MD: Why MD?
I got started with MD to make compilations of LPs to play in my car. But lately, in addition to music, I've been recording interviews with family members for a genealogy project. One of my friends at work borrowed my recorder and mics for a weekend to record some of his relatives and was hooked. He claimed that the result sounded as good as NPR (National Public Radio network) and was so impressed he purchased an MD recorder the next day! - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Why MD?
James Jarvie [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote Sure I was lured by the idea of titling. But that has become such a chore that I haven't really kept up with it. It's a chore no more if you have WinRemote and a Sony home deck with an IR remote. (and a PC of course :) Martin's program is just "the duck's nuts", I wouldn't title any other way. (in fact friends bring their MD's to my place just to do remote titling). The investment is minimal. L8R GC - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: Why MD?
TO respond to Larry's post about why to use MD, my primary reason for going to MD was storage space. I have over 1,700 CDs. Everytime we have moved, it was a major project to build shelves to store the CDs. In fact, I still have to build another set of shelves in the house that we have been in for over 1 1/2 years. If I started adding more CDs (in the form of CDRs), my wife would freak. That's why I went with MD. Sure the sound quality was an issue for me...but, although I can hear a slight difference on certain recordings in an A-B situation, I don't listen that way, and the sound is great. Sure I was lured by the idea of titling. But that has become such a chore that I haven't really kept up with it. No, I like the size of the medium. And for those of you who rememer back awhile ago that there was a thread that argued sound vs. convenience, I argued for sound. As you can see here, I have revised that position somewhat to say convenience, but not at the expense of sound. James __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: Why MD?
James writes: As you can see here, I have revised that position somewhat to say convenience, but not at the expense of sound. This is where MDLP shines, especially LP2. When I play 80 min MD's in the office now after having LP2 for a while, it surprises me how soon I have to change discs! Too bad MDLP came in so late. 3 or 4 years ago would have been perfect. Regards, Leland - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Why MD?
Kenwood, when they renamed themselves Kenwood and came up with a new image, found out from market research that a lot of us - the younger crowd, if noone else - don't really care that much about sound quality. This was 20 years ago. This may explain why Kenwood is where they are today, while Sansui (who was in equal footing 20 years ago) has turned into driftwood. I've gone back to my SP equipments frequently, because I don't perceive LP2 to be as full-bodied as SP. But that's just me, and it's most likely the preference of one analog stage over another (amp, etc). MDLP is great, hands down. Because of it, MD now has so much advantage over solid-state audio (memory stick, etc). Sharp now has a MDLP boombox. Still no news of portables, but those would probably be on the replacement to the 831/2 and 531/2 (these are still in production. MT/ST66 are here to form a second line of products). Leon James writes: As you can see here, I have revised that position somewhat to say convenience, but not at the expense of sound. This is where MDLP shines, especially LP2. When I play 80 min MD's in the office now after having LP2 for a while, it surprises me how soon I have to change discs! Too bad MDLP came in so late. 3 or 4 years ago would have been perfect. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: Why MD; My first MD experience
First, I need to add my 2 cents on the issue of why MD: Audio Quality or Portablility. For me, portability is not the reason for going MD. I have a CD player in the car, and a portable, and both do me quite nicely, thank you. Audio Quality is, of course,important. But again , if it were the only consideration, I would stick with CDs. For me, it's the conveniences of the format that sold me on it. I like the smaller size of the media (not for portability; but for storage. I want to archive my 1,000s of LPs and many of my 1,000s of cassette recordings; as well as combine favorite CD tracks onto one location. Also, the titling was a big seller. Imagine listening to 74 minutes of 15th - 16th century works, which are all 4-6 minutes in length. Sure would be nice to know what one is listening to without having to compare track #s to a CD insert. I also like the fact that they are rerecordable. nice to know that if I make a mistake, I haven't just added another coaster to my collection. Or maybe I've jst come across a track that I like better than one that I originally put on a disc. Yes, the medium is just more fun and more convenient. That being said, I am real close to abandoning the MD format in favour of CDRs. I just bought a Sharp MT-15 (my first venture into the world of MDs). I made a recording on Saturday with which I am very disappointed. The recording came from a very well recorded cassette. I patched the RCA cables from the cassette into the minidisc