Re: MD: Sony PC-Link with a Mac?
It's been a long time since I used a Mac, but I think you need at least system 9.04 or whatever system finally included the USB Audio drivers. -steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Should work w/ standard USB audio drivers > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:44:47AM -0700, Eric Ivanoff wrote: > > tried it nothing happened. I assumed that it's one of those Mac > > non-compatibility issues and never looked into it further. Now I found this > > list and I was wondering if one of you experienced MiniDisc guru's know of a > > fix for me - Mac drivers? I realize this is SUCH a newbie question, but I > > can't find info elsewhere. Thanks in advance for your input. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: JE-510 grinding.
> The good news is I've convinced my girlfriend that it's > broken and we'll just "have" to buy a new deck. :) So > your probably asking .. why bother fixing the JE-510? > Well, I'd like to try and fix it first. Nah, buy the new deck first and try to fix the old one second. Possession is nine tenths of the law... ;-) S. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Field Recording
"J. Coon" wrote: > > My stupid ISP decided it needed a new address. I will try to get it up > at a lycos or geocities site so it won't change. I'll be working on it > this week. I feel your pain. In the past 6 years, I've been through 6 ISPs! They keep getting bought, or sold, or just change their name to something "hip" It's utter nonsense. Now I just accept the annual ISP change. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: . PC-based ATRAC3
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === I don't know about soundforge's batch process capabilities, but CoolEdit 2000 has really good batch functions, including specifying the output format. I use it at work all the time to convert wavs to mp3s (on the order of tens of thousands of files) and it could just as easily use the ATRAC codec to save out the files. -steve Danny-K wrote: > > Hello- > > Someone posted a link to the ATRAC3 codec the other day, so I downloaded and > installed it. > > I've been converting using SoundForge5 and the save-as option. Saving as > wav, while selecting the ATRAC3 option with 132 bitrate (105 for online > stuff). > > Anyway. I don't know if it's better than MP3--most would say it is and I > wouldn't disagree. But it's a hassle converting tracks one at a time, and > I'm wishing for an automated process. I have not been able to find a > converter that allows custom codec selection. Everything either converts to > MP3 or RA so if anyone knows of a customizable encoder it would be great. > > - > 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: Simple questions from newbies?
I welcome newbie questions here, as I am still somewhat of a newbie myself. (and we are all newbies at something right now) I went back to read your question, to see if I could answer it. Unfortunately, I don't have that particular model so I don't have a specific answer for you, other than mic level H and L is probably High and Low. There should be more details in the manual for your recorder. If you don't have the manual, it can probably be downloaded from http://www.minidisc.org However, in general setting mic levels for live recording always has a certain trickyness to it, due to the radical difference in live sound levels from situation to situation. I've just found that over time, and with practice, I've gotten fairly good at judging sound levels. I don't know how to tell you how to practice it, other than to try to make a note of how loud the source is, and then note where you set your levels. A decibel (dB) meter (a device that measures sound level) might help you draw a better correlation. I got mine at Radio Shack. When you are recording, make a note of what sound level is indicated by the dB meter, and note what level you're recording. Do that for a bunch of recordings. You should be able to start to better understand what recording levels will be needed for the diverse sound levels encountered. Hope this helps. -steve Denise Christiansen wrote: > > Are simplistic newbie question not welcome here? If > so, is there a better place to go for answers? I > asked a question a couple days ago, and have not had > one response. There has been plenty of conversation > otherwise, so I know people are out there. This is > the second time this has happened. If you are > primarily a techy group, and newbies are not welcome, > could someone please inform me as to where we are > welcome? - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Memorex and Verbatim MD's
> Does anyone have any experience with these types of MD's? I'm sure I > remember seeing somewhere that Memorex weren't that great, > but it might have > been Maxell ones (plastic shutters). I haven't seen anything > about Verbs > though, whats the verdict? I've used various Sony, TDK and Maxell blanks. The only ones that I've had any problems with have been the plastic shuttered Maxells, which occasionally suffer drop-outs. S. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: which MD car deck to buy?
I don't know if it is available in Canada but I really like my Blaupunkt Dallas MD deck. (The US site shows the stateside equivalent my model - the first link below - and the new, 'improved' version): http://www.blaupunktusa.com/receivers/receivers_00_dallas.htm http://www.blaupunktusa.com/receivers/receivers_01_neworleans.html The reason I bought it was that my Sony unit was stolen and, of course, the face-plate was in the glove box. This made me realise that a removable face-plate is no deterrent to the scum that break in to cars. Blaupunkt units have a smart card the size of a credit card, which slides into the back of the hinged face-plate so it's easy to take with you and easy to see that it's been removed. I will never buy a face-off unit again. Anyway, compared to my Sony unit, I would say that sound quality through the mediocre standard speakers in my car is similar for MD and better for the radio. The other area where the Dallas wins is the user interface. It is simple and uncluttered, using 8 soft keys for all the peripheral functions, rather than the plethora of tiny buttons that you normally get, and a simple, easy to read display, rather than the mobile disco that you usually get. It is changer compatible, though whether they do a MD changer, I don't know. Regards, S. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Recording MDs with microphones...
Christopher Hicks wrote: > > Curiously, I am currently contemplating designing a small digital mixer for > location recording (not specifically to MD, but entirely usable with ... > My project essentially comprises 8 XLR mic-line inputs, each with > switchable gain and phantom power. The resulting audio is passed to a DSP > which has independent level and pan controls for each channel, a master > level control, and a parametric EQ on the output. It would be possible to > have EQ on individual channels but it would make the control surface either > expensive, or fiddly to use, and I'd rarely use it in my application When I record a group, I usually put up 4 mics in an A-B X-Y configuration, and then the occasional spot mic when needed. I often use eq on the individual channels to blend the sound from the mics, so I'd really love it if there were individual channel eq. > The make-or-break of this project probably depends on whether I can get a > hobbyist electronics magazine to publish the design. The purpose of this > posting is too see if there is significant interest in this forum that I > can use as leverage with potential publishers, so let me have your comments! I would absolutely love something like this. Even without the eq on individual channels. The other thing I'd love (while you're in the designing mood...) is a small portable D/A converter with an eq in it. It would take in optical or coax S/PDIF and then have a digital eq, and then output a line level signal. Perhaps if you just added a digital input to your mixer above, which would also be useful as an alternate clock source. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Cheap Minidiscs in the UK?
> Just bought my first deck yesterday, and now I need some disks. So can > anyone in the UK point me in the direction of the cheapest > place to buy, > mail order or otherwise? > > Thanks, > > Nick. I would recommend Richer Sounds. TDK discs are £1 a piece, with Hi-space about 80p each. S. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Sony ECM-MS957 mic
Len Moskowitz wrote: > We have two short files that compare our mics to the Sony ECM-MS957 and > the AT-822/825. I'd be happy to send them on request. It would sure be nice if you could put all of your mic examples on your website, either uncompressed WAV's or SHN's or as a last resort even MP3's. I think it would be a great resource, if you have the server space. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: sonymz-e500
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > does anyone know if the sony mz-e500 comes witha backlit remote? No, it does not. However, I've had one for a few months, in fact I'm listening to it right now, and I reckon that it's a great little player. S. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: [Fwd: Digital Recording Experiment (Sorry, No Direct Mando Content)]
Besides which, if you're using a SBLive, it does a sample rate conversion on EVERY SIGNAL to 48 kHz (even if the digital signal is already at 48 kHz) to be put through its DSP, and if you're recording a 44.1 kHz signal, it does a sample rate conversion back to 44.1, so you won't get an exact copy no matter what. If you try the experiment with a DAT or CD-R you need a sound card that guarantees an exact digital copy. Soundblasters don't. A few cards that do are the ZA2, Zoltrix Nightingale, (both out of production, I think) WaveCenter/PCI, UA-30, Maya and on and on. That's what I can think of off the top of my head. -steve Christopher Hicks wrote: > > >loaded with CoolEdit 2000 which has, among other neat features, the > >ability > >to generate a 1000 Hz square wave and save it as a WAV file. Imagine > >this > >file is then recorded (again via digital SPDIF) by the MD and then > >played > >back from the MD into the PC again. > >TO FIND: > >Should the "send" and the "return" .WAV files be identical, since the > >process is digital thoughout? If not, why not? > > > If you tried the same experiment with a CD-R or DAT recorder you should > find that the waveforms are identical since these record raw PCM. > > Christopher Hicks - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Cheap minidiscs in Croydon
> I was in the Croydon Dixons today and bought a five-pack of Sharp *80* > minute MDs for eight quid (7.99). That's £1.60 each, the > cheapest brand name > 80 min discs I've seen so far, especially in those quantities. If you don't need the 80 minute capacity, Richer Sounds are selling TDK at 99p each for any number you want. If you don't want a 'respected' brand name I think that they are selling Hi Space for 79p, though I'm not sure if there is a minimum number with those. Also, on their website, they have 5 packs of Hi Space 80-minute discs for £5.95 - Dunno if that's available in store, though. A friend bought 50 Hi Space 80-minute discs and has had no problems so they may be worth a shot at that price. S. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Which is the best dual Mini Disc / CD Player
> Also thinking of replacing my SONY MZR50, whats the best portable at > present? I guess that depends on your criteria but, of the people that I know, all have either stayed with or moved to Sony portables. Assuming - given the virgin.net address - that you're from the UK, I bought the MZ-E500 for £132, which is a great playback only deck that takes a chewing gum cell so no power-bulge for the AA cell. The only downside is the plastic case if it may need to take a few knocks. If you need to record as well, a friend waxes lyrical about his MZ-R900, about £200 on-line, which is the only Sony recorder without a power-bulge, I believe, and has a metal case. Both are MDLP compatible. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: MDLP Question
> Is it possible to play back MD's that were recorded in MDLP > on an older, > non MDLP player ? No. IIRC, the tracks will play as a silence half as long as the track that was recorded and, unless it was turned off on the recording deck, the track title will be prefixed with "LP:". Of course, tracks recorded in SP mode will play on all MD players regardless of which recorder was used. S. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Earphones
Dan Frakes wrote: > > Steve: the issues with the ER-4S needing an amp isn't whether or not they'll > play *loud* enough; rather, it's whether or not they'll play *well* enough > ;) The ER4S are simply designed to be used with a powerful headphone amp. > If you were to buy a good amp and then use your 4S, you would immediately > see what I'm talking about -- as good as you think they sound now, it's > nothing compared to what a good amp will do for them. I certainly SEE what you're talking about with respect to a good headphone amp ;) Of course, you're right, and I DO have a headphone amp for them. I was replying in the context of better earphones for minidisc, which I think the ER-4Ss are, even without a headphone amp. What with the external sound isolation among other things. --And I could've sworn some people said they didn't go loud enough. Anyway, IMO, 'tis better to get the highest quality (ER-4S) that can be used with or without an extra amp, so that when you are able to use an amp, it's all that much better. Regardless, I should have mentioned the amp, thanks for pointing that out. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Earphones
las wrote: > > At $300.00 you really, really, really have to be into listening with earbuds big > time! You can buy a pair of Sony Glasstron TV glasses on eBay for that kind of > money. The ear buds included with the glasstron are on the big side, but have > decent sound and you get to view video on a virtual 52" screen. > > I guess it comes down to what's important to you and what value you place on it. It's not that I'm into listening with earbuds, I'm into listening to high quality, and getting rid of ambient noise. It also doesn't hurt that their appearance is subtle. Besides, I worship Audiocles, the ancient God of Audio. I've never been a visual person anyway. And I have to laugh at the '52" virtual screen' I tried some of those, and to me it just seemed like you were looking at a really small screen really close up. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Earphones
I just got a set of Etymotic ER-4S earphones, and I am astounded at the sound. They are incredible. Some people have said that the 4S's lack bass and require a headphone amp, but I'm using them with my Sony MZR-90 and they are loud enough for me with excellent bass, and that's not even with the bass boost turned on. They come with either flanged or foam tips, and you need to get a tight seal in your ear canal to get decent sound. I could only get that seal with the foam tips, which also are much more comfortable in my ears; the flanged tips kinda hurt, but I hardly notice the foam tips. The other great effect of the seal is that it blocks out a lot of exterior noise, so high volume is not required. I love them for my train ride to work, I can just loose myself in the music. They aren't cheap, they'll set you back about $300.00 (USD) but I think they're well worth it. They also come in a nice case with various accessories. Here's a link for info: http://www.etymotic.com/hifi/index.asp -steve Tim Pitman wrote: > > I've just purchased a Sony MZR-900 and would like to buy some better > earphones for it. I'd really like some that are comfortable, and with good > sound. I currently have some old Sony ones that are really comfortable, but > don't sound too good, some groove ones that came with a discman 3 years ago > that sound good, but aren't very comfortable, and the ones that came with > the 900 which are somewhere inbetween. Any sudgestions? > > Tim > > - > 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: DCC?
