minidisc audio??
Jep
media. my choices are cd or minidisc. if somebody would be so kind,
could you please tell me if there is a difference between the two in
sound quality or ease of use, or whatever? my vinyl isn't getting any
younger. most appreciated, Jep
Steve Zipser
In article <MPG.13de3a231...@news.mindspring.com>,
firstberg.Ski...@businessweekmail.com says...
CD is a much better storage medium than minidisc. It holds more info and
it just flat out sounds better.
Zip
--
Sunshine Stereo, Inc http://www.sunshinestereo.com Tel: 305-757-9358
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores, FL 33138 Fax: 305-757-1367
Conrad Johnson Cal Audio Labs Spectron Parasound PASS Labs Gallo Davis
Audible Illusions Straightwire Niles Oracle Graham Rega Benz-Micro EMT
Dunlavy Lexicon Volksamp VUTEC EAD CleanLines Monster RUNCO ESP PS Audio
Nakamichi Genelec Solid Steel Camelot Salamander Audio Logic Seleco PSB
People Joining hand in hand, while the music plays the band,
Arny Krueger
"Jep" <firstberg.Ski...@businessweekmail.com> wrote in
message news:MPG.13de3a231...@news.mindspring.com...
> I'm looking to archive my vinyl collection on to some form of
optical
> media. my choices are cd or minidisc. if somebody would be so kind,
> could you please tell me if there is a difference between the two
in
> sound quality or ease of use, or whatever? my vinyl isn't getting
any
> younger. most appreciated, Jep
CD is the preferred medium if the best possible sound quality is what
you desire;
Here are some introductory notes that you might find helpful:
http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~abcomp/lp-cdr.htm
However, the degradation in good MD recording is not very much.
Please see http://www.pcabx.com/product/mds-jb920/index.htm for a
wide selection of musical samples that have been recorded and played
back using a MD recorder.
James Houston
Steve Zipser <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote in message >
> CD is a much better storage medium than minidisc. It holds more info and
> it just flat out sounds better.
> Zip
> --
Not true. You get blank Minidiscs in 74 and 80 minute flavours.
MD is MUCH easier to use than recordable CD, with brilliant
editing facilities that CDR can only dream of. I use MD myself
to archive some vinyl, and the sound quality is very good. Go for
a decent Sony MD deck...
Also, CDR's are much more susceptible to surface scratches etc, whereas
MD is in an enclosed case.
JH
A Cimino
>Not true. You get blank Minidiscs in 74 and 80 minute flavours.
>MD is MUCH easier to use than recordable CD, with brilliant
>editing facilities that CDR can only dream of. I use MD myself
>to archive some vinyl, and the sound quality is very good. Go for
>a decent Sony MD deck...
>
>Also, CDR's are much more susceptible to surface scratches etc, whereas
>MD is in an enclosed case.
>
I'd agree - when my CD deck crapped out six months ago, I got a CD/MD
replacement deck (Sony MXD-D3) to replace it. I swear by the thing,
fantastic editing capabilities and great sound.
The blank MDs usually cost a bit more - cheapest I can seem to get
them is around $1.75 each, while CDRs have come down to less than
that. If you blow it recording a CDR, you either have to live with it
or chuck it, while you can repair mistakes on an MD, so I suppose it
balances out somewhat. Plus they won't decay like CDRs are alleged to.
Recommended from this corner...
Nick Nelson
>The blank MDs usually cost a bit more - cheapest I can seem to get
>them is around $1.75 each, while CDRs have come down to less than
>that. If you blow it recording a CDR, you either have to live with it
>or chuck it, while you can repair mistakes on an MD, so I suppose it
>balances out somewhat. Plus they won't decay like CDRs are alleged to.
Aren't MDs a magnetic medium? They would be subject to all the
problems floppy disks are. Also, I think the sampling and/or
compression they use make their sound worse than that of CDs.
Lee HC
All price are HK$ but in Hong Kong.
Hardware cost :
Pioneer PDR509 $3090 lowest price.
Denon DMD800 $2100.
Disc:
Sky Music CDR for music $11.
TDK MD disk $8.
MD has the advantage of cheaper, rewritable, post production editing.
CDR is definitely better storage security, & sound quality. But, require
much attention during recording, not erasable, no post production editing.
Meanwhile, I do CDR, but edit wav file if required to make final CD audio by
PC.
Lee HC
greg pavlov
<firstberg.Ski...@businessweekmail.com> wrote:
>I'm looking to archive my vinyl collection on to some form of optical
>media. my choices are cd or minidisc. if somebody would be so kind,
>could you please tell me if there is a difference between the two in
>sound quality or ease of use, or whatever? my vinyl isn't getting any
>younger. most appreciated, Jep
In absolute terms, a cd recording is more accurate
than an md recording. In practical terms that may
not mean anything: many people claim that they
hear very few if any differences between the two,
and since you are transferring what sounds like older
vinyl, it's not likely to test the limits of either format.
If you already have cd players scattered about, I would
go with cd. If you have only one or two cd players or
starting completely from scratch, I would go with md
because it is easier to record and store.
greg pavlov
[not affiliated with DFCI or Harvard]
**************************************************************************
For the definitive intro guide to rao, see:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/
**************************************************************************
Chris P. Mezzolesta
<opera...@worldjazz.com> wrote:
>in article 39752aad...@dnews.pacificnet.net, Nick Nelson at
>ni...@pacificnet.net wrote on 19/7/00 14:13:
>> Also, I think the sampling and/or
>> compression they use make their sound worse than that of CDs.
>
>Of course they're worse, much worse.
A groundless statement of opinion. The "lossy compression" buzzword
has been overused for about 5 years now by people who think they know
more than others...newer versions of ATRAC introduce no discernable
artifacts into MD recordings. if anything, MP3 is easier to detect
than newer ATRAC schemes (highs such as cymbals).
The patent dissing of MD is unwarranted; the only thing I can think of
that's a real negative about MD is the inability to recover data from
a botched disc due to some of the early laser assemblies having been
bad - in writing a bad TOC, or not writing one at all upon pressing
stop due to the old lasers...I lost a few archive MDs this way, and
still have them in the hope that future data recovery will be
possible.
But for archiving vinyl or shellac on current decks, MD is great.
Arny Krueger
"Chris P. Mezzolesta" <mezzo...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:v22bnso11r5i6ki1e...@4ax.com...
The music samples at http://www.pcabx.com/product/mds-jb920/index.htm
show that pretty well, in my opinion.
