DAT vs. Minidisc--What are the pros/cons of each (sound quality, convenience, cost, ...)
Felix Sieder
a tapedeck but I would like to be able to do some digital recording
for helping me with certain computer projects, recording certain radio
programs, editing... I have a CD player which has both a coaxial and
"toslink" interface. I realize that the minidisc is a more convenient
format since it is easy to access any part of the disc quickly unlike
with DAT. I was just curious if you could address some of these
questions:
1)In general how is Minidisc quality compared to DAT? How do either
compare to conventional CD quality.
2)Which digital input interface do most DAT or Minidisc players use?
Is either coaxial or toslink more common and what are the pros/cons to
the different interfaces. How to the prices for interconnects compare
(based on format)?
3)How reliable is the media? I assume that DAT is quite a bit easier
to damage.
4)Does each type (DAT or minidisc) have a niche for which it is better
suited (eg. minidisc for convenience, editing)
5)Any suggestions for either a good DAT or minidisc recorder (not
portable but for a component home system). Interconnects?
Thanks,
Felix (if you want to respond by e-mail please change the .xae to a
ca)
Jim Knepley
> compare to conventional CD quality.
Minidisc is inferior in terms of sound quality to DAT. DAT can exceed the
quality of a CD, a Minidisc can get, maybe 80% of the quality of a CD
(certainly better than tape, though). An average Minidisc player, when fed
with a digital signal, can hold up to the best analog tape decks with the
best tapes, from what I've read in other newsgroups.
> 2)Which digital input interface do most DAT or Minidisc players use?
> Is either coaxial or toslink more common and what are the pros/cons to
> the different interfaces. How to the prices for interconnects compare
> (based on format)?
My Minidisc uses an optical input and came with a cable. It varies by
recorder, so you'll need to research it further.
> 3)How reliable is the media? I assume that DAT is quite a bit easier
> to damage.
The media is, AFAIK, immune to magnetic fields, is fairly shock proof, and
doesn't stretch, wrinkle, snap, etc.
> 4)Does each type (DAT or minidisc) have a niche for which it is better
> suited (eg. minidisc for convenience, editing)
Minidisc is better for convenience, editing, and availability. I've never
heard for a DAT car stereo, but there are plenty of MD car stereos made.
You just can't touch the editing ability of a minidisc, it's really
remarkable.
> 5)Any suggestions for either a good DAT or minidisc recorder (not
> portable but for a component home system). Interconnects?
www.crutchfield.com has a good selection of Minidisc, dunno about DAT. I
suspect a good DAT will be more expensive. Use the same interconnects that
you use for your CD player, you'll be fine (I personally use Synergistic
Research audio 1000).
Cheers,
Jim
baffled
there's a store on Tottenham COurt Road in Londons' West End which is
getting rid of them pretty cheap.
>Minidisc is better for convenience, editing, and availability. I've never
>heard for a DAT car stereo, but there are plenty of MD car stereos made.
I'd agree. Minidisc is a fine format!
Clive Backham
semi-pro DAT machine.
My general opinion is that a format like Minidisc is the future for home
recording: it's convenient and robust, and with each new ATRAC generation it
sounds better and better. The latest ATRAC I've heard (which is a generation
behind where Sony are now) was reasonably close to CD quality; certainly
better than any cassette deck (with the possible exception of a Nak CR7).
My experience with DAT is that while it can offer good sound quality, the A/D
converters on mainstream DAT decks are nothing special, and it's hopless for
editing. The number one reason to avoid it, however, is that DAT tape just
isn't a good long-term storage format. Errors build up pretty quickly on DAT
tapes; they simply aren't suitable for keeping a large library of music. DAT
as a format is now reduced to for short-term storage of work-in-progress.
Anyone want to buy a DA30mkII? :-)
Clive Backham
email: cl...@capita.nildram.co.uk
LP->CDR notes: http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~abcomp/lp-cdr.htm
S. Kabilan
things about it is the instant track access. Try doing that on a DAT! Also,
the editing functions are amazing (which will always make it more convenient
than CDR/W) as well. The difference in sound quality between MD and CD is
barely discernible (unless you are using some seriously high end gear!)
I'd go for the MD. Take the DAT only if you are a professional musician!
K
Felix Sieder <fjsi...@microimm.mcgill.xae> wrote in message
news:380ddb7e....@news.mcgill.ca...
> I would like to purchase a system for digital recording. I still have
> a tapedeck but I would like to be able to do some digital recording
> for helping me with certain computer projects, recording certain radio
> programs, editing... I have a CD player which has both a coaxial and
> "toslink" interface. I realize that the minidisc is a more convenient
> format since it is easy to access any part of the disc quickly unlike
> with DAT. I was just curious if you could address some of these
> questions:
>
> 1)In general how is Minidisc quality compared to DAT? How do either
> compare to conventional CD quality.
> 2)Which digital input interface do most DAT or Minidisc players use?
> Is either coaxial or toslink more common and what are the pros/cons to
> the different interfaces. How to the prices for interconnects compare
> (based on format)?
> 3)How reliable is the media? I assume that DAT is quite a bit easier
> to damage.
> 4)Does each type (DAT or minidisc) have a niche for which it is better
> suited (eg. minidisc for convenience, editing)
> 5)Any suggestions for either a good DAT or minidisc recorder (not
> portable but for a component home system). Interconnects?
>
Richard Landau
<sk...@cam.ac.uk> writes
>I got into MD about 3 years ago and have not regretted it at all. The best
>things about it is the instant track access. Try doing that on a DAT! Also,
>the editing functions are amazing (which will always make it more convenient
>than CDR/W) as well. The difference in sound quality between MD and CD is
>barely discernible (unless you are using some seriously high end gear!)
>
>I'd go for the MD. Take the DAT only if you are a professional musician!
After a year or so with MD I echo the above totally; Mr Don Drewecki, a
professional sound engineer in New York (a VERY critical chap who put me
on to MD in the first place) told me that 'MD gives one 90% of the
quality you get with DAT, but without 90% of the problems you get with
DAT'. He proved so right!
--
Richard Landau, Hampstead, London, UK
Ric...@atelier48.demon.co.uk
Mike O'Sullivan
DAT recording walkman. This needed servicing twice while under guarantee,
and shortly after the expiry period went wring again. I hesitated, but
finally had it services (£140 GBP). Six months later another fault ocurred.
This time I decided to junk it, considering that there was no point throwing
good money after bad. I now have two minidisc recorders, and have had no
problems at all.
Joe Anstett
Keep in mind I'm already hooked on MD, so that will influence my answer.
> 1)In general how is Minidisc quality compared to DAT? How do either
> compare to conventional CD quality.
While MD isn't perfect, it's damned close enough for my tastes. MD uses
ATRAC compression (the same comrpession algorithm, by the way, which is
used by Sony's SDDS theatrical sound system) to eliminate non-essential
data and compress the music. DAT AFAIK is raw PCM.
> 2)Which digital input interface do most DAT or Minidisc players use?
> Is either coaxial or toslink more common and what are the pros/cons to
> the different interfaces. How to the prices for interconnects compare
> (based on format)?
It's rare to see the coaxial SPDIF outputs, I usually see the Toslink
variety. Either way these are standard interfaces and not only are they
used on MD/DAT decks, but they are also used by DVD players, Dolby Digital
and DTS receivers, Laserdisc players, and CD decks.
> 3)How reliable is the media? I assume that DAT is quite a bit easier
> to damage.
The MDs are protected inside a hard plastic shell with a shutter. They
have many of the same durability properties of a CD. DAT, on the other
hand, well, it's still just tape (susceptible to magnetic degradation,
despooling, etc.).
> 4)Does each type (DAT or minidisc) have a niche for which it is better
> suited (eg. minidisc for convenience, editing)
DAT seems to have more niches in the professional and production areas,
for use as source or mixing material. It also has a nice data storage
niche.
MD, however, offers many more advantages to the audio consumer. It's
smaller, more portable, disc-based, random access, with the ability to
delete/move/combine/split tracks arbitrarily, as well as to title tracks.
DAT, being tape based, can't do most of that.
> 5)Any suggestions for either a good DAT or minidisc recorder (not
> portable but for a component home system). Interconnects?
Well, I would suggest doing some legwork at http://www.minidisc.org. Do
you want a portable recorder? A stand-alone component?
As for interconnects, go with Toslink optical cables (provided your other
equipment also supports it).
Joe
Bovine Unit #243
>heard for a DAT car stereo, but there are plenty of MD car stereos made.
>remarkable.
There *were* handful more DAT player for autos made than MD players
have to date. But they're freaking rare now, if you even heard of it.
Back then, even Alpine made DAT players -- and Ford had it in Town
Cars and such. The problem was not many people even knew what DAT was
-- and for those who knew, SCMS pretty much killed the desirability of
it.
Matthias Schweinoch
left to be said. what you should be aware of is that MD uses compression
(ATRAC), while DAT does not. also, DAT can go up to 48 KHz, and is THE
high-end solution to audio recording. that's all i can say withou repeating
stuff that's been said already.
Brian L. McCarty
fjsi...@microimm.mcgill.xae wrote on 21/10/99 1:47:
> 1)In general how is Minidisc quality compared to DAT? How do either
> compare to conventional CD quality.
DAT is king, CD is second. MD is a distant third. If you are doing
recording of ANY fidelity requirement, DON'T waste your time with MD.
> 4)Does each type (DAT or minidisc) have a niche for which it is better
> suited (eg. minidisc for convenience, editing)
MD is suited for students recording lectures, and radio station commercials.
Nothing more. The known fidelity problems have made MD a non-starter for
REAL audio use. It's a toy.
---
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) is a proven:
Zipser is a liar http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=369217967
Zipser is a scammer http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=368363274
Zipser is a cheater http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=374900703
Zipser is a THIEF http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=509980240
BDeGrande
>recording of ANY fidelity requirement, DON'T waste your time with MD.
