Re: MD: Future of minidiscs
"The 831 adds a layer of sparkly, burbling high frequencies to quiet passages and high frequencies .. in fact, if you record anything with a slight amount of background noise onto the 831 the background noise just sounds crazy and artificial like a load of bubbles bursting". It sounds to me like someone switched the version of ATRAC normally used in a Sharp 831 for version one. Yes I'm quite sure that is what must have happenedG. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Future of minidiscs
From: "las" [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The 831 adds a layer of sparkly, burbling high frequencies to quiet passages and high frequencies .. in fact, if you record anything with a slight amount of background noise onto the 831 the background noise just sounds crazy and artificial like a load of bubbles bursting". It sounds to me like someone switched the version of ATRAC normally used in a Sharp 831 for version one. Yes I'm quite sure that is what must have happenedG. Actually that is exactly how ATRAC 1 was described as sounding by quite a few peeps, maybe Sharp decided to go "back to basics" with the 831 :-) PrinceGaz. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Future of minidiscs
- Original Message - From: "Dan Frakes" [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK, but the problem is that all of the above is a CD vs. MD sound comparison. I agree that MD doesn't sound as good as CD. However, your original claim, to which I was responding, was that high-bitrate MP3 sounds better than MD. Well, what I wrote was actually directly in response to someone else's claim that "MD always sounds better than MP3s". I was merely describing a simple test that compares CD vs. MD because, essentially, when I rip MP3s I don't get the strange sparkly burbling sounds. If you want to round out the experiment a bit more, then just do this instead: . Get a digital optical output card for your soundcard . Play an audio CD in your CD-Rom drive thru the soundcard (using digitial SPDIF connector from CD-ROM to soundcard) and out thru the optical output and monitor that on your Sharp831 using Rec-Pause mode . Record the audio CD from the second step on the Sharp831 (just take it out of Rec-Pause) . Play back the MD you just created . Encode the CD as MP3 using what you believe to be a high-quality encoder (e.g. 320kbps encoded using LAME or Fraunhofer) . Play this MP3 thru your soundcard and out thru the optical output and monitor THAT on your '831 in Rec-Pause. The MD sounds the worst of the bunch because it adds the artificial fizzing sound. Yes, it's perhaps a little subjective, but when you define 'low quality' to mean 'sounds artifical because white noise is not recorded well and instead sounds like a small jet of bubbling steam, as do complex sounds like cymbals and essonance' then my experimental results seem (to ME) to show that the MD recorded on the Sharp 831 is the lowest quality of the three. The 831 adds a layer of sparkly, burbling high frequencies to quiet passages and high frequencies .. in fact, if you record anything with a slight amount of background noise onto the 831 the background noise just sounds crazy and artificial like a load of bubbles bursting instead of dull white noise. DON'T come back at me by saying 'You should get a better CD collection if all the tracks have background hiss' because I'll just tell you where to go. That's my CDs, and the 831 cannot encode them as well as a Aiwa model at half the price, or a Sony deck, or ... As for the above paragraph (and this is completely unrelated to the previous debate), I've never heard of any kind of "layer of sparkly, burbling high freqencies" or the like when recording from CD to MD. The MD never sounds as good on my equipment, but never because of such "noise." To me that sounds like a problem with your recorder. I'm not the only one !! I just did a quick search on altavista and came up with this: http://minidisc.org/hearing_sharp_atrac.html Although I did also find this as a kind of response http://minidisc.org/hearing_sharp_atrac.html Is it a problem with my Sharp831; or is it a problem with THE sharp 831? And how can I find out, other than try a bunch of other Sharp831 units, perhaps by taking my unit back to the store and complaining that it sounds 'broken' ? dave - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Future of minidiscs
I'm not the only one !! I just did a quick search on altavista and came up with this: http://minidisc.org/hearing_sharp_atrac.html Although I did also find this as a kind of response http://minidisc.org/hearing_sharp_atrac.html Oops ... that second URL ought to be http://amulation.com/md-l-archive/199905/msg00769.html d - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Future of minidiscs