Ella Shannon
> I'm looking to archive my vinyl collection on to some form of optical
> media. my choices are cd or minidisc. if somebody would be so kind,
> could you please tell me if there is a difference between the two in
> sound quality or ease of use, or whatever? my vinyl isn't getting any
> younger. most appreciated, Jep
There used to be a HUGE difference between the two when minidisc
first came out. Minidisc had the same problems as CD's just after their
birth: crunchy highs, thinner lows. Now that the lossy compression (how
they are able to squeeze all that info onto a little disc) for minidiscs
is much better, minidiscs and CD's are indistinguishable to the general
user. In fact, I recently bought my minidisc on ubid.com and it sounds
very good. Plus, minidiscs have a little more flexibility than CD's, BUT
if you want to take your music everywhere without dragging the minidisc
player around with you, then I recommend that you get a CD
recorder/burner in stead. Plus CD-R media is cheaper than minidisc media.
Hope this helps.
Andrew
>
> In article <MPG.13de3a231...@news.mindspring.com>,
> firstberg.Ski...@businessweekmail.com says...
> > media. my choices are cd or minidisc. if somebody would be so kind,
> > could you please tell me if there is a difference between the two in
> > sound quality or ease of use, or whatever? my vinyl isn't getting any
> > younger. most appreciated, Jep
> >
>
> it just flat out sounds better.
> Zip
Not to mention it doesn't use lossy compression... it's like the
difference between mp3 and CD
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Edmonds - PGP public key available for download on my homepage
E-Mail, wesly (at) mail (dot) com , http://www.cia-g.com/~wesly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew
> Not true. You get blank Minidiscs in 74 and 80 minute flavours.
> MD is MUCH easier to use than recordable CD, with brilliant
> editing facilities that CDR can only dream of. I use MD myself
> to archive some vinyl, and the sound quality is very good. Go for
> a decent Sony MD deck...
Your point is taken that for convienence MD takes the cake there.
However, for archiving I think CD is superior because it can record at
native 44.1k/16bit without any lossy compression like ATRAC .. so while
MD's sound qaility is "good enough" for most things like making party
mixes and walkmans - for archiving important things I'd say use CD-R ..
and heck then copy the CD-R to MD for everyday listening if you want.
> Also, CDR's are much more susceptible to surface scratches etc, whereas
> MD is in an enclosed case.
Yea it's almost too bad that high quality CD players don't use caddys
like the original computer CD-ROMs. If caddys were as cheap as jewel
cases I'd love to have all my cd's stored in them for use with a player
that uses caddys. The pro Denon CD players at radio stations still use
caddys just for that reason of reliablity/durability. In any event I'd
still recommend that the person achive on CD-R and just make 2 or 3
copies. CD-Rs can be bought for $0.30 each these days and at that rate
you can afford to keep a "master" and a couple "listening" discs. I keep
duplicates of most of my CD collection out in the car. If my car CD gets
scratched I can make a new copy from the original. If the original get
scatched at home I can still recover and make a copy from my car
collection without being out the money for a new CD.
> JH
Steve Zipser
> James Houston wrote:
>
> > Not true. You get blank Minidiscs in 74 and 80 minute flavours.
> > MD is MUCH easier to use than recordable CD, with brilliant
> > editing facilities that CDR can only dream of. I use MD myself
> > to archive some vinyl, and the sound quality is very good. Go for
> > a decent Sony MD deck...
>
> Your point is taken that for convienence MD takes the cake there.
> However, for archiving I think CD is superior because it can record at
> native 44.1k/16bit without any lossy compression like ATRAC .. so while
> MD's sound qaility is "good enough" for most things like making party
> mixes and walkmans - for archiving important things I'd say use CD-R ..
> and heck then copy the CD-R to MD for everyday listening if you want.
>
Bottom Line?
CD blows away MD sonically - they aren't even close.
Andrew
> MD has the advantage of cheaper, rewritable, post production editing.
> CDR is definitely better storage security, & sound quality. But, require
> much attention during recording, not erasable, no post production editing.
> Meanwhile, I do CDR, but edit wav file if required to make final CD audio by
> PC.
>
> Lee HC
If you use a PC with a CD-R and wave files, there are a ton of "post
production" editing options. Many more than using a standalone MD or
CD-R. You can edit wave files, fade them, do noise reduction .. use it
with good CD-R software you can easily compile the tracks you want the
way you want and preview listening to them before recording. You can
even make master disc images before burning. You're right, once it's
burned it's burned (CD-RW aside).. but even if there was a problem discs
are so cheap you can throw them away and start over if you dind't like
the end result.. and still be able to change the files saved on the PC
and start again. I love recording old analog tapes and running the noise
reduction algorythm from CoolEdit, it makes them sound better than the
original tape. I think MDs selling point is more on convienece than
technical reasons. With a PC even the editing features of MD don't give
it as much of an advantage since you can edit on a PC easily.
James Houston
>
> Bottom Line?
>
> CD blows away MD sonically - they aren't even close.
> Zip
I wouldn't go that far. Modern MD decks sound very good,
plus, the ultimate sound quality depends on the source
components etc..
JH
James Houston
Andrew <REMOVEw...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3976110D...@mail.com...
> Lee HC wrote:
>
> > MD has the advantage of cheaper, rewritable, post production editing.
> > CDR is definitely better storage security, & sound quality. But, require
> > much attention during recording, not erasable, no post production
editing.
> > Meanwhile, I do CDR, but edit wav file if required to make final CD
audio by
> > PC.
> >
> > Lee HC
>
> If you use a PC with a CD-R and wave files, there are a ton of "post
> production" editing options. Many more than using a standalone MD or
> CD-R. You can edit wave files, fade them, do noise reduction .. use it
> with good CD-R software you can easily compile the tracks you want the
> way you want and preview listening to them before recording. You can
> even make master disc images before burning. You're right, once it's
> burned it's burned (CD-RW aside).. but even if there was a problem discs
> are so cheap you can throw them away and start over if you dind't like
> the end result.. and still be able to change the files saved on the PC
> and start again. I love recording old analog tapes and running the noise
> reduction algorythm from CoolEdit, it makes them sound better than the
> original tape. I think MDs selling point is more on convienece than
> technical reasons. With a PC even the editing features of MD don't give
> it as much of an advantage since you can edit on a PC easily.
>
> --
Since part of the original post was about sound quality, I find this
very interesting. A HiFi magazine here (in the UK) did a test where
they copied vinyl to CDR by using a computer and coverting
the songs to *.wav files, then burned them to CDR. They then compared
the CDR's to MD's of the same vinyl recordings and reckoned that the
CDR copies were vastly inferior to the MD copies. So, maybe using
yourcomputer is not the answer, tho I'm planning to make some
vinyl complations that way!
