Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, las wrote: JT wrote: The "Classic" brand is Circuit City's own brand (i.e. the store brand). Who is the actual manufacture? I wouldn't know, i've never bought one. Sorry. I only go in to Circuit City when they have deals (e.g. a new CD for $7 or 50 CDRs for free) anyway :) Josh - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
Paying extra for an HDCD decoder, with limited title availability seems not very wise when you can just listen to xrCD (granted, with limited title availabitlity, too) and not pay a dime more. Well, life is not perfect. Bring on the flames. I am wearing Nomex underwear today. Francisco. NO FLAMES but there are several HDCD's on the market. Most new CW (not my favorite) are in fact being released this way. They do seem to have a better sound in my opinion. Have not heard much about the other formats you mentioned, much less heard any. Quite a few decks are now equipped with HDCD so paying extra isn't much of an issue AND the Cd's are priced the same whether they are hdcd or not Have a GREAT Musical Day! Les Music Mixers www.musicmixers.com/mall - Original Message - From: "las" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 1:15 PM Subject: Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
"Les@musicmixers" wrote: NO FLAMES but there are several HDCD's on the market. Most new CW (not my favorite) are in fact being released this way. They do seem to have a better sound in my opinion. Have not heard much about the other formats you mentioned, much less heard any. Quite a few decks are now equipped with HDCD so paying extra isn't much of an issue AND the Cd's are priced the same whether they are hdcd or not Well I'll probably be the one flamed for this, but in my opinion wasting the time and money making HDCD CDs of Country (they kind of dropped the term western) "music" is like putting leather upholstery in a Yugo G or having a T3 line going into a a 286 computer. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, las wrote: I also saw some strange brand (Classic??) of portable CD player that also played MP3 CDs and had 105 second buffer for $99.00! The "Classic" brand is Circuit City's own brand (i.e. the store brand). Josh - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
Hello ALL Several good posts along this thread (once again) but I like this one most as it points out the not so obvious things that can go wrong...even the slightest of analog components (never mind the digital) can make a very noticeable difference! Let me add that anyone that hears a difference on regular quality home equipment DEFINITELY has a problem somewhere in their MD system. You should not ever be able to hear any difference "normally" though as some have pointed out there may be that rare classical track that just will not record right. My point is that if you are always hearing a difference no matter what you are recording, then you have a problem. Possible problems can include expecting too much from a portable! Never expect a portable to match a good home deck as you would not expect a portable cassette to match a high end home deck either. After all it IS the cassette we are talking about replacing here, NOT CD. Newer CD decks also have the 20 bit (and some with 24 bit) resolution so the analogy on that issue isn't totally accurate (although I believe all computer burners are still just 16 bit so still a good point). In any case there is not a better replacement yet for audio in my mind. I do not expect my MD stuff to replace CD, just compliment it. Many have said that DAT (or even very high end cassette) is better and while this may be true for VERY high end gear costing much more, it does not remain true over time. Even a digital tape is going to experience wear and loose quality in time. HERE is the big advantage of MD! It is going to sound as good after 1 playings as it did the first time. And by the way, if you have not been to www.musicmixers.com/mall in a while check out the new look and prices. Please let me know what you think. Am still busy as heck changing and adding stuff as I go, so sign up for the mailing list while there to get notified of the monthly specials (we do not spam and never send more than 2 mails in a month). THANKS Have a GREAT Musical Day! Les Music Mixers www.musicmixers.com/mall - Original Message - From: "Timothy Stockman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 11:28 AM Subject: Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality I wonder if you were hearing effects of the MD's analog section rather than problems with the ATRAC? I used to have a Carver DTL CD player. It seemed to have a slight lack of bass, so I got out the test CD and 'scope. As expected, I found quite a bit if "tilt" on the 1000 Hz square wave signal and I suspected an undersized coupling capacitor, so I probed around until I found the guilty part. I increased its value 10X and the problem went away. My point is don't indict ATRAC or MD in general for a problem caused elsewhere; use an external D/A converter, preferably the same one for the CD in the A/B test. MD does not use "joint stereo" (except LP4 mode); it records left and right channels separately, so there should be no reason that the stereo image should be narrower. In actuality, MD has 16 bit resolution companded by the scale factor to 20 bits, so a properly operating MD should be capable of up to 24 dB *more* dynamic range than a CD. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
