found on the community page. Does anybody have any ideas as to how I can write such an MD titling program on Linux? I have a reasonable amount of experience with writing programs that interface to the parallel port, and I have made the circuit that Martin Danek uses for his TitleMD utility. I have tested my circuit using his DOS program, and that works fine. However, he uses inline assembler in his Pascal code. This cannot be done in Linux without special priveledges, and I can't work out what his code does. Does anybody know how I send the codes and what the delays should be? I can write bytes to the parallel port already, and I can do high resolution timing down to about 100 us if necessary. Thanks, Jonathan Irwin - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