JH
James Houston
> A groundless statement of opinion. The "lossy compression" buzzword
> has been overused for about 5 years now by people who think they know
> more than others...newer versions of ATRAC introduce no discernable
> artifacts into MD recordings. if anything, MP3 is easier to detect
> than newer ATRAC schemes (highs such as cymbals).
>
Well said, that man...
JH
James Houston
you need from a recording device, and then some...
JH
Jep <firstberg.Ski...@businessweekmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.13de3a231...@news.mindspring.com...
James Houston
Ella Shannon <notaccep...@spamguard.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.13df8e672...@news.sirius.com...
> There used to be a HUGE difference between the two when minidisc
> first came out. Minidisc had the same problems as CD's just after their
> birth: crunchy highs, thinner lows. Now that the lossy compression (how
> they are able to squeeze all that info onto a little disc) for minidiscs
> is much better, minidiscs and CD's are indistinguishable to the general
> user. In fact, I recently bought my minidisc on ubid.com and it sounds
> very good. Plus, minidiscs have a little more flexibility than CD's, BUT
> if you want to take your music everywhere without dragging the minidisc
> player around with you, then I recommend that you get a CD
> recorder/burner in stead. Plus CD-R media is cheaper than minidisc media.
>
> Hope this helps.
But then he'd have to drag his CD recorder around with him ;-D
Anyway, whats wrong with buying a very cool MD personal??
JH
Arny Krueger
"James Houston" <ja...@houston73.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8l580d$817$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
I'm sure that Mr. Zipser will never try the samples posted at
http://www.pcabx.com/product/mds-jb920/index.htm because he can't
hear differences that small.
PINKNIK
is the old vinyl LP's themselves. Get a good turntable, a good record cleaner,
store them well and listen to the records when you get the hankerin'. Who are
you hoping to impress many years down the line, with your collection of rarely
played vinyl records. Free the music man! :) Besides neither MD or CD-R have
been proven to be very stable archival mediums themselves. Real archivists, so
to speak, record important materials onto 1/4" analog tape. So go buy a
Studer, a bunch of BASF or Quantegy tape, a huge climate controlled storage
facility and knock yourself out. If you just don't want to "hastle" with LP's,
get CD, MD or cassette. Ah, so many choices. Goodnight, and have a pleasant
tomorrow.
LeeHC
JH,
I have no doubt about the review by the megazine you quoted.
I do believe the major defect is the AD conversion of the soundcard of PC,
even though there is 24/96 soundcard in the market.
That's why I bought a standalone CD recorder of Pioneer which should have
same grade of AD conversion compare with MD recorder.
Lee HC
James Houston
(Although the guy was asking which recording medium would
be best...)
JH
PINKNIK <pin...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000719225317...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
> The "other" opinion would be, that the best archival medium for old vinyl
LP's
> is the old vinyl LP's themselves. Get a good turntable, a good record
cleaner,
> store them well and listen to the records when you get the hankerin'. Who
are
Andrew
to know exactly what equipment they used. If they just plugged in a
cheap generic sound card to record the analog signal, then I could see
why it might sound worse since cheap sound cards can have terrible S/N
ratios and a lot of noise. I doubt they used an outboard analog to
digital converter and then hooked it up to the S/PDIF digital input of a
high end soundcard. There is no technical reason the quality wouldn't be
better or at least equal on a PC than using a standalone recorder. Many,
many professional recording studios use hard disk recording and PCs to
mix music. Granted, the equipment the use in a PC is expensive and high
quality, but with a good soundcard I believe consumers can get very good
results. Audio quality amoung soundcards varies widely .. I'd like to
know exactly what soundcard the "hifi" magazine used. If I had to guess
it wasn't a high(er) end soundcard and probably something like a cheap
Soundblaster. Get an outboard DAC/ADC and use it with a sound card with
S/PDIF digital connections and I bet the results would be quite
different.
James Houston wrote:
> Since part of the original post was about sound quality, I find this
> very interesting. A HiFi magazine here (in the UK) did a test where
> they copied vinyl to CDR by using a computer and coverting
> the songs to *.wav files, then burned them to CDR. They then compared
> the CDR's to MD's of the same vinyl recordings and reckoned that the
> CDR copies were vastly inferior to the MD copies. So, maybe using
> yourcomputer is not the answer, tho I'm planning to make some
> vinyl complations that way!
>
> JH
--
nikolis
tapes? suddenly, we're not satisfied with MD?
nikolis
with the editing on a PC are not for everyone's taste, don't you think?
John Smith
with no access to an outboard AD converter, then perhaps you should go MD.
COdEiNe...
Andrew <REMOVEw...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:39775624...@mail.com...
Hal Nexus
Jep <firstberg.Ski...@businessweekmail.com> wrote:
> I'm looking to archive my vinyl collection on to some form of optical
> media. my choices are cd or minidisc. if somebody would be so kind,
> could you please tell me if there is a difference between the two in
> sound quality or ease of use, or whatever? my vinyl isn't getting any
> younger. most appreciated, Jep
>
Like anything else, it depends on the quality of the component.
MD has ease of use and editing hands down. One mistake with a CDR and
you throw it away and start again. CD R/W might have better editing
features. Put vinyl to CD R/W as a master then copy to CDR.
The sound difference between MD and CDR (I use both) depends upon
resolution of playback system. And the CD player you are comparing it
too. With a generic mass market receiver, you may not notice much of a
difference between an MD recording and CDR recording.
Put the best MD unit against a $600+ CD player, and $2000+ amp/preamp
and suitable speakers, and you WILL hear a difference between MD and CD.
Period.
If you go MD, get the SONY 930. Or some of the SONY ES series.
Then there is the phono turntable and phone stage preamp. If these are
cheap, MD is suitable.
And there is a difference in minidiscs themselves. Not really in audio
quality, but DROPOUTS. Maxell is the worst. TDK the best.
When you start buying stuff, you will end up with a $400 MD deck, then
you need a $200 portable, and it adds up. For that $600 you can get a
great dual CD recorder (at a discount).
I love MD, but if I were to spend the money again, it would be
recordable CD's. CD R/W to record and edit, then copy it to CDR.
Right now I am trying to obtain my favorite MD recordings from CD
replaced with CD to CD copying on my computer. That should say
something.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Arny Krueger
"Hal Nexus" <hal_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8nfnfb$iuj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <MPG.13de3a231...@news.mindspring.com>,
> Jep <firstberg.Ski...@businessweekmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm looking to archive my vinyl collection on to some form of
optical
> > media. my choices are cd or minidisc. if somebody would be so
kind,
> > could you please tell me if there is a difference between the two
in
> > sound quality or ease of use, or whatever? my vinyl isn't getting
any
> > younger. most appreciated, Jep
> >
> I have been using MD for about two years now.