From: "las" [EMAIL PROTECTED] One of the fundamental things you have wrong is this 5 to one compression. It is not compression. If set up correctly 80% of the digital information on a CD not heard by the human ear. Don't confuse bit wise reduction with compression. U...you lost me there Larry. ATRAC is indeed lossy compression. A great deal of data is "thrown away" in order to fit it onto those tiny little discs. Don C. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:58:51 -0600, John Small [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (based on tests along the lines Francis was suggesting) Ah, that was Sherry's suggestion. Thanks. -jts Arlington, TX - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:01:18 +0100, "Francis Auquier" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: According to the Revue du Son (December 1999), some components found in high end MD decks are similar (or identical) to the ones used in high end CD players What was the defination of a high end MD deck? Thanks. -jts Arlington, TX - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:15:13 -0500, las [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No if only they could make a portable MD recorder that was capable of recording standard ATRAC and also MP3 files directly from a computer link, and still use plain ordinary MDs. Then MD might still have a shot. Does the MZ-R70PC do this? I was wondering ... -jts Arlington, TX - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
las [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The better the quality of the MD playback equipment and hence the DAC, the closer to the original CD the MD would sound. "closer to the original", it goes right into my direction; ATRAC has its own limits ( and the one you should hear) so you cannot improved it 'in general' by using better DACs and so on. And what we are talking about, a cheap way to record music or high end ES series MDs of 600-1000 $ range? And they do the same; it's still 5:1 compression. The same applies to the other mediums as well, you need a better CD player to hear your CDs better. What's the point of having 100 $ CD player and 1000 $ MD recorder who provided "closer to the original CD sound" of 100 $ CD player??? - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
Using the system you described, the problem with the sound probably has very little to do with the MD format. The 530 has crappy converters. So this may be the reason why my recordings and playbacks with Sony's MZ-R 70 seem so low on quality. If ATRAC is the same in every machine, the difference comes from what is before and after this compression, hence the need to know what we buy (this is very difficult to know, indeed). By the way, is this what the ATRAC type R does (as Matt would suggest)? Is this type R specific to Sony and superior to other makers' solutions as far as converters and signal processors are concerned? Francis - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
Newer CD decks also have the 20 bit (and some with 24 bit) resolution so the analogy on that issue isn't totally accurate (although I believe all computer burners are still just 16 bit so still a good point). The CD, as originally developed by Philips and Sony, only has enough bits for 16-bit resolution, but Pacific Microsonics came up with a way to hide 4 more bits in the audio to allow 20-bit resolution. Problem is, very few CDs are recorded this way, so practically all discs are recorded at 16-bit resolution. Also, there are not very many CD players that have the Pacific Microsonics decoder, so most decks only extract 16-bit resolution. Many CD decks now output 20 or even 24 bits. This allows them to more accurately represent the output of high precison DSP calculations in the digital anti-alias filter, but in practically all players, the input to the anti-alias filter is 16-bits. Contrast this with MD, where the format natively defines 20-bit resolution (16-bits + 4-bits scale factor). S/PDIF allows up to 24-bits. In fact, if you look at it on the 'scope and count bits, there are 32-bits, but the other 8 are for framing and non-audio. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
* John Small [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 15 Feb 2001 | So, what player is this ... is there a 'good' one, in this sense, out there | yet? Bear in mind that the amplifier driving your headphones (I'm assuming headphones because you are talking portables here) sucks. Sony headphone amps are notoriously weak. Sharp has better amps, but if you want better sound than that then an outboard amplifier is a must. That said, Sharp MS-722 recorder, AirHead amplifier from Headroom, and Sennheiser HD-600 headphones is a sweet kit. -- Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ Warning: pregnant women, the elderly, and Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ children under 10 should avoid prolonged PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ exposure to Happy Fun Ball. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