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === > From: Stainless Steel Rat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > * Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 06 Jun 2001 > | On a CD the laser is reflected off the disc, onto a photodiode which > | produces four analogue voltages. These are then used to > perform tracking > | and linear speed adjustments, and are also processed to produce the > | digital data. The signals could just as easily be used to produce an > | analogue audio signal. > > Could, but they are not. And though what is there could be > interpreted as > an analog signal, it really isn't. Consider this: I whisper "one". I > shout "one". Has the value of "one" changed? My voice is > analog, but the > spoken signal is still digital. If it wasn't really an analogue signal, there would be no need for error correction coding. In practise, the analogue signal is converted into soft decisions which vary from zero, through zero-ish, one-ish, to one. These are then fed into the error corrector, which uses the redundancy introduced into the data to estimate the most likely sequence of data bits. Continuing your analogy, if you whisper 'one' but I can't hear what you say, I have to make a guess on whether you said 'one' or 'zero'. The source data is digital, but the signal after the effects of the channel are considered is analogue, and must be converted back into a digital representation. > [...] > | No. The advantage of CD and MD against vinyl and tape is > that they do not > | wear out. The fact that the former are digital and the > latter analogue is > | co-incidental. DCC and DAT both wear out yet are digital. > > And are insignificant to consumers. > > | Laser discs were entirely analogue and do not. > > Actually, they do. And the format is (was) insignificant to > consumers, > too. My point was not what was significant to consumers but rather that it is a property medium, and not the format of the data stored on it, that determines whether wear occurs. > | Admittedly, due to the error correction, digital recordings > will handle > | wear better for a while before failing completely where as analogue > | recordings deteriorate more gradually, but it is the medium that > | determines whether wear occurs. > > Well, if you want to insist on picking nits, then consider > this: microphone > in to a solid state deck, real-time conversion to MPEG-1 > Layer III audio, > and stored on compact flash cards. No analog storage > involved anywhere. The bits are stored by tunnelling electrons through the oxide layer, generating a potential on the floating gate. That potential is analogue - though, if you want to get pedantic, quantised. The real world is analogue and, hence, all data stored in the real world is stored in an analogue form. It's all a bit academic, though. > [...] > | I'm not sure that I understand the point that you are > trying to make here. > > My point is that the original post making the claim that, paraphrased, > "digital takes more space to store than analog because square > waves take up > more space," is wrong. I can't argue with that being faulty logic. In the general case, uncompressed digital signals take more space to store than the analogue signal that they represent. However, if you just wanted to store square(ish) waves, it would require much more bandwidth to store them in an analogue manner than digitally. The key is that it is wrong to think of digital as storing things as square waves. S. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: DC car adaptor for Panasonic SJ-MR200?
Hello...I am looking for a car power adaptor for the Panasonic SJ-MR200 -- it needs 1.8 volts, 500mA. I believe the Panasonic SJ-MR100 has the same power requirements. I've tried it with a 1.5v power supply, but that doesn't work. Any ideas? - Steve - - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: DCC?
> From: Stainless Steel Rat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > * Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 06 Jun 2001 > | I see no reason why you cannot compare the bandwidth and/or space > | requirements of digital and analogue recordings. Given that > all recordings > | are ultimately stored as an analogue form, > > You are assuming that digital signals are modulated into > analog signals for > recording, like on your old C64 (which ammounts to recording > the noises a > telephone modem makes and playing them back later). There is no such > modulation involved with digital audio storage. No, I merely refer to the fact that the real world is analogue and that the digital data, though not used to modulate a carrier, are stored as an analogue waveform, which approximates those data. On a CD the laser is reflected off the disc, onto a photodiode which produces four analogue voltages. These are then used to perform tracking and linear speed adjustments, and are also processed to produce the digital data. The signals could just as easily be used to produce an analogue audio signal. [snip] > | Of course, the advantage of digital audio is that it is more easily > | possible to remove the noise introduced by the medium - > albeit at the > | expense of adding redundancy and the introduction of > quantisation noise - > [snip] > > The advantage of digital audio is that as far as consumers > are concerned it > does not wear out. No. The advantage of CD and MD against vinyl and tape is that they do not wear out. The fact that the former are digital and the latter analogue is co-incidental. DCC and DAT both wear out yet are digital. Laser discs were entirely analogue and do not. Admittedly, due to the error correction, digital recordings will handle wear better for a while before failing completely where as analogue recordings deteriorate more gradually, but it is the medium that determines whether wear occurs. > | - but I am given to understand that, to achieve recording > of the same > | perceived quality, PCM - whether linear or non-linear > | - will require a greater bandwidth than to record directly > in analogue. > > And yet, the fact remains that when analog recordings are > made on "digital" > media like Compact Discs, the effective capacity of the media is > significantly reduced compared to its equivalent digital counterparts. I'm not sure that I understand the point that you are trying to make here. I've not heard of anyone storing an analogue signal on a CD but, given that a CD provides 74mins of bandwidth at several MHz and you only need 44.1kHz (2 * 22.05kHz channels) to store the analogue signal held on it, you could store around 100 digital CDs on one analogue CD. However, it would be a pig to produce and the play back equipment would be more complex. It would still not wear out, though. Steve. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: DCC?
> Saying that digital recordings require more space than analog > is just plain > wrong. The two are totally different. Comparing the two is > like comparing > a really nice cheese omlette and a Shelby Cobra GT350. I see no reason why you cannot compare the bandwidth and/or space requirements of digital and analogue recordings. Given that all recordings are ultimately stored as an analogue form, someone must have compared the possibilities for using that form to store the recording in an analogue manner against adding the complexity of a digital system. Of course, the advantage of digital audio is that it is more easily possible to remove the noise introduced by the medium - albeit at the expense of adding redundancy and the introduction of quantisation noise - and the ability to process, e.g. compress, the sound allowing trade-offs between the different aspects of the recording - signal-to-noise, non-harmonic distortions and various psycho-acoustic aspects of the recording. The real issue is how you compare the quality of a recording - as the quality needs to be the same to compare the bandwidth requirements - but I am given to understand that, to achieve recording of the same perceived quality, PCM - whether linear or non-linear - will require a greater bandwidth than to record directly in analogue. It's just a lot easier to improve the perceived quality of the digital recording if you are able to throw more bandwidth at the problem or use a whizzy compression algorithm. However, also as I understand it, even with the work that has been done in the field of compression, it is only codecs that make assumptions about the source, e.g. speech codecs, that can better the bandwidth required by analogue. Given that both medium and sensor (our ears) are analogue, I guess that this should not be a surprise. Steve. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: DCC?
> * 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 have a been lurking on this list for a while, but I feel that I must correct something that is just, plain wrong. The value of one sample gives only amplitude information, and no frequency information. For that you need multiple samples as it is the differences between samples that contains the frequency information. If each sample is treated as signed number, the sequence of samples ..., +n, -n, +n, -n, ... represents a sine wave at half the sample frequency, i.e. 22.01kHz for a 44.1kHz sample rate. The value of n determines the amplitude, i.e. volume, of the sound. Secondly, the frequency DOES have a very definite relevance to the space required to store the signal, though, as the original poster was saying, it is the sample frequency that matters, not the signal frequency. Having said that, the bandwidth required to store the signal is actually determined by the symbol rate, and not the bit rate, per se. So, 1.4Mb/s could be stored with 0.7Mhz bandwidth if two bits were stored per symbol. The problem with the calculation in the original post was that you can't store the raw data without some kind of error correction because digital distortion - i.e. bit errors - sounds BAAAD, and this adds an overhead. However, although the bandwidth required is much higher than analogue sources - even when compression is used, the signal-to-noise ratio of CD/MD (caused by quantisation noise) is so high that the limit is usually in the analogue stages used to reproduce it. The wow, flutter, hiss, popping, cracks, etc. of the various analogue systems is often easily perceptible on even modest systems. OK, I'll get off my high horse now, Steve. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: md-l-digest V3 #36
las wrote: > > Aren't 8mm video tapes (I believe that they use Hi 8 tapes) also a common standard > in professional studios? Yes, the DTRS format, introduced with the Tascam DA-88 (at least I think they were first. Checkit...) Which is a deck far superior to the original ADAT, which sucked big time. At least the newer ADATs have become usable. > Also, isn't the final stereo mix for an audio recording almost always stored on > DAT? Used to be, but more and more, final mixes are being stored on disk or a tape format that has a higher resolution than DAT. > > We were sending out 30 copies, so it could have gotten costly. Art had single pass > data grade (HP) DATs. At first i was concerned that there was a difference and > with my background in MD was afraid that data and music DATs were not compatible. > > Fortunately it turned out that not only were DATA grade DATs compatible, they were > what professional studios used. First, yes, data DATs (DDS format) are compatible with audio DAT decks. Second, only some professional studios use them. This is the endless (it seems) debate of whether or not DDS tapes are ok to use in audio decks. After wading through all of the ANECDOTAL evidence (which is not worth a pitcher of spit) I have come to the conclusion that I will only use High Quality Audio DATs in my audio DAT decks in my studio, and I will use only High Quality DDS tapes in my backup DAT drives. About the only thing that people agree on, is that everyone has a different opinion. Even when you ask the manufacturers themselves, some will say that the tape is different, but the shell is the same, or vice versa. Some say the DDS tape comes from the center of the spool, and some say that the tape is a different formulation altogether. And it could be that each manufacturer is telling the truth, they just all have different ways of making their tapes. Interestingly enough, about a week ago I spoke to a DAT service technician and he swears that DDS tapes cause more wear on the audio DAT deck heads than High Quality Audio DAT tape, but some decks are more susceptible to wear from DDS tapes than others. For me, the bottom line is until someone publishes a proper study of the difference between audio DAT and DDS tape use in audio DAT decks (preferably in the Journal of the AES) I will continue to only use High Quality audio DAT in my audio DAT decks. I don't want to take a chance with my very expensive DAT decks. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MDLP Question
Here's a MDLP faq: http://www.minidisc.org/mdlpfaq.html I downloaded the codec from that page and did some tests by encoding a WAV file at various ATRAC bitrates. I find the LP2 bitrate to be quite acceptable, and the LP4 bitrate to be unacceptable for music with a wide stereo field, but perfectly acceptable for mono or narrow stereo sources. Try the codec for yourself and see if you find the compression acceptable. -steve Marc Britten wrote: > > I have a R700 but i've been too lazy to play around with the mdlp function, maybe >i'll play with it this weekend. > > but thats pretty much what i've been wondering too, how much more lossy is it? > > marc > > On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 11:03:40AM -0400, Thomas, Ferris wrote: > > > > Has anyone on the list gone out and gotten one of the new MDLP recorders > > like SONY MZ-R700? If so, I was wondering if this fantastic new disc-length > > comes with a cost of lossy compression? > > While the added disc length would be much appreciated, I wouldn't go for it > > at a cost of sound quality. > > (Feel free to reply off-list to the address below.) > - > 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: The Toslink CD-Rom Project, You beauty!
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === Put your CD player on "Repeat All" tracks (if it has such a function), so after it plays the last track, it skips to the first track. If you just want the first track, start with the end of the last track, to get the pre-roll, record the first track, and then edit the MD. -steve Timothy Stockman wrote: > > I tried adding a TOSlink to by Samsung SC140 CDROM. It worked, sort of. > The problem is that on most CDROM drives (this one included) the S/PDIF > header does not output a vaild signal unless the drive is actually playing. > (Normal audio CD players output a valid "0" signal when not playing.) > The MD recorder does not acquire lock until a short time after a valid > signal is present, requiring one to "pre-roll" the CD, playing the last few > seconds of the previous track before starting recording on the MD. > I've found no way, using the CDROM's S/PDIF output to dub the first > track first track of a CD without cliping the beginning... > > - > 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: Light years (was Re: comparing sony mzr55 w/sharp 702/722)
Jeffrey Scorsone wrote: > > Actually I think you sense the fact that on this list > we constantly debate and argue to get the facts out > vs. common misunderstandings. > > fact: a light year is a unit of distance > myth: mp3 sounds just as good as Minidisc Well, since you're being nitpicky, what you called a myth above is just an opinion.. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: My NEW R70 makes a horrible grinding sound, is this normal?
=== The original message was multipart MIME=== === All non-text parts (attachments) have been removed === - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: My first night with MDS-PC3
I am firmly convinced that when I upgrade my computer, I'm going to get an AMD processor. I'm utterly sick of Intel's crap. As for specifying mp3 quality in CoolEdit 2000: In the save dialog you choose "MPEG 3 (FhG) (*.mp3)" in the "Save as type" drop down box. (But you already knew that, didn't you.) Then click on the "Options..." button to bring up the various compression choices. Towards the bottom, there is a slider with the labels "Faster" on the left and "Higher Quality" on the right. Play around with that. There's also a little Explanation box with some info. I find that 160 kb/s at quality 3 is a good balance of quality and encoding speed. But that's just my personal preference. And while I'm blathering on, I'll just say I love CoolEdit 2000 for 2 main reasons: 1. I can assign keyboard shortcuts to ANY function. That really speeds up editing. and 2. The batch processing is really good. -steve Taky Cheung wrote: > > I'm using a Duron 800 with 128MB PC133 ram. I'm really impressed with the speed. > It shows the ETA when I save the file to mp3 128kbps. I was first think of > using SBLive PlayCenter to encode MP3. It has a 9X hardware mp3 encode > acceleration. But CoolEdit 2000 is even faster! > > AMD Rocks! the CPU costs me $80. > > I still remember the old day, I use L3Enc to encode wave to MP3 in DOS mode. I > have to hit enter and then go to sleep. I takes 2 to 3 hrs to encode one song in > a 486 DX Box. > > btw, how to specific quality 9 3 1? > - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: My first night with MDS-PC3
Taky Cheung wrote: > all. Then I encode them in MP3 (using CoolEdit 2000. it works fast! it encodes > a 5 minutes song in 18 seconds). Then I rearrange all my songs and record back Wow, that is fast. What speed is your computer, and what quality setting did you use? I have a PIII 666 and here are the times it takes to encode a 5 minute song to mp3 at 160 kb/s with CoolEdit 2000: quality=9 3:45 quality=3 1:38 quality=1 0:42 I'd really like to know what system you're using. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: My NEW R70 makes a horrible grinding sound, is this normal?
