Re: MD: Sharp MD-MS702 AC adapter
On 14 Jul 01, %l:51AM, Shawn Lin wrote: I bought a Radio Shack 4.5V 700mA adapter today. They didn't have 5V anymore. Even the adjustable ones skip from 4.5V to 6V. The problem with the one that I got is that it's fully regulated. The output is a perfect 4.5V at all times. Apparently that's not even voltage for the Sharp. It will run off 4.5V, but it won't charge the battery. i had the same problem. i got a variable voltage one installed a 5v regulator in it, as mentioned a few posts ago. i have to run it at 9v it puts off some heat (i.e. wasted energy) but puts out a solid 5v the battery charges perfectly. peter - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Minidisc.org manuals: GIF or PDF?
===
= NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please =
= be more selective when quoting text =
===
well, html is simpler for those of us who occasionally still don't start up
x-windows on our freebsd boxes browse in lynx/w3m... plus all search
engines will find references in them.
peter
On 19 Jun 01, %l:07PM, Eric Woudenberg, Minidisc.org Editor wrote:
Hi,
I have several PDF format Sony manuals that I am about to put up on
the MDCP and am thinking about junking the HTML+GIF equivalents that
are kept there. Does anyone see a good reason to keep e.g.
http://www.minidisc.org/jb940_manual/
when there now exists:
http://www.minidisc.org/manuals/sony/sony_mdsjb940_manual.pdf
?
The only advantage I see to the HTML+GIF versions is that a person on
a very slow link could look at the manual page at a time (i.e. random
access) without downloading the whole thing.
But the PDF version is about 1/3rd the size (2.5MB vs. 8MB), is easily
printable, and does two languages (En and Fr) (and I would like to
save some space).
Rick
-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Peter Jaques [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cs.oberlin.edu/~pjaques/
stop de execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal
if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig
more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm
-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: recording at festival with MZ-R500
you'll need a microphone preamp for your 500. peter * Thus spake Jeffrey C Gunderman [2001-06-15]: I'm going to a large five day outdoor concert festival in July. I would like to record some or most of the shows I go to. I have a Sony MZ-500. Would I just plug the mic into the Line In? And since I have - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: DCC?
On 6 Jun 01, %l:28PM, Stainless Steel Rat wrote: You are mistaken if you believe that there is a 1,411,200Hz square wave stored on a DAT. All that is there is ones and zeros, which do form a square wave if you treated it as something audible (which it isn't) with an effective frequency some twice that (~2,862,311.5Hz if I did the math right). that's what i'm saying. effectively, the dat recording head (which is fundamentally still just a magnet, like a cassette recording head) stores what in analog audio would be a very high frequency square wave on the tape. this requires a different mechanism than a simple analog recording head, which could never hope to represent such a high frequency wave, but has no trouble with 10,000Hz. thus the need for rotation of smaller heads, or compression, or SOMETHING to increase the bandwidth to/from the tape. i don't want to go back forth on the list more about this; feel free to respond in email. take care peter - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: DCC?
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === On 5 Jun 01, 5:46PM, Stainless Steel Rat wrote: Peter, you have some misinformation yourself, here. * Peter Jaques [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 05 Jun 2001 | for uncompressed 16 bit stereo pcm, you're essentially dealing with a | square wave of 16 bits/channel * 2 channels * 44100 Hz = 1411200 Hz. | that's extremely high to just spit onto what is mechanically no different | from a metal cassette. The highest frequency that 16-bit PCM can achieve is 22.01kHz, and is represented by 16 on bits plus the frame. Those 16 on bits take up exactly the same ammount of space as one frame of dead silence, 16 off bits. Frequency has no direct relevance to how much space is required to store the signal, only resolution of the sampling. i'm not saying that PCM represents an audio frequency of 1411200Hz, i'm saying that in order to represent 22.05kHz, the analog square wave put on tape is 1411200Hz. the square wave is the bits themselves. peter - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: audition channel on sound cards?
I'm assuming you have a windows pc. if you have two sound cards, you can have different applications use different cards, thus keeping the websites' noise separate from the streaming you're doing. the streaming app should have a setting for which soundcard to use. it shouldn't matter what brand/model the two soundcards are. windows will keep things separate. peter On 28 Apr 01, 9:41PM, Brent Harding wrote: Is there any inexpensive sound card that has an audition channel where I can play stuff that I hear but doesn't go in to the recording? Is there a way to make this happen with a sblive value? I know the what you hear option takes everything, but I know the disaster of clicking on audio enabled websites while doing internet radio streaming, was over by my friend's house when he did this and had to find some way of incorporating the song in to the program. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: . is MDLP worth the wait?