My recomendation, if you want a very good DAC, is to use an outboard DAC where all of the power parameters have been optimized for the best audio performance. The built in DACs in many CD/MD decks, while better than portables, are no match for esoteric, high-end outboard DACs. According to the Revue du Son (December 1999), some components found in high end MD decks are similar (or identical) to the ones used in high end CD players (much more expensive than MD decks), and even in SACD players: 24 bit digital filters, noise shapers, 24 bit DACs, etc. But this does not answer the question about the ATRAC DSP type R from Sony. What does it do exactly? I guess it is similar to the Rec and Play DRIVE system by Kenwood or to similar systems by Sharp, e.g., unless you prove me wrong! Any engineer knowing about these issues in the list? Francis - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
In fact, MD copy has the following characteristics: obviously less dynamics, very poor bass and Jazz devil has plenty of it), narrow stereo image, and in general flatten sound picture. I wonder if you were hearing effects of the MD's analog section rather than problems with the ATRAC? I used to have a Carver DTL CD player. It seemed to have a slight lack of bass, so I got out the test CD and 'scope. As expected, I found quite a bit if "tilt" on the 1000 Hz square wave signal and I suspected an undersized coupling capacitor, so I probed around until I found the guilty part. I increased its value 10X and the problem went away. My point is don't indict ATRAC or MD in general for a problem caused elsewhere; use an external D/A converter, preferably the same one for the CD in the A/B test. MD does not use "joint stereo" (except LP4 mode); it records left and right channels separately, so there should be no reason that the stereo image should be narrower. In actuality, MD has 16 bit resolution companded by the scale factor to 20 bits, so a properly operating MD should be capable of up to 24 dB *more* dynamic range than a CD. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:06:45 +0100, "Francis Auquier" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Using the system you described, the problem with the sound probably has very little to do with the MD format. The 530 has crappy converters. So this may be the reason why my recordings and playbacks with Sony's MZ-R 70 seem so low on quality. If ATRAC is the same in every machine, the difference comes from what is before and after this compression, hence the need to know what we buy (this is very difficult to know, indeed). Exactly ... and so I'm looking for a portable MD player (+/- recorder) with both LP modes -and- and very good DAC. I think the DAC in my Sony MZ-R50 is holding back the fidelity of the music (based on tests along the lines Francis was suggesting). So, what player is this ... is there a 'good' one, in this sense, out there yet? Thanks. -jts Arlington, TX - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:15:13 -0500, las [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So you could probably fit 2 hours or so of music on an MD. At $1.50, considering the alternatives, that seems like a pretty good deal to me. Considering the alternative of solid state memory, yes. But even considering the writeable media it's excellent. Sure CD-R's are less but one cannot erase and re-record. Now consder cd-rw's. They are $3 each the least expensive I've seen at retail (Memerex 3pk at BB) but you can only erase from the last track back and cannot do the masterful editing work that MD's seem to handle with aplumb. So are MD's worth $2 ea (5 or 10 pk Memorex at BB)? I don't see how they can be consider other than a bargain by comparison. To compare an MD with a cd-r, like some have done, is not comparing apples to apples! -jts Arlington, TX - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
On 15 Feb 2001 13:30:28 -0500, Stainless Steel Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bear in mind that the amplifier driving your headphones (I'm assuming headphones because you are talking portables here) sucks. That said, Sharp MS-722 recorder, AirHead amplifier from Headroom, and Sennheiser HD-600 headphones is a sweet kit. Yes ... I take the line out from an MZ-R50 (MD recorded on an MDS-JB940) to a Total AirHead amplifier then to a pair of Sennheiser 580's. The Sharp MS-722 DAC ... you find it very good? At home I take the optical out from the 940 to an external DAC. AudioAlchemy did, I think, made a portable DAC but with portable units there is no digital output. Besides, I really do not want this in a portable unit, rather a decent DAC in a small package. Thanks. -jts Arlington, TX - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === James Jarvie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't know how many people on the list listen to classical music. I have made a number of recordings, Holst's Song of the Night, a piece for violin and orchestra by Respighi and a piece by Massenet for piano and either oboe or bassoon - can't remember are three examples, in which there were moments when the ATRAC just could not encode the music properly. On the first two examples, the problem occurred during an swell in the orchestra. In the third, it was low chord on the piano. Each time, the music came across for a second or two as a noise, sort of as if someone were blowing across a microphone. In none of these cases was I looking for, or expecting to hear, a difference. I heard them while listening casually, and then went back to double check. No need to do an A-B (no facility either), this was plainly not a musical sound. James, Could you document this (precise CD, track and time point, plus a description of the artifact) for our "ATRAC Trouble" page? Thanks, Rick - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
John Small wrote: Considering the alternative of solid state memory, yes. But even considering the writeable media it's excellent. Sure CD-R's are less but one cannot erase and re-record. Now consder cd-rw's. They are $3 each the least expensive I've seen at retail (Memerex 3pk at BB) but you can only erase from the last track back and cannot do the masterful editing work that MD's seem to handle with aplumb. So are MD's worth $2 ea (5 or 10 pk Memorex at BB)? Actually CDRW discs are available at Sam's Club for just over a dollar each. (I think I paid $30 for a spindle of 25 Verbatim). But as I have stated many times before, even if you can hear a difference between the MD and CD, that difference becomes insignificant when you are jogging or driving in or car. It is such a shame to see the MD media go down the tubes. It is so perfect. I have had many 3.5" floppy discs go bad even though they are enclosed in a jacket. Forget about CDs. Either you keep them in their jewel box and handle them with kid gloves or they can give you problems. But I have only had one MD ever go bad on me. A Coolata (Duncan Donunts-My wife is addicted to them-spilled on one). Every other MD that I have since the original Sony's that I bought in the very early 1990 still work. Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
wow, this story goes endless. Let me tell you my experiences and opinions. I was doing A/B test some times ago with a friend of mine. We've been doing recording of the same song, Jazz devil by Barry Adamson. The units were Sony 530 MD, and the rest was nothing special, Akai amp, Sony 330 CD, small Tannoy's and some cheaper Van Den Hull speaker cables and interconnects. The connection was analogue. The results weren't so impressive. In fact, MD copy has the following characteristics: obviously less dynamics, very poor bass and Jazz devil has plenty of it), narrow stereo image, and in general flatten sound picture. We've been doing this again with the other types of music with the same results. It doesn't put me off of buying MD, but ( maybe it hurts somebody on this list), MD is not so impressive music format. Yes, you need a little bit of extra concentration to spot all the differences, but believe me, it's not so hard anyway. Don't get me wrong, I love MD, and for a casual listening at home ( especially if you're using PC as a sound source), in car, while jogging and riding a bike, it's a great format. But, for a critical listening at home, it is simply not up to the CD standards. MD simply isn't an ultimate listening experience; its advantages are countless, but don't be so uncritical, CD is still fairly better format. IP - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
Don Capps wrote: U...you lost me there Larry. ATRAC is indeed lossy compression. A great deal of data is "thrown away" in order to fit it onto those tiny little discs. ATRAC involves loss. But is it not compression per say. To really have done ATRAC correctly, it should have been variable. That is some "files" will contain more inaudible data than others. A perfect ATRAC scheme would not predict the total amount of music that each MD could hold. It would depend upon what was not needed. This type of situation is really not that uncommon. A CDR claims to hold 650 MB of data (minus that used for formatting). However if you use your CDR to back up files using data compression, there is no way of knowing in advance how much you can fit on a disc. It will vary from disc to disc depending upon the compressibility of each file. But ATRAC is bit wise reduction, not compression. It relies on the theory that 80% of the data on a CD is not needed to reproduce the music. By using an exact ratio, they are not taking into account the variables of different music. For example something recorded which does not have a significant difference between the loudest passage and the quietest should be easiest to process with the least amount of detectable difference between the original and the digital copy. These discussions can only be applied to digital transfers since. Analog creates a much more complex number of variables. Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