=== The original message was multipart MIME=== === All non-text parts (attachments) have been removed === - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: MZ-R70 question
=== The original message was multipart MIME=== === All non-text parts (attachments) have been removed === - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: problems with my MZR-50
> Do the level bars seem to register while you record? no. there is no sound getting into the unit. when i play an md, the level bars jump and the counter counts but there's no sound (or signal) coming out. > Do recordings made in > the R50 produce a sound when they're played in another machine? no because nothing is being recorded. nothing through the headphones, nothing through the line in or out. volume is set all the way up. steve. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: problems with my MZR-50
=== The original message was multipart MIME=== === All non-text parts (attachments) have been removed === - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: problems with my MZ-R50
=== The original message was multipart MIME=== === All non-text parts (attachments) have been removed === - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: A (theoretical) good thing about End Search WAS: Beginning at the beginning....
"J. Coon" wrote: > Steve Corey wrote: > > until the last possible moment (74:59) pop out the disc, and shove > > There isn't any way that I know of to get the disc out without writing > the toc, except taking out the battery or putting it in service mode. > Neither will do you any good. > On the Sony MZ-R90, just slide the eject switch, and out comes the disc with no TOC writing (and if you're not careful, out comes the battery too. Yet another annoyance with the R90). Of course it won't work on all decks, but we're talking about the End Search feature, which is "featured" on the Sony portables. But, as has been pointed out, the End Search function is not needed since the same thing may be accomplished with other methods. So I hereby join the "End Search is Stupid" crowd. I would also like to join the "AVLS is Stupid" crowd and the "Automatic Gain Adjustment is stupid" crowd. But at least Auto Gain has its uses. Just let me turn it off, and remember that its turned off. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: A (theoretical) good thing about End Search WAS: Beginning at the beginning....
"J. Coon" wrote: > PARAMOUNT TO EVERYTHING ALWAYS PRESS "END SEARCH" BEFORE YOU RECORD > ANYTHING. ... > I don't know why Sony > was so FOOLISH as to set up their portable recorders that way. Someone > at Sony should be taken out and shot... or at least severely > chastised. There is something I've been meaning to try, and if someone already has then let me know if it works. If you record one track on a MD all the way through, then you have a TOC that spans the whole disc. Record a few discs like that. Now go to a show and start recording with one of those discs. At about 60 min into the show, you realize the band is in one of those extended jams that's going to last for at least another half hour. You wait until the last possible moment (74:59) pop out the disc, and shove another one in and continue recording. Since the disc already had a TOC, and it didn't get a chance to update anything, the disc should be OK. And you've lost the minimal amount of the show by not having to wait for the TOC to be written. Again, this is all theory and one of these days I'll try it. But if it works, I think that it makes End Search a Good Thing. But it should still be a feature that could be turned off. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: off topic- saving streaming video
I was wrong. Windows Media Encoder does let you do screen capture. My apologies. And thanks for pointing it out. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: off topic- saving streaming video
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === (I didn't see my reply show up, so sorry if this sounds a bit familiar. And I've updated it a bit...) It depends on what kind of streaming video you're talking about. If you're talking about the creation of streaming content, then Windows Media Encoder is the way to go. If you're talking about saving content that you have streamed off of the internet, that's something different. There are some sites out there that don't let you save the video. (many music video sites, for example. ) The only way I found to save those videos is to use HyperCam to capture the stream as it comes in. -steve Taky Cheung wrote: > > I don't think that will save stream media file to HD. If you need any of those > to capture your screen activity, get Windows Media Encoder. it's free. > > TAKY CHEUNG > http://hottaky.com > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - Original Message - > From: "Steve Corey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 8:50 AM > Subject: Re: MD: off topic- saving streaming video > > > > > Mike Hooker wrote: > > > i appeal to the great body of knowledge on this list. does anyone know > > > how to save streaming video to a hard drive?? > > > > Could this be what you're looking for? > > > > http://www.camtasia.com/ > > > > or maybe this? > > > > http://www.hyperionics.com/index.html > > > > Personally, I like the second one, HyperCam, and I use the mjpeg codec > > from > > > > http://www.mainconcept.com > > > > -steve > > - > > 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] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: off topic- saving streaming video
Mike Hooker wrote: > i appeal to the great body of knowledge on this list. does anyone know > how to save streaming video to a hard drive?? Could this be what you're looking for? http://www.camtasia.com/ or maybe this? http://www.hyperionics.com/index.html Personally, I like the second one, HyperCam, and I use the mjpeg codec from http://www.mainconcept.com -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Bit 4 bit digital card
KVE wrote: > > I don't think that is that important. I tried the card on 4 different > computers and got the same bad results: P-120, P-166, P2-200 (Compaq > DeskPro 4000), P3-550. My friend (P-166) had exactly the same input > problems (minus the initial noise) and now he uses it only for output. > I'll try to come up with the list of my hardware for you, though. I do think that the motherboard has a lot to do with soundcard problems. I just saw a post on the DAT-Heads mailing list from a fellow who has the Nightingale working with no problem on an ASUS P2B. And there is a known problem with the Zefiro ZA2 and VIA Apollo Pro 133 chipsets. It seems that some bits of hardware just doesn't get along with each other. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Bit 4 bit digital card
KVE wrote: > I have found a lot of problems with Nightingale. One is the fact that > it doesn't do any reclocking of its own and lacks the coax in. That > means that if you are using a cheap optical cable you are bound to get > the timing problems. I was using one of the older Sony cables and > loosing about 2 minutes on a 59-minute recording. Drivers are strange > too (although I did install the card together with the optical board). > I was also getting a lot of noise when I started playing my digital > source. That would go away after playing with card's configuration. > After a while I gave up on it and bought DIO 2448 and I have been happy > with it ever since. It it just an I/O board and it doesn't have MIDI or > any of this stuff. It doesn't do reclocking either, but it has coax > inputs and outputs and with CO2 (which seems to do reclocking) > everything works fine. It works flawlessly as long as there are no IRQ > conflicts. So if you are into DIY, then Nightingale might be for you... What motherboard did you use with the Nightingale? What other cards were in your system? I'm using the Nightingale in an Asus P2B w/Celeron A 400, Intel PCI Pro 100 Ethernet, Adaptec 2940AU SCSI and Elsa Gloria Synergy AGP video card. Some people have reported problems like yours, and I'm wondering if the Nightingale just doesn't work well with some systems. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Bit 4 bit digital card
Javier Marcet wrote: > >> do you know what the cheapest sound card allowing to make bit for > >> bit digital transfers could be (at least at 16 bit, 44.1KHz)? An > >> absolute requirement is working under Windows 2000 (Linux would be a > >> plus). > > SC> The Zoltrix Nightingale with Optical Upgrade Kit for about $40.00 (USD) > > SC> It has been verified that it does bit-for-bit transfers. Here is a link > SC> to a FAQ on it: http://pipedreamer.bizland.com/zoltrix/ > > I must say that I am impressed by this card, it is definitely a steal, > and you say it does bit for bit transfers! > I have two questions. First, do you know if the Pro 6 model will be > the same (as for the bit4bit)? I think it has the same chip, but it > comes with 6 analog outputs and the optical kit by default. > Second. Is there any drawback on it? I currently have a SBLive! but > after seeing this I'm about to sell it and get ahold of a Zoltrix > Nightingale Pro 6 board. > > Thanks for the information :)) Sorry, I don't know anything about the Pro 6 model. If it doesn't have any fancy DSP on it, then it will probably do bit for bit transfers. But that's pure speculation on my part. I have found no drawbacks to the Nightingale. I only use it for recording to/from DAT or Minidisc, and it just works. Plain and simple. What more could you want from it? Yeah, toss the SBLive. Its onboard DSP makes it unsuitable for exact digital transfers. And the fact that you can't bypass the DSP. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Bit 4 bit digital card
Javier Marcet wrote: > do you know what the cheapest sound card allowing to make bit for > bit digital transfers could be (at least at 16 bit, 44.1KHz)? An > absolute requirement is working under Windows 2000 (Linux would be a > plus). The Zoltrix Nightingale with Optical Upgrade Kit for about $40.00 (USD) It has been verified that it does bit-for-bit transfers. Here is a link to a FAQ on it: http://pipedreamer.bizland.com/zoltrix/ -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MP3 to MD thru Optical Input
Taky Cheung wrote: > > Just would like to ask anybody on the list how do they record MP3 to MD thru > digital optical cable? Do they use WinAMP or any better playlist control > program? Does track mark recorded probably? Do they have to add a couple of > seconds silence in order to have the recorder to split the track? Thanks I have a Zefiro ZA2 soundcard with an optical out (along with coax S/PDIF and XLR AES) that I run into my MZ-90. I usually use WinAMP, with the output plugin where you can specify the time between tracks. I find that 3 seconds between tracks reliably puts start IDs at the beginning of MD tracks. HOWEVER, I also get a few 0 length tracks too. Probably due to glitches in the digital stream when the ZA2 has nothing to play. I have also heard that the Zoltrix Nightingale with Optical upgrade is an excellent soundcard for optical in/out. It is a PCI soundcard (the ZA2 is ISA) and it only costs $40.00 including the optical upgrade. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Some food for thought/fuel for discussion...