> Like anything else, it depends on the quality of the component.
>
> MD has ease of use and editing hands down.
Please let us know when you "discover" PC editing.
> One mistake with a CDR and you throw it away and start again.
That would be the stand-alone variety, right?
Please let us know when you "discover" PC CD burners.
> CD R/W might have better editing features.
"might"? LOL! Hal, please let us know when you get some experience
with what you are talking about.
>Put vinyl to CD R/W as a master then copy to CDR.
Put it on a hard drive. Trim the noise off the beginning and ends of
the tracks. If necessary edit the bigger tics out. If you are so
inclined, run some denoising software. Audition your work before you
burn the CD.
> The sound difference between MD and CDR (I use both) depends upon
> resolution of playback system. And the CD player you are comparing
it
> too. With a generic mass market receiver, you may not notice much
of a
> difference between an MD recording and CDR recording.
LOL. I posted musical sample files for a DBT of one of the finer MD
recorders around at
http://www.pcabx.com/product/mds-jb920/index.htm . A number of
people have reported hearing differences in DBTs with all sorts of
mid-fi equipment including PC speakers.
> Put the best MD unit against a $600+ CD player, and $2000+
amp/preamp
> and suitable speakers, and you WILL hear a difference between MD
and CD.
Put the best MD unit against a $100+ CD player, and self-powered
speakers so bad they'd make you gag, and if your ears are good and
the program material is right you WILL hear a difference between MD
and CD.
Period.
> If you go MD, get the SONY 930. Or some of the SONY ES series.
Actually, there is some evidence that the 530 just might be more
sonically transparent. That was certainly true with the 520 versus
the 920.
Maybe the trick to hearing differences even with cheap equipment is
doing DBTs. Hal here seems to think that doing the same thing takes
expensive equipment if you don't do DBTs.
Trotsky
Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> "Hal Nexus" <hal_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8nfnfb$iuj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <MPG.13de3a231...@news.mindspring.com>,
> > Jep <firstberg.Ski...@businessweekmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm looking to archive my vinyl collection on to some form of
> optical
> > > media. my choices are cd or minidisc. if somebody would be so
> kind,
> > > could you please tell me if there is a difference between the two
> in
> > > sound quality or ease of use, or whatever? my vinyl isn't getting
> any
> > > younger. most appreciated, Jep
> > >
> > I have been using MD for about two years now.
> > Like anything else, it depends on the quality of the component.
> >
> > MD has ease of use and editing hands down.
>
> Please let us know when you "discover" PC editing.
Arnii, does "PC editing" include properly formatting one's post on the
internet? LOL!
greg pavlov
wrote:
>
>I love MD, but if I were to spend the money again, it would be
>recordable CD's. CD R/W to record and edit, then copy it to CDR.
>
That sounds like a very nice way around the
problems/hassles. Have you tried CD-to-CD
copying on one of the dual units yet ? Are
there any particular problems to watch out
for ?
Greg Pavlov
greg pavlov
<opera...@worldjazz.com> wrote:
>
>In one post he tries to sell us on the idea that "wires sound different".
>Two posts later, he's trying to sell us on the 'quality" of MD discs.
>
>Pretty wacky, Hal.
Are there no differences among MD discs ? In
my operation we have been doing a lot of daily
disk-to-tape backups for the past 15 years and
we definitely noticed differences among tapes.
While tapes are not quite the same thing, they
are quite close in the basics of recording.
Greg Pavlov
Hal Nexus
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> "Hal Nexus" <hal_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8nfnfb$iuj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Jep <firstberg.Ski...@businessweekmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm looking to archive my vinyl collection on to some form of
> optical
> > > media. my choices are cd or minidisc. if somebody would be so
> kind,
> > > could you please tell me if there is a difference between the two
> in
> > > sound quality or ease of use, or whatever? my vinyl isn't getting
> any
> > > younger. most appreciated, Jep
> > >
> > I have been using MD for about two years now.
> > Like anything else, it depends on the quality of the component.
> >
> > MD has ease of use and editing hands down.
>
>
>
>
>
> > CD R/W might have better editing features.
>
> with what you are talking about.
>
>
> the tracks. If necessary edit the bigger tics out. If you are so
> inclined, run some denoising software. Audition your work before you
> burn the CD.
>
> > resolution of playback system. And the CD player you are comparing
> it
> > too. With a generic mass market receiver, you may not notice much
> of a
> > difference between an MD recording and CDR recording.
>
> recorders around at
> http://www.pcabx.com/product/mds-jb920/index.htm . A number of
> people have reported hearing differences in DBTs with all sorts of
> mid-fi equipment including PC speakers.
>
> amp/preamp
> > and suitable speakers, and you WILL hear a difference between MD
> and CD.
>
> speakers so bad they'd make you gag, and if your ears are good and
> and CD.
>
> Period.
>
> > If you go MD, get the SONY 930. Or some of the SONY ES series.
>
> sonically transparent. That was certainly true with the 520 versus
> the 920.
>
> Maybe the trick to hearing differences even with cheap equipment is
> doing DBTs. Hal here seems to think that doing the same thing takes
> expensive equipment if you don't do DBTs.
>
I don't use software massaging on the CD tracks much except for
removing loud clicks with one pass of the click remover, otherwise,
there is sound degradation.
As usual, Arny demonstrates total lack of knowledge on MD.
As usual, Arsy's post is useless and drivel.
Hal Nexus
greg pavlov <pav...@fstrf.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 03:51:30 GMT, Hal Nexus <hal_...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >recordable CD's. CD R/W to record and edit, then copy it to CDR.
> >
>
> problems/hassles. Have you tried CD-to-CD
> copying on one of the dual units yet ? Are
> there any particular problems to watch out
> for ?
>
> Greg Pavlov
>
I record CD's on my PC. I have various freeware programs to
do a few different things with the music. The only music I use these
programs on are from vinyl. Mostly just to remove pops with one pass
of the pop remover, as more than one pass audibly degrades the sound.
I don't have a stand alone CD audio unit. Wish I had. I spent my
bucks on MD. I have read about a Marantz double deck that ignores SCMS
copyguard. I would like that one. I hear Harmon-Kardon has one that
is similar. I think one of these double decks connected to the amp or
preamp that has the phono stage would be best....better than messing
with a PC and it's soundcard.
My PC does great CD to CD transfers. But the Adaptec software stinks.
It is not reliable (PC locks up) when doing CD to CD direct between the
two CD units on my PC. I select the option to buffer to the hard drive
(not to wav files) and that works fine.