I'm looking for a portable MD player (+/- recorder) with both LP modes -and- and very good DAC. I think the DAC in my Sony MZ-R50 is holding back the fidelity of the music (based on tests along the lines Francis was suggesting). "Portable" and "very good DAC" are mutually exclusive for technical reasons. In portable electronic devices, low power consumption is the *primary* design issue since it must at relatively low voltages and currents to get reasonable battery life without having a huge battery pack. Very good DACs and analog stages require higher voltage and current than is avaiable from batteries. Many home CD/MD players use bipolar 5 voltage power for the analog section. Better home stereo equipment uses bipolar 15 volt or even 24 volt supplies. Also, to get the lowest noise, low impedence circuits, requiring high current are used. None of this stuff is possible in a battery powered portable device. Another consideration is interstage coupling capacitors. To get good low frequency amplitude and phase response, large value capacitors must be used. These are often physically too large for a poratable unit. Of course, the best approach is to use DC coupling with servo amplifiers to cancel the offset, but only very esoteric audio equipment implements the complex circuitry required to pull this off sucessfully. My recomendation, if you want a very good DAC, is to use an outboard DAC where all of the power parameters have been optimized for the best audio performance. The built in DACs in many CD/MD decks, while better than portables, are no match for esoteric, high-end outboard DACs. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
Ivica Petrovic wrote: wow, this story goes endless. Let me tell you my experiences and opinions. I was doing A/B test some times ago with a friend of mine. We've been doing recording of the same song, Jazz devil by Barry Adamson. The units were Sony 530 MD, and the rest was nothing special, Akai amp, Sony 330 CD, small Tannoy's and some cheaper Van Den Hull speaker cables and interconnects. The connection was analogue. The results weren't so impressive. In fact, MD copy has the following characteristics: obviously less dynamics, very poor bass and Jazz devil has plenty of it), narrow stereo image, and in general flatten sound picture. We've been doing this again with the other types of music with the same results. Using the system you described, the problem with the sound probably has very little to do with the MD format. The 530 has crappy converters. What you have done is take the CD and put it through a digital to analog converter. The signal then has to be converted from analog back to PCM digital by putting it through a digital to analog converter. The PCM is processed with ATRAC. The ATRAC signal is decoded to PCM again and then the digital signal is once again converted to analog by putting it through a digital to analog converter. High quality converters alone can cost thousands of dollars. Probably more than the entire system that you described. It is impossible to evaluate the sound quality of MD without using much better equipment and keeping everything digital. If the MD had been copied digitally (even if the equipment was just so, so), there would be no converter in between the CD and MD. The only converter would be the final digital to analog (here the better the converter the better the quality of the sound you would hear). The better the quality of the MD playback equipment and hence the DAC, the closer to the original CD the MD would sound. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === I've also noticed this with ney recordings, such as the soundtrack to the film 'The Sweet Hereafter'. On my digital MD copy there's an intermittent squeaky, buzzy noise. It also happens on a recording I have with an Armenian reed instrument - can't remember the name of either the instrument or the CD. Perhaps there's some problem between the MD format and instruments from the Black Sea/Caucasus regions :-) Peter Jaques [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i've had similar experiences with fairly simple music. on a recording of solo turkish ney (flute), there are a few moments where there is a very noticeable squeaky noise high above the instrument. i was surprised, since flute is an extremely pure sound, very close to a sine wave. on a recording of brave old world's "rufn di kinder aheym"--bass clarinet accordion only-- at the beginning there's a slow volume swell, which md did in much less subtle steps rather than a smooth crescendo. both were recorded digitally from cd, i noticed both without even trying. these were very noticeable artifacts. my solution has been the same, to make cd-r's of each of these recordings. in general md is fine (in fact i prefer its convenience size). peter On 12 Feb 01, 6:28AM, James Jarvie wrote: The differences are there in some of the more difficult classical music recordings. Unless you have done this, I don't think you can call your opinion informed. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