>
For those of you that haven't read McCarty's posts before, he posts anti-MD
stuff consistently. When challenged on his nonsense, he quotes an old AES
study on minidisc's "poor quality", refusing to give dates - probably ATRAC 1.
If challenged further, he launches into racist tirades against the Japanese -
perhaps he dislikes MD because Sony invented it.
At any rate, any posts bearing his name can be safely ignored unless you get
amusement from his referring to a fornat that is growing at a rapid rate as
"dead" - then he may be good for a chuckle or two.
Kurt Lefevre
Andrew Haley
> 1)In general how is Minidisc quality compared to DAT?
It varies. ATRAC is pretty good, but there is some loss. It depends
on what you want to record. There are problems with multigenerational
copying of ATRAC which make minidisc useless for organized trees where
people copy the many times.
Finally, the very worst of it is SCMS; this evil prevents
multigenerational copying of minidisc altogether. This is enough to
render it useless for some applications.
> How do either compare to conventional CD quality.
DAT is as good as CD.
> 2)Which digital input interface do most DAT or Minidisc players use?
> Is either coaxial or toslink more common and what are the pros/cons to
> the different interfaces. How to the prices for interconnects compare
> (based on format)?
Both may use either, but toslink is more common.
Like all fibre optic interfaces, toslink is a nightmare. It's
fragile, you can't splice it without specialized equipment, you can't
put it through a patchbay, and it's expensive.
> 3)How reliable is the media? I assume that DAT is quite a bit easier
> to damage.
I suppose so. However, I've never damaged one.
> 4)Does each type (DAT or minidisc) have a niche for which it is better
> suited (eg. minidisc for convenience, editing)
I cannot use minidisc because it doesn't have the capacity that I
need; 74 minutes just won't cut it. Also, I often record from a 48kHz
source and minidisc can't record at 48kHz, so you have to downsample.
Also, I can get DAT media a good deal cheaper than minidisc media.
> 5)Any suggestions for either a good DAT or minidisc recorder (not
> portable but for a component home system). Interconnects?
The best value DAT on the market today is the Fostex D5. See
http://www.eklektix.com/dat-heads/.
Frankly, I don't think there is any competiton. DAT hardware is more
expensive, but the tapes are cheaper, there's no SCMS stupidity,
there's no multigenerational loss, and the tapes are longer.
Andrew.
Arny Krüger
"Matthias Schweinoch" <three...@cityweb.de> wrote in message
news:7ul6ii$h7v$1...@nx6.HRZ.Uni-Dortmund.DE...
Actually, DAT "goes up to" 24 KHz, not 48 KHz. 48 KHz is the
sampling rate, not the frequency response limit.
MD does use perceptual coding, of a proprietary nature. But the
compression is only about 5:1 instead of the 12:1 or so used with
MP3 files we find on the web. So we can hope that it is more
sonically transparent.
My experience is that MD can be quite good, particularly if you
compare it to regular analog cassette. But as a replacement for DAT,
IMO it ain't.
You pays your money and you makes your choices...
Victor Abdelmalek
>
> > 1)In general how is Minidisc quality compared to DAT? How do either
> > compare to conventional CD quality.
>
> recording of ANY fidelity requirement, DON'T waste your time with MD.
>
> > suited (eg. minidisc for convenience, editing)
>
> Nothing more. The known fidelity problems have made MD a non-starter for
> REAL audio use. It's a toy.
>
> ---
> Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) is a proven:
Can you please back up your statement about the "known fidelity
problems" with MD? Is this just your opinion or do you have some test
results? I agree that the sound quality is not as good as CD or DAT
(from what I've read), but I think MD is suited to way more applications
than you give it credit for.
Victor
Richard Landau
<a...@cygnus.remove.co.uk> writes
>I cannot use minidisc because it doesn't have the capacity that I
>need; 74 minutes just won't cut it.
2 Pounds a piece.
I understand that the BBC are now transferring their music archives on
to minidisc - a testament to its quality if ever there as one.
Jim Knepley
Victor Abdelmalek <vabd...@mitre.org> wrote in message
news:380F1F1C...@mitre.org...
He's trolling, ignore him. :-)
Jim
Joe Anstett
> Felix Sieder wrote:
>
> > 1)In general how is Minidisc quality compared to DAT?
>
> It varies. ATRAC is pretty good, but there is some loss. It depends
> on what you want to record. There are problems with multigenerational
> copying of ATRAC which make minidisc useless for organized trees where
> people copy the many times.
From what I have heard it takes dozens of generational copies before the
losses due to ATRAC become appreciable. Are you saying otherwise?
> Finally, the very worst of it is SCMS; this evil prevents
> multigenerational copying of minidisc altogether. This is enough to
> render it useless for some applications.
SCMS is not a problem of MD alone, it's a problem of all digital media in
general.
> > How do either compare to conventional CD quality.
>
> DAT is as good as CD.
Without the random access... (And IIRC it has a slightly higher sampling
rate, 48kHz, while CD and MD are at 44.1kHz).
> > 2)Which digital input interface do most DAT or Minidisc players use?
> > Is either coaxial or toslink more common and what are the pros/cons to
> > the different interfaces. How to the prices for interconnects compare
> > (based on format)?
>
> Both may use either, but toslink is more common.
>
> Like all fibre optic interfaces, toslink is a nightmare. It's
> fragile, you can't splice it without specialized equipment, you can't
> put it through a patchbay, and it's expensive.
>
> > 3)How reliable is the media? I assume that DAT is quite a bit easier
> > to damage.
>
> I suppose so. However, I've never damaged one.
>
> > 4)Does each type (DAT or minidisc) have a niche for which it is better
> > suited (eg. minidisc for convenience, editing)
>
> I cannot use minidisc because it doesn't have the capacity that I
> need; 74 minutes just won't cut it. Also, I often record from a 48kHz
> source and minidisc can't record at 48kHz, so you have to downsample.
Many MD decks come with built-in sampling rate converters, and again IIRC CD
sampling rates are 44.1kHz anyway. So what you are recording on DAT at
48kHz is overkill for CD quality sound.
> Also, I can get DAT media a good deal cheaper than minidisc media.
Really? You can beat $2 per 74 minutes?
> > 5)Any suggestions for either a good DAT or minidisc recorder (not
> > portable but for a component home system). Interconnects?
>
> The best value DAT on the market today is the Fostex D5. See
> http://www.eklektix.com/dat-heads/.
>
> Frankly, I don't think there is any competiton. DAT hardware is more
> expensive, but the tapes are cheaper, there's no SCMS stupidity,
> there's no multigenerational loss, and the tapes are longer.
They're also sequential, tape-based, magnetic media that don't lend
themselves to portability or convenience.
For DAT's handfull of technological advantages, I refuse to adopt any
tape-based formats now or in the future.
Joe
Andrew Haley
: Andrew Haley wrote:
: > Felix Sieder wrote:
: >
: > > 1)In general how is Minidisc quality compared to DAT?
: >
: > It varies. ATRAC is pretty good, but there is some loss. It depends
: > on what you want to record. There are problems with multigenerational
: > copying of ATRAC which make minidisc useless for organized trees where
: > people copy the many times.
: From what I have heard it takes dozens of generational copies before the
: losses due to ATRAC become appreciable. Are you saying otherwise?
No.
: > Finally, the very worst of it is SCMS; this evil prevents
: > multigenerational copying of minidisc altogether. This is enough to
: > render it useless for some applications.
: SCMS is not a problem of MD alone, it's a problem of all digital media in
: general.
It's not a problem for many DAT recorders, and it's certainly not a
problem with any DAT recorder that I own. It is a problem for most
minidisc recorders.
: > > How do either compare to conventional CD quality.
: >
: > DAT is as good as CD.
: Without the random access...
In what way does random access affect the quality?
: (And IIRC it has a slightly higher sampling rate, 48kHz, while CD
: and MD are at 44.1kHz).
DAT has 32, 44.1, and 48 as standard.
: > > 4)Does each type (DAT or minidisc) have a niche for which it is better
: > > suited (eg. minidisc for convenience, editing)
: >
: > I cannot use minidisc because it doesn't have the capacity that I
: > need; 74 minutes just won't cut it. Also, I often record from a 48kHz
: > source and minidisc can't record at 48kHz, so you have to downsample.
: Many MD decks come with built-in sampling rate converters, and again
: IIRC CD sampling rates are 44.1kHz anyway.
Sure, but I'm often recording from a 48kHz source, not a CD.
: So what you are recording on DAT at 48kHz is overkill for CD quality
: sound.
Indeed; DAT recorders automatically adjust their sampling rate to
match that of the source.
: > Also, I can get DAT media a good deal cheaper than minidisc media.
: Really? You can beat $2 per 74 minutes?
Yes. However, that's because I got a really good deal on a large
quantity, so I admit it's not really a fair comparison.
: > Frankly, I don't think there is any competiton. DAT hardware is more
: > expensive, but the tapes are cheaper, there's no SCMS stupidity,
: > there's no multigenerational loss, and the tapes are longer.
: They're also sequential, tape-based, magnetic media that don't lend
: themselves to portability or convenience.
I don't think that with regard to portability they're very much
different, although portable minidisc recorders are smaller and
lighter. I admit that battery life is much worse with portable DAT,
which really is a problem.
DATs are definitely sequential and are indeed less convenient.
However, the most important issue for me is that you can't leave a
minidisc recording a concert and expect it not to run out before the
concert is over. For what I do, which I guess is different from what
you do, this is a killer. If all you want to do is make copies of CD,
I guess minidisc is ideal.
: For DAT's handfull of technological advantages, I refuse to adopt any
: tape-based formats now or in the future.
Fair enough. I'm hoping that a new digital audio medium will come
along in a few years that will have all the best features of both.