Ripping selected tracks off CD to wav files then burning the lot to CDR
works fine and sounds ok. I have a "test disc" of various music I take
with me to audition audio stuff now, to reduce the number of discs I
carry around for that. It gets the job done. Whenever I make a change
to my system I just play that disc for a reference. Don't use DBT, as
it is not really for the "real world".
Arny Krueger
> Yes Arny, I have been using PC based CD burners for a while.
So why all this whining about coasters?
> I don't use software massaging on the CD tracks much except for
> removing loud clicks with one pass of the click remover, otherwise,
> there is sound degradation.
I usually do it all manually.
> As usual, Arny demonstrates total lack of knowledge on MD.
Total lack of knowlege, eh? Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
> As usual, Arsy's post is useless and drivel.
...because it pointed out the inconsistencies and omissions of the
*perfect* post from Mr. Nexus...
Interesting how Mr. Nexus suddenly became a PC expert when his first
post was challenged. ;-)
Arny Krueger
> I record CD's on my PC. I have various freeware programs to
> do a few different things with the music.
I guess that might explain the sound quality losses you were
complaining about.
>The only music I use these programs on are from vinyl. Mostly just
to remove pops with one pass
> of the pop remover, as more than one pass audibly degrades the
sound.
Virtually all the sound-related software I use cost me money. Why?
That is what it took to get the features and performance I demanded.
> I don't have a stand alone CD audio unit. Wish I had.
Actually having one might cure you of that.
>I spent my bucks on MD.
No problem. I spent some bucks on MD, too. But not so much I had to
compromise anything else.
>I have read about a Marantz double deck that ignores SCMS
> copyguard. I would like that one.
Any stand-alone CD recorder that is for "professional" use will do
that. Many people make them, not just Marantz (Philips).
>I hear Harmon-Kardon has one that
> is similar. I think one of these double decks connected to the amp
or
> preamp that has the phono stage would be best....better than
messing
> with a PC and it's soundcard.
If one lacks the necessary resources, to "mess with a PC" "right"
which you subsequently admit is the case, then I can see the logic to
that.
> My PC does great CD to CD transfers. But the Adaptec software
stinks.
> It is not reliable (PC locks up) when doing CD to CD direct between
the
> two CD units on my PC.
I've installed EZ-CD on dozens of PCs. One standard test is doing a
disc-disc copy of both audio and data CD's. The name does not go on
until the quality goes in. In this case I define "quality" as being
not only perfectly reliable operation (i.e., no lockups) but also
bit-perfect copying on a variety of brands of recordable media using
a variety of audio and data CDs.
>I select the option to buffer to the hard drive (not to wav files)
and that works fine.
Sounds like something is out-of-kilter in the hardware department
because I know for sure that the software works.
> Ripping selected tracks off CD to wav files then burning the lot to
CDR
> works fine and sounds ok. I have a "test disc" of various music I
take
> with me to audition audio stuff now, to reduce the number of discs
I
> carry around for that. It gets the job done. Whenever I make a
change
> to my system I just play that disc for a reference.
OK.
>Don't use DBT, as it is not really for the "real world".
Well let's paraphrase that: For people who are sufficiently
disinterested in actual sound quality or too incompetent to get it
together to download some files and install a simple program, then
DBT's can't be part of their "real world", isolated as they force
themselves to be.
James Houston
> My PC does great CD to CD transfers. But the Adaptec software stinks.
> It is not reliable (PC locks up) when doing CD to CD direct between the
> two CD units on my PC. I select the option to buffer to the hard drive
> (not to wav files) and that works fine.
>
If you're using Adaptec, try unchecking the DMA box
in your CD ReWriter and CD-ROM prior to
recording. This should prevent your PC locking up...
JH
Hal Nexus
Your posts are no challenge, Arsy, just putting up with your lies and
drivel is. We all know your sole purpose ranting is to get attention.
That would be ok, usually, but you and Fester are malevolent. You
attempt to influence others who should learn for themselves. You
attempt to impress your limited abilities and viewpoints on others, to a
nasty degree. But, thank goodness, anyone on the group for a while
knows you two.
Hal Nexus
> stinks.
> > It is not reliable (PC locks up) when doing CD to CD direct between
> the
> > two CD units on my PC.
>
> disc-disc copy of both audio and data CD's. The name does not go on
> until the quality goes in. In this case I define "quality" as being
> not only perfectly reliable operation (i.e., no lockups) but also
> bit-perfect copying on a variety of brands of recordable media using
> a variety of audio and data CDs.
>
> and that works fine.
>
> because I know for sure that the software works.
>
> > Ripping selected tracks off CD to wav files then burning the lot to
> CDR
> > works fine and sounds ok. I have a "test disc" of various music I
> take
> > with me to audition audio stuff now, to reduce the number of discs
> I
> > carry around for that. It gets the job done. Whenever I make a
> change
> > to my system I just play that disc for a reference.
>
> OK.
>
> >Don't use DBT, as it is not really for the "real world".
>
> Well let's paraphrase that: For people who are sufficiently
> disinterested in actual sound quality or too incompetent to get it
> together to download some files and install a simple program, then
> DBT's can't be part of their "real world", isolated as they force
> themselves to be.
>
>
apparently. Your viewpoint can't stand another person having a
different opinion. That makes you the isolated one, as high end sales
prove. Be superman. Go to every audio shop, or mass market shop that
sells anything audio. NOW TELL ME HOW MANY DO DBT TESTS. That is your
real world, Arsy, and you can't stand it. You grasp upon the DBT as a
way to justify your viewpoints, and degrade other viewpoints. That is
a sad injustice to a valid (but impractical) test mechanism.
The DBT is not a fact to you, just a weapon and crutch.
You are a technical cripple.
Hal Nexus
Found the DMA box. Will try that next time I do a CD to CD copy. I
have not bothered to troubleshoot the problem. I just avoid it.
I could also be because both CD drives use the same IDE controller.
One master, one slave.
Arny Krueger
> In article <pLZm5.2385$QW4....@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com>,
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
> >
> > "Hal Nexus" <hal_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8nhlvp$rrf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > > Yes Arny, I have been using PC based CD burners for a while.
> >
> > So why all this whining about coasters?
> >
> > > I don't use software massaging on the CD tracks much except for
> > > removing loud clicks with one pass of the click remover,
otherwise,
> > > there is sound degradation.
> >
> > I usually do it all manually.
> >
> > > As usual, Arny demonstrates total lack of knowledge on MD.
> >
> > Total lack of knowlege, eh? Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
> >
> > > As usual, Arsy's post is useless and drivel.
> >
> > ...because it pointed out the inconsistencies and omissions of
the
> > *perfect* post from Mr. Nexus...