Timothy Stockman wrote: The CD, as originally developed by Philips and Sony, only has enough bits for 16-bit resolution, but Pacific Microsonics came up with a way to hide 4 more bits in the audio to allow 20-bit resolution. Problem is, very few CDs are recorded this way, so practically all discs are recorded at 16-bit resolution. Also, there are not very many CD players that have the Pacific Microsonics decoder, so most decks only extract 16-bit resolution. Many CD decks now output 20 or even 24 bits. There are one or two more "Higher Definition" CD formats out there. One is kind of a music DVD. Just what we need more competing formats. The first one I learned of is HDCD CDs. I own a DVD player that actually has an HDCD CD decoder in it. But I don't have any HDCD CDs. So I can't tell you if there is a noticeable improvement in sound. There was a debate here a while back where one person was claiming that the newer formats don't sound any better than HDCD CDs and someone else argued that the latest format was much better than HDCD CDs. No if only they could make a portable MD recorder that was capable of recording standard ATRAC and also MP3 files directly from a computer link, and still use plain ordinary MDs. Then MD might still have a shot. I don't think that you have to be able to get 10 hours of music on a Mini Disc to make it worth it. MP3 files use less data space than ATRAC. So you could probably fit 2 hours or so of music on an MD. At $1.50, considering the alternatives, that seems like a pretty good deal to me. BTW, I was just at my local Circuit City and didn't see one portable MD recorder or player! They had a 15 pack of Fuji MDs for $30. I also saw some strange brand (Classic??) of portable CD player that also played MP3 CDs and had 105 second buffer for $99.00! The unit was kind of bulky (thick) and only had an analog line out. But with a player like that, you would be using it to play 10 hours of MP3s in your car so you really wouldn't need a digital output. Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:43:26 -0500, Timothy Stockman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My recomendation, if you want a very good DAC, is to use an outboard DAC where all of the power parameters have been optimized for the best audio performance. The built in DACs in many CD/MD decks, while better than portables, are no match for esoteric, high-end outboard DACs. Yes, that's what I do at home ... I'm looking for a way to get better performance from the portable equipment. I first hit on this need when I compared a metal cassette tape I made on a two head Sony Pro Cassette Walkman (WMA-D6) and compared it to an MD made on the Sony MZ-R50. Source was cd with analog feed to the cassette deck and optical to the R50. Guess which sounded dramatically better? The metal cassette. I reasoned it is likely the DAC stage in the R50. When I played the same MD on the 940 feeding an external DAC the differences dissappeared ... in fact the MD sounded more true to the CD than the cassette (as an aside a metal cassette made on a home 3 head deck sounded identical to the source cd, as did an MD made on the 940). These findings with the home units are as I expected but not the portable. I expected the MD to sound better ... it did not. I'm looking to correct that if I can. Regardless I still prefer MD for many reasons (not the least of which is that both tape transports failed during this test)! Thanks. -jts Arlington, TX - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
Ivica Petrovic wrote: "closer to the original", it goes right into my direction; ATRAC has its own limits ( and the one you should hear) so you cannot improved it 'in general' by using better DACs and so on. You are misinterpreting my statement. "closer to the original can mean beyond the ability of the human ear to tell the difference. And what we are talking about, a cheap way to record music or high end ES series MDs of 600-1000 $ range? And they do the same; it's still 5:1 compression. The same applies to the other mediums as well, you need a better CD player to hear your CDs better. What's the point of having 100 $ CD player and 1000 $ MD recorder who provided "closer to the original CD sound" of 100 $ CD player??? One of the fundamental things you have wrong is this 5 to one compression. It is not compression. If set up correctly 80% of the digital information on a CD not heard by the human ear. Don't confuse bit wise reduction with compression. Compress schemes pose limits, like FM cutting off frequencies above 15,000 CPS. ATRAC does not do this. That the set up program on Windows 98. It is only about 30 MB. Yet when all of the Cabs are opened, you will have several hundred MB of space used up on your hard drive. Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:52:28 -0500, las [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is such a shame to see the MD media go down the tubes. You guys seriously think this is happening? I do not. -jts Arlington, TX - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