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === "Dave Hooper" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, but the problem is that all of the above is a CD vs. MD sound comparison. I agree that MD doesn't sound as good as CD. However, your original claim, to which I was responding, was that high-bitrate MP3 sounds better than MD. Well, what I wrote was actually directly in response to someone else's claim that "MD always sounds better than MP3s". I was merely describing a simple test that compares CD vs. MD because, essentially, when I rip MP3s I don't get the strange sparkly burbling sounds. I see now what you were trying to illustrate. However, see below. (P.S. I was one of the people who said -- and still say -- that MD always sounds better than MP3s.) As for the above paragraph (and this is completely unrelated to the previous debate), I've never heard of any kind of "layer of sparkly, burbling high freqencies" or the like when recording from CD to MD. The MD never sounds as good on my equipment, but never because of such "noise." To me that sounds like a problem with your recorder. I'm not the only one !! I just did a quick search on altavista and came up with this: http://minidisc.org/hearing_sharp_atrac.html Although I did also find this as a kind of response http://minidisc.org/hearing_sharp_atrac.html Is it a problem with my Sharp831; or is it a problem with THE sharp 831? And how can I find out, other than try a bunch of other Sharp831 units, perhaps by taking my unit back to the store and complaining that it sounds 'broken' ? Well, then that sounds like there is a problem with the Sharp 831. I've never heard such "fizzing" with a 702 or 722, nor have I heard it with a Sony MZ-R50. But back to the original discussion, using an 831 that apparently has a faulty encoding algorithm isn't a very good way to compare MD to MP3 ;-) - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Future of minidiscs
Dan Frakes wrote: "Dave Hooper" [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ...the quality of a true digital copy of an original (prerecorded CD) to an ATRAC encoded Mini Disc is superior to that of MP3 . YOU ARE WRONG. Dan the above statement was addressed to me (Larry). Don't you just hate it when someone is wrong and keep insisting that "YOU ARE WRONG". For one thing it makes that person just look that much more foolish. Everything that I record on my Sharp831, using a digital optical connection to my Marantz CD6000OSE from a good quality CD source sounds NOTICEABLY fake with clearly audible compression artifacts. Yes, the quality of MP3 -encoded audio can vary greatly ... but good quality MP3 audio DOES sound better than everything I personally record on my Sharp831. No offense Dave (seriously), but you either aren't using your 831 correctly, or you're not doing any sort of scientific comparison (i.e. you're listening on different equipment and/or there are other factors affecting the sound). The highest quality MP3 still doesn't sound as good as a digital copy of an MD. The quality of ATRAC compression can vary greatly. I don't know that that is a fact! Comparing equal versions (same chipset should product consistent results.) Doing a blind comparison for friends (they don't know the source, they just listen to me switch the inputs) always results in MD coming out on top, regardless of whether or not the MP3's are being played through digital or analog outputs. My guess is that the difference would be at least as big, if not more so, if I were using an MD player with digital out, since the D/A converter on the receiver is probably better than the one on my MZ-R50. To really do it right not only the listener but even the person selecting the music must not know which is which. This is easy with drugs, but may prove impossible with an MD VS an MP3. The other thing that makes these A/B tests very difficult is that you need a way to perfectly balance the volume. Speaking of Psychoacoustics, generally speaking, the louder volume the better the perceived sound quality. Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Future of minidiscs
Dave Hooper wrote: - Original Message - Everything that I record on my Sharp831, using a digital optical connection to my Marantz CD6000OSE from a good quality CD source sounds NOTICEABLY fake with clearly audible compression artifacts. Yes, the quality of MP3 -encoded audio can vary greatly ... but good quality MP3 audio DOES sound better than everything I personally record on my Sharp831. No offense Dave (seriously), but you either aren't using your 831 correctly, or you're not doing any sort of scientific comparison (i.e. you're listening on different equipment and/or there are other factors affecting the sound). The highest quality MP3 still doesn't sound as good as a digital copy of an MD. OK . Here's the test I did and it's inCREDibly simple Granted it isn't particularly scientific, but that doesn't mean it should be debunked instantly. 