input of the MD, and made my first recording. The quality stinks. The recording is of acoustic guitar and vocals. The vocals sound fine (I have worked with these people,so I know their voices very well); but the guitar sounds terrible. All of the overtones seem to be gone; robbing a lovely sounding instrument of its character (I played the recording for the performer who said the guitar sounded like a ukelele). Also, recording is lacks the definition of the original cassette. Now I know that I should have tried a digital recording. But I couldn't. I don't have any equipment (currently) with a digital output). I took the MD recorder to the radio station where I work, and tried it there. The only equipment at the station that had a digit output that would work with the MD was a DAT machine. I tried hooking up the DAT via an optical cable that I bought; but the MD didn't know that the connection was made. I had the same trouble with a mini plug to mini plug cable that I bought to play the MD through the aux jack on my car CD player. My question: Is the compression responsible for the terrible quality recording? Is it that I started with an analogue source (still a bad thing because I want to record many analogue sources as noted above). Audio Quality must be close to a CD or I abandon the format regardless of conveniences. I have about 3 weeks during which I can return this unit; so any recommendations would be appreciated. Thanks, James __ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place. Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Why MD; My first MD experience
--- James Jarvie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question: Is the compression responsible for the terrible quality recording? Is it that I started with an analogue source (still a bad thing because I want to record many analogue sources as noted above). Audio Quality must be close to a CD or I abandon the format regardless of conveniences. I have about 3 weeks during which I can return this unit; so any recommendations would be appreciate I would say the analog conversion is the culprit, if you have any way of quickly trying out a CDR system for comparison, do so, but I suspect that it won't fare much better. Trying other MD recorders may help if you can do that. Jeff __ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place. Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Why MD; My first MD experience
From: James Jarvie The recording came from a very well recorded cassette. I patched the RCA cables from the cassette into the minidisc input of the MD, and made my first recording. The quality stinks. I'm at a loss to explain what went wrong in the dub of the cassette to minidisc James, but I can confidently say that something did go wrong. I've dubbed a few cassettes to minidisc and the results were very good. Of course they were no better than the source tape, but they certainly were no worse. I took care to play the tape in the deck that recorded it to make doubly sure that no azimuth problems would come about. I've recorded LPs as well and have been nothing but pleased with the results. Rick. -+--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alienshore.com/ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Why MD; My first MD experience
James Jarvie wrote, | I just bought a Sharp MT-15 (my first venture into the world of MDs). I | made a recording on Saturday with which I am very disappointed. The | recording came from a very well recorded cassette. I patched the RCA | cables from the cassette into the minidisc input of the MD, and made my | first recording. The quality stinks. My first guess is that the recording level may have been too high, and the signal would have been clipped in conversion from analog to digital. | Now I know that I should have tried a digital recording. But I couldn't. | I don't have any equipment (currently) with a digital output. You couldn't: you were copying an analog source. An audiocassette is an analog storage medium that outputs an analog signal. You had no choice. With a DAT player at James's job, | I tried hooking up the DAT via an optical cable that I bought; but the MD | didn't know that the connection was made. There are a large number of possibilities there. It could have been an analog, not optical cable; it could have had the wrong kind of connector. Perhaps the DAT doesn't send out a digital signal until it starts playing, so if you start the MD recorder first it will find no signal. Perhaps you had set some things incorrectly. | I had the same trouble with a mini plug to mini plug cable that I bought to | play the MD through the aux jack on my car CD player. That would not be an optical cable, nor one suitable for coaxial digital signals. | My question: Is the compression responsible for the terrible quality | recording? Probably not, unless your recorder is malfunctioning. | Is it that I started with an analogue source (still a bad thing because I | want to record many analogue sources as noted above). No; analog recordings to MD sound almost as good as digital ones, and when the source is audiocassette or vinyl, you have no choice. | Audio Quality must be close to a CD or I abandon the | format regardless of conveniences. It should be, and it's hard to tell what went awry for you. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