> >
> > Interesting how Mr. Nexus suddenly became a PC expert when his
first
> > post was challenged. ;-)
> >
> No, I became a PC expert when working in PCLAND with IBM in Boca
Raton.
If you are such a freakin' expert why does your personal PC system
lock up doing simple things?
> Your posts are no challenge, Arsy, just putting up with your lies
and
> drivel is.
Mr. Nexus, you've already told too much truth to fool us.
>We all know your sole purpose ranting is to get attention.
No, its to have fun! I love deflating stuffed shirts like you.
However, in this case I had very little fun because you deflated
yourself quite nicely right before my very eyes. All I have to do is
point out to you what form your self-deflation took.
> That would be ok, usually, but you and Fester are malevolent.
I don't speak for Mr. Ferstler, and I don't condone everything he
does. I've repeatedly pointed out my reservations with what he does
directly with Mr. Ferstler, and I suggest that you do the same.
> You attempt to influence others who should learn for themselves.
Mr. Nexus, you don't seem to understand that I am the owner, operator
and creator of the one audio publication in the world of
publications that best enables people to learn for themselves, just
by listening. My www.pcabx.com web site is extremely unique. It does
more to enable people to learn for themselves just by just listening,
than any other known publication web or paper.
In fact, a common criticism of www.pcabx.com is that I leave too many
things up to the listeners and don't tell people what to expect to
hear. However, I don't want to precondition people's experiences too
much.
> You attempt to impress your limited abilities and viewpoints on
others, to a
> nasty degree. But, thank goodness, anyone on the group for a while
> knows you two.
As even my critics point out, one important difference between Mr.
Ferstler and I is that I actually do stuff with audio products and do
it all the time. I admit that my abilities are "limited", but aren't
everybody's?
Mr. Nexus your limits seem to be pretty basic.
Mr. Nexus, while you've been struggling to make MD work at all, I've
already done some of the best technical tests of MD equipment around
and posted them at www.pcavtech.com . Arny they any good? Please see
http://www.stereophile.com/shownews.cgi?322 .
Then I made and posted what AFAIK are the only independent MD
listening tests involving critical program materal in the world, at
www.pcabx.com .
Mr. Nexus you've admitted that you can't even build a PC that does
disc-disc CD-R copies without locking up. How pathetic for someone
who claims to be a "PC Expert".
Why don't you admit it Mr. Nexus, the gang that can't shoot straight
can take lessons in not shooting straight from you!
I would not bring any of this up, except for the fact that you've
been so rude, nasty and insulting, Mr. Nexus.
Arny Krueger
> In article <ATZm5.2386$QW4....@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com>,
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
> >
> > "Hal Nexus" <hal_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8nhmhe$sgp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > >Don't use DBT, as it is not really for the "real world".
> > Well let's paraphrase that: For people who are sufficiently
> > disinterested in actual sound quality or too incompetent to get
it
> > together to download some files and install a simple program,
then
> > DBT's can't be part of their "real world", isolated as they force
> > themselves to be.
> Not at all.
Prove it!
> My viewpoint is different than yours.
No problem.
>And my hearing, apparently.
No proof.
> Your viewpoint can't stand another person having a different
opinion.
No proof.
> That makes you the isolated one, as high end sales prove.
Who says that I'm trying to depress the sales of high end equipment?
Certainly not me!
> Be superman.
Not my job.
>Go to every audio shop, or mass market shop that sells anything
audio.
An obvious waste of time.
> NOW TELL ME HOW MANY DO DBT TESTS.
I get it, Mr. Nexus. You, like Mr. Middius live to crawl though high
fi shops. You think that is where the best sound and listening tests
are performed. LOL!
> That is your real world, Arsy, and you can't stand it.
Audio shops are my world? LOL!
> You grasp upon the DBT as a way to justify your viewpoints, and
degrade other viewpoints.
No, DBTs are merely a means for gathering certain kinds of
information. I'd do it some other way, but I know of nothing better.
> That is a sad injustice to a valid (but impractical) test
mechanism.
I think you've got me confused with someone else.
> The DBT is not a fact to you, just a weapon and crutch.
Hardly. DBT is not a means to justify my viewpoints. In the area
where my viewpoints relate to the results of DBTs, the viewpoints are
based (and this is a historical fact) on the outcomes of DBTs.
Mr. Nexus, you wrong-headed zealot, you've got the cart before the
horse.
I did not start doing DBTs and co-invent the ABX procedure to justify
my current viewpoint. I did all that to justify some other viewpoint
which is about the exact opposite of what my viewpoint is now.
DBT's produced what I believe to be overwhelmingly convincing
evidence that forced me to make a 180 degree turn.
If DBT's support some other viewpoint than the one I hold, then I
switch my viewpoint in that regard.
In fact, this happened just over a week ago.
Mr. Nexus, you probably don't know this but I have been very
skeptical about stereo bass.
Last week in the midst of a discussion with Mr. Ferstler, Mr. Johnson
suggested a listening test. You can find this listening test posted
at my web site: http://www.pcabx.com/technical/stereo_bass/index.htm
. Please notice the date at the bottom of the page: It is 8/10/2000,
one week and one day ago.
This test produced for me the exact outcome that Mr. Johnson
predicted, which I found to be highly convincing. I changed my
viewpoint on the issue.
It is as simple as that.
> You are a technical cripple.
If I am a technical cripple then Mr. Nexus you have already proven
yourself to be a technical hexapalegic. I'll leave it to your
imagination to determine what the other two missing appendages are.
Here is a friendly tip: One obviously relates to where most people
keep their brains.
Arny Krueger
> In article <8nhs9c$vp$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Found the DMA box. Will try that next time I do a CD to CD copy.
Next year sometime, right?
> I have not bothered to troubleshoot the problem.
I would think that a "PC Expert" would get right on the problem.
>I just avoid it.
Sounds like you are more like a "PC avoider".
> I could also be because both CD drives use the same IDE controller.
LOL. This works all the time for most of us.
> One master, one slave.
Are you suggsting that both should or could be Master or Slave? LOL!
BTW, the correct order Mr. PC Expert is usually: Reader: Master,
Writer: Slave.
James Houston
> BTW, the correct order Mr. PC Expert is usually: Reader: Master,
> Writer: Slave.
>
Really?
My CD ReWriter (a Yamaha) recommends making it the master...
JH
James Houston
> Found the DMA box. Will try that next time I do a CD to CD copy. I
> have not bothered to troubleshoot the problem. I just avoid it.
> It could also be because both CD drives use the same IDE controller.
> One master, one slave.