Something like re-recordable portable DVD, shrunk down to minidisc
size would do it. The electronics industry could probably make
something like that today.
Andrew.
DunxUK
bin due to flux migration in the magnetic layer. Similar issues occur with SVHS
but since it's analogue you don't see as much dropoff. Audiowise, DAT is the
best. However, never archive onto it. Burn archives onto CD or use MD, both of
which are much more stable because heat is used to set the data.
Neil
news:B435B67A.252E%opera...@worldjazz.com...
> in article 380F1F1C...@mitre.org, Victor Abdelmalek at
> vabd...@mitre.org wrote on 22/10/99 0:11:
>
> > Can you please back up your statement about the "known fidelity
> > problems" with MD? Is this just your opinion or do you have some test
> > results? I agree that the sound quality is not as good as CD or DAT
>
to
> snuff.
>
> Tests were done a few years ago at the AES; they were a resounding
failure.
And nothings changed in the "few years" since? The MD hardware has remained
exactly the same?
Define "resounding failure".
Neil
Robin May
> in article 380ddb7e....@news.mcgill.ca, Felix Sieder at
> fjsi...@microimm.mcgill.xae wrote on 21/10/99 1:47:
>
> > compare to conventional CD quality.
>
> recording of ANY fidelity requirement, DON'T waste your time with MD.
I find these comments are normally made by people who heard first
generation versions of ATRAC and wrote MD off then. If they actually
bothered to listen to more recent equipment they would realise that they
are talking bullshit.
>
> > 4)Does each type (DAT or minidisc) have a niche for which it is
better
> > suited (eg. minidisc for convenience, editing)
>
> MD is suited for students recording lectures, and radio station
commercials.
> Nothing more. The known fidelity problems have made MD a non-starter
for
> REAL audio use. It's a toy.
What "known fidelity problems"? It has lossy compression that does a
very good job of fitting the data in to a smaller space. It isn't
proffessional quality and with a high quality system you can tell the
difference between it and CD but don't give us all this shit about
"known fidelity problems" because you know it sounds very little worse
than CD.
> ---
> Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) is a proven:
> Zipser is a liar http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=369217967
> Zipser is a scammer http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=368363274
> Zipser is a cheater http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=374900703
> Zipser is a THIEF http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=509980240
But let's face it, he's nowhere near you.
Robin May
> in article hjeiLBAr...@atelier48.demon.co.uk, Richard Landau at
> Ric...@atelier48.demon.co.uk wrote on 22/10/99 0:55:
>
> > I understand that the BBC are now transferring their music archives
on
> > to minidisc - a testament to its quality if ever there as one.
>
>
> They transferred their archives to CD a few years ago, and are now
making
> arrangements to transfer to DVD-Audio.
You just made that up right then.
>
> The whole point of ARCHIVES is to put it on a STABLE format. Not an
> unstable, degraded format like MD.
What is unstable about MD?
Mike O'Sullivan
>
> Really? You can beat $2 per 74 minutes?
You can in the UK. Richer Sounds sell them for 99 pence.
Brian L. McCarty
> Can you please back up your statement about the "known fidelity
> problems" with MD? Is this just your opinion or do you have some test
> results? I agree that the sound quality is not as good as CD or DAT
Well, even you admit you "know" and agree that the sound quality isn't up to
snuff.
Tests were done a few years ago at the AES; they were a resounding failure.
Andrew Virnuls
news:7ul6ii$h7v$1...@nx6.HRZ.Uni-Dortmund.DE...
> hi, you've read all the other posts, i'm sure, so basically there's little
> left to be said. what you should be aware of is that MD uses compression
> (ATRAC), while DAT does not. also, DAT can go up to 48 KHz, and is THE
> high-end solution to audio recording. that's all i can say withou
repeating
> stuff that's been said already.
I must say that as a computer scientist I'm a little distressed at the way
the manufacturers of MiniDisc have misappropriated the word "compression".
Surely the data on MD isn't compressed? It's reduced. If it were
compressed, then it would all still be there, and the quality would be the
same as DAT, just like when you zip and unzip a file on a computer.
--
ANDREW vir...@argonet.co.uk Fact x Importance
http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/virnuls = News
Rick Pali
> > They transferred their archives to CD a few years ago,
> > and are now making arrangements to transfer to DVD-Audio.
>
> You just made that up right then.
I'd hope so...DVD-Audio seems like a bad idea for long-term archiving at
this point since there are currently multiple formats.
That and why would they transfer the archives when they just did it a few
years ago. Sounds ridiculous.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Matthias Schweinoch <three...@cityweb.de> wrote in message
>news:7ul6ii$h7v$1...@nx6.HRZ.Uni-Dortmund.DE...
>> hi, you've read all the other posts, i'm sure, so basically there's little
>> left to be said. what you should be aware of is that MD uses compression
>> (ATRAC), while DAT does not. also, DAT can go up to 48 KHz, and is THE
>> high-end solution to audio recording. that's all i can say withou
>repeating
>> stuff that's been said already.
>
>I must say that as a computer scientist I'm a little distressed at the way
>the manufacturers of MiniDisc have misappropriated the word "compression".
>
>Surely the data on MD isn't compressed? It's reduced. If it were
>compressed, then it would all still be there, and the quality would be the
>same as DAT, just like when you zip and unzip a file on a computer.
You are looking at a sloppy abbreviation above. ATRAC is a *lossy*
compression method, while Meridian DLP is a *lossless* compression
method. The full terms retain the correct meaning. Of course in audio,
compression can also have a quite different meaning! :-)
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Andy Morgan
Andrew Virnuls schrieb:
> I must say that as a computer scientist I'm a little distressed at the way
> the manufacturers of MiniDisc have misappropriated the word "compression".
And as a musician Im a bbit dieturbed at the way computer scientists
miszuse the term "compression" ;-))
please dont start. theres a almost mirror-equivalent thread in a german
language HiFi NG which centres around the definition of compression is
is utterly pointless (and has nothing to do with hifi any more).
I actually agree with you, but the important thing is to understand that
ATRAC is lossy, wether you then call it compression or reduction oor
aunty flo is irrelevant to the discussion about its usefulness or
sounds.
andy M
Andy Morgan
Jim Knepley schrieb:
> He's trolling, ignore him. :-)
Ill say ;-)
andy m
Tim Shuttleworth
> Matthias Schweinoch <three...@cityweb.de> wrote in message
> news:7ul6ii$h7v$1...@nx6.HRZ.Uni-Dortmund.DE...
> > hi, you've read all the other posts, i'm sure, so basically there's little
> > left to be said. what you should be aware of is that MD uses compression
> > (ATRAC), while DAT does not. also, DAT can go up to 48 KHz, and is THE
> > high-end solution to audio recording. that's all i can say withou
> repeating
> > stuff that's been said already.
>
> the manufacturers of MiniDisc have misappropriated the word "compression".
>
> compressed, then it would all still be there, and the quality would be the
> same as DAT, just like when you zip and unzip a file on a computer.
Nah. Precise terminology for compression distinguishes between "lossy"
and "lossless". ATRAC is a lossy compression method, whereas zip uses
a lossless compression method. It's horses for courses: you can lose
some (quite a lot, in fact) of the information from an audio signal
without noticable (to the average ear) degredation in sound
quality. However, you can't go losing bits of program code!
Why would you want to use lossy compression when you could use
lossless? Well, unfortunatley, audio signals don't compress very much
if you stick to purely lossless compression. 2:1 is considered a
really good ratio (or was in my day). For ATRAC the compression ratio
is (I seem to recall) about 5:1.
MP3 players, incidentally, use MPEG compression which is similar in
many respect to ATRAC. MPEG can compress down to 11:1, which at the
time I worked on this kind of thing, was considered a magical ratio
commerically because it means (in priniple) you can squeeze a "CD
quality" signal (i.e. 44.1 kHz stereo, but compressed, so it's not
really CD quality after all) down an 8kHz phone line. Unfortunately, I
think the rise of the Internet has rather gotten in the way of the
"their" plans for us (i.e. sign us all up to proprietry phone-based
services), and now "they" find that nice quick downloads of tiny files
from dodgy MP3 sites, and cheap recordable CDs containing the entire
back catalogue of Pink Floyd are threating their bottom line... Oh the
irony!
Actually, I'm quite pleased to see that DVD Audio specs allow for
lossless compression. I always thought it was a waste not having some
LPC compression on CDs (understandable, though, given the costs of DSP
hardware when CDs were first developed).
Cheers,
Tim.
--
Dr Tim Shuttleworth email: t...@anvil.co.uk
Anvil Software Limited DDI: +(44)171 749-7934
51-53 Rivington Street Fax: +(44)171 749-7916
London UK EC2A 3SE Tel: +(44)171 749-7900
James Perrett
Richard Landau wrote:
>
> In article <7un17o$6po$1...@korai.cygnus.co.uk>, Andrew Haley
> <a...@cygnus.remove.co.uk> writes
> >I cannot use minidisc because it doesn't have the capacity that I
> >need; 74 minutes just won't cut it.
> BUT, you can now buy 80 minute SONY MDs in central London for just over
> 2 Pounds a piece.
>
> I understand that the BBC are now transferring their music archives on
> to minidisc - a testament to its quality if ever there as one.
>
> Ric...@atelier48.demon.co.uk
Isn't that for playout rather than archives? Sure - it is a convenient
format but I'd be surprised if they were getting rid of the material in
its original formats. You never know what might be recoverable from old
analogue tapes and discs in the future.
James.
BDeGrande
Troll is indeed the proper term.
I made two observations - the first was that, when challenged, he would bring
up an AES study without mentioning dates or places. He has done so. The
second is that he would spew racist diatribes against the Japanese. Stay
tuned.
There is simply NO reason to take anything he says seriously - this is simply a
waste of bandwidth.