From my experience, the quality difference is undeniable, even if I mostly listen to rock music (in the broader sense). I cannot say 'this has changed" or "I cannot hear something that is on CD", but something is changed as far as the musicality, sound clarity or richness are concerned. Maybe the recorder and player are to be blamed for this. I own a portable Sony MZ-R70. The sound is acceptable with earphones, because there isn't any direct comparison, but played on my stereo system (NAD amplifier + Celestion Ditton 66 speakers), it is really disapointing. I am now considering purchasing a MD deck to have better quality both when recording and playing minidiscs. Any good recommendations? I am not particularly fond of Sony equipment. I've read from reviews that -Kenwood's DMF-9020 is top-class (What Hi-Fi?, UK) and Spitzenklasse (Audio, Germany). Any good or bad experience with this deck? Are there any other better machine as far as the sound quality is concerned? Francis -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Peter Jaques Sent: mardi 13 fvrier 2001 19:56 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality i've had similar experiences with fairly simple music. on a recording of solo turkish ney (flute), there are a few moments where there is a very noticeable squeaky noise high above the instrument. i was surprised, since flute is an extremely pure sound, very close to a sine wave. on a recording of brave old world's "rufn di kinder aheym"--bass clarinet accordion only-- at the beginning there's a slow volume swell, which md did in much less subtle steps rather than a smooth crescendo. both were recorded digitally from cd, i noticed both without even trying. these were very noticeable artifacts. my solution has been the same, to make cd-r's of each of these recordings. in general md is fine (in fact i prefer its convenience size). peter On 12 Feb 01, 6:28AM, James Jarvie wrote: The differences are there in some of the more difficult classical music recordings. Unless you have done this, I don't think you can call your opinion informed. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
I'm catching up on a week's worth of digests, so bear with me for weighing in late. Larry had stated that it was his belief that most people cannot hear the differences in sound, that it was more psychological. Don replied that he does not subscribe to the notion that people can hear differences. I will grant that there is a psychological inclination to hear differences. We know there is compression going on, so there must be a difference. That being said, I am here to tell you that in some cases, the differences are there and noticeable - even when not listening for them. I don't know how many people on the list listen to classical music. I have made a number of recordings, Holst's Song of the Night, a piece for violin and orchestra by Respighi and a piece by Massenet for piano and either oboe or bassoon - can't remember are three examples, in which there were moments when the ATRAC just could not encode the music properly. On the first two examples, the problem occurred during an swell in the orchestra. In the third, it was low chord on the piano. Each time, the music came across for a second or two as a noise, sort of as if someone were blowing across a microphone. In none of these cases was I looking for, or expecting to hear, a difference. I heard them while listening casually, and then went back to double check. No need to do an A-B (no facility either), this was plainly not a musical sound. I have never noticed any significant differences in jazz or rock. The differences are there in some of the more difficult classical music recordings. Unless you have done this, I don't think you can call your opinion informed. That being said, I still love MD. In those cases where the MD has had a problem, I just made a CDr. In other cases, the MD is fine. Does a great job on vocals and choirs too. James __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: More on CD vs. MD Sound Quality
i've had similar experiences with fairly simple music. on a recording of solo turkish ney (flute), there are a few moments where there is a very noticeable squeaky noise high above the instrument. i was surprised, since flute is an extremely pure sound, very close to a sine wave. on a recording of brave old world's "rufn di kinder aheym"--bass clarinet accordion only-- at the beginning there's a slow volume swell, which md did in much less subtle steps rather than a smooth crescendo. both were recorded digitally from cd, i noticed both without even trying. these were very noticeable artifacts. my solution has been the same, to make cd-r's of each of these recordings. in general md is fine (in fact i prefer its convenience size). peter On 12 Feb 01, 6:28AM, James Jarvie wrote: The differences are there in some of the more difficult classical music recordings. Unless you have done this, I don't think you can call your opinion informed. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