>
No, I found it made no difference whether they were on the
same IDE channel or not, they still tended to hang. Although,
my CD ReWriter (a Yamaha) manual recommends making it the
master on an IDE channel on its own.
Fine if you only have one Hard Drive :-)
JH
Arny Krueger
> >
> > BTW, the correct order Mr. PC Expert is usually: Reader: Master,
Writer: Slave.
> Really?
Really.
> My CD ReWriter (a Yamaha) recommends making it the master...
OK, that can work too.
If everything is going well it won't matter as long as the drives get
recognized properly.
The usual rule is to make the CD reader the master because getting
data out of the CD reader can be trickier than getting data into the
burner. The burner generally has no problems taking in and buffering
data. However if the CD being copied causes retries or other kinds of
slow downs, then the reader can require more attention from the PC.
Getting data into the system on time is very critical because the
writer has to receive the data on time or else there are data under
runs.
Hal Nexus
> > In article <pLZm5.2385$QW4....@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com>,
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Hal Nexus" <hal_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8nhlvp$rrf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > >
> > > > Yes Arny, I have been using PC based CD burners for a while.
> > >
> > > So why all this whining about coasters?
> > >
> > > > I don't use software massaging on the CD tracks much except for
> > > > removing loud clicks with one pass of the click remover,
> otherwise,
> > > > there is sound degradation.
> > >
> > > I usually do it all manually.
> > >
> > > > As usual, Arny demonstrates total lack of knowledge on MD.
> > >
> > > Total lack of knowlege, eh? Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
> > >
> > > > As usual, Arsy's post is useless and drivel.
> > >
> > > ...because it pointed out the inconsistencies and omissions of
> the
> > > *perfect* post from Mr. Nexus...
> > >
> > > Interesting how Mr. Nexus suddenly became a PC expert when his
> first
> > > post was challenged. ;-)
> > >
> > No, I became a PC expert when working in PCLAND with IBM in Boca
> Raton.
>
> lock up doing simple things?
>
> and
> > drivel is.
>
>
>
> However, in this case I had very little fun because you deflated
> yourself quite nicely right before my very eyes. All I have to do is
> point out to you what form your self-deflation took.
>
>
> does. I've repeatedly pointed out my reservations with what he does
> directly with Mr. Ferstler, and I suggest that you do the same.
>
>
> and creator of the one audio publication in the world of
> publications that best enables people to learn for themselves, just
> by listening. My www.pcabx.com web site is extremely unique. It does
> more to enable people to learn for themselves just by just listening,
> than any other known publication web or paper.
>
> In fact, a common criticism of www.pcabx.com is that I leave too many
> things up to the listeners and don't tell people what to expect to
> hear. However, I don't want to precondition people's experiences too
> much.
>
> others, to a
> > nasty degree. But, thank goodness, anyone on the group for a while
> > knows you two.
>
> Ferstler and I is that I actually do stuff with audio products and do
> it all the time. I admit that my abilities are "limited", but aren't
> everybody's?
>
> Mr. Nexus your limits seem to be pretty basic.
>
> Mr. Nexus, while you've been struggling to make MD work at all, I've
> already done some of the best technical tests of MD equipment around
> and posted them at www.pcavtech.com . Arny they any good? Please see
> http://www.stereophile.com/shownews.cgi?322 .
>
> Then I made and posted what AFAIK are the only independent MD
> listening tests involving critical program materal in the world, at
> www.pcabx.com .
>
> Mr. Nexus you've admitted that you can't even build a PC that does
> disc-disc CD-R copies without locking up. How pathetic for someone
> who claims to be a "PC Expert".
>
PC????? Or designed it????? My stuff worked. You spout your usual
misinformation, lies, and twists. You are in now way any sort of
PC or audio expert. You are a child craving attention. You are a
waste of time.
> Why don't you admit it Mr. Nexus, the gang that can't shoot straight
> can take lessons in not shooting straight from you!
Lies and misinformation is not shooting straight, Mr. Kruger.
You could not hit the broad side of a monoblock.
>
> I would not bring any of this up, except for the fact that you've
> been so rude, nasty and insulting, Mr. Nexus.
Just as you are. Your posts prove it. You constantly bring things up,
insult, go off topic, troll, and misinform. You are a bane to the
audio world.
Hal Nexus
> > In article <ATZm5.2386$QW4....@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com>,
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Hal Nexus" <hal_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8nhmhe$sgp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> > > Well let's paraphrase that: For people who are sufficiently
> > > disinterested in actual sound quality or too incompetent to get
> it
> > > together to download some files and install a simple program,
> then
> > > DBT's can't be part of their "real world", isolated as they force
> > > themselves to be.
>
> > Not at all.
>
>
> > My viewpoint is different than yours.
>
>
> >And my hearing, apparently.
>
> No proof.
>
> opinion.
>
>
> > That makes you the isolated one, as high end sales prove.
>
> Certainly not me!
>
> > Be superman.
>
> Not my job.
>
> audio.
>
>
>
> fi shops. You think that is where the best sound and listening tests
> are performed. LOL!
>
>
>
> degrade other viewpoints.
>
> information. I'd do it some other way, but I know of nothing better.
>
> mechanism.
>
>
>
> where my viewpoints relate to the results of DBTs, the viewpoints are
> based (and this is a historical fact) on the outcomes of DBTs.
>
> Mr. Nexus, you wrong-headed zealot, you've got the cart before the
> horse.
>
> I did not start doing DBTs and co-invent the ABX procedure to justify
> my current viewpoint. I did all that to justify some other viewpoint
> which is about the exact opposite of what my viewpoint is now.
>
> DBT's produced what I believe to be overwhelmingly convincing
> evidence that forced me to make a 180 degree turn.
>
> If DBT's support some other viewpoint than the one I hold, then I
> switch my viewpoint in that regard.
>
> In fact, this happened just over a week ago.
>
> Mr. Nexus, you probably don't know this but I have been very
> skeptical about stereo bass.
>
> Last week in the midst of a discussion with Mr. Ferstler, Mr. Johnson
> suggested a listening test. You can find this listening test posted
> at my web site: http://www.pcabx.com/technical/stereo_bass/index.htm
> . Please notice the date at the bottom of the page: It is 8/10/2000,
> one week and one day ago.
>
> This test produced for me the exact outcome that Mr. Johnson
> predicted, which I found to be highly convincing. I changed my
> viewpoint on the issue.
>
> It is as simple as that.
>
>
> yourself to be a technical hexapalegic. I'll leave it to your
> imagination to determine what the other two missing appendages are.
> Here is a friendly tip: One obviously relates to where most people
> keep their brains.