Andrew Haley
: In article <7un17o$6po$1...@korai.cygnus.co.uk>, Andrew Haley
: <a...@cygnus.remove.co.uk> writes
: >I cannot use minidisc because it doesn't have the capacity that I
: >need; 74 minutes just won't cut it.
: BUT, you can now buy 80 minute SONY MDs in central London for just over
: 2 Pounds a piece.
If 74 minutes won't cut it, it is unlikely that 80 minutes is going to
cut it either.
: I understand that the BBC are now transferring their music archives on
: to minidisc - a testament to its quality if ever there as one.
That would be, to say the least, totally insane. The BBC is now
transmitting in Eureka 147 format, which is MPEG layer II coded at
48kHz. I seriously doubt whether they'd sample at 44.1kHz, compress,
decompress, sample-rate convert, and then compress again at 48kHz.
It would make far more sense to encode at 48kHz using MPEG layer II.
Andrew.
Eirik Wilberg
Joe Anstett <joe_a...@SPAMSUCKSemail.com> wrote in message
news:380F401E...@SPAMSUCKSemail.com...
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> > Felix Sieder wrote:
> >
> >
> > on what you want to record. There are problems with multigenerational
> > copying of ATRAC which make minidisc useless for organized trees where
> > people copy the many times.
>
> From what I have heard it takes dozens of generational copies before the
> losses due to ATRAC become appreciable. Are you saying otherwise?
>
> > multigenerational copying of minidisc altogether. This is enough to
> > render it useless for some applications.
>
> SCMS is not a problem of MD alone, it's a problem of all digital media in
> general.
>
> >
>
> rate, 48kHz, while CD and MD are at 44.1kHz).
>
> > > Is either coaxial or toslink more common and what are the pros/cons to
> > > the different interfaces. How to the prices for interconnects compare
> > > (based on format)?
> >
> > Both may use either, but toslink is more common.
> >
> > Like all fibre optic interfaces, toslink is a nightmare. It's
> > fragile, you can't splice it without specialized equipment, you can't
> > put it through a patchbay, and it's expensive.
> >
> > > 3)How reliable is the media? I assume that DAT is quite a bit easier
> > > to damage.
> >
> > I suppose so. However, I've never damaged one.
> >
> > > suited (eg. minidisc for convenience, editing)
> >
> > source and minidisc can't record at 48kHz, so you have to downsample.
>
> Many MD decks come with built-in sampling rate converters, and again IIRC
CD
> 48kHz is overkill for CD quality sound.
>
>
> Really? You can beat $2 per 74 minutes?
make... damn good!
>
> > > 5)Any suggestions for either a good DAT or minidisc recorder (not
> > > portable but for a component home system). Interconnects?
> >
> > The best value DAT on the market today is the Fostex D5. See
> > http://www.eklektix.com/dat-heads/.
> >
> > expensive, but the tapes are cheaper, there's no SCMS stupidity,
> > there's no multigenerational loss, and the tapes are longer.
>
> They're also sequential, tape-based, magnetic media that don't lend
> themselves to portability or convenience.
>
> tape-based formats now or in the future.
>
>
Eirik Wilberg
Robin May <robi...@sitedrm.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7uo5jt$920$1...@gxsn.com...
> > in article 380ddb7e....@news.mcgill.ca, Felix Sieder at
> > fjsi...@microimm.mcgill.xae wrote on 21/10/99 1:47:
> >
> > > compare to conventional CD quality.
> >
> > recording of ANY fidelity requirement, DON'T waste your time with MD.
>
> I find these comments are normally made by people who heard first
> generation versions of ATRAC and wrote MD off then. If they actually
> bothered to listen to more recent equipment they would realise that they
> are talking bullshit.
>
> >
> better
> > > suited (eg. minidisc for convenience, editing)
> >
> commercials.
> > Nothing more. The known fidelity problems have made MD a non-starter
> for
> > REAL audio use. It's a toy.
>
> What "known fidelity problems"? It has lossy compression that does a
> very good job of fitting the data in to a smaller space. It isn't
> proffessional quality and with a high quality system you can tell the
> difference between it and CD but don't give us all this shit about
> "known fidelity problems" because you know it sounds very little worse
> than CD.
between 128khz mp3 and a original CD.... (128k isn't that bad... but one can
STILL hear the difference in bass and treble-sections)
>
> > ---
> > Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) is a proven:
> > Zipser is a liar http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=369217967
> > Zipser is a scammer http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=368363274
> > Zipser is a cheater http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=374900703
> > Zipser is a THIEF http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=509980240
>
Jim Knepley
Competitive price, at any rate...
Jim
Mike O'Sullivan <mi...@barnaby0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:940619604.22623.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > > Also, I can get DAT media a good deal cheaper than minidisc media.
> >
> > Really? You can beat $2 per 74 minutes?
>
BDeGrande
>between 128khz mp3 and a original CD.... (128k isn't that bad... but one can
>STILL hear the difference in bass and treble-sections)
MD is WAY better than 128K MP3. Even 256K MP3 is slightly inferior to MD.
Kingsley Smith
But he hard cold fact is that DAT is dead and has been for the last two
years.
The current DAT machines that are on the market are very dated with very old
A/D and D/A technology.
Minidisc gets updated every few months, with the latest technology.
I have a DCC deck which at the time when I bought it five years ago it
sounded the dog's bollocks.
It was much better than the harsh trash that was minidisc.
But minidisc has had massive investment and now a deck like the Sony
MDS-JB930 far surpasses my dated Marantz DD-82 DCC recorder
http://www.superfi.co.uk/sonyfol/mdsjb930.htm
The same is now true of DAT even though on paper it should be the better
format for sound quality
Sony's latest DAT offering is based around a very budget CD player in terms
of D/A converting power.
http://www.superfi.co.uk/sonyfol/dtcze70.htm
Felix Sieder <fjsi...@microimm.mcgill.xae> wrote in message
news:380ddb7e....@news.mcgill.ca...
> I would like to purchase a system for digital recording. I still have
> a tapedeck but I would like to be able to do some digital recording
> for helping me with certain computer projects, recording certain radio
> programs, editing... I have a CD player which has both a coaxial and
> "toslink" interface. I realize that the minidisc is a more convenient
> format since it is easy to access any part of the disc quickly unlike
> with DAT. I was just curious if you could address some of these
> questions:
>
> 1)In general how is Minidisc quality compared to DAT? How do either
> compare to conventional CD quality.
> 2)Which digital input interface do most DAT or Minidisc players use?
> Is either coaxial or toslink more common and what are the pros/cons to
> the different interfaces. How to the prices for interconnects compare
> (based on format)?
> 3)How reliable is the media? I assume that DAT is quite a bit easier
> to damage.
> 4)Does each type (DAT or minidisc) have a niche for which it is better
> suited (eg. minidisc for convenience, editing)
> 5)Any suggestions for either a good DAT or minidisc recorder (not
> portable but for a component home system). Interconnects?
>
> Thanks,
> Felix (if you want to respond by e-mail please change the .xae to a
> .ca)
DunxUK
>transmitting in Eureka 147 format, which is MPEG layer II coded at
>48kHz.
This is only because the BBC are now broadcasting using terrestrial digital
that /requires/ MPEG II. The original studio output is uncompressed. Only the
transmission (audio and video) is squashed , and then only at the multiplexing
stage.
Rupert Goodwins
Jim Knepley <jkne...@iforgot.net> wrote in message
news:3810c088$0$10...@news.denver1.Level3.net...
> At current exchange rates, 99 pence is around US$2.50, isn't it?
>
Not for a *very* long time! It's around $1.66 USD, at the current interbank
rate.
> Competitive price, at any rate...
>
More'n that!
jennifer
She has had little success with good, old cassette recording and needs to
know if one mode is more likely than the other to capture the lectures in
a large and some-what noisy lecture hall.
Any suggestions?
J.Sharples
BDeGrande <bdeg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991020203725...@ng-fj1.aol.com...
> >DAT is king, CD is second. MD is a distant third. If you are doing
> >recording of ANY fidelity requirement, DON'T waste your time with MD.
> >
>
anti-MD
> stuff consistently. When challenged on his nonsense, he quotes an old AES
> study on minidisc's "poor quality", refusing to give dates - probably
ATRAC 1.
> If challenged further, he launches into racist tirades against the
Japanese -
> perhaps he dislikes MD because Sony invented it.
Sony invented it? Okay from your limited understanding you probably think
that Sony invented magnetic media, and the CD.
Ever wonder why all MD products are slapped with Dolby patents? Maybe
because they patented the ATRAC algorithm all those years ago.
BDeGrande
>that Sony invented magnetic media, and the CD.
>Ever wonder why all MD products are slapped with Dolby patents? Maybe
>because they patented the ATRAC algorithm all those years ago.
I know that quite well. My "limited understanding" can read a simple sentence
and understand it. I claimed that Sony introduced MD (they did), niot ATRAC.
Your point is like saying that Intel introduced the first PC by developing the
first microporcessor. There is a significant difference.
Sorry. Next time I'll write using smaller words.
Mike O'Sullivan
give me the odd penny you can have them for $1.63. I bought a batch of 10
recently at 99p each. Not bad eh?
Jim Knepley <jkne...@iforgot.net> wrote in message
news:3810c088$0$10...@news.denver1.Level3.net...
> At current exchange rates, 99 pence is around US$2.50, isn't it?
>
> Competitive price, at any rate...
>
James T. Kirk
Andrew Haley heeft geschreven
>
>Fair enough. I'm hoping that a new digital audio medium will come
>along in a few years that will have all the best features of both.
>Something like re-recordable portable DVD, shrunk down to minidisc
>size would do it. The electronics industry could probably make
>something like that today.
As I wrote above, isn't it so, that the technology for "no moving parts at
all" is already available? (MP 3 etc, the quality isn't superb yet, but...)
There is already a videorecorder without tape on the market!
