RE: MD: MD Better??
As I know, the most important part on MD recording is the encoding part, since the 940 use the type-R DSP on SP recorder, you are getting one of the best encoding that was previously available on Sony ES deck only. Concerning about the compatibility on previous generations of MD player, SP recordings are 100% compatible, and can be reproduced on all MD equipments. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Small Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 1:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MD: MD Better?? On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 21:48:48 -0500, "Kenneth Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Just tested out some recording on my new JB940 >last night. What did you think about straight recording on the 940? The quality compared to the source? I'm looking closely at this one to replay a 520 that just went out tonight. I am concerned about the 2x cost over the 440. But if the sound and build quality are there I might go for it. BTW, can you play back the 940 non-LP MD's on a prior generation player and get the same quality benefits? Thanks. -jts - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ 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: MD Better??
John Small wrote: > What did you think about straight recording on the 940? I didn't realize that Md recorders had any sexual orientation preference. I don't think that straight recording will yield any results that are superior to gay recording. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD Better??
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 21:48:48 -0500, "Kenneth Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Just tested out some recording on my new JB940 >last night. What did you think about straight recording on the 940? The quality compared to the source? I'm looking closely at this one to replay a 520 that just went out tonight. I am concerned about the 2x cost over the 440. But if the sound and build quality are there I might go for it. BTW, can you play back the 940 non-LP MD's on a prior generation player and get the same quality benefits? Thanks. -jts - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: MD Better??
Yeah. I agree with this one.. Just tested out some recording on my new JB940 last night.. LP2 and SP is pretty much the same... but LP4 is a little different, the two channels aren't quite separated as LP2 and SP.. however, without comparison, I think it's quite difficult to tell the difference, especially on the street. So I still love to use LP4 on my walkman. Ken -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dan Frakes Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 9:22 PM To: MDList Subject: Re: MD: MD Better?? Anthony Lalande <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >First of all, "ease of editing" requires the proper editing hardware. >If you compare the ease of editing on a MD Player/Recorder with the >ease of editing on a computer hooked up to a CD burner, I'd pick the >computer any day. MD brings simple editing to the masses, and >computers bring power to the pros. I'm not saying your statement is >wrong, but I don't think it's completely accurate either. I personally call preparing songs for burning on a computer "creating" or "preparing." IMO, "editing" is what you do with something after it's been created. CD can't be edited, MD can. If you burn a CD and later want to change it, you have to redo it from scratch. In my book, MD blows CD away for editing (and I say that as someone who has both MD and CD-R). >Second, "long play modes". There are some CDs that can hold up to 80 >minutes of music. MDs can go beyond 80 minutes, but at the cost of >audio quality ( mono mode or LP-2, LP-4, etc...). Actually, from every report I've found, LP2 has sound very comparable to standard MD when used as a portable medium. >And of course if you want to sacrifice audio quality and >compatibility (where the MD can be played) in favour of recording >time, you can do the same by burning MP3s onto CD, which effectively >sacrifices audio quality and vastly reduces compatibility, so it's a >fair comparison. When you burn MP3's onto CD (not by converting them to CD Audio, but by keeping them as MP3), the only way you can play them back is on the computer or in a specialized CD player -- those players are novelties, and often cannot playback all MP3 files. If you have a MiniDisc recorder (especially a portable) that records in LP2 mode, you can take that portable with you and play it, or you can play the MD back on any newer MD player with LP mode. Granted, some people won't have a portable with long play mode, but at least LP is the standard now, and an LP unit will play back any MD recorded in LP mode. Plus a CD with MP3s doesn't sound as good as a MiniDisc recorded in LP2 mode. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ 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: MD Better??
From: "Dan Frakes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > When you burn MP3's onto CD (not by converting them to CD Audio, but by keeping them as MP3), the only way you can play them back is on the computer or in a specialized CD player -- those players are novelties, and often cannot playback all MP3 files. Hey Dan...you should check out the Phillips Expanium. I haven't found an mp3 file at any bitrate that it won't playback...including VBR. Don C. (the gear slut) - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD Better??
Anthony Lalande <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >First of all, "ease of editing" requires the proper editing hardware. >If you compare the ease of editing on a MD Player/Recorder with the >ease of editing on a computer hooked up to a CD burner, I'd pick the >computer any day. MD brings simple editing to the masses, and >computers bring power to the pros. I'm not saying your statement is >wrong, but I don't think it's completely accurate either. I personally call preparing songs for burning on a computer "creating" or "preparing." IMO, "editing" is what you do with something after it's been created. CD can't be edited, MD can. If you burn a CD and later want to change it, you have to redo it from scratch. In my book, MD blows CD away for editing (and I say that as someone who has both MD and CD-R). >Second, "long play modes". There are some CDs that can hold up to 80 >minutes of music. MDs can go beyond 80 minutes, but at the cost of >audio quality ( mono mode or LP-2, LP-4, etc...). Actually, from every report I've found, LP2 has sound very comparable to standard MD when used as a portable medium. >And of course if you want to sacrifice audio quality and >compatibility (where the MD can be played) in favour of recording >time, you can do the same by burning MP3s onto CD, which effectively >sacrifices audio quality and vastly reduces compatibility, so it's a >fair comparison. When you burn MP3's onto CD (not by converting them to CD Audio, but by keeping them as MP3), the only way you can play them back is on the computer or in a specialized CD player -- those players are novelties, and often cannot playback all MP3 files. If you have a MiniDisc recorder (especially a portable) that records in LP2 mode, you can take that portable with you and play it, or you can play the MD back on any newer MD player with LP mode. Granted, some people won't have a portable with long play mode, but at least LP is the standard now, and an LP unit will play back any MD recorded in LP mode. Plus a CD with MP3s doesn't sound as good as a MiniDisc recorded in LP2 mode. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD Better??