>
You spount more lies and drivel to evade the facts. How many retailers
provide DBT facilities????? You are again, insulting and off topic.
You are a waste of time.
>
Hal Nexus
true knowledge of on what he posts.
I doubt if there is a true audio diffence between MD disks, except for
perhaps the audible results of error correction. The obvious
difference between minidiscs is dropout rate. This will vary in
duration with the deck itself. For instance, a Sony 320 may give a
full second of no sound with a dropout on the disc, while a 920 just a
momemtary lapse in sound. My experience with Maxell brand is that
about 40% of my Maxells have dropouts. 0% dropouts with TDK. Almost
none with Memorex, and just a few on Sony "color" disks. Sony "black"
discs are as bad as Maxell.
I have settled on using just TDK, and when these are sold out, Memorex.
greg pavlov
wrote:
>>
>Don't waste your time on Brian. He is a known deviant. With no
>true knowledge of on what he posts.
There is very little difference between Brian and
a host of others on rao, including some of his
most vociferous critics.
greg.
MDF
wrote:
>Please let us know when you "discover" PC CD burners.
Try editing or moving tracks AFTER you've done a recording on CD-R or
CD-RW. You are comparing different things. With MD you can always
fix mistakes later. The biggest advantage of CD burning IMO is speed,
but that only applies when you're ripping directly from a source CD.
The process of converting vinyl to WAV files and then burning them to
a CD is cumbersome in many ways.
>Put it on a hard drive. Trim the noise off the beginning and ends of
>the tracks. If necessary edit the bigger tics out. If you are so
>inclined, run some denoising software. Audition your work before you
>burn the CD.
Almost all of that can be done after you've recorded to MD from vinyl,
and you can often notice more defects after listening to tracks for
awhile. With CDs you have to get it right the first time.
>Put the best MD unit against a $100+ CD player, and self-powered
>speakers so bad they'd make you gag, and if your ears are good and
>the program material is right you WILL hear a difference between MD
>and CD.
>
>Period.
This coming from someone whose own ABX tests found no perceptible
difference between ATRAC and the source? There's something fishy in
your comments these days.
>> If you go MD, get the SONY 930. Or some of the SONY ES series.
>Actually, there is some evidence that the 530 just might be more
>sonically transparent. That was certainly true with the 520 versus
>the 920.
Where do you come up with that? The JB-930 (which I own) uses ATRAC
Type-R and is a more refined unit than the 530. Its analog section
(for vinyl) certainly isn't worse, and digital recordings should sound
as good or better with the newer ATRAC version.
MDF
MDF
wrote:
>Put the best MD unit against a $600+ CD player, and $2000+ amp/preamp
>and suitable speakers, and you WILL hear a difference between MD and CD.
>Period.
Using the same DAC? I question any statement where "period" is
emphasized like that. Blind tests are the only way to really know.
>And there is a difference in minidiscs themselves. Not really in audio
>quality, but DROPOUTS. Maxell is the worst. TDK the best.
Another blanket statement.
>I love MD, but if I were to spend the money again, it would be
>recordable CD's. CD R/W to record and edit, then copy it to CDR.
I doubt you'd really hear any difference in a blind test, and MD has a
lot more flexibility after the recording is made.
MDF
MDF
wrote:
>I don't have a stand alone CD audio unit. Wish I had. I spent my
>bucks on MD.
What exactly (besides real or imagined sonic differences) is the root
of your dissatisfaction with MD? What do you play on the road? I
find CDs too awkward and scratch-prone in a car stereo.
MDF
MDF
<opera...@worldjazz.com> wrote:
>In one post he tries to sell us on the idea that "wires sound different".
>Two posts later, he's trying to sell us on the 'quality" of MD discs.
Are you still farting in the wind about MD? Notice that it has
settled into a solid niche market in the U.S., as people who use it
and understand it predicted long ago.
MDF
MDF
wrote:
> Are there no differences among MD discs ? In
> my operation we have been doing a lot of daily
> disk-to-tape backups for the past 15 years and
> we definitely noticed differences among tapes.
> While tapes are not quite the same thing, they
> are quite close in the basics of recording.
Digital zeros and ones are "quite close" to analog tape? Or are you
talking about dropouts in certain MD off-brands?
MDF
MDF
wrote:
>My experience with Maxell brand is that
>about 40% of my Maxells have dropouts. 0% dropouts with TDK. Almost
>none with Memorex, and just a few on Sony "color" disks. Sony "black"
>discs are as bad as Maxell.
I've had very good luck with Sony, Maxell and JVC discs. Perhaps you
got a bad lot or two. Some of the discs are made by the same factory
and marketed in different shells, so I'd be careful about broad
statements.
MDF
Hal Nexus
I have about 50 Maxell CD's. Half of them easily have dropouts.
The Memorex and TDK and most of the Sony's do NOT have dropouts.
The old adage that "they are all made is the same factory is rubbish.
The fact that TWO brands are perfect, and one brand has a high error
rate speaks for itself.
Hal Nexus
Hal Nexus
md_...@usa.net wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 09:57:50 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Please let us know when you "discover" PC CD burners.
>
> Try editing or moving tracks AFTER you've done a recording on CD-R or
> CD-RW. You are comparing different things. With MD you can always
> fix mistakes later. The biggest advantage of CD burning IMO is speed,
> but that only applies when you're ripping directly from a source CD.
> The process of converting vinyl to WAV files and then burning them to
> a CD is cumbersome in many ways.
>
> >Put it on a hard drive. Trim the noise off the beginning and ends of
> >the tracks. If necessary edit the bigger tics out. If you are so
> >inclined, run some denoising software. Audition your work before you
> >burn the CD.
>
> Almost all of that can be done after you've recorded to MD from vinyl,
> and you can often notice more defects after listening to tracks for
> awhile. With CDs you have to get it right the first time.
>
> >Put the best MD unit against a $100+ CD player, and self-powered
> >speakers so bad they'd make you gag, and if your ears are good and
> >and CD.
> >
> >Period.
>
> This coming from someone whose own ABX tests found no perceptible
> difference between ATRAC and the source? There's something fishy in
> your comments these days.
>
> >> If you go MD, get the SONY 930. Or some of the SONY ES series.
>
> >Actually, there is some evidence that the 530 just might be more
> >sonically transparent. That was certainly true with the 520 versus
> >the 920.
>
> Where do you come up with that? The JB-930 (which I own) uses ATRAC
> Type-R and is a more refined unit than the 530. Its analog section
> (for vinyl) certainly isn't worse, and digital recordings should sound
> as good or better with the newer ATRAC version.
>
> MDF
>
Agreed, MDF, Arny does not have a clue when it comes to minidisc.
Hal Nexus