(www.replaytv.com) It might take a few years, but than are moving parts and
little motors combined with
electronics, something of the past... Actually, it was already available
_before_ CD came on the market, but all the world had to buy the CD and it's
'children' first. Commercialism is the key word here...
--
# Jim #
~Life not only begins at forty, it begins to show.~
Philip Luke
<jkne...@iforgot.net> writes
>Minidisc is inferior in terms of sound quality to DAT. DAT can exceed the
>quality of a CD, a Minidisc can get, maybe 80% of the quality of a CD
>(certainly better than tape, though).
80% is more than a little harsh! With ATRAC 4 & greater the differences
are hard to detect. Early ATRAC coding was very crude! Modern MD is very
good!
--
Phil luke (MAG 97236) Rockape #1 Dorset Old Fart FAB#12 BOF#15 RTMiB#??
Portland Dorset 3rd cave from the left! remove <.NOSPAM> to email me!
Yamaha XJ900S Diversion & TRX850 <http://www.lukep.demon.co.uk/>
'Smoke me a kipper I'll be back for breakfast'!
Philip Luke
>expensive, but the tapes are cheaper,
Interesting !! I can get MD74's for 99p (or less during offers!) which
already makes high quality Cassette seem expensive. WTF do the costs
work out to for DAT ??
Philip Luke
8859-1?q?Arny_Kr=FCger?= <ar...@flash.net> writes
>MD does use perceptual coding, of a proprietary nature. But the
>compression is only about 5:1 instead of the 12:1 or so used with
>MP3 files we find on the web. So we can hope that it is more
>sonically transparent.
When I first listend to MD (Many years back) the impression I got was
that it stripped all the soundstage depth from the music.
Now the quality ( & depth) is all there. It easily matches my CD & beats
any tape I've used. I don't think many low - medium systems would be MD
limited for quality. Start looking towards Mic's etc!
Digital copy's are to all intents & purposes clones & analog recordings
capture the character of the source quite well!
DAT would be usefull if you had a recording studio! But only for short
term storage! I would blow it to CD as soon as possible!!
I think MD is the natural replacement for Cassette for domestic
consuption.
Philip Luke
<opera...@worldjazz.com> writes
>The whole point of ARCHIVES is to put it on a STABLE format. Not an
>unstable, degraded format like MD.
I thought that MD was a stable medium that does not degrade?
The lossy compression disqualifies it for archive use!
Philip Luke
, jennifer <har...@deltaforce.net> writes
MD recording in Mono will record 160 mins at a time on 80 min discs & a
small portable will probably fill 2 or 3 discs before it needs its
batteries re-charging typically (some models are even better than mine &
you can get auxiliary battery packs). All the equipment will fit in the
corner of a briefcase or a few pockets.
Microphone selection may be a little trickier!
More than enough lecture time to sit through & review later! :-)
Philip Luke
<jkne...@iforgot.net> writes
>At current exchange rates, 99 pence is around US$2.50, isn't it?
>
>Competitive price, at any rate...
The usual exchange method for stuff sold in this country from the states
is just to change the dollar sign to a pound sign ;-(
Philip Luke
Smith <kingsle...@budweiser.com> writes
>I have a DCC deck which at the time when I bought it five years ago it
>sounded the dog's bollocks.
>It was much better than the harsh trash that was minidisc.
I listened to both when they first came out & they were both identicaly
(used the same methods to compress) crappy. MD has developed in leaps &
bounds since!
Philip Luke
<fjsi...@microimm.mcgill.xae> writes
>I would like to purchase a system for digital recording.
>
>1)In general how is Minidisc quality compared to DAT? How do either
>compare to conventional CD quality.
Ultimately MD is not as good as DAT but in practice you will be hard
pressed to tell the difference. The quality difference between a CD
origional & the MD copy is slight enough to be in the same order as the
slight differences you get when listening on different CD players. In my
system the CD(16 bit DAC) deck is a lot older than the MD(20 bit) so the
MD (if anything!) actually sounds better!
I'm sure you can get a reasonable demonstration from your local Hi-Fi
shop!
>2)Which digital input interface do most DAT or Minidisc players use?
>Is either coaxial or toslink more common and what are the pros/cons to
>the different interfaces. How to the prices for interconnects compare
>(based on format)?
I use the optical connects & AFAIK these cables are identical for DAT &
MD!
>3)How reliable is the media? I assume that DAT is quite a bit easier
>to damage.
DAT is a tape comparable to a small camcorder tape & quite quality
dependant. MD is very durable as long as you don't let dust get inside
them (better quality media has better shutters etc). I've not had a disc
go west on me yet!
>4)Does each type (DAT or minidisc) have a niche for which it is better
>suited (eg. minidisc for convenience, editing)
DAT is a good Professional system for 'Master' recordings. MD is
probably better for all dommestic & portable applications.
>5)Any suggestions for either a good DAT or minidisc recorder (not
>portable but for a component home system). Interconnects?
I have a Pioneer MJ-D707 MD recorder which I am currently happy with! As
with any audio kit the best way to buy is to go out & listen to a few!
>
>Thanks,
>Felix (if you want to respond by e-mail please change the .xae to a
>.ca)
--
J.Sharples
Actually, Intel DID introduce the first 'PC', that is the first
microcomputer; the MCS-4 system. It used the 4004 microprocessor.
Then if we're talking 'Personal Computer', maybe it was the AES 90 from
Canada's Automatic Electronic Systems, the world's first programmable word
processor with a video screen. Which incidentally used a custom built
microprocessor.
Oh oh, maybe you mean PC more like today's, hmm, nope, that'd be the
Xerox Alto.
Well I think that you're just completely ignorant and label PC's as
something like the 8088 IBM 5150 machines, which came about '81, kinda
late in the race.
-- Jeremy
mm.
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm$$$$$$
$$P |$$
,$$ |$$
$$| |$$
J$7 ,. |$$ ,m
,$$'^^^^^^Q$$$ |$$ m$$7"$
$7` $$P |$$ ,$7"^
$7` |$$ |$$ ,$"'`
,$7 _ $$' |$$$'^
,7' ^Qmm_ |$' |$$
$' Q$$$,$P |$$
' `"$$P |$$
J$' |$$ ,
,$7' |$$ J
,$7' |$$ $
,$"` |$$_____________$$.
,7"` `""""""""""""""""""`
^^`
Hugh
> is just to change the dollar sign to a pound sign ;-(
A rough way of working it out is....
US$ > GB£ = value * 0.6 (or value / 1.66667)
GB£ > US$ = value / 0.6 (or value * 1.66667)
Hugh
> US$ > GB£ = value * 0.6 (or value / 1.66667)
> GB£ > US$ = value / 0.6 (or value * 1.66667)
I should mention that you don't seem to pay any sales tax or VAT, just the
postage etc if you're buying from the US.. I just bought some clothes online..
<s>
- Hugh
Julian
more useful contributions to make to the cosmos, but I digress. . .)
Regarding comments on the quality of MD audio: An album could be MASTERED
to MD and most of us would never know the difference. I listen to MD,
DAT, magnetic tape, and hard disks every day of my life.
I am NOT saying there's no discernable difference, between MD & DAT, it's
just that it is one of the most MINOR audio differences we'll ever come
across;
The difference between DAT & MD is more like differences between different
recording studios. For most of us, our environments, headphones, speakers
and amps are screwing up fidelity way way way more than an MD copy of a DAT
original ever could.
Brian L. McCarty
rav...@zdnetmail.com wrote on 25/10/99 10:49:
> Regarding comments on the quality of MD audio: An album could be MASTERED
> to MD and most of us would never know the difference.
It's irrelevant if MOST of you don't know the difference.
The artist would know.
Andy Morgan
>
> A friend is considering DAT or MD for recording lectures in grad school.
>
> She has had little success with good, old cassette recording and needs to
> know if one mode is more likely than the other to capture the lectures in
> a large and some-what noisy lecture hall.
>
> Any suggestions?
Her problem is more one of microphone selection than of recording media
- what you /she needs is a more directional microphone, once shes got
that then she can stick to cassette.
andy M
jennifer
Jen
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Philip Luke wrote:
> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 12:59:54 +0100
> From: Philip Luke <ph...@lukep.demon.co.uk>
> Newsgroups: alt.audio.equipment, alt.music-lover.audiophile,
> alt.music-lover.audiophile.hardware, uk.rec.audio, rec.audio.misc,
> rec.audio.opinion, alt.audio.minidisc
> Subject: Re: DAT vs. Minidisc--What are the pros/cons of each (sound quality,
>
> In article <Pine.BSF.4.10.991023...@jed.deltaforce.net>
> , jennifer <har...@deltaforce.net> writes
> >A friend is considering DAT or MD for recording lectures in grad school.
> >
> >She has had little success with good, old cassette recording and needs to
> >know if one mode is more likely than the other to capture the lectures in
> >a large and some-what noisy lecture hall.
> >
> >Any suggestions?
>
> MD recording in Mono will record 160 mins at a time on 80 min discs & a
> small portable will probably fill 2 or 3 discs before it needs its
> batteries re-charging typically (some models are even better than mine &
> you can get auxiliary battery packs). All the equipment will fit in the
> corner of a briefcase or a few pockets.
>
> Microphone selection may be a little trickier!
>
> More than enough lecture time to sit through & review later! :-)
>
Andrew Haley
: DAT should sound better because it uses 48kHz uncompressed digital
: recording
: But he hard cold fact is that DAT is dead and has been for the last
: two years. The current DAT machines that are on the market are very
: dated with very old A/D and D/A technology.
Uh-huh. This assertion is based on what, exactly? I suspect that, in
truth, they use the same converters in everything. And, of course,
this year's 24-bit DAT machines don't exist at all. Either that or
no-one will buy them; take your pick.
: Minidisc gets updated every few months, with the latest technology.
: I have a DCC deck which at the time when I bought it five years ago it
: sounded the dog's bollocks.