John Small wrote: > > On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:40:22 -0800, "Don Capps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >You're telling me that compressing the file twice doesn't effect the audio > >quality? Not sure I'm getting you here. > > The claim has been made that you can record a CD to MD, then re-record MD to MD > via analog inputs about 8-9x before noticeable degredation becomes apparent. I > have not verified this but I've seen it claimed on several occasions by those > who have tested it. Here is a link to a site with examples of multiple generation MD copying loss. http://www.minidisc.org/generations.html As for recording mp3s to MD, I do it all the time. I've got most of my CD collection on my hard drive in MP3 format at 160 kb/s (compromise between size and quality) using the lame encoder. I make MDs to listen to on my commute on the train to and from work. The sound is just fine, since there is a lot of traffic and train noise. Even when I listen at home, the degradation from 160 kb/s mp3 to MD isn't noticeable. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Senses fatigue
las wrote: > > In my humble opinion, if you can make electronics that can keep the distortion > as low (unfortunately this becomes very hard with analog tubes, tape, vinyl, > etc.), the frequency response as wide, the signal to noise ratio as good and the > dynamic range as wide, analog would sound better then digital. That's because > that concert was analog to begin with and so are our ears. No, then the analog would sound the same as the digital, if I'm interpreting your statement correctly: If analog was the same as digital, analog would sound better. I know that you are making the distiction between the analog process versus the digital process (continuous vs. discreet) but if all things are equal, then the result should be equal. You're saying that digital is inherently inferior, because our ears are analog. But our ears are digital. When a sound wave wiggles the basilar membrane, it causes selected, individual, DISCREET nerves to fire. Which nerve depends on the frequencies and amplitudes of the sound. A digital recording of sufficient quality will cause the EXACT same nerves to fire as the analog recording of similar quality. 16 bit 44.1 kHz is not sufficient to exactly reproduce an analog sound waveform, given the ear's resolution of 20 kHz (if your'e lucky) and 130 dB (before you go deaf). But 24 bit 96 kHz probably is, given a 144 dB dynamic range, and 48 kHz frequency response. To be absolutely sure, 32 bits would probably be better, and maybe bump up the sampling rate to 192 kHz. But at that resolution, there will be no difference in the ear's response to an analog or a digital signal. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: OT: Tubes etc. Was: OT: DVD Resolution
las wrote: > > Steve, I remember Dynaco. Didn't they come in kits that you built yourself (like > Heath Kit). Yep, I have the "Dynakit" tube amp from Dynaco, that I have been able to keep running thanks to a fellow in town who is able to track down tubes and other parts for me. I also have two Dynaco (not kit) solid state amps that sound incredibly good too. > Part of what you are saying about tubes and analog is unquestionably true. But I > still have a Bogen tube amp. While they produced rich warm sound, tube amps > introduce unacceptable (by today's standards) hum among other types of > distortion. Yeah, but that distortion sounds s good. Like a warm eider down comforter on a freezing day. I'm not going to do any production work with my Dynaco amp due to its 3% THD among other things. When I'm mixing something, I want playback that is unforgiving, something that will point out every flaw in the recording. (Genelec speakers are good at that.) But at the end of the day, when I just want to listen, there's nothing sweeter than that Dynaco. And the tubes sure are pretty, glowing in a dark room. > Digital is a great means of storage because it can be duplicated with no > generation loss. But all digital eventually has to be converted to analog in > order for humans to see and hear it. Until the day when we can plug our heads into our MiniDisc players (or whatever we have by then) and have the bits fire our neurons directly. I can't wait for the day when I can mainline audio. (warning, previous statement is fanciful pondering on a "what-if" scenario. Not to be taken too seriously.) > Except when distortion (that is any straying from the original sound or addition > of sounds or colors that are not present in the original) we call it enhancement. You hit the nail on the head here. Some distortion is good, some bad. The good kind, we call EQ or dynamic compression or reverb or something else. The bad we just call distortion. Everything distorts the sound to some extent. But if you like the result, then that's what matters. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: OT: DVD Resolution
las wrote: > > Taking all of this into account, film still kills video. And film is > analog. I can pick out any TV show that is shot in video vs film. There > is a new TV show that is shot in HD video. At times it looks almost as > good as film. But then the video looks sometimes creeps in. > > I know I'm off the MD topic, but what really amazes and confuses me is that > if something is shot on video tape you can tell. But when film is > transferred to video tape it looks better than what you you have gotten in > you had originally shot it on tape. Why is that? Perhaps for the same reasons that a good quality tube amp sounds better than a good quality solid state amp. There's something about that analog process, that when done well, produces amazing results. I've got an old Dynaco tube amp that puts out 35 watts per channel max, and it sounds better than the majority of modern amps out there. Film 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. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: lossless compression
"Francisco J. Huerta" wrote: > > I beg to differ. The format is called MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing) and it > is distributed by Dolby Labs. It can compress any PCM file, and yes, it is > supposed to be used in DVD-A. > > > 5:1 lossless compression doesn't exist, at least not yet. > > I looked up Meridian Lossless Packing and came up with this: http://www.meridian-audio.com/p_mlp.htm >From the article: "MLP is expected to reduce bandwidth by 38 to 52% (to 6.6-8.6 Mbps), allowing anywhere from 73 to 89 minutes on a DVD-5" That is nowhere near 5:1 lossless compression. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: whether MD is "high quality" (was Sony E500 vs. E700 vs. E900)
"David W. Tamkin" wrote: > > Steve Corey wrote, > > | I only object when someone says that MD is high quality recording, when it > | is middle quality recording. > > That's a subjective call, based on what scale one uses and where one draws > the demarcations. MD is not maximum quality nor top quality, because ATRAC > is lossy. But "high" or "middle" or even "low" is a personal judgment. > > Steve, you have every right to disagree with someone says that MD is high- > quality recording, because it's a matter of opinion and your opinion differs. > But in my view the concept of objecting doesn't apply. Is my objection to someone saying that MD is high quality recording any less valid than someone saying that LP4 is unsuitable for serious recording? Particularly when a person making that statements admits that he has not heard LP4 recording? Of course it's all subjective. I never said that it wasn't. And of course it's my opinion. Just about everything said in this forum is opinion. So here are some simple statements: ATRAC is lossy. That's a fact. The current, best implementations of ATRAC sound great. Opinion. One that we all seem to agree with. I do, and since we all seem to agree, no controversy is generated. The current, best implementations of ATRAC are high quality recording. Opinion. One that I am the only one who doesn't seem to hold. And so there is a controversy. So I have admitted that ATRAC recording sounds great. And yet I still cling to my notion that it is not high quality. Here's why: when I want to record something with high quality, I want to capture as much of the information that I can, audible or not. Even 16 bit, 44.1 kHz recording is lossy, in that it filters out frequencies above 20 kHz or so. But that is ok, since the recording gear isn't any better, for the most part. I want my storage medium to be capable of capturing as much of the information as possible. So, yeah, that's my opinion. And when I disagree with someone, I'll speak out. And when people don't agree with me, they'll speak out. I consider that a good thing. And now, much to the relief of some, this is the last you'll hear from me on this subject. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: md-l-digest V2 #853
"Francisco J. Huerta" wrote: > > With all due respect, don't you think this paragraph has discredited your > entire post? Wouldn't it be easier to bring back Bach from the dead? > Having done neither, I don't know which one would be easier. But I did say that it was "pure sci-fi" the "fi" meaning fiction. I take fiction to mean "not true." I was merely presenting a hypothetical situation. Sure I said it could be possible, but lots of things could be possible. And as Arthur C. Clarke says "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." As for discrediting my entire post, I don't think that there is any one statement I could make that would discredit my ENTIRE post. Each statement stands or falls on its own merit and/or context. Now if I had said that I had a letter from George Washington (of First President of the United States fame, for those of you living in Utah) and said that it was written while he was taking the train from Baltimore to Ohio, that just might discredit my entire post. But a throwaway line about a speculative future technology that I specifically say is sci-fi, doesn't discredit anything. Sorry for the lack of MD content. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: md-l-digest V2 #853
James Jarvie wrote: > > > For that matter it may be > > possible to restore the complete sound of Bach > > playing the organ. But > > why make it more difficult that it has to be. > > I somehow suspect that there are not alot of > recordings extant of dear Johann playing the organ. > More's the pity. Of course there aren't. I was referring to an imaginary technology that could enable one to trace back in time whatever resonances were created by Bach, and then reconstruct the performance. Pure sci-fi, but not impossible, I think. > > I also notice a distinct decrease in quality when I > > start to process the > > ATRAC stuff with EQ or reverb or dynamic > > compression, and the like. > > Why would you want to do that? I would want a > recording to sound the way it was originally done. See example in previous post of recording acoustic guitar. I don't just use my MD for listening to my CDs or MP3s during my commute. I record lots of other things which require mixing, sweetening and mastering. > People today are so spoiled. Go back 15 years to the > era of LPs and cassettes. Minidisc sure sounds like > high quality to those of us who are old enough to have > been music lovers in the pre-digital age. By the way, > many of my favorite recordings never saw the light of > day in the digital age. The music only exists on LP > (or in some cases cassettes). The important thing is > the music...not the technology! I agree with the last sentence. (Incidentally, I cut my teeth on the old Ampex 1/2 inch 4 tracks, when sync meant pushing play at the same time, and if one deck got behind, you gently press on the reel of the other deck to slow it down. Those were the days!) The important thing is the music. And some of my favorite recordings are only on LP as well, and some other of my favorites were recorded on an old Sony Pressman style cassette recorder. The quality of the recording in no way diminishes my enjoyment of the performance, but I would enjoy the recordings even more, if they were of better quality. What I'm really saying is, think about the future. If you are truly concerned about capturing an acoustic event to save it for future use, then it only makes sense to use the highest quality technology available. Obviously that can't happen on every occasion, since there are numerous tradeoffs that have to be made, which is why I still use my MD to record certain things. MD can't be beat in some areas, so in that sense it is the best technology available for the situation. But there in the back of my mind is the thought that I'm short-changing the recording. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Sony E500 vs. E700 vs. E900
"Churchill, Guy" wrote: > If you can't ever hear tell the difference, does it matter? I I submit that it does matter, for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post that future technology will enable the ability to vastly improve current recordings. It's like the Caruso restorations. They used the best quality recording technology at the time, which the majority of people thought was high quality recording, but still, there was too much information lost, and the restorations, while good, are still not great. Perhaps in the future it will be possible to restore the complete sound of the Caruso recordings. For that matter it may be possible to restore the complete sound of Bach playing the organ. But why make it more difficult that it has to be. And I'm not just thinking about restoring only the two track mix, I'm thinking about the ability to separate out instruments and remix, and create new soundstages and the like. With any lossy compression, that sort of thing becomes much more difficult. > will challenge anyone in a doubleblind listening test to identify > the difference between CD and the latest ATRAC version. If you can, > then you are certainly in the minority. For the rest of the world In the majority of cases, I cannot tell the difference between CD and the ATRAC on my MZ-R90. However, I did a recording with it of some acoustic guitar, where I didn't set the levels properly, and I can hear a difference between the ATRAC and the DAT version. (I used the R90 as a backup recorder, DAT optical out to R90 optical in.) I also notice a distinct decrease in quality when I start to process the ATRAC stuff with EQ or reverb or dynamic compression, and the like. There's something about it that doesn't like to be messed with. > _snip examples of MD uses_ I totally agree that MD has its uses. That's why I own one. The only reason for my first post on this subject was the statement that MD is High Quality recording. I just don't think so. And I do record concerts, and music for listening to on the train, and jams, and sketches, and I want an LP4 deck so I can cram tons of music on it and on and on... > Here is an experiment just WAITING to be done ... pick a piece > of music, something simple but complex (dynamic range, tempo, > instrument placement). Do a digital recording in SP, LP2, LP4 > dump back to CD digitally and compare on a reference system. > (remembering that the recording can only be a s good as the > original). Make the WAV files available for all, so that > others can burn a CD and make a decision for themselves. 30 sec > clips should be enough (x3 = approx 15Mb download) I was going to do this with some of my uncompressed PCM friends, but it's interesting how they backpedal when you bring up a proper doubleblind test. I may still do it however. I still really do want to. Perhaps we can work out something? > > It amazes me that people will spend thousands of dollars on their > > instruments, including microphones and preamps and other miscellaneous > > recording gear, and then balk at shelling out $700 for a DAT. Instead > > they go for a $200 MD. (I'm just going with rock bottom here.) And then > > they throw away a lot of the signal. Does it sound great? Yes. Does > > it sound as good as it could? No. Plus you have severely > > degraded your chances of future restoration possibilities. > > What amazes me more, is people who spend $1000's on Hi-Fi and put it > in a 10'x10' room, full of furniture and wonder why it doesn't sound > that good. Total agreement with you here. > > MD has many uses. Long Play mode is one of them. Recording music is > > one of them. I will even go so far as to suggest that recording music > > in a LP mode is one of them (oh, no! heresy!) But don't delude yourself > > that you are getting high quality recordings in whatever MD mode you > > use. > > Don't delude yourself you are getting an "exact" copy, but do recognise > that using 5:1 compression, MD is probably giving you the best damn > "real time" compressed recording available. "Fitness of use" :) Agree with you again. I only object when someone says that MD is high quality recording, when it is middle quality recording. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Sony E500 vs. E700 vs. E900
First off, I absolutely love my MZ-R90. Now onto rant mode: "J. Coon" wrote: > > No, I haven't listened to it at all. It is just that when I record Sounds like one of those "infidels look down on MD as inferior because it uses ATRAC" as you put it in another post. You're doing the same thing. > LP isn't the quality I am looking for in MD equipment and I doubt if > anyone the plays music will want it either. They aren't looking for > super long recordings, they are looking for high quality recordings so > they can use the material in the future if they want to. I do play music, and I am looking for super long recordings. If I want quality recording I go DAT. Don't kid yourself, MD is lossy compression, is not CD quality, and is unsuitable for archiving (or mastering for a CD, if you prefer) for that reason. In the future there will be great advances in audio restoration capabilities, and the higher quality you record now, will only make future restoration easier. MD does not fit into this picture. It amazes me that people will spend thousands of dollars on their instruments, including microphones and preamps and other miscelaneous recording gear, and then balk at shelling out $700 for a DAT. Instead they go for a $200 MD. (I'm just going with rock bottom here.) And then they throw away a lot of the signal. Does it sound great? Yes. Does it sound as good as it could? No. Plus you have severely degraded your chances of future restoration possibilities. MD has many uses. Long Play mode is one of them. Recording music is one of them. I will even go so far as to suggest that recording music in a LP mode is one of them (oh, no! heresy!) But don't delude yourself that you are getting high quality recordings in whatever MD mode you use. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Soundcards