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === depends on your use. if you want a portable recorder to record live music, you wouldn't want to use mdlp most of the time anyway (unless perhaps you really have to get it all on one disc). but if you just want something small you can dub cds with, mdlp could be useful. of course, if you got an mdlp recorder, you'd have a portable to LISTEN to mdlp things on too, seeing that you have an mdlp home deck. i have a sharp 702 it meets all my portable needs fine (mostly recording live music). take care peter On 16 Apr 01, 11:03AM, payvand wrote: hello- advice time. i'm looking for opinions mainly. if you had an MDLP home deck. and 2 non-MDLP players. and were in the market for a used portable recorder. would you wait until MDLP portable recorders became more widespread and buy a MDLP recorder, or would you just buy a used non-MDLP recorder now? I do use the MDLP feature on my home deck, but mainly only to record the audio from movies. paying for a new R900 is not an option right now, and i don't like what i'm hearing about them anyway. I would like to get my hands on a used portable MDLP recorder from sharp or aiwa however. so would you buy non-MDLP now, or wait a while for a good, used portable MDLP? - 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: Shuffle on G750
well, 1,3,7,15,31 is (2^n)-1, though the rest of the pattern seems irregular. any ideas? peter On 27 Mar 01, 1:30PM, Peter Ravn wrote: I have tried with a disc with 58 tracks the order was always 1, 3, 7, 15, 31, 42, 41, 38, 25... and even if I first hear track 3 then the order will be the same so the next tracks will be 7, 15, 31, etc :-) and if I began at track 31 then the next tracks will be 42, 41, 38... etc - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: recording to CD
in addition to the other suggestions, i find it helps to do NOTHING at all on my computer while transferring to HD. if i move the mouse too much, i can get little blips in the sound. and this is on a pretty quick machine (k6-2/500)... peter On 11 Mar 01, 6:32PM, Charles Redell wrote: it to their web site... My problem is that when I record it to my hard drive, there are skips in the sound that do NOT exist on the MD. They sound like digital hicups that happen momentarily when you listen to a CD through your computer and you open a big program. They are very short (less than a second) but annoying and detract from a recording they could sell or give thier fans... - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: mdlp for live recording
howdy, i'm thinking of picking up an mdlp portable recorder. i was wondering what experiences y'all have had using these for live recording. i'd do this kind of recording in sp mostly, but i'd like to have the option of lp2 in case i need to squeeze a little more onto the disc, or for things where i won't be able to change the disc for a long time. plus i'd like the lp2 for dubs from cd c. how good are the mic preamps in the sony r900 the sharp mt77? i've heard sharp usually has done a better job in this area my old 702 still sounds quite good. (i'm not trying to start a flame war, i just want specific information on these units.) has anyone done side-by-side comparisons of the analog phases of these recorders? thanks peter - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Digital Conversion
My question, again, is this: isn't resampling equivalent, except for there being no analog travel in the middle, to DAC+ADC? no. resampling to a higher sampling rate (eg 32kHz-44.1, or 44.1-48) can be done with almost no degradation of quality. assuming a sound with no sound components above a certain threshold (eg for 44.1kHz audio, nothing above 20kHz or so), the original wave can be almost perfectly modeled, so that if you then resample it to 48kHz, the sound will be almost identical. this is best done with a technique called "bandlimited interpolation". similarly, if you have a 48kHz sound that also has no sounds above 20kHz (eg it went through a lowpass filter before recording), that can be almost perfectly downsampled to 44.1kHz. while there is a signal degradation in theory, it is extremely minimal, completely unlike passing through a dac-adc. see http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jos/resample/ for a detailed examination of bandlimited interpolation. peter - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Digital Conversion
On 3 Mar 01, 6:28PM, David W. Tamkin wrote: Maybe I understand part of it now: in an actual DAC+ADC passage, analog out- put has to come out of the DAC within the limits of its ability to generate the detail in the voltage changes, and the ADC has to read it within the lim- itations of its ability to sense the voltage readings; plus, as I said be- fore, there is potential lossiness in the analog travel between them. Those are three weak points not present in a sampling rate converter. Nonetheless, resampling has to go from discrete samples to a representation of a continuous waveform and then back to discrete samples, true? that's basically correct. the biggest difference is that whenever you're dealing with an adc or dac, you are dealing not just with the sound, but also with physical properties of electricity, like latent voltages c. if you try looking at a square wave with an oscilloscope, you'll see that an analog electrical signal does funny things of its own to a sound, unrelated to whether there's a dac involved. the perfect square wave you see in your audio program is more like a bumpy peak that decreases in height until it falls off a bumpy cliff. this kind of thing is the biggest problem with analog audio. electrical wires just can't quite represent the sound. so if you're running through a dac-adc, you're introducing all sorts of electrical magnetic funny business. meanwhile, the adc has its own physical imperfections that show up as quantization the other familiar digital noises. (of course some of these things came up in the original recording process, but each analog pass through electrical wires changes things even more.) none of these things come up in a sample rate conversion, since it's all a mathematical transformation. the only similarity is that the sound is being converted. peter - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Copying MD to CD - Hiss Between Tracks