: It was much better than the harsh trash that was minidisc.
: But minidisc has had massive investment and now a deck like the Sony
: MDS-JB930 far surpasses my dated Marantz DD-82 DCC recorder
: http://www.superfi.co.uk/sonyfol/mdsjb930.htm
: The same is now true of DAT even though on paper it should be the better
: format for sound quality
I really don't think that arguments about "sound quality" are very
relevant, as DAT and Minidisc recorders use similar converters, and
arguments about the audibility or otherwise of ATRAC are fruitless.
What really matters is the cost of equipment and convenience; Minidisc
has DAT beat on both counts. Minidisc is a natural replacement for
the cassette. It's very good at being that.
In the future, Sony look as though they're going with Memory Stick
technology rather than any kind of tape or rotating media, and (of
course) data compression will be an important enabling technology.
All current storage technology will become obsolete, and everything
will have to be transferred to solid state media. And, when that
happens, you'd better pray that SCMS will not prevent you from doing
that.
Andrew.
jennifer
choices for the microphone?
TIA,
Jen
On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Andy Morgan wrote:
> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 13:41:44 +0200
> From: Andy Morgan <andrew...@erlangen.netsurf.de>
> To: jennifer <har...@deltaforce.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.audio.equipment, alt.music-lover.audiophile,
> alt.music-lover.audiophile.hardware, uk.rec.audio, rec.audio.misc,
> rec.audio.opinion, alt.audio.minidisc
> Subject: Re: DAT vs. Minidisc--What are the pros/cons of each (sound quality,
>
> jennifer schrieb:
> >
> > A friend is considering DAT or MD for recording lectures in grad school.
> >
> > She has had little success with good, old cassette recording and needs to
> > know if one mode is more likely than the other to capture the lectures in
> > a large and some-what noisy lecture hall.
> >
> > Any suggestions?
>
greg pavlov
<andrew...@erlangen.netsurf.de> wrote:
>
>
>Andrew Virnuls schrieb:
>
>> I must say that as a computer scientist I'm a little distressed at the way
>> the manufacturers of MiniDisc have misappropriated the word "compression".
>
Lossy compression in images has long been accepted
in the computer world.
greg pavlov
[not affiliated with DFCI or Harvard]
**************************************************************************
For the definitive intro guide to rao, see:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/
**************************************************************************
Julian
Brian L. McCarty wrote in message ...
>in article 7v09g8$309s$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com, Julian at
>rav...@zdnetmail.com wrote on 25/10/99 10:49:
>
>> Regarding comments on the quality of MD audio: An album could be
MASTERED
>> to MD and most of us would never know the difference.
>
>It's irrelevant if MOST of you don't know the difference.
>
>The artist would know.
>
master to DAT, not to MD. You have put it in perspective.
Andrew Virnuls
news:38175a0e...@news.dfci.harvard.edu...
> On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 09:54:18 +0200, Andy Morgan
> <andrew...@erlangen.netsurf.de> wrote:
>
> >Andrew Virnuls schrieb:
> >
> >> I must say that as a computer scientist I'm a little distressed at the
way
> >> the manufacturers of MiniDisc have misappropriated the word
"compression".
>
> Lossy compression in images has long been accepted
> in the computer world.
What's your point? The data in jpegs are compressed and reduced for
convenience, whereas MiniDisc is marketed as a hi-fi product. No-one would
argue that jpegs are a viable alternative to photographs, and everyone knows
their limitations; I would suggest that a street-corner survey would reveal
that most people don't know about the losses involved in recording to MD.
--
ANDREW vir...@argonet.co.uk Fact x Importance
http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/virnuls = News
Peter
Dolby soundtrack, which has, I believe a 10:1 compression,
vs the MD 5:1.
"Andrew Virnuls" <vir...@argonet.co.uk> said-
Jared Anderson
> > >
> > >> I must say that as a computer scientist I'm a little distressed at the
> way
> > >> the manufacturers of MiniDisc have misappropriated the word
> "compression".
> >
> > Lossy compression in images has long been accepted
> > in the computer world.
>
> What's your point? The data in jpegs are compressed and reduced for
> convenience, whereas MiniDisc is marketed as a hi-fi product. No-one would
> argue that jpegs are a viable alternative to photographs, and everyone knows
> their limitations; I would suggest that a street-corner survey would reveal
> that most people don't know about the losses involved in recording to MD.
What about digital Cameras that take photos and store them in
JPEG? Not a viable alternative? They seem to be selling really well. And
what does it matter that people dont know about the losses. If they need
MD for a professional reason they would probably find out about it and
care about it. But J. Bloggs would probably not know and not care either
if all they were trying to do was to replace a tape player.
J
Arny Krüger
"jennifer" <har...@deltaforce.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSF.4.10.991025...@jed.deltaforce.net...
> That makes much more sense to me! Now how about a rec for a couple
good
> choices for the microphone?
None of the best choices are all that practical. You want a mic that
is really directional, and since we are talking acoustics, those are
almost always very large.
Look at what they use at important press conferences, if you watch
carefully you will usually see a shot of it.
Lecturers who want to make clear recordings stay close to the mic,
or just wear it.
Thing is, a lot of lecturer's don't really want to be recorded.
Andy Morgan
jennifer schrieb:
>
> That makes much more sense to me! Now how about a rec for a couple good
> choices for the microphone?
>
Im afraid I know little about mikes and nothing about directional mikes
- I use my MD for close-up interviews or music recordings in a live
situation, I just stick a battered old SM 57 on it and thats enough for
me - I do know the problem of recording in noisy enviroments but ive
never needed to solve it so badly that I needed to do research, sorry.
andy M
Artur Yelchishchev
wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 09:54:18 +0200, Andy Morgan
><andrew...@erlangen.netsurf.de> wrote:
>
>>Andrew Virnuls schrieb:
>>
>>> I must say that as a computer scientist I'm a little distressed at the way
>>> the manufacturers of MiniDisc have misappropriated the word "compression".
>>
>
> Lossy compression in images has long been accepted
> in the computer world.
Correct. Moreover, I would say that the term "lossless compression"
itself is unapplicable to storing analoguos information - even AudioCD
is lossy in that sense, isn't it?
JPG pictures, MP3 music and MPEG video, from my point of view, are
good examples of data representation (and compression :-))
Artur.
trotsky
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
>
> "jennifer" <har...@deltaforce.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.BSF.4.10.991025...@jed.deltaforce.net...
> > That makes much more sense to me! Now how about a rec for a couple
> good
> > choices for the microphone?
>
> None of the best choices are all that practical. You want a mic that
> is really directional, and since we are talking acoustics, those are
> almost always very large.
>
> Look at what they use at important press conferences, if you watch
> carefully you will usually see a shot of it.
>
> Lecturers who want to make clear recordings stay close to the mic,
> or just wear it.
>
> Thing is, a lot of lecturer's don't really want to be recorded.
Not if they have your use of the language, for sure.
Andrew Haley
: > Lossy compression in images has long been accepted
: > in the computer world.
: Correct. Moreover, I would say that the term "lossless compression"
: itself is unapplicable to storing analoguos information - even
: AudioCD is lossy in that sense, isn't it?
No, not really. Some amount of informations is lost in the
digitization process, but that's also true of any analogue processing
such as equalization or amplification. It's unhelpful to call it
compression, though.
Andrew.
greg pavlov
Yelchishchev) wrote:
>
>Correct. Moreover, I would say that the term "lossless compression"
>itself is unapplicable to storing analoguos information - even AudioCD
>is lossy in that sense, isn't it?
>
Yes, in the sense that it is produced algorithmically.
Analog recordings are also lossy, but in a less controlled
way.
greg pavlov
<vir...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>What's your point?
>
My point is that the computer industry has freeely made
use of lossy compression when it has found the need.
The ultimate use of "lossy compression", of course, is
one that is costing a lot of money to straighten out now,
the "y2k bug".
> I would suggest that a street-corner survey would reveal
>that most people don't know about the losses involved in recording to MD.
In general I don't think that people are quite as stupid as
you believe. I suspect that a more accurate statement
would be that the majority of people don't care about
the losses involved in transferring recordings to MD. They
are into buying and listening to music, not equipment.
Artur Yelchishchev
a...@cygnus.remove.co.uk (Andrew Haley) wrote:
> Artur Yelchishchev (ris...@datanet.ee) wrote:
> : Moreover, I would say that the term "lossless compression"
> : itself is unapplicable to storing analoguos information - even
> : AudioCD is lossy in that sense, isn't it?
>
> No, not really. Some amount of informations is lost in the
> digitization process, but that's also true of any analogue processing
> such as equalization or amplification.
Well, it is exactly the same as I told in previous article!
> It's unhelpful to call it compression, though.
In pure 'computer-wise' meaning - of cource, yes. But in more wide
sense, if the word 'compression' means 'compact representation of some
data for later retrieval' - I believe both these terms (digitizing &
compression) become very close to be the same thing.
Once again - what I was trying to say is: "the term 'lossless
compression' itself is unapplicable to storing analoguos information as
such", just because A/D conversion itself already *is* lossy.
By the way, Webopaedia treat word 'Compression' as "Storing data in a
format that requires less space than usual.", so I'd say that 74min
audioclip stored on CD, if compared to the same lenght of audio on
'usual' vinyl disks, definitely is 'compressed' :-))
Regards,
Artur.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Microsoft Mail Server
perhaps the years of raucous and decidedly destructive aural dynamics of
heavy metal music & others has affected the sensitivity of the so-called
"music" industry at large!
the baby boomers brought up on years of 110 decibel crap at "concerts" are
now the very people at the heads of these music industries. i certainly have
NO respect for their evaluation of "music"
or the medium used to archive it.
minidisc/dvd/ licensing methods are nothing more than a ploy to extract as
much hard earned cash from neophyte musicologists.
ahhhhhh, now wheres my brahms cdrom gone to ????