For about $40 total, the Zoltrix Nightingale with the optical upgrade board will give you coaxial spdif in and out. It's a PCI card. In order to get the coaxial input, you have to make a coaxial connector that you can add onto some jumpers on the optical board. It's simple, and if you screw up, you're only out $20 or so. Here's a website with info: http://pipedreamer.bizland.com/zoltrix/ -steve Linus P Sweers wrote: > > Does anyone know of soundcards that feature both spdif input and output. > I need to input and output digital information to my computer. I already > have the toslink units ... many of those. > - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: agc... and my rant
"David W. Tamkin" wrote: > the problem which I described as "mastered too softly" is not that the soft > passages are soft -- they're supposed to be, after all -- but that the loud- > est ones are too soft. My trouble is tracks where the peak is at -6 to -4 But even the loudest part of a track does not need to match the loudest part of the whole album. Most producers create albums as a whole, not a collection of tracks to be played individually. > include the weak peaks. That's why I disagree very strongly with your proc- > lamation of a couple weeks ago that digital gain adjustment on home recording > devices is an absolutely horrible thing that never should have been invented; > for me it's indispensable. I never said it was a horrible thing, I believe I said it was insane, or something to that effect. Regardless, I will recant that statement. Digital signal gain is useful. As long as the default is no gain change. I prefer my digital dubs to be clones. If I need to process the signal, I will use other methods. > And Steve, if your idea of older music is Peter Gabriel, it's not surprising > that there's little if any overlap in our collections. It really upsets me when people misrepresent what I say. Nowhere did I say that Peter Gabriel is older music. I consider Peter Gabriel and the album "Security" to be quite modern, particularly since it was ahead of it's time sonically. I also mentioned "Aqualung" and I guess that isn't old enough for you either? How about "Kind of Blue?" Getting better? How 'bout the Raymond Scott Project? that was from the '20's. Or the Arias of Enrico Caruso. (lovingly restored by Dr. Tom Stockam.) Recording has only been around for 100 years or so, so you can't get much older than Caruso. Unless you mean older music that has been recorded in our modern times. I particularly like Bach's Toccatta Adagio and Fugue in C. That's pretty old. And there are some old English minstrel songs that I like, (especially the bawdy ones.) Those are almost 1000 years old. And then there are the Egyptian drummers that I have recorded, who are playing rhythms that are probably over 2000 years old. So, now is there any overlap in our collections? Do I care? No, I only care when people misrepresent me. Please don't do so again. -steve -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: agc... and my rant
"David W. Tamkin" wrote: > Scale factor edit is not the only way. Many recorders do allow setting gain > on digital input. However, I've never heard of any that have automatic gain > control for it, only for analog input. Because I have many CDs that are > mastered too softly, I find digital gain adjustment indispensable. I have many CD's that are mastered too loudly. The majority of CD's that are released nowdays have had their dynamics squashed right out of them, since louder-is-better, right? It is the exact same process that makes TV commercials seem louder than the regular program--Dynamic compression. I hate it on commercials, and I hate it on my music. (I'm talking about compressing the final mix up to the very limits, not compression applied in the mixing process) Listen to Peter Gabriel's "Security" album. Most of the songs sound much quieter than most CDs today, but the peak levels are exactly the same. The difference is that on "Security" the peak levels are saved for the moments when they are needed for maximum effect, like on the ends of tracks like "The Rhythm of the Heat." Or take the track "My God" for Jethro Tull's "Aqualung." The wide dynamic range helps to emphasize the drama of the music. Contrast that with "Judith" by A Perfect Circle. The dynamics are the same throughout, even in the "quiet" parts, which have been compressed to bring up the average signal level. The song is not nearly as dramatic as it could be. OK. end rant. And remember, it's just my opinion. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Sharp 722 / Mics?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > need to purchase binaural mics. At $950 the Core high end models are out > of the question. How about the middle end Core's etc.? Should I be I have the middle end Core's. They sound very good, and can handle very high SPL's. They are a bit noisy, however. If they are noisier than other manufacturers models, I couldn't tell you. And of course, how much noise is too much? If you're out recording bird songs in a meadow, they might be too noisy. But they have a money back guarantee. So I would say buy them and try them. If they don't suit your needs just send 'em back. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: ATRAC-R (HiFi)
I was a die-hard uncompressed PCM DAT fan for years. When MD's first came out, they sounded terrible, so I wrote off the format. Then a person, whose ears I trusted, said that I should really check out the new MD's. I was impressed, and now am the proud owner of a Sony MZR-90. I absolutely love it. Even though it has its share of annoying (endearing?) quirks. Now as for data-rate compression, If you can't hear the difference, what is the difference? My PCM buddies take the attitude that even if it's inaudible, all of the music should be recorded, for archiving purposes, future improvements of playback, and on and on. But 44.1 kHz 16 bit PCM cuts out the stuff you can't hear as well--Everything above ~20 kHz and below ~-90dB. The difference in the formats is the amount and type of information that they decide to throw away. So now 96 kHz 24 bit recording is on the scene. I have heard very good systems of that kind, better than 16 bit 44.1 (or 48) kHz systems. but the question I have is, is the difference in quality due to the increased sample rate and bit depth? or is it due to just the improvement in the A-D converters, which would offer a similar improvement in a 16 bit 44.1 system? More testing is needed... And what about the still raging Analog VS. Digital debate? I'll only say this: If you put a warm, fat, punchy signal onto a high quality digital system, you get out a warm, fat, punchy signal. End of debate. The music recording industry is in an atrocious state of affairs because there is no standard of reproduction systems. At least the film industry has standards, like THX, to get some uniformity in the production process. But if I take a recording to 15 different recording or mastering studios, it'll sound different in each one. There are so many differing opinions about what is good sounding, the only opinion that matters is yours. Having said that, I think everyone should try to do comparison tests and try to hear the flaws in MD, and CD and DAT, and DVD and on and on. Try to come up with an understanding of why people prefer one format over another. If you're looking for fidelity (faithfulness) I havn't come across a situation where MD has not been adequate. I'm new to MD, however, so perhaps I'll stumble across something that will trip it up. 'Till then I'll happily continue "taping" with my MD. -steve Fendlewood Walker wrote: > > >"Fidelity" is an objective term. It > >means faithfulness. Which means > >that the what you hear is as close to > >the original as possible. It is true or > >"faithful" to it. > > Me being on the digest, this may've already been addressed, but just to > continue in the hair-splitting vein: > Some people striving for hi-fi are attempting to reproduce exactly what the > recording engineer hears on his monitors in the studio. > Some people are attempting to reproduce the live event. Which is subtley > different, and begs the flippant question - which seat? - because the > listening environment overwhelms all else. > Some people are trying to create the sound that pleases them most in their > environment, a moderate and perhaps sensible approach given that none of us > live in anechoic chambers. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD recorder with timer
In the absence of any other solution, I suppose you could get a MD recorder that has a "synchro-start" feature-- It won't record until it receives a digital signal. Then hook it up to your computer with a digital output, and use the various timer functions on your computer to start record/playback software. -steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi, > > Is there on the market a MD-recorder which could start > recording at a preprogrammed date/time ? > > Kind regards > MJ Wiechowski > - > 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]
MD: What version ATRAC?
What version of ATRAC does the Sony MZ-R90 use? And what version is Sony ATRAC up to? Is there a site somewhere that lists versions of ATRACs and that has examples of music encoded in the various versions? -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: computer to MD - digital vs analog
Digital transfers are ALWAYS better. If a certain digital format doesn't work for you (the DIO2448 to MDS-PC2 for example) find another way to do it. As for these points: > The advantages of analog are: > 1) it *always* works > 2) easy level adjustments I would say, that analog *always* works, except when it doesn't. Like when levels aren't properly set, which leads to the second point: Digital transfers don't have to worry about levels. Except when they do. Like when there is a volume control on the digital signal. I understand why someone would put a level adjustment on a digital signal, but it is the wrong thing to do. The whole point of digital transfers is a bit-for-bit exact copy of the source. The only volume control should be at the analog playback section. All other sections before that should have no level controls AT ALL. (I'm talking about signal transfers, not signal processing like eq.) Do you remember the days of analog gear? Every single piece of equipment had to be calibrated to a test signal, in order to get a good recording. With digital transfers, those headaches are no more, except now when some insane person decides that a digital transfer should have some sort of level control. NO NO NO! > Digital transfer has the disadvantages: > 1) Possible incompatibility problems. For example, the S/PDIF from the > DIO2448 is not accepted properly by the MDS-PC2. > 2) Bad connections or ground problems may cause intermittent dropouts or > pops. > 3) Due to lack of "flow control" on S/PDIF, high CPU activity may cause > dropouts or pops. > > For me, the advantages of digital make it worth the hassle. I've been doing digital transfers of various types for going on 15 years now, and I've only recently ever had problems. Is this progress? Ah well. enough raving for now. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: In-dash MD player
I have a simple question...where can I buy an in-dash MD player for my car? Do I have to special order them? It certainly seems no stores carry them.. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: md/puter
Matthew Wall wrote: > computer so i was looking at mb ideas, i ran across gigabyte's GA-6VXD7, = > a dual socket 370 mb, well anyway when ordered it, they didn't say = snip > good) anyway when i got to the audio portion i was very very very happy = > to learn that it has a MD optical out on it very similar to that of MD = > portables. anyway i set it up and it worked great and i saved a pci = On the specs for that moboard, it says that it is a creative PCI audio driver. Is it a Sound Blaster Live type chipset? Is there any more specific info about the onboard audio in the manual? I'd really like to know. -steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Strange interference... now online :)
All, I had an interesting recording "oddity" last month. I was recording my daughters' Christmas program at her school. There were numerous other parents there with their camcorders and cameras. I was there with my Sharp MS200 and a 2 clip mics on a "yard" (antiquated measuring unit) stick to get stereo separation. Upon playback on the MD, I could hear the "high pitch whine" of the camcorder view finder in my recording. This corresponded to the parent standing next to me turning the camera on and off... Talk about sensitive! -Steve ----- Steve Reiss 222 Mission Streeet Santa Cruz, CA 95060-3717 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.cruzio.com/~stever/TapeTrade.html -- - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
> >> On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 09:38:25 -0800 (PST), Neil wrote: >Why does the constitution define copyright? > It doesn't. Automatic F. See ya! - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
> stake a little bit here? > >This is a little of a strawman really. No, it's the heart of the matter. >> Anytime copyright law is mitigated in the U.S., it is mitigated due to >> a competing Constitutional value. It has to be, because copyright >> itself derives from the Constitution. > >I would imagine that in reality, copyright is derived from peoples' >intellectual property, and the rights *they* have to protect this. No, it derives from the Constitution. > >> The bottom line is, once someone gets in their home in the U.S , your >> copyright grip over them loosens a lot. > >You never have a copyright grip over them. Simply your copyright material >you have *allowed* them to buy under *your* restrictions. If they didn't >like your restrictions, they had all the constitutional rights to walk away >and not buy it. > Your restrictions so to speak are a matter of contract law, and may or may not be legally binding. Copyright law is Federal Constitutional law and has nothing to do with your restrictions. Whether certain contract terms are binding is a matter of state law and varies greatly from state to state. Fairness can be a major consideration. Unreasonable terms in little print drafted by the person bringing the lawsuit are often rendered null by a state court. > >I think what is being discussed is the questionable legality of pirating >copyright material owned by a third party. It's legal to copy someone else's CD in the U.S. for noncommercial use. See the AHRA. Federal Constitutional law. > >I guess the reality is that somebody copying another person's CD, is >unlikely to get into trouble. But that doesn't make it legal, just because >the practicality of the situation is unlikely to result in any action. It's legal in the U.S. Which really improves your chances of not being prosecuted. > >That's why the bigger issues of the net, mp3s and such is poignant here. It's poignant because people want to know what's legal and what's ethical, an admirable quest. > >But as you say, you enter into a contract when you buy most copyright >materials. Most people either conveniently ignore, deny or fail to realise >this exists. > Contract law is state civil law. Copyright law is Federal Constitutional Criminal and Civil law. Guess which one trumps. >Just because of this, and the unlikely recourse, does not suddenly turn this >into legal activity, as some seem to be claiming. The Congress, the Courts, the AHRA and the Constitution have established that it is legal activity. I'm winging this folks, if I make a mistake please forgive me. Happy New Year to you too!!! : ) Regards to the list, Steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Constitution Quickie
I get paid to do such things. It's time consuming and it's hard work. Why don't you do the research and writing and answer your own questions and e-mail me in private. You'll need that big book I was telling you about first. ; ) - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Constitution Quickie
To be honest with you Neil, what speaks volumes is that you cannot answer your own questions. I just got a very mean-spirited e-mail to my personal address from Jeff Salzburg and I'm a little ticked off right now. I am ceasing all correspondence on the subject, which will make a lot of people who are sick of this very happy, I'm sure. I have certainly learned my lesson about jerks on the internet. Very sad, all of this. > no surprise >A few questions:- > >1. Do you have any legal entitlement, constitutional right, or otherwise, to >view record or otherwise display encrypted, subscription or pay events >broadcast either on cable or satelite networks, when not paying for the >event by either subscription or the appropriate payment? > >If not, why not, and what is the offence? > >What is the tangible difference between this and copying a copyright >protected CD that you don't own? > >2. Is it legal for you to make copies of copyright protected prerecorded >video tapes / DVDs, that you do not own, to either recordable analogue or >digital media? > >If not, why not and in what way does this differ from copying copyright >protected music media? > >3. Is it legal for you to make a copy of copyright protected computer >software (ie not shareware, freeware, but software with copyright conditions >similar to that of prerecorded music media), that you do not own, for the >purpose of using in your own home? > >Again, same questions, if not, why not, and how does this differ from >copyright protection on music media? > >A few poignant questions that I hope demonstrates the point. > >Where I believe the AHRA thingy comes in is in the example of say software - >being able to backup the original media, or put it on different media to >more suit personal needs. > >Similar for music media. > >And I suspect it also pre-empts and dubious arguments against certain audio >equipment. > >Neil > > > > > >___ >Visit Excite Shopping at http://shopping.excite.com > The fastest way to find your Holiday gift this season - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Constitution Quickie