sounds like you're recording from md to computer with an analog connection, and the hiss is coming in there. if you used a home md deck with digital output, went into the computer on a digital input (which probably means you'd need a new soundcard) i suspect this wouldn't happen. a simpler (cheaper) solution would be to do the edits AFTER you transfer to computer, in (e.g.) goldwave (if you have a pc). your edited WAV files will then fade to dead silence. peter On 1 Mar 01, 4:37AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am a regular reader of the MD list, but have never seen this particular problem discussed. When I record individual tracks to MD from LPs or CDs in analog mode and fade them out manually at the end of the track (leaving a few seconds between each cut) the silence between tracks is absolutely silent and the transition is smooth. When I load the MD to my computer (using Adaptec CD Creator 4 Deluxe) and then burn a CD there is a hiss between tunes that isn't on the MD. If If I transfer the MD one track at a time into CD Creator and let the program put the silence between the tracks it will go to dead silence, but it is an abrupt cutoff rather than a smooth fade to silence - almost like you flipped a switch rather than did a volume fade. Does this explanation make any sense to anyone? I've heard this same type of thing on commercial discs, so the "big guys" have the same problem, but I've always blamed it on sloppy editing on their part. When I do a direct CD-CD copy using the Adaptec software the results are always the same as the original disc, so I know it's not my computer. Anybody out there have any thoughts? - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Copying MD to CD - Hiss Between Tracks
On 1 Mar 01, 6:25PM, Edward wrote: Adaptec CD creator = 100 % SHITE Use something decent such as Nero. that's not a useful response to his question. the problem isn't the cd-burning software. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Sharp MS702 Battery charging
i also had a hard time getting a battery to charge on my 702. i had a universal adapter tried both 4.5V 6V, but neither would work (6V would charge a little, 4.5V not at all). my 702 never complained about the voltage; it just didn't charge. then i added the 5V simple regulator circuit (see http://minidisc.org/5v_regulator.html), bumped the power from the AC adapter to 7.5V (the circuit loses a bit in the reduction) all works well. i suspect that your variable transformer either wasn't putting out the full 800mA the 702 needs to charge, or wasn't quite 5V. hope this helps peter On 1 Mar 01, 5:24PM, Damon Smith wrote: The player will not go into charge mode. The manual says if the voltage is wrong the screen will say "Power?" But mine shows nothing. I tried feeding it exactly 5.0v from a variable transformer and it still won't charge, so I don't think getting teh official power adaptor will solve this. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: mp3's on MD (was confused about something)
On 28 Feb 01, 8:15AM, Chad Gombosi wrote: If you for some reason, *must* use a digital conection, and the CD player won't jive with the digital out on the soundcard, then converting the tracks to .wav would give you far superior quality, and should bypass the problem. that is misleading. by "converting the tracks to .wav", i assume you mean that the cd should be ripped to .wav files. but it sounds as if you're saying that something would be gained by converting mp3's to wav's. THAT wouldn't help anything. Also, try playing the CD in Winamp instead of your normal CD player. I think Winamp plays CDs back basicly as .wav files, instead of doing what Windows CD player does which is just controling your CDROM and using it's built in DAC, and sending though the passthrough in your sound card. no, winamp does the same thing: control your cd player. you can set it to "sample" from the soundcard, but that just means that the oscilloscope works from the cd-audio; the sounds coming out are the same as with the windows cd player. peter - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: recording direct from a phone
you can buy a device like this at radio shack (in the US). i don't know how well it would work with an ip phone, as i've never used one. peter On 28 Feb 01, 6:32PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have seen a mini disc used to record directly from a telephone and am trying to figure out what cables etc I need to do this. The set up looked like this: a regular phone jack from the phone itself was plugged into a double adaptor (with another phone cable going out from there to the wall phone socket), and then from the other end of the double adaptor was a cable that I think plugged into the headphone socket of the MD. Does anyone have any idea what sort of cables/adaptors I need to do this? I basically want to be able to record quotes/interviews from people over the phone. We use IP phones in our offices, if that makes any difference? - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: timer juggling (was best portable player)
On 20 Feb 01, 11:16AM, John Small wrote: Yes, that's an interesting suggestion. I could purchase another Radio Shack timer and put the R50 on this ... ah, but nothing I see in the manual about time recording for the R50. Rats, if only the 510 sitting on my self was working (but if it was I would not have the 940!). Otherwise I cannot split this way as the show comes on about 2 hours after I would turn the R50 on ... I would get 40 minutes of it only. how about this modification: buy the radio shack timer put your TUNER on it; set the r50 to synchro-record leave it in rec-pause. when the tuner turns on automatically, the r50 will start recording. then you can use david's suggestion to turn the 940 on automatically when the r50's about to fill up. peter - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: ATRAC Codec
On 19 Feb 01, 11:25PM, Matt Wall wrote: First off whoever wrote this codec, bravo to you. I love it and so far = sony wrote it. in this version, at least, there's no way to go above 132kbps. peter - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: timer juggling (was best portable player)
On 20 Feb 01, 8:24PM, John Small wrote: Thanks for the suggestion. The timer will only do 24 hours and not by day. I need to record two hours one day and two the next and I will have to turn both on at the same time as I'll be away during that time period from time to time. actually, i think my suggestion would still work, depending on when you leave. say the program is 8-10pm tuesday wednesday. before you leave, set the RS timer to turn on at 7:59pm, put the R50 in rec-pause. set the 940 to turn on at 8pm *wednesday*. this way, every day the tuner turns on at 7:59. first day, that triggers the R50 to turn on. second day, the 940 turns itself on. this would only work if you are leaving after 10pm monday night. otherwise the R50 will turn on on the wrong day. i find the most elegant solution to be the one using the equipment already available;) who needs to spend more money? this way you can wait on the mldp portable until their prices come down a bit. take care, peter - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: ATRAC Codec
On 20 Feb 01, 9:24PM, Matt Wall wrote: OK so sony wrote this, does this mean according to this url http://www.minidisc.org/mdlpfaq.html#listen that they have now written 2, one for atrac3, an older version which for some reason they abandoned, and another newer one, from which they pretty much changed the header, and i would guess implimented smdi into it. Please either verify this or tell me where i'm wrong. i'm trying to figure it out. anyway's thanks for the info to all. the codec has nothing to do with the header. windows uses this codec to put the atrac data into a wav file, but the data is identical to atrac data in any other kind of file. only the header is different. don't know about smdi. peter - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: THIS is Going to be the BOMB
On 19 Feb 01, 8:03AM, J. Coon wrote: What company is that? WHen will it be produced? How can you put put 650 MB of data on a device that holds 140 MB and have it backward compatible? i don't know the answers to the first 2 questions. you can put 650mb on an MD2, which is a higher-density format (like the difference between cd dvd). these are different discs, of course won't work in md-audio decks. but the standard 140mb md's will apparently work in this new device of course md-audio. peter - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: best portable player
there are no mdlp portables for that cheap. it's a brand new product. peter On 19 Feb 01, 11:41AM, John Small wrote: I'm looking for a portable MD player that will do LP mode. The products I see are few and the price is high ... Frankly I think anything over $200 I consider too high for a reader, and I'd like some $100 options. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: best portable player
On 19 Feb 01, 5:23PM, Mike Burger wrote: For a player? I think you're confusing the question with price of a recorder/player. The original question specifically noted player. he specifically asked for a player with mdlp capability. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
i've had similar experiences with fairly simple music. on a recording of solo turkish ney (flute), there are a few moments where there is a very noticeable squeaky noise high above the instrument. i was surprised, since flute is an extremely pure sound, very close to a sine wave. on a recording of brave old world's "rufn di kinder aheym"--bass clarinet accordion only-- at the beginning there's a slow volume swell, which md did in much less subtle steps rather than a smooth crescendo. both were recorded digitally from cd, i noticed both without even trying. these were very noticeable artifacts. my solution has been the same, to make cd-r's of each of these recordings. in general md is fine (in fact i prefer its convenience size). peter On 12 Feb 01, 6:28AM, James Jarvie wrote: The differences are there in some of the more difficult classical music recordings. Unless you have done this, I don't think you can call your opinion informed. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: OT: DVD Resolution
On 23 Jan 01, 7:35AM, Steve Corey wrote: seems to behave the same way. Perhaps there is some sort of analog visual distortion that just looks good, in the same way that analog audible distortion sounds good. actually, the two biggest reasons film looks better both have to do with "analog" producing LESS distortion than digital. (i put "analog" in quotes, because the term is usually used to refer to an electrical process, such as cassette tape or vhs, rather than a chemical/physical process.) film being a chemical process, color resolution is quite predictable depends on the kind of film the processing. years years have gone into finding film compositions that produce lifelike colors, whereas each video recording head (or in the case of digital, dsp section) has to be calibrated to give good colors. also, each frame of film is a completely separate physical entity, each exposure is independent of the other exposures. video (digital or analog) is entirely electric, so each frame is subject to the residual voltages magnetism of the ccd recording head. finally, film is simply much higher resolution than even hd video. even 35mm film can give the equivalent of thousands of dpi. peter - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