--
best regards,
hapticzemail at email.msn.com
remove first email, sorry i had to do this!!
greg pavlov wrote in message <38175a0e...@news.dfci.harvard.edu>...
|On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 09:54:18 +0200, Andy Morgan
|<andrew...@erlangen.netsurf.de> wrote:
|
|>
|>
|>Andrew Virnuls schrieb:
|>
|>> I must say that as a computer scientist I'm a little distressed at the
way
|>> the manufacturers of MiniDisc have misappropriated the word
"compression".
|>
|
| Lossy compression in images has long been accepted
| in the computer world.
|
|
Magic
<s34...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> What about digital Cameras that take photos and store them in
> JPEG? Not a viable alternative? They seem to be selling really
well. And
> what does it matter that people dont know about the losses. If they
need
> MD for a professional reason they would probably find out about it
and
> care about it. But J. Bloggs would probably not know and not care
either
> if all they were trying to do was to replace a tape player.
> J
Many professionals do use digital cameras withj lossy JPEG compression
- a large number of magazines now use almost all digital camera
images. Professionals also use lossy minidisc audio systems - they're
very popular amongst radio journalists and other media people.
Magic ==|:o)
--
Location : Portsmouth, England, UK
Homepage : http://www.mattnet.freeserve.co.uk
EMail : mailto:Ma...@mattnet.freeserve.co.uk
"Some of the sweetest sounds come from our smallest friends."
Rupert Goodwins
Brian L. McCarty <opera...@worldjazz.com> wrote in message
news:B43A4E17.3041%opera...@worldjazz.com...
> in article 7v09g8$309s$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com, Julian at
> rav...@zdnetmail.com wrote on 25/10/99 10:49:
>
> > Regarding comments on the quality of MD audio: An album could be
MASTERED
> > to MD and most of us would never know the difference.
>
> It's irrelevant if MOST of you don't know the difference.
>
> The artist would know.
>
Tee hee. Most of the musicians I know wouldn't spot it if their stuff was
mastered on wax cylinder. Oh, I exaggerate... but not by much. Musos, at
least the rock variety, seem to think that any piece of music reproduction
equipment that costs more than a crate of beer is hideously and inexplicably
overspecified... and they may well be right at that.
Stewart Pinkerton
>By the way, Webopaedia treat word 'Compression' as "Storing data in a
>format that requires less space than usual.", so I'd say that 74min
>audioclip stored on CD, if compared to the same lenght of audio on
>'usual' vinyl disks, definitely is 'compressed' :-))
True in the physical sense, although of course the amount of
information is actually increased compared to vinyl! :-)
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Paul Dormer
>good
>> choices for the microphone?
A couple of Panasonic electret capsules will set you back about $5,
and will make recordings of surprisingly good quality.
What about a couple of classic RadioShack PZM mics? They aren't
available new anymore but can be found quite easily second hand.
Excellent sound when powered by 12v, as good as mic's costing 20 times
the price.
Paul Dormer Me...@clara.net
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sound Design, Editing, Mastering
Andy Morgan
Paul Dormer schrieb:
> What about a couple of classic RadioShack PZM mics? They aren't
> available new anymore but can be found quite easily second hand.
> Excellent sound when powered by 12v, as good as mic's costing 20 times
> the price.
But not actually any help in this situation.
The actual problem is that we can once more see how brilliantly our
brain works. If were sitting in a lecture room, we can filter the
accoustics, the mutterings, the sound of the couple next to us groping
each other etc. etc. and still be able to understand what the lecturer
is saying. if I take a mike into the lecture and put it in front of me
it records all this without any sort of filtering and makes the recorded
lecture very hard to understand. a PZM mike is very good, but if she
could get close enough to be able to use it she wouldnt need it, she
could just put a cheap dynamic on a stand in front of the lecturer.
what is needed is a mike that blocks out all surrounding noise and
*only* records the lecturer. A normal-pattern mike needs to be close
tpothe source to do this, the further away you get the more directional
it needs to be. at a typical lecture distance were talking shotguns
mikes, which, as soemone else has pointed outm are often specialist
pieces of gear and neither small or cheap.
As a suggestion to jennifer: Ive noticed a couple of nick-nack shops
over here selling "spy" units - they look like a pager with a headphone
and are supposedly able to pick up conversations at a distance. they are
only really toys but you might be able to adapt one to your needs...
andy m
DunxUK
I cannot believe that for a moment. I'm just an amateur but even I know that my
medium format lens (and not an expensive one at that) resolves 200 lines per
mm, and the film has a higher resolution than that.
That means one negative has a resolution of 12000x9000, true colour. Get that
onto a jpeg.
Even then, grain gets to be an issue when working above (say) 12" full frame
enlargements, and selective enlarging increases that further.
Ok, they use polaroids and possibly digital backs for setting up flash etc, but
the work is done onto proper film.
The only 'professionals' using digital that I know of are the guys that work
for estate agents and car mart magazines.
Off topic I know but this thread is all over the place now anyway :o)
Paul Dormer
>> What about a couple of classic RadioShack PZM mics? They aren't
>> available new anymore but can be found quite easily second hand.
>> Excellent sound when powered by 12v, as good as mic's costing 20 times
>> the price.
>
>But not actually any help in this situation.
Um.. why not? Have you tried PZM's in this sort of situation? I find
they work extremely well (if you can place them within a reasonable
distance of the desired sound source).
>The actual problem is that we can once more see how brilliantly our
>brain works. If were sitting in a lecture room, we can filter the
>accoustics, the mutterings, the sound of the couple next to us groping
>each other etc. etc. and still be able to understand what the lecturer
>is saying. if I take a mike into the lecture and put it in front of me
>it records all this without any sort of filtering and makes the recorded
>lecture very hard to understand.
Brains can achieve similar tricks with recorded material IMO, just
concentrate on what the guy is saying. If you prefer recordings
without ambience that is fine, but personally, made under these
circumstances, I find them fatiguing.
>a PZM mike is very good, but if she
>could get close enough to be able to use it she wouldnt need it, she
>could just put a cheap dynamic on a stand in front of the lecturer.
>what is needed is a mike that blocks out all surrounding noise and
>*only* records the lecturer.
Hmmm.. I don't agree!
>A normal-pattern mike needs to be close
>tpothe source to do this, the further away you get the more directional
>it needs to be. at a typical lecture distance were talking shotguns
>mikes, which, as soemone else has pointed outm are often specialist
>pieces of gear and neither small or cheap.
Freakin' hell.. we're just talking about recording a lecture here!
PZM's, SM57's, Earthworks, cardiod electret, cardiod "stealth" mics..
there are ways of getting that signal down without busting the bank.
>As a suggestion to jennifer: Ive noticed a couple of nick-nack shops
>over here selling "spy" units - they look like a pager with a headphone
>and are supposedly able to pick up conversations at a distance. they are
>only really toys but you might be able to adapt one to your needs...
Hmm.. I used one of these a few years ago. Definately toys.
Artur Yelchishchev
a...@borealis.com wrote:
> Artur Yelchishchev <ris...@datanet.ee> writes:
>
>>By the way, Webopaedia treat word 'Compression' as "Storing data in a
>>format that requires less space than usual.", so I'd say that 74min
>>audioclip stored on CD, if compared to the same lenght of audio on
>>'usual' vinyl disks, definitely is 'compressed' :-))
>
>True in the physical sense, although of course the amount of
>information is actually increased compared to vinyl! :-)
It depends from what we call 'information' here; if sound waves making
the music - then good (and brand new) vinyl disk may be considered about
the same quality of audio playback as laser disc, and in that sense,
both of them bear the same information, but the latter in more compact
form :-)
(Sorry Stewart - I just can't resist from continuation of this
discussion! :-)
With best regards,
Artur Yelchishchev.
Tom Taylor
that uses software to achieve up to 64Db separation between front and back,
rather than the usual 20Db (approx) maximum. Sounds pretty good (and
expensive). I'll keep you updated.
Tom
Andy Morgan <andrew...@erlangen.netsurf.de> wrote in message
news:3816C475...@erlangen.netsurf.de...
>
>
> Paul Dormer schrieb:
>
> > What about a couple of classic RadioShack PZM mics? They aren't
> > available new anymore but can be found quite easily second hand.
> > Excellent sound when powered by 12v, as good as mic's costing 20 times
> > the price.
>
> But not actually any help in this situation.
>
> The actual problem is that we can once more see how brilliantly our
> brain works. If were sitting in a lecture room, we can filter the
> accoustics, the mutterings, the sound of the couple next to us groping
> each other etc. etc. and still be able to understand what the lecturer
> is saying. if I take a mike into the lecture and put it in front of me
> it records all this without any sort of filtering and makes the recorded
> lecture very hard to understand. a PZM mike is very good, but if she
> could get close enough to be able to use it she wouldnt need it, she
> could just put a cheap dynamic on a stand in front of the lecturer.
>
> what is needed is a mike that blocks out all surrounding noise and
> *only* records the lecturer. A normal-pattern mike needs to be close
> tpothe source to do this, the further away you get the more directional
> it needs to be. at a typical lecture distance were talking shotguns
> mikes, which, as soemone else has pointed outm are often specialist
> pieces of gear and neither small or cheap.
>
> As a suggestion to jennifer: Ive noticed a couple of nick-nack shops
> over here selling "spy" units - they look like a pager with a headphone
> and are supposedly able to pick up conversations at a distance. they are
> only really toys but you might be able to adapt one to your needs...
>
>
> andy m
Tom Taylor
Tom
J.Sharples <garr...@telebot.net> wrote in message
news:0bCQ3.11434$P3.1...@ozemail.com.au...
>
> BDeGrande <bdeg...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19991023103032...@ng-fr1.aol.com...
> > >Sony invented it? Okay from your limited understanding you probably
> think
> > >that Sony invented magnetic media, and the CD.