Look what this creep is sending me, to my personal e-mail address. I quit. The topic is over, to the relief of many, I'm sure. I tried do be nice. I have tried to be educational. This will be the third time I have asked this jerk not to e-mail me to my personal address. He does not respect this wish. Talk about a lack of ethics. How could anyone respect anything he has to say about ethics or the law? I am a professional attorney. I graduated with honors from a top law school. I tied for the highest grade in my class in Constitutional law, had the highest grade in my class in Criminal law, and, to be honest, I don't remember all of my other grades. I did very well. I did not do poorly in any class my entire time in law school. I've never been in one of these stupid flame wars before. I'm not a jerk, I'm not going to return fire. I just want this creep off my back. If nothing is done about this, if this is tolerated conduct for someone on the list, I am unsubscribing. Regards to the list, Steve - Original Message - From: Jeffrey E. Salzberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 31, 1999 9:57 PM Subject: Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD > > > It's legal to copy someone else's CD for noncommercial use here. > > AHRA. Federal Constitutional law. > > My guess is that you didn't do well in Copyright Law in law school. > > You keep saying it's legal; who knows -- maybe if you say it often > enough, it'll *become* legal. > > Hint: it's not legal -- because if you're copying someone else's CD, > your assets are being increased. . .and, legally, that's commercial. > > > > = > Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer > http://www.cloud9.net/~salzberg > = - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Constitution Quickie
Jeff, I wasn't writing to you, I was responding to Neil. I read this stuff in a digest, not in my personal e-mail. It's fun for me, not tiem to personally attack people. Stop harassing me Leave me alone Stop writing to my personal address The topic is over. People don't want to hear it anymore and I want to be sensitive to that. And you are just plain mean. STOP. - Original Message - From: Jeffrey E. Salzberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2000 1:10 AM Subject: Re: MD: Constitution Quickie > > > > I get paid to do such things. It's time consuming and it's hard > > work. Why don't you do the research and writing and answer your own > > questions and e-mail me in private. You'll need that big book I was > > telling you about first. ; ) > > Since you neither quoted nor paraphrased the message to which you > were replying, we have no idea who you're talking to. > > I've spent 20 years dealing with these issues, by the way. > > > = > Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer > http://www.cloud9.net/~salzberg > = I get paid to do such things. It's time consuming and it's hard work. Why don't you do the research and writing and answer your own questions and e-mail me in private. You'll need that big book I was telling you about first. ; ) - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 11:42:36 -0800, Dan Frakes wrote an excellent and someone intimidating post, which included: >I hope everyone can take a deep breath and realize that these discussions >aren't supposed to be personal. Some of the personal attacks have been >disappointing (I'm not directing that comment at Steve, BTW). It's >possible for people to disagree without insulting each other. Thanks. I strongly disagree on a couple of issues. I'll try to keep it short and hit them real fast. > >Today, the sole source of income, and hence the sole method of >sustenance, for most musical artists is through the sales of individual >copies of their works. This is *why* copyright law was invented. Copyright law was not established to provide sustenance for musical artists. It was established to "promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." (Actually patent law covers inventors and discoveries). See the text of the Constitution. The two are related yes, and it seems a fine distinction, but I think it's a very important one. >By the way, I am assuming that the people arguing for the copying of CDs >you don't own are consistent in your views, and that you also feel that >copying software that a friend bought, without paying for it, is also >completely OK and covered by your interpretations of our constitutional >freedoms? Because there is really no difference between the two. Neil keeps alluding to this, too. I think the law does and should treat different media differently, and it must, because the media can be so different from one another that abstract analogies accross media don't hold up. Music and books and computer programs are all very different from one another. For example, how do you implement "fair use" with a computer program or musical recording? It seems to me to be conceptually and practically impossible. >Do you honestly believe that "our freedom" includes the "right" to copy >the work of an artist who's only source of income is the per-unit >royalties they get from the sales of that album? In some very limited cases, yes. As a general rule, no. >I agree with you about the greed and overzealousness of the record >companies. But that doesn't mean I want to see recording artists and >their careers fail just because I'm trying to strike a blow against >corporate greed. Me either. MD trading rings seem like commercial activity to me. The intent of the copier is important, I think. >There are many examples where the *avoidance* of commercial activity has >been successfully prosecuted as "commercial activity." While I agree that >it isn't commercial in the sense of a retail business, I disagree when >people claim that copying a friend's CD is not in any way "commercial." I'd love to read the cases. But I still say copying a friend's CD once for listening pleasure on an MD recorder is not commercial. I think it's inevitable that the term "non-commercial" in hte AHRA will be strictly construed against the government, and for the consumer, in a ciminal prosecution. >I believe many of us *have* read that text, and it's not that clear, and >(as you so clearly pointed out later in your message) probably won't be >clarified until a case is tried and a court decides the meaning. Boy, I just think the text is awfully, awfully clear, and if a statute is too vague to tell what's illegal, it's unconstitutional to prosecute someone under it, so interpretation of what's legal and what isn't is going to benefit the "consumer." The drafters were acutely aware of this when they drafted the statute, it's very basic constitutional law. Also, the fact that "consumer" and "non-commercial" are mentioned in the same sentence seems to imply a narrow definition of the term commercial to me, such that one acting as a consumer could indeed be engaged in non-commercial activity. Otherwise, the term non-commercial would have no meaning. But we could argue that all day. Your position is well thought-out. >Web sites and individuals have been prosecuted/sued for placing >copyrighted work on a web site. Most of the time the case doesn't go to >court because the offending parties remove the content to avoid a trial. There was a famous case where the college kid won, wasn't there? Do you know of other cases which actually reached adjudication? That's where the law is made. Most people just don't want to take the heat and test their rights. They don't have the emotional stamina, the time, the motivation or the money. >Many of us h
Re: MD: Constitution Quickie
The short answer to your questions is that other considerations may and have many times superseded the strict letter of the copyright law in the United States. The American Home Recording Act is just one of many, many instances. Find yourself a nice big recent treatise on American copyright law and read the whole thing. If you tell me what book you read I'll read it too. You're smart, you can hold your own with me after that. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: pac-man
Prince -- I have played pac-man many times while listening to minidiscs. When I play pac-man, I think of the little dots I eat as new minidisc recordings I have made with no fee going to the recording industry, and I think of the evil characters who chase me for doing so as the recording industry. I think of the bigger dots I eat, which empower me to chase and eat the evil recording industry characters, as my Constitutional rights. ; ) Regards to the list, Steve On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 19:43:53 -, in you wrote: >From: "Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >(...snip) >> (shift to screen and music between pac-man levels two and three.) > >I trust you have bought Pacman, or if downloaded from my website as >a ROM image that you also have the appropriate arcade console or >permission from the copyright owner :-) > >Of course since no-one would put 10p or whatever in the slot to play >it anyway, there is no commercial gain... ummm! > >Cheers, >PrinceGaz -- "if it harms none, do what you will" > >Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Website: http://website.lineone.net/~princegaz/ >ICQ: 36892193 - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: Constitution Quickie
I think of the Amercian Home Recording Act as punching a hole in copyright law to keep it from violating your Constitutional rights. Where in the Constitution U.S. copyright law comes from: SECTION VIII. POWERS GRANTED TO CONGRESS The Congress shall have power to ... 8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; Other relevant, potentially competing values: PREAMBLE We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION [The first ten Amendments are known as the BILL OF RIGHTS, and were adopted in 1791] ARTICLE I. RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL FREEDOM Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. ARTICLE IV. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ARTICLE V. RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment [formal charge] or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use [i.e., by eminent domain] without just compensation. ARTICLE VI. PROTECTION IN CRIMINAL TRIALS In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process [subpoena] for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. ARTICLE VII. SUITS AT COMMON LAW In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. ARTICLE IX. CONCERNING RIGHTS NOT ENUMERATED The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
u could be found a felon. That's odd, felons are criminals. Actually, if I remember correctly (and I'm going by memory) you can be either sued in civil court or prosecuted criminally for copyright violation. Of course, the standards for finding someone guilty in a criminal matter (as opposed to liable in a civil matter) are much higher and, you guessed it, you have all kinds of Constitutional protections. Ask O.J. Simpson. The drivel about liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc. etc. is featured very prominently in the text of our Constitution. It's a pretty quick read. Take a look!!! It's very general (which many of you seem to take offense to), but it carries a tremendous wallop in our legal system. Once you start selling copyrighted stuff that you've recorded or copied, I suggest you look to your conscience as well as the law for guidance. Come on, use some common sense. I certainly wouldn't do it. Thank you all for a tremendously entertaining time. End of topic. Regards to the list,Steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: OT: [non-flame] gun control (was Re: MD trading)
No offense intended. Sorry you caught a stray bullet. ; ) On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 12:33:53 -0500 (EST), in you wrote: >> In the U.S., we let wackos carry guns, we let hate groups babble on >> incessantly, and we let home MD users record CDs they don't own. The >> first two are obviously unethical, you think the third is unethical >> and I don't. But all three are legal in the U.S. (unless the wacko >> has a criminal record or something). As a practical matter, I just > >We've had this flame-war before (re: Guns). There is nothing unethical >about carrying or operating a firearm. Also, not all gun carriers are >wackos. If you really feel like starting flame wars about gun control >on a list that has nothing to do with it, please look at the archives >and read what's already been said. > >/Andrew - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
In my humble opinion (and this is not legal advice), with a few dramatic and severe exceptions (for example, child pornography) if you are an American citizen, you can record just about any damn thing you want in your home, at least once. You don't need the AHRA to do this. Copyright law won't hold you back. Copyright law wilts in the face of your most fundamental Constitutional freedoms. We want every citizen to have access to what is going on in this culture, to freely associate with one another, to share ideas, to be able to act with autonomy and privacy. That's the way it is and the way it's always been. Our freedom is more important than worrying about if a few poor souls didn't get their theoretical, speculative $1.50. And yes, that $1.50 is very speculative. Come on, use some common sense. You can copy your mom's old mickey mouse club record or your niece's spice girls album in your home. That's the way it was before the AHRA, the way it is now, and the way it will always be. And no, recording someone else's CD in your own home is not in and of itself commercial activity. Receiving a gift is not commercial activity. Inheriting money from your rich uncle is not commercial activity. There are TONS of things which increase you assets which are not commercial activity. Why do you think they had to make a law called the American Home Recording Act in the first place? Because the copyright laws, if not interpreted in full view of the Constitution, left open the possibility of serious violations of your Constitutional rights. Look at the name, it says it all, in America, you are free to make home recordings. Period. You are, you were, you will be. It's THE AMERICAN HOME RECORDING ACT, PEOPLE. Congress could not have passed the AHRA if you weren't always allowed to make such recordings under the Constitution in the first place, because the Constitution didn't change, and the ultimate source of copyright law is the Constitution. The AHRA is not a Godsend, it's a ripoff. Your right to make such recordings (including those of other people's CDs) for your listening pleasure in your own home trumps copyright law. It ain't a close call, folks. Yet now the recording industry gets more of your money for some reason. Isn't anybody mad about that? Damn. Regards to the list, Steve On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 15:56:35 -0500, in you wrote: >"Magic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> So, you can't prosecute me for owning or using a minidisc recorder >> or blank discs for non-commercial actions. As a commercial action is >> one where assets increase, any action with the device which >> increases my assets can be taken as "commercial". >> >> If I copy your CD, I now own a copy of music I did not previously >> own. This has increased my assets. > >I'm not a lawyer and I try not to play one on the 'net, so I could >really use the help of a lawyer for a moment. > >Matt, I fear you have stretched the definition of "commercial" way >beyond reasonable bounds. We all know what "commercial" means, and >home recording is not a commercial endeavor no matter how many MDs I >record from friends, so long as I do not start selling them. Please >don't start stretching terms, or the whole discussion will break >down. We owe it to each other to stick with canonical definitions. > >Thanks, >Rick - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Another look at the AHRA and MD
I'm a lawyer. Magic's definition of "commercial" is silly. It is not commercial activity if I find a penny on the sidewalk. But really, that's just common sense isn't it? If you trade enough MDs for the wrong reasons it would be commercial activity. God only know how many it would take. It's like asking how many angels dance on the head of a pin. Otherwise, though, this has been an utterly fascinating thread. I was wondering why Eric The Man Woudenburg (honestly I do admire you) was holding back for so long. You've been scoring major blows to the opposition with your recent posts It's a delight to see you enter the frey, and on the right side too. Regards to the list, Steve On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 15:56:35 -0500, in you wrote: >"Magic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> So, you can't prosecute me for owning or using a minidisc recorder >> or blank discs for non-commercial actions. As a commercial action is >> one where assets increase, any action with the device which >> increases my assets can be taken as "commercial". >> >> If I copy your CD, I now own a copy of music I did not previously >> own. This has increased my assets. > >I'm not a lawyer and I try not to play one on the 'net, so I could >really use the help of a lawyer for a moment. > >Matt, I fear you have stretched the definition of "commercial" way >beyond reasonable bounds. We all know what "commercial" means, and >home recording is not a commercial endeavor no matter how many MDs I >record from friends, so long as I do not start selling them. Please >don't start stretching terms, or the whole discussion will break >down. We owe it to each other to stick with canonical definitions. > >Thanks, >Rick - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: It's that time again (the AHRA and copying)