1. Put a blank MD in your Sharp831 recorder 2. Connect the optical digital IN on the 831 to the optical digital OUT of the CD player 3. Put in a good CD with lots of dynamics, quiet bits, and high frequencies, and if possible a little background noise. Something recorded live rather than overproduced, so something like A Minor Forest, Do Make Say Think or Mogwai, rather than Future Sound Of London 4. Set to Rec-Pause and monitor to the audio coming out of the CD player source 5. Record the track onto minidisc 6. Play the track back. Which factors change? As far as I can see only: 1- Whether the audio is direct from the source CD or from the MD copy 2- Whether the 831 is postprocessing the MD audio differently than Rec-Pause monitoring I can rule out 2 because: I did the same test on a friend's Aiwa player and the differences (whilst still there) were less pronounced, and then I played that MiniDisc on my 831 player and did a blind A/B/X test to compare it with the one I recorded on my 831. Guess what? My 831 lost every time. I have never seen a discussion about this and it has never come up so I am not sure which of the following is the case and also not 100% sure I fully understand your statement above with regard to the means you used to monitor the sound. First, does the sound coming out of an MD player while the MD is being recorded, come from the MD or is it just a straight pass through. In other words like the difference between a one head and a two head cassette recorder? I don't think that the sound you hear while you are doing the actual recording is coming from the MD since that would require the laser to be recording and playing at the same time. This statement applies if I interpreted how you did your test correctly. If I am correct about not being able to monitor the actual output of the MD itself while it is being produced and that's what you are saying you did in your test, then ATRAC has nothing to do with the difference in sound quality you are hearing. If I misinterpreted how you did the test, please correct me. The 831 adds a layer of sparkly, burbling high frequencies to quiet passages and high frequencies .. in fact, if you record anything with a slight amount of background noise onto the 831 the background noise just sounds crazy and artificial like a load of bubbles bursting instead of dull white noise. DON'T come back at me by saying 'You should get a better CD collection if all the tracks have background hiss' because I'll just tell you where to go. That's my CDs, and the 831 cannot encode them as well as a Aiwa model at half the price, or a Sony deck, or ... NO!! YOU ARE WRONG! because what you state below is a subjective statement that has no meaning in reality. If you hear digital artifacts so clearly with the MD copy, something is wrong with your CD player or recorder. Sounds like a it may be a bad ADC. There is no ADC in the process. I just threw that in to see if you were on your toes. But there is a DAC at the end of the chain for the MD. The quality of DACs can vary greatly. I'm sure that you know they make stand alone ADC and DACs that cost more then most people's entire audio system. These are not for consumer use (unless you are really, really into music and super wealthy). My CD player is fine, thankyou. No really. What, you actually think a CD player uses an ADC between the audio source and the digital optical output? Are you mad? And hey, I get exactly the same results no matter what CD drive I use, or whether I use the optical output on my SBLive Live Drive II, or if I use conventional analogue in, or ... No, please believe me, I have tried SO MANY different sources. What, they're all broken? Broken, no. The quality of ATRAC compression can vary greatly. Both MP3 encoders and ATRAC encoders have improved since their inception such that almost any modern MP3-encoded file will sound better than a MiniDisc recorded using a version of Atrac that is a couple of generations old. Here you are
Re: MD: Future of minidiscs
las [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: YOU ARE WRONG. Dan the above statement was addressed to me (Larry). I know ;-) Don't you just hate it when someone is wrong and keep insisting that "YOU ARE WRONG". For one thing it makes that person just look that much more foolish. I just think that in a civil discussion, there are better ways to tell someone they are wrong ;-) The quality of ATRAC compression can vary greatly. I don't know that that is a fact! Comparing equal versions (same chipset should product consistent results.) Dave actually wrote that (just in case anyone was confused by all the quoting levels). He's only correct insofar as different *versions* of ATRAC are used. But ATRAC 3 is identical to ATRAC 3, regardless of the hardware doing the encoding. To really do it right not only the listener but even the person selecting the music must not know which is which. If the person doing the selecting is not giving any clues or cues, it's not a problem, especially in this sort of test. The other thing that makes these A/B tests very difficult is that you need a way to perfectly balance the volume. Speaking of Psychoacoustics, generally speaking, the louder volume the better the perceived sound quality. True. In fact, in short-term listening, excessive treble (and bass) generally result in better perceived sound quality among untrained listeners. That's why most of the mass-market speakers you listen to in Circuit City, Best Buy, etc. have such "good" high frequency response -- the problem is that you get them home and you get fatigued listening to them for long periods of time... - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Future of minidiscs
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === "Dave Hooper" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No offense Dave (seriously), but you either aren't using your 831 correctly, or you're not doing any sort of scientific comparison (i.e. you're listening on different equipment and/or there are other factors affecting the sound). The highest quality MP3 still doesn't sound as good as a digital copy MD. OK . Here's the test I did and it's inCREDibly simple Granted it isn't particularly scientific, but that doesn't mean it should be debunked instantly. 1. Put a blank MD in your Sharp831 recorder 2. Connect the optical digital IN on the 831 to the optical digital OUT of the CD player 3. Put in a good CD with lots of dynamics, quiet bits, and high frequencies, and if possible a little background noise. Something recorded live rather than overproduced, so something like A Minor Forest, Do Make Say Think or Mogwai, rather than Future Sound Of London 4. Set to Rec-Pause and monitor to the audio coming out of the CD player source 5. Record the track onto minidisc 6. Play the track back. [more details snipped] OK, but the problem is that all of the above is a CD vs. MD sound comparison. I agree that MD doesn't sound as good as CD. However, your original claim, to which I was responding, was that high-bitrate MP3 sounds better than MD. The 831 adds a layer of sparkly, burbling high frequencies to quiet passages and high frequencies .. in fact, if you record anything with a slight amount of background noise onto the 831 the background noise just sounds crazy and artificial like a load of bubbles bursting instead of dull white noise. DON'T come back at me by saying 'You should get a better CD collection if all the tracks have background hiss' because I'll just tell you where to go. That's my CDs, and the 831 cannot encode them as well as a Aiwa model at half the price, or a Sony deck, or ... As for the above paragraph (and this is completely unrelated to the previous debate), I've never heard of any kind of "layer of sparkly, burbling high freqencies" or the like when recording from CD to MD. The MD never sounds as good on my equipment, but never because of such "noise." To me that sounds like a problem with your recorder. NO!! YOU ARE WRONG! because what you state below is a subjective statement that has no meaning in reality. If you hear digital artifacts so clearly with the MD copy, something is wrong with your CD player or recorder. Sounds like a it may be a bad ADC. You attributed the above quoting to me. I didn't write it. Dan said: MD's recorded on a Sharp MS-702 (two to three years old) still sound significantly better than the best MP3 encoding of today. You're welcome to come over to my place and do a scientific comparison ;-) Can I? Do you live in the UK? Sorry, California ;-) - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Future of minidiscs
Dear sir, i do like the minidisc for its size and quailtiy however, portable mp3 cd players have been introduced. I like the fact that i can now burn up to 8 hrs of cd quality music to one CD Sir you incorrectly state that an MP3 file will produce CD quality music. The quality of MP3 files can vary greatly. But one thing that I am fairly certain about is that the quality of a true digital copy of an original (prerecorded CD) to an ATRAC encoded Mini Disc is superior to that of MP3 . I agree that the storage is a significant factor and that for the vast majority of people the difference in sound quality between MP3 and digital transfer Mini Disc is not as important as the extended time. But the fact still remains that MD is superior in fidelity when compared to MP3. Sony and others have just announced MDLP products (see the MDCP news), these can provide 5h20m of stereo playback at "reasonable" fidelity (not much has been reported about MP3 vs. ATRAC3 quality at 66kbps yet). Until certified A/B double blind listening tests have been performed it is impossible to say who the quality of the new ATRAC3 encoding compares to MP3 files transferred to a CDR(W). MDLP can be seen as the MiniDisc's [current] answer to MP3. Should the walls of RIAA and SDMI someday come tumbling down, I am sure there might be other, more interesting MD/MP3 (or at least open ATRAC) synergies. As Rick has stated, I think that the consumer electronics industry in general is waiting to see if legislation will be passed permitting the downloading of copyrighted music. It is very possible that some agreement will be reached. But I feel strongly that there will be some cost to the consumer paid to the copyright holder. Such as the few cents that are supposed to be added to compact cassettes. In spite of of the terrible disappointment regarding the growth of the Mini Disc format in the United States (it remains a huge success in Japan), if this whole MP3 thing is eventually worked out, I think that we may see new growth (certainly the door would be opened for growth potential) in the MD in the US. I do not see static RAM (for example Flash Cards) as a realistic means of storing music. Although they offer the advantage of totally eliminating the skipping problem (when shaken) I do not realistically see them as anything more then a temporary means of storing songs. The price is way to high and will continue to remain so. It is important not to confuse photographs with music. Flash cards are great for use in digital cameras. They are not intended for anything but temporary storage. Since digital images will require a computer or hard copy, the object of the flash card is to use on the "road" and then to transfer to your computer (CDRs are a great place to store them). With the advent of direct memory to computer transfer using USB (either through newer camera or the quite inexpensive card readers (e.g. SanDisc's is only $30) copying images takes only seconds. Music on the other hand must be stored on something very portable and inexpensive so that you can build up a library. You don't need computer to listen to music. Just a player. You want to be able to carry with you as many songs as you feel like and play them at will. Even with the larger CD, you can still carry dozens of them with hundreds of songs in a relatively small space and weight. Larry - 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: Future of minidiscs
- Original Message - From: "las" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 7:03 PM Subject: Re: MD: Future of minidiscs Sir you incorrectly state that an MP3 file will produce CD quality music. The quality of MP3 files can vary greatly. But one thing that I am fairly certain about is that the quality of a true digital copy of an original (prerecorded CD) to an ATRAC encoded Mini Disc is superior to that of MP3 . YOU ARE WRONG. Everything that I record on my Sharp831, using a digital optical connection to my Marantz CD6000OSE from a good quality CD source sounds NOTICEABLY fake with clearly audible compression artifacts. Yes, the quality of MP3 -encoded audio can vary greatly ... but good quality MP3 audio DOES sound better than everything I personally record on my Sharp831. The quality of ATRAC compression can vary greatly. Both MP3 encoders and ATRAC encoders have improved since their inception such that almost any modern MP3-encoded file will sound better than a MiniDisc recorded using a version of Atrac that is a couple of generations old. The quality of Prerecorded MiniDiscs however is almost certainly going to be better than the quality of any handmade MP3 files. Music on the other hand must be stored on something very portable and inexpensive so that you can build up a library. You don't need computer to listen to music. Just a player. You want to be able to carry with you as many songs as you feel like and play them at will. Even with the larger CD, you can still carry dozens of them with hundreds of songs in a relatively small space and weight. If there existed mass-production MP3 encoding portables then it would make sense for them to use Flash Ram ... the device could be used to create wholly digital solid-state no-skip recordings of live events or dictation ... which could then be transferred (using a PC) onto more suitable media for building up a collection. I have no idea if MP3-encoding portables exist, but I would rather use MiniDisc anyway because it is portable AND inexpensive. In the same way that, if I wanted to build up a collection of photographs (just as I build up a collection of music) I would probably want a digital camera that takes portable and inexpensive rewritable media (and I don't mean floppy disks or any proprietary non-mainstream junk). dave - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Future of minidiscs
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === Sir you incorrectly state that an MP3 file will produce CD quality music. The quality of MP3 files can vary greatly. But one thing that I am fairly certain about is that the quality of a true digital copy of an original (prerecorded CD) to an ATRAC encoded Mini Disc is superior to that of MP3 . YOU ARE WRONG. NO!! YOU ARE WRONG! because what you state below is a subjective statement that has no meaning in reality. If you hear digital artifacts so clearly with the MD copy, something is wrong with your CD player or recorder. Sounds like a it may be a bad ADC. Larry Everything that I record on my Sharp831, using a digital optical connection to my Marantz CD6000OSE from a good quality CD source sounds NOTICEABLY fake with clearly audible compression artifacts. Yes, the quality of MP3 -encoded audio can vary greatly ... but good quality MP3 audio DOES sound better than everything I personally record on my Sharp831. The quality of ATRAC compression can vary greatly. Both MP3 encoders and ATRAC encoders have improved since their inception such that almost any modern MP3-encoded file will sound better than a MiniDisc recorded using a version of Atrac that is a couple of generations old. The quality of Prerecorded MiniDiscs however is almost certainly going to be better than the quality of any handmade MP3 files. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