> > >Ever wonder why all MD products are slapped with Dolby patents? Maybe
> > >because they patented the ATRAC algorithm all those years ago.
> >
> > I know that quite well. My "limited understanding" can read a simple
> sentence
> > and understand it. I claimed that Sony introduced MD (they did), niot
> ATRAC.
> > Your point is like saying that Intel introduced the first PC by
> developing the
> > first microporcessor. There is a significant difference.
> >
> > Sorry. Next time I'll write using smaller words.
>
> Actually, Intel DID introduce the first 'PC', that is the first
> microcomputer; the MCS-4 system. It used the 4004 microprocessor.
> Then if we're talking 'Personal Computer', maybe it was the AES 90 from
> Canada's Automatic Electronic Systems, the world's first programmable
word
> processor with a video screen. Which incidentally used a custom built
> microprocessor.
> Oh oh, maybe you mean PC more like today's, hmm, nope, that'd be the
> Xerox Alto.
> Well I think that you're just completely ignorant and label PC's as
> something like the 8088 IBM 5150 machines, which came about '81, kinda
> late in the race.
>
>
> -- Jeremy
> mm.
> mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm$$$$$$
> $$P |$$
> ,$$ |$$
> $$| |$$
> J$7 ,. |$$ ,m
> ,$$'^^^^^^Q$$$ |$$ m$$7"$
> $7` $$P |$$ ,$7"^
> $7` |$$ |$$ ,$"'`
> ,$7 _ $$' |$$$'^
> ,7' ^Qmm_ |$' |$$
> $' Q$$$,$P |$$
> ' `"$$P |$$
> J$' |$$ ,
> ,$7' |$$ J
> ,$7' |$$ $
> ,$"` |$$_____________$$.
> ,7"` `""""""""""""""""""`
> ^^`
>
>
>
>
>
Nhsns
>The actual problem is that we can once more see how brilliantly our
>brain works. If were sitting in a lecture room, we can filter the
>accoustics, the mutterings, the sound of the couple next to us groping
>each other etc. etc. and still be able to understand what the lecturer
>is saying. if I take a mike into the lecture and put it in front of me
>it records all this without any sort of filtering and makes the recorded
>lecture very hard to understand. a PZM mike is very good, but if she
>could get close enough to be able to use it she wouldnt need it, she
>could just put a cheap dynamic on a stand in front of the lecturer.
Precisely why I recommended the PZM be mounted BEHIND the lecturer. This
position puts the mike closer to the subject and father from the audience.
Norm Strong (nh...@aol.com) or (no...@scn.org)
2528 31st South, Seattle WA 98l44
gabri...@earthlink.net
i use everything!
i use minidisc for traveling ,riding my bike ,hang gliding,ect.
i have never heard a skip and i have had some rough landings!
i use dat for in the field recording stuff like live concerts ect.
its all i use it for great quality and portable .
i use cdr for my home system for the quality and good gaulity back up
i also use regular tape for friends who have none of the above!
example
i go to a friends house to listen to his band i bring my portable dat
then i go home and and record it on a cd then rerecord on to md
put the cd on the rack grab the md hop in the car put the md in the
player and go on a date come back to my listening room put the cd in my
dvd player sit in my listen chair and enjoy!
i hope they dont discontinue dat it has been very useful and i think md
is here to stay!
good luck
thomas
Felix Sieder wrote:
>
> I would like to purchase a system for digital recording. I still have
> a tapedeck but I would like to be able to do some digital recording
> for helping me with certain computer projects, recording certain radio
> programs, editing... I have a CD player which has both a coaxial and
> "toslink" interface. I realize that the minidisc is a more convenient
> format since it is easy to access any part of the disc quickly unlike
> with DAT. I was just curious if you could address some of these
> questions:
>
> 1)In general how is Minidisc quality compared to DAT? How do either
> compare to conventional CD quality.
> 2)Which digital input interface do most DAT or Minidisc players use?
> Is either coaxial or toslink more common and what are the pros/cons to
> the different interfaces. How to the prices for interconnects compare
> (based on format)?
> 3)How reliable is the media? I assume that DAT is quite a bit easier
> to damage.
> 4)Does each type (DAT or minidisc) have a niche for which it is better
> suited (eg. minidisc for convenience, editing)
> 5)Any suggestions for either a good DAT or minidisc recorder (not
> portable but for a component home system). Interconnects?
>
> Thanks,
> Felix (if you want to respond by e-mail please change the .xae to a
> .ca)
greg pavlov
>Andy Morgan <andrew...@erlangen.netsurf.de> wrote:
>
>>.....The actual problem is that we can once more see how brilliantly our
>>brain works. If were sitting in a lecture room, we can filter the
>>accoustics, the mutterings, ...............
>
>Brains can achieve similar tricks with recorded material IMO, just
>concentrate on what the guy is saying. .....
>
Both of you make good sense. But one major difference
betw filtering at the event and filtering while listening to a
recording of the event is that in the former situation, you
have visual and other cues to help you. Wouldn't that
make a difference ?
greg pavlov
<rupe...@bt-removethis-internet.com> wrote:
> ....... Musos, at
>least the rock variety, seem to think that any piece of music reproduction
>equipment that costs more than a crate of beer is hideously and inexplicably
>overspecified... and they may well be right at that.
>
The systems used at "live" pop/rock concerts
seem to be tilted towards (excruciating) volume
over quality. In that context, any differences in
quality between MD and DAT seem moot.
Arny Krüger
"Paul Dormer" <me...@clara.net> wrote in message
news:3829bb8...@news.clara.net...
> >> That makes much more sense to me! Now how about a rec for a
couple
> >good
> >> choices for the microphone?
>
> A couple of Panasonic electret capsules will set you back about
$5,
> and will make recordings of surprisingly good quality.
Been there, done that.
I think the target venue had something to do with reverberant
lecture halls.
Next!
Magic
> >Many professionals do use digital cameras withj lossy JPEG
compression
>
> I cannot believe that for a moment. I'm just an amateur but even I
know that my
> medium format lens (and not an expensive one at that) resolves 200
lines per
> mm, and the film has a higher resolution than that.
>
> That means one negative has a resolution of 12000x9000, true colour.
Get that
> onto a jpeg.
Why? Most magazine images at near A4 size are only 4000x3000 CMYK
images anyway. If it were exhibition material then using film would be
required, but as most printing presses can't cope with the kind of
resolution that medium format film offers, most of that quality is
lost anyway. When you scan an image into the computer from a negative,
the resolution is usually not that high either (typically 480dpi for a
7x5 inch image) which resolves to 3360x2400.
Try going to a sports shop and getting a Hind catalogue for Fall 1999.
I know all the images in that were done with a digital camera because
I helped put it together! I have the original images on CD here beside
me.
BTW - JPEG max resolution is unlimited, so that would fit happily into
a JPEG without much trouble at all. I have a few images near that
resolution as JPEGs - they end up around 10Mb.
> Even then, grain gets to be an issue when working above (say) 12"
full frame
> enlargements, and selective enlarging increases that further.
Grain isn't a problem with a JPEG if it's fed through a fractal
encoder such as the one in Nikkons latest digital offering. An image
of 3360x2400 can be scaled up to around 4x the size before
pixelisation notices, but it can photograph at up to 19200x12800x32
anyway, which puts medium format a little below it in terms of usable
film resolution. Digital technology has moved on a lot since a few
months ago when 640x480 was consdered "high resolution". Those cameras
are now obsolete and can be picked up for about £50 (great if you're
only after a camera for web pictures!).
> Ok, they use polaroids and possibly digital backs for setting up
flash etc, but
> the work is done onto proper film.
Only if the destination is film or glossy print. If the destination is
a magazine or sales brochure, many photographers go direct to digital
camera.
>
> The only 'professionals' using digital that I know of are the guys
that work
> for estate agents and car mart magazines.
>
> Off topic I know but this thread is all over the place now anyway
:o)
You think this is off topic? YOu should check out the MD mailing list,
it's getting like a PC hardware forum! I wonder who's fault that might
be...... *guilty look*.......
Jay Rudko
the boat in gaining acceptance in the consumer market. Sony and a few
other manufacturers did make DAT car stereos, but they were expensive
and not all that reliable. (I know... I had one.)
Minidisc does have some great features, but unfortunately has not
gained the universal acceptance that CD has. I work in a store where we
sell both CD and MD recorders, and the CD burners outsell the
minidisc machines by a large margin. Despite all the convenient features
of MD,
such as editing, ease of reusing the discs, and storage, more people own
CD players than MD players. There's also the perception that to make the
same amount of music fit on a MD that goes on a CD,
something has to be lost. And they're right; good as it is, the ATRAC
compression applied to MD isn't perfect.
Sony has its work cut out for them if they want to gain the same
acceptance for MD that CD has.
Jay Rudko
Scott Rader
wrote:
> Dat h
The big difference is random access. You can't beat it. For
semi-professional recording, as someone else mentioned, go with DAT.
For listening to your favorite music in a mobile (portable) fashion
with CD-quality sound, go with MD.
It depends on your use. They both differ greatly (about the only
thing in common is "digital") ... form factor, tracking, price ...
think about what you want to do with the medium.
gpg
The price gap is huge to start with. Try to buy a DAT deck for less than
$200.
The mini disk is an inexpensive, quality sounding, easy to use device. The
reason musicians don't use it is because of the compression.
If your a musician you go for the DAT, ADAT or tape.
Stefan Kruger
> I listened to both when they first came out & they were both identicaly
> (used the same methods to compress) crappy. MD has developed in leaps &
> bounds since!
Hmm, if I recall correctly, DCC used a different compression scheme
than did MD. The DCC method was believed to offer higher fidelity
due to its lower compression ratio.
cheers, stef
--
Dr Stefan Kruger ste...@cs.bris.ac.uk http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~stefan