My God, someone else knows what they are talking about. I feel almost giddy. I love the e-mail address. I might try setting up a new separate e-mail for MD-L only so I can speak the truth without people on the list harassing me through personal e-mail. It's a real problem!!! I tried to explain why the below was so (having a formal law school education on the subject and having practiced copyright law to a limited extent) and how it came to pass, and found myself the subject of scurrilous attacks from all corners. This man speaks the truth, ladies and gentlemen You can argue with it, but you can't defeat it You'll just prove you don't honestly know what you're talking about!!! It's unethical to e-mail someone when they ask you not to!!! It's unethical to personally attack someone when you're too lazy to verify whether they are right or not!!! It's not unethical to copy a CD to MD!!! THINK. Regards to the list, Steve On Sun, 26 Dec 1999 21:56:46 -0800 (PST), in you wrote: >Hey list, > > I haven't posted in a long time, but some of you >who go way back will remember me and the many flame >wars I got into over this issue and others. I think >it's time someone cleared the air here. It seems that >every so often we have to go down this road of >"Illegal Copying" and point out what the law actually >says. I find it ironic how such terms as "ethical" >and "legal" are so easily tossed around by fellow list >members. The law is simple and straight to the point. > It is neither illegal or unethical to copy CD's to MD >or nearly and other derivation involving copying or >recording. There simply is no ethics or legality >questions involved. > > Have any of you bothered to read the American >Home Recording Act of 1976 and it's 1992 Ammendment >before showing the list your ignorance regarding the >issue? Judging from most of your posts it would seem >to me that you haven't only not read it, but you >haven't a clue what it says. Let me quote it for you, >(and in case you don't believe me look it up at >http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.text.html ) > >"No action may be brought under this title alleging >infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, >importation, or distribution of a digital audio >recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an >analog recording device, or an analog recording >medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a >consumer of such a device or medium for making digital >musical recordings or analog musical recordings." > >Note, that from the previous sections of the AHRA >which you can look up yourself, only home recording >equiptment that contains SCMS and analog devices that >comply with the law are covered by the previous quote >(this excludes MP3's and computer CD-R drives). >However what it does say is that you can't be >prosecuted (no action may be brought against...). It >covers all noncommercial use of MDs, Audio CD-Rs, >Audio tape, ect. This means you can borrow your >friends CDs and copy them to MD (that's not >commercial). You can copy your own CDs to MD (that's >not commercial). You can record just about anything >with a covered device and not worry about anything. > >Copying tapes is legal, Copying CDs to tapes is legal, >Copying a CD to a CD (using a home Audio CD-R deck) is >legal, Copying CD to MD is legal, Copying a MD to a MD >is legal, Recording off the radio is legal. I think >you are beginning to get the idea. Maybe some of you >would like to argue that even though it is legal it's >still unethical, but good luck with that one. You pay >a fine (tax) for my "breaking the law" on each blank >tape, Audio CD-R, and MD I buy and you should resent >that. The fact is we all should be outraged that we >are assumed to be criminals by the US government and >as a result we are fined up front for what we are >"going" to do. > >So go ahead and Copy and record to your hearts >content, >Seth > >p.s. It's legal >_ >Do You Yahoo!? >Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Re: It's that time again (the AHRA and copying)
On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 10:27:46 -0500, in you wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> Does that mean makin MP3 versions and copying a CD >> using CD-ROM recordable drives is, strictly speaking, >> illegal? THE MAN, Mr. Woudenburg, writes: > >Yes, it would seem so (CD-ROM recorders are not AHRA compliant). That's not my take. In my view (though the point is arguable), home recording in America was legal before the AHRA, is legal during the AHRA, and will be legal after the AHRA. The ammended AHRA was an unconscionable bribe from congress to the recording industry to make them stop interfering with technological progress by threatening to sue every manufacturer who wanted to sell a consumer-grade digital recorder in the U.S. Before the amended AHRA, almost no one would sell a consumer grade digital recorder in the U.S. for fear of lawsuits from the recording industry. The reasons home recording is legal in the U.S. are very deep rooted and go way, way beyond the AHRA. Unless you have an extremely compelling reason (for example, child pornography), you do not tell an American what he can and cannot record in his own home. In my view, that's the big picture. None of this is legal advice. Regards to the list, Steve - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: It's that time again (the AHRA and copying)
In the U.S., the IRS has decided that in-kind trades of services are taxable income (you fix my car, I'll chop down your tree), and the IRS has won on that point. This would favor Jeff's point to some degree -- if in-kind trades are a form of income, they are commercial activity. It is absolutely clear in the U.S. that money need not be involved for commercial activity to take place. However, I still think he's wrong -- I still think a court would find that two people trading two legally recorded MDs with one another would not constitute commercial activity. The original MD recordings were legal and there's no strong showing that anyone lost any income. Prince Gaz's point that you don't know if someone would have bought the CD is an excellent one, and might hold sway in an American court. People are just sharing each other's musical tastes on a very small scale for exploration and entertainment, and the minidisc equipment has facilitated this form of sharing and enjoyment. If you could show the other person would definitely have bought the CD otherwise (which is pretty near impossible, I think), the case for copyright prosecution would be much stronger. However, the odds of prosecution based on small-scale one-on-one trading of MDs is very near zero, and questions of constitutionally protected freedoms would come into play in the U.S. It's an area frought with risk for the recording companies if they ever want to pursue it. If they lose, it's a disaster; if they win, little is gained. In my view, if someone really likes the MD of the CD, there's a strong chance he'll go out and buy the CD. >The original question was about trading of recordings. My reading is >that trading of a non-commercial nature (i.e. not for money) using >AHRA compliant devices is protected under the AHRA. I'd be happy to >read a section of law that you think refutes this. > >Best wishes, >Rick I think the ethics debate is inextricably intertwined with the legal debate. Because whether trading MDs is legal is a grey area in the U.S, the question of right and wrong becomes relevant, especially where we are deciding if someone's a crook or not. I personally don't think it's wrong for two people to trade MDs on a small scale to explore each others' musical tastes, though I've never done it, because I have no other personal acquiantances with MDs. Whether trading MDs is legal is such a provocative subject becuase it hits a grey border of the law in the U.S. and a border which divides people based on their values. The values of a person on either side may be admirable. >p.s. I would like to add that I think ethics issues are present when >copying a CD you didn't buy, but that we should leave ethics alone >since personal beliefs also enter the picture and we will never settle >those here. We do however, have a slight chance of settling the legal >status of home taping and trading in the US. Let's stick with that, >okay? - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD trading
Wow, you backed me up on something (the Constitution cannot be superseded by any law), in a sort of back-handed way, but cool! I liked your post about free speech in the U.S.A., too. I see an intellectual honesty I didn't expect. To Jeff and those who share his point of view, what I described really is what our founding fathers were considering and writing about when drafting the Constitution. The intellectual property rights were meant to be exceptions, the general idea was information was to be freely disseminated and free and copied as often as possible, more freely than in any other society in human history, with only extraordinary efforts being protected by patents and less extraordinary but significant efforts being protected under what has become copyright law. It's part of the freedom of being an American. Letting information and arts flow freely promotes economic strength and forestalls tyranny. There's a trade-off between having people be able sue someone else (which would require the legal machinery of the federal government) for using any thought they may have expressed or used and allowing people to exchange information (for example, freedom of speech) without fear of interference or prosecution by the federal government. In the U.S., we've struck a balance decidedly toward information and ideas being expressed and disseminated as freely and openly as possible, with a consequence that intellectual property rights are not always cut and dry, and are a little less protected than you might think. In the U.S., we let wackos carry guns, we let hate groups babble on incessantly, and we let home MD users record CDs they don't own. The first two are obviously unethical, you think the third is unethical and I don't. But all three are legal in the U.S. (unless the wacko has a criminal record or something). As a practical matter, I just don't see the harm unless you are pushing someone else's music as a commercial product and generating a revenue stream, while you see harm in revenues foregone by those who own the intellectual property rights but have people listening to their music for free. You think of it as stealing, which I think is preachy and harsh and conceptually incorrect, but I understand where you're coming from. It would be very tough to prosecute someone criminally in this country based on such speculative harm. Now if you're selling minidiscs you made of a CD (whether you owned the CD or not) on the street corner or on e-bay, bang-zoom you're outta there, and in for a hefty fine at the very least. That's commercial use. It's not a matter of if you owned the CD etc. you recorded to MD, it's a matter of what you do with the MDs you recorded. Is trading an MD with your good friend commercial use? I don't think so. But it's a grey area, I admit. In all honesty, I think your being troubled by home recording of CDs that people don't own themselves is understandable and is principled. It's just not the balance we have chosen in the U.S. and the reasons are rooted in our Constitution and in our history. We've chosen to let the music flow like wine. The results have been incredible. Enjoy!!! As a general rule, in the U.S., not until someone is very clearly making a buck off of someone else's music, in a very concrete way, does it become illegal. After all, copyright infringement may be prosecuted as a crime, and the legal standards for proving a crime are usually quite high in this country, since we don't want the government to be able to prosecute willy nilly every hate-mongerer or home recordist. We prefer to be free. We don't want the government snooping around in our minidiscs. ; ) At least that's the way I see it. Believe me, these are far from original ideas, they are just high-tech manifestations of ideas which had their incipiency over 234 years ago, and they've changed the world. In my experience, the views I have expressed are pretty common fodder in scholarly legal circles. Perhaps, when you come to terms with the literal, clear meaning of the AHRA, you will be less astonished now. BUT I DOUBT IT ; ) Regards to the list, Steve On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 07:32:05 +6, in you wrote: >> | The core of United Staes copyright law is the Constitution, laid down >> | by our founding fathers. You perhaps do not understand the AHRA or >> | the United States Constitution. See below. >> >> All of which was superceded by the Copyright Act of 1976, better >> known internationally as the Berne Agreements, which is explicitly >> clear as to what you are allowed to copy. The AHRA is a >> clarification of and extension to the Copyright Act of 1976. Wow!!! Thanks Jeff!!! (for the following:) > >Well, the Constitution was not (and cannot be) superceded by any mere >law, but
Re: MD: MD trading
Yes In the words of George Clinton, formerly of Parliament Funkadelic, who has had a hellacious time with the recording industry, and doesn't mind one bit if you sample his incredibly creative copyrighted works because he digs it and knows it is good business and good publicity for him: Think! Think! It ain't illegal yet! Think! Think! It ain't illegal yet! (From the album One Nation Under a Groove) Regards to the list, Steve On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 08:52:48 -0500, in you wrote: >Here is the act in question http://www.hrrc.org/ahra.html >See section 1008 which says > > SUBCHAPTER D. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN INFRINGEMENT ACTIONS, >REMEDIES, AND ARBITRATION > >Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions > >No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of >copyright based on the manufacture, >importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a >digital audio recording medium, an analog >recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the >noncommercial use by a consumer of such a >device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical >recordings. > > >http://www.hrrc.org/ahrasum.html > >Youse guys can bitch all you want to but it don't change the law, and >the big buck recording companies weren't able to push it down our >throats either. In all the time I have had a minidisc recorder, I have >copied one, CD that I didn't own. Most of the stuff I record is from >the radio, jam sessions, concerts that I have permission, practice >sessions, or my own gigs. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD trading
e's mind, but I doubt it. I should have been a little less abrasive in my previous post. My apologies. To those of you who have implied I don't know what I'm talking about, well, maybe, but just maybe I do, maybe you don't know me very well... ; ) Happy holidays to all. Please be nice. Regards to the list, Steve : ) - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD trading
If you choose to believe that the laws as purchased by the recording industry from congress represent ethics, enjoy your world. The recording industry will screw artists, consumers, and anyone else who stands in the way of Mr. Greenback, and will use their money to make the laws fit this purpose. Please think. Recording a friend's CD is unethical? Think about what unethical is. The law is not ethics, the law is not morals. Ask Muhummad Ali. Ask Martin Luther King, Jr. Yes, ethics matter. But copying a friend's CD is not unethical. And in the United States, it's not even illegal. You make believe you know it's illegal to trade MDs. The truth is nobody knows and the recording industry would never contest the issue in court because they'd likely loose and the world would laugh in their face, just like it did with the MP3 debacle. You know what happened when the recording inustry tried to SUE in FEDERAL COURT to make selling an MP3 recorder illegal? They LOST. Big-time. That frivolous, greedy little incident likely cost the taxpayers tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. THAT'S unethical. Is it illegal to trade CDs? I don't think so. By the way, the recording industry would have you believe it's illegal to sell used CDs. WRONG. It's not unethical and it's not illegal. Just because the recording industry doesn't get any more money in their pocket doesn't mean it's illegal or unethical. Trading MDs is a grey area, yes. But not because it's unethical or immoral. It's a grey area because the law is so messed up. You know, every MD that's sold in the U.S. includes a fee that goes to the recording industry, even if all you do with it is record your own CDs. You know what? That SUCKS. Maybe that's unethical, eh? The least you can do is catch a guy a break if, having paid this fee, he wants to trade MDs with a friend. Copyright law was meant by our founding fathers to promote the arts and creativity and strengthen our nation through economic incentives. It wasn't meant to line the purses of the recording industry. The recording industry didn't even exist at the time. The recording industry is not creative. The recording artists are. You think the recording artists like the recording companies? Hahahhahahaha! The recording companies STAND IN THE WAY of creativity, day after day after day, in tis businesss practices and during recording sessions. And you want to arm them to the teeth with copyright law? Where is the line? Is it illegal to SELL an MD of a CD? YES. It may even be unethical. Is it illegal give a CD as a gift? NO. Is it illegal to give away a home-recorded MD as a gift? Is it illegal in the United States to record someone else's CD to MD for personal use? NO. Is it illegal to give it away as a gift? NO. Is it illegal to trade it? Grey. Is it unethical to trade it? Maybe you think it is, but please, it's not unethical simply because the recording industry wants it to be illegal. You are implying people who trade MDs are unethical. That's pretty harsh. I'm stating explicitly I think you should think things through a little more. FYI, I have never traded an MD. I don't even know anyone else with an MD recorder. Trading MDs is not exactly a pox on our society. Please, just because someone asks a question about trading MDs, and if they could be prosecuted for doing so, don't take some potshot about ethics. It's a very rational question, and it's not a sign of someone who is unethical. Most likely, it's a sign of someone who loves music, and who buys lots and lots of music. Just my opinion of course. I'll never touch the subject again. Do I think I changed your mind? NO. Regards to the list, and Merry Christmas, ; ) Steve On Fri, 24 Dec 1999 15:26:29 +6, in you wrote: >> I would like to do some MD trading of some popular music groups. >> However, before I do, I would like to know if it is in violation of >> the copyright laws to copy and trade minidiscs which have been >> recorded from an original CD. > >Yes, it is, unless you are the copyright owner or have written >permission from the copyright holder. > >> Does anyone have knowledge in this >> matter? > >Yes. > >> Could you point me to any links which explains the copyright >> law? > >http://library.stanford.edu/cpyright.html > >You might also do a web search on "copyright" and "fair use". > >> Has anyone heard of anyone being charged if it is indeed a >> violation of the law? > >Does it matter? Is it "wrong" only if you get caught? Do ethics >count for anything? > > >= >Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer >http://www.cloud9.net/~salz
MD: Does Sharp MT831 have auto level?
Does the MT831 have auto level control for recording? My old Aiwa AM-F7 had this feature and I wonder if I just missed on how to utilize it on the Sharp. I'm dubbing some CD's which have varying levels of volume and it'd be handy rather than me having to watch over it and manually adjust recording levels. Thanks. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: 20 Memorex Minidiscs for $34.99 at www.jandr.com
I bought two packs of the memorex 20 mds for $30 U.S. each at circuitous city. I am very fond of them. My wife says some of the colors are pretty, which is always very important. Since they don't have have cases, I have been inspired to a new system of labelling, where I just put a little strip label on the top end of the MD. You can still look at it after slipping it into a jewel case, if you have a jewel case to put it in. I used to label the jewel cases, but it was hell trying to keep the MDs and the jewel cases matched up. If you have a problems with me doing this, please please get a life. ; ) With warmest regards, Steve Higgs On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:57:13 -0700 (MST), in you wrote: >Steven Brooks wrote: >> This does sound like a great deal, especially at $1.75/each. I've had a >> 10-pack of Memorex, that I haven't even used up yet, so I'm sure 20 would >> last quite awhile. Still, I do have a lot of archiving of cassettes to do >> still. I haven't had any problems with Memorex, though I've heard it's not >> totally trustworthy... has anybody heard any facts to substantiate this >> rumor? > >As many of you in the U.S. know, this same Memorex 20 pack is available >from Circuit City for $29.95 ($1.50/ea.). > >As to the quality or lack thereof of Memorex MD`s: I have around 50 and >have had zero problems. Some other brands have nicer cases, but I think >the savings are worth it. The ones in the above 20-pack are different, >however, from the ones I have been using (mine came in 10 packs with >each MD having an its own case) -- the 20 pack comes in as 4 plastic >boxes of (no case) MDs. That's why I didn't buy them -- wanted the >individual cases. > >BTW, believe it or not a local Boy Scout troop was selling Maxell Gold >MD 5 packs for $5.00! I bought all they had (only 8 5 packs, unfortunately). >Probably someone donated them to the troop. > >peter gross "When an elephant is in trouble, >[EMAIL PROTECTED]even a frog will kick him." > --Hindu proverb - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Are there any other titling options?
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === again, if anyone has found a titling solution for portables, especially the r55, please let me know. that damn pc link kit is way too expensive. steve riley. media. look. listen. everlasting peace: http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name <http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name=maldor> =maldor <http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name=maldor> > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Martin Danek > Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 6:52 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: MD: Are there any other titling options? > > > > > Anyone know of other easier ways to title a minidisc? > > I love my minidisc player, but titling letter by > > letter by letter gets old real quick. The MDS-PC2 may > > be too expensive for me to buy. Any other options? > > You should look at my www pages: > http://www.czechin.com/minidisc > > There are some titling project which allow you to title > MD from computer (there are also database application > which is able to print MD labels). > > Windows version of MD titler (HW and SW) cost > about $50 USD. > > DOS version is free. > > > Martin > - > 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]
MD: anyone have a car md player?
hello all, just seeing if anyone has or can suggest a good car md player/md changer controller. ive got one of those double slots, so i was thinking of putting either a md player deck and a 3 cd changer or some kind of other configuration. i was also curious to see if any of them can control two changers, ie a cd and a md changer. steve riley. media. look. listen. everlasting peace: http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name <http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name=maldor> =maldor <http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name=maldor> > - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Best Buy to drop MD in 2000 ??
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === hey, just out of curiosity, i am looking to add a cd/md receiver in my xterra, what kinda unit are you controlling those two changers with? a sony? steve riley. media. look. listen. everlasting peace: http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name <http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name=maldor> =maldor <http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name=maldor> > -Original Message- > From: Ron A [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 12:27 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: MD: Best Buy to drop MD in 2000 ?? > > > > Went to my nearby Best Buy to look around and they had moved > the MD section > from the front of the store to the back of the Stereo > section. The attendant > worker told me to buy quick because Best Buy was dropping MD > in January. He > said most people want CD recorders or the new MP3 players. > If it's true, > it's frustrating, another better format overlooked for > formats with less > advantages. > I'm not going to carry around a portable CD player and > nothing I see offers > me what my 2 MD changers in my dash (8 MDs!) offers me. I > think Sony doesn't > want to miss the boat if MP3 takes off as a mainstream format and is > offering MP3 players too. MP3 is great, I copy it to MD. > Have ya'll heard > BB is dropping MD too?? > > - > 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]
MD: Need help finding a minidisk recorder
Hi, I am looking for a minidisk recorder that is at least as small (or smaller) than the Sony MZ-R55 but has one important difference. I am going to be doing almost all of my recording in mono mode. That is, I will be using a single microphone and would like to get 148 minutes of recording on a single minidisk. The Sony can do this, but you have to put the thing in record mode, press pause, them put it in mono mode. When you push stop, it goes back into stereo mode. When you begin to record again, you have to go through the sequence again to get it into mono mode. I would like a machine that remembers that it is in mono mode AND STAYS THERE until you tell it to change modes. Again, the smaller, the better. Does anyone have a recommendation for such a machine? - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Survey
well, i have around 300 cd's, and so far 15 md's, most of which are blank. i really like the 80 minute prisms, they sound good to me. essentially what ill be using md for is making mix md's, both from winamp and its crossfader plug-in and directly from a mixer hooked into a set of turntables. probably will do a little recording too of some bands i work with. essentially i went with mds because of the flexibility, and with my own forays into djing i thought itd be a good transfer medium for mixes and stuff. but i dont plan on buying premastered md's and i dont think they're a particular idea. it seems to be md's are being used by the more audiophile type of folks, who know how to move audio around and make their own mixes. so it doesnt matter to me that most of america hasnt caught on. their loss. steve riley. media. look. listen. everlasting peace: http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name <http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name=maldor> =maldor <http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name=maldor> - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: PC to MD interface projects
if someone could get together a titler for a mz-r55 that would seriously rock. theres a nice plug in for winamp too that can interact with one, so if someone does manage to put one together im all over that. steve riley. media. look. listen. everlasting peace: http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name <http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name=maldor> =maldor <http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name=maldor> > -Original Message- > From: Magic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, October 30, 1999 8:47 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: MD: PC to MD interface projects > > > > I've just finished building one for about £8 and I'm now to write a > Windows9x driver for it. Here's a hint: don't waist money on > relays when a > 4067 chip can provide the signal driving you need! It can be > powered from > the parallel port and will drive 16 buttons from 4 data line > inputs. All you > do then is link various resistors up to the outputs so they > contact across > pins 2 and 4 of the remote. If you're really sneaky, you can > read the data > from pins 1 and 3 to get titles etc back into the PC too! > > Magic > -- > "Creativity is more a birthright than an acquisition, and the > power of sound > is wisdom and understanding applied to the power of vibration." > > Location : Portsmouth, England, UK > Homepage : http://www.mattnet.freeserve.co.uk > EMail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - Original Message - > From: John Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, October 30, 1999 10:36 PM > Subject: MD: PC to MD interface projects > > > > > > I was about to start building the MZ-R55 to PC parallel > port interface as > > detailed on Bazza's page until the grown-up that I'd > enlisted to do the > > actual work pointed out it was going to cost over 50 Pounds for the > > electronics components alone! (mainly the SPDT relays and > transistors, 10 > > each). I've paused to consider other ways first... > > > > Now then, I've had a peek at Thomas Meier's "Title-Aid" for Sharp > portables > > and he manages to build a similarly functioning PC > interface for about 10 > > Dollars!! http://www.ncc-mannheim.net/user/meierth/MD70X.HTML > > > > Can anyone comment on if/how the Thomas Meier solution > could be adapted > for > > the Sony MZ-R55? > > > > Thanks, > > John > > > > - > > 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] > - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: optical recording with portable cd's
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === nah, thats what i did, its just one of the older discman (discmen?) models that doesnt have an optical out. must be just an analog out or something. how disappointing. oh well, guess im upgrading. steve riley. media. look. listen. everlasting peace: http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name <http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name=maldor> =maldor <http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name=maldor> > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 3:17 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: MD: optical recording with portable cd's > > > > make sure you're using the discman while it's plugged into > an AC adaptor. I've heard a few things about optical being > turned off while in battery mode. Not sure if this is the case > with all portables, but worth looking into. You might be able > to fool it if you run from battery but have the adapter plugged > in at the same time. that last one was just a guess, I've > never tried it. > > good luck, and let us know what happens > > On Fri, 29 Oct 1999, Steve Riley wrote: > > > > > hey, anyone have any luck with any particular portable > > cd players for recording digitally? i keep trying with a > > discman through its lineout with a optical mini-mini > > and im gettin a no signal. any ideas? > > > > steve riley. > > - > 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]
MD: optical recording with portable cd's
hey, anyone have any luck with any particular portable cd players for recording digitally? i keep trying with a discman through its lineout with a optical mini-mini and im gettin a no signal. any ideas? steve riley. media. look. listen. everlasting peace: http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name <http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name=maldor> =maldor <http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name=maldor> > - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: RZ55 Batteries
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === hey, just picked up a RZ55, and was wondering if anyone has had any luck with the infamous battery life problem; i remember seeing some radio shack batteries that could go for 20 hours or so. steve riley. media. look. listen. everlasting peace: http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name <http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name=maldor> =maldor <http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name=maldor> > -Original Message- > From: Stainless Steel Rat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 25, 1999 7:59 PM > To: MD-L > Subject: Re: MD: 80 minute discs > > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > * Simon Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 25 Oct 1999 > | I went into Richer Sounds (UK) on Saturday to buy some 80 > minute discs > (I > | haven't seen them for sale anywhere locally yet). The salesman told > me: "We > | don't sell 'em - too unreliable". When I pressed him for details, he > told me > | the new discs "take the tracks right to the edge, and most > MD machines > can't > | cope", so they stopped selling them to prevent further returns. > > In short, that is BS. > > The MD-80 format has been approved by Sony, and is certified to work > with > all players and recorders. Now, the MD-74 discs with a > modified TOC to > allow 80 minutes recording, those will do what said salesdweeb said. > But > the commercially available MD-80s are not a problem (unless > your player > is > defective). > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.0e (GNU/Linux) > Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org > > iD8DBQE4FPzfgl+vIlSVSNkRAhtZAJ9bemzjeLEE88Pyldb8ZCXGdDH/bACeKDEc > gxskpQXqFvswm3k4qIf2h68= > =TOaW > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > -- > Rat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>\ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid > core, > Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, > should > PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ not be touched, > inhaled, or looked > at. > - > 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: PC to MD? Slightly OT - The best sound card for it???
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === hmm, i just picked up a xitel storm platinum card, so ill let everyone know how it turns out. looks like an awesome sound card tho. steve riley. media. look. listen. everlasting peace: http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name <http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name=maldor> =maldor <http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name=maldor> > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Hannes Rohde > Sent: Monday, October 25, 1999 11:15 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: MD: PC to MD? Slightly OT - The best sound card for it??? > > > > Hi! > > PrinceGaz wrote: > > > Being a genuine Creative Labs product maximises compatability, none > > of this sort of SB compatabile stuff. I need SB16 compatability > > first, second and third. And fourth comes SB16 compatability :-P > > Hmm, as far as I know, the SB Live! line of soundcards is not 100% > SB16 compatible at hardware level: Being PCI cards, they still require > emulation drivers. Now, Creative Labs can be expected to produce some > well working drivers, but I have found (dos-)apps which will not > run with these drivers... > > But now I have to praise some of the good sides of the SB-Live!s: > > Peter Wood wrote: > > > > c) Sounds GOOD! I don't like the sound of the Sound Blaster Live!, > > > don't know, just doesn't sound the same as through a SB16. > > The analogue output of the SB Live! has been tested and approved to be > much better sounding than old ISA-cards like the SB16: There have > been huge improvements in the soundcard-quality and nearly all of > today's decent soundcards have a very good frequency response and > high signal to noise ratios etc. If you like this sound is a different > thing, but technically, it's superior... > > Bye, > Hannes > > - > 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]
MD: MD pc link kits
ello, im new to the list, so just wanted to say hi. anyway, i was looking into various ways of linking up to a pc, so i was wondering if anyone has had any luck. i know sony has that kit, but its like 200 or so, so i wanted to see if there are any good alternatives. thanks. steve riley. media. look. listen. everlasting peace: http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name <http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name=maldor> =maldor <http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name=maldor> > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Timothy P. Stockman > Sent: Monday, October 25, 1999 4:56 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: MD: JE520 turn-on bug and MDS-PC2 > > > > Could the JE520 turn-on bug be caused by IR interference? > Try covering up the IR receiver and see what happens... > > It would be interesting to know when someone in the US > actually receives an MDS-PC2. I've had one on order from > Video Direct for about 3 weeks. They claim none have > arrived from Sony yet... > > - > 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]