... Churchill, Guy writes: > [snip] > > The key criteria is the element that we are most concerned with here. > > MD vs CD > > MD is better if "portability" is the key criteria > MD is better if "robustness (scratches)" is the key criteria > MD is better if "ease of editing" is the key criteria > CD is better if "audio quality" is the key criteria > CD is better if "number of resources that can play the medium" is the key > criteria > MD is better if "long play modes" is the key criteria > CD is better if "cover art" is the key criteria > MD is better if "making live bootleg copies" is the key criteria A post like that is bound to raise some controversy. First of all, "ease of editing" requires the proper editing hardware. If you compare the ease of editing on a MD Player/Recorder with the ease of editing on a computer hooked up to a CD burner, I'd pick the computer any day. MD brings simple editing to the masses, and computers bring power to the pros. I'm not saying your statement is wrong, but I don't think it's completely accurate either. Second, "long play modes". There are some CDs that can hold up to 80 minutes of music. MDs can go beyond 80 minutes, but at the cost of audio quality (i.e.: mono mode or LP-2, LP-4, etc...). And of course if you want to sacrifice audio quality and compatibility (where the MD can be played) in favour of recording time, you can do the same by burning MP3s onto CD, which effectively sacrifices audio quality and vastly reduces compatibility, so it's a fair comparison. And lastly, "making live bootleg copies". I've been able to smuggle my computer and burner into a concert hall and.oh, OK. Maybe MD is better for bootlegging concerts. :) - Anthony L. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: MD Better??
> ... Churchill, Guy writes: > > > [snip] > > > > The key criteria is the element that we are most concerned > with here. > > > > MD vs CD > > > > MD is better if "portability" is the key criteria > > [snip] > > A post like that is bound to raise some controversy. > > First of all, "ease of editing" requires the proper editing > hardware. If you compare the ease of editing on a MD > Player/Recorder with the ease of editing on a computer > hooked up to a CD burner, I'd pick the computer any day. > > [snip] > > Second, "long play modes". There are some CDs that can hold > up to 80 minutes of music. MDs can go beyond 80 minutes, > > [snip] The thing that ANNOYS me about the type of post above is that I had CLEARLY stated that the original comments were subject to my own opinions, based on my own experiences, and my key criteria. QUOTE. "Again "better" can be a personal opinion "I like the look of small MD's over CD's" OR it can be a measurable attribute "CD audio is higher quality of MD" ... all of the previous example fall into either (or sometimes both) categories. So before we continue to flame each other, consider the key criteria "you" consider better and express this first. Then the "nit pickers" won't have anything to argue about." END QUOTE. To take the subjective opinion in isolation and fail to quote (or take into consideration) the rest of the e-mail is asking for disaster (or at least a flame war :). So Anthony L. I know you may have been having a bit of a laugh (especially about the bootleg bit), but now someone reading the second e-mail without taking into the consideration the context of the first, will think someone said MD is better than CD. Roll on unnecessary flame postings. I do realise that the nature of message lists is that items take a while to get to everyone and in that time someone else may have already retracted their original post or at least changed their opinion. The Internet is fast .. but not *that* fast. My INTENT was to demonstrate that the term "better" should be qualified before we get lead into long winded (like this E-mail) debates on opinions without the original context taken into consideration. So when someone says MD is better than CD, why they think that, based on what criteria is established BEFORE people waste time refuting the statement. So in conclusion, it is important for the harmony of the list that people make themselves as clear as possible and don't leave un-qualified statements floating around just waiting to be picked off. Then again, this is only my opinion ? L8R GC - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: MD Better??
> www.dictionary.com > > good Abbr. gd., G, G. > adj. bet·ter , best) www.dictionary.com contained 14 "other" definitions of "better", here's one from Websters, I'll leave you to read the rest of them. L8R GC better \Bet"ter\, adv.; compar. of Well. 1. In a superior or more excellent manner; with more skill and wisdom, courage, virtue, advantage, or success; as, Henry writes better than John; veterans fight better than recruits. I could have better spared a better man. --Shak. 2. More correctly or thoroughly. The better to understand the extent of our knowledge. --Locke. 3. In a higher or greater degree; more; as, to love one better than another. Never was monarch better feared, and loved. --Shak. 4. More, in reference to value, distance, time, etc.; as, ten miles and better. [Colloq.] To think better of (any one), to have a more favourable opinion of any one. To think better of (an opinion, resolution, etc.), to reconsider and alter one's decision. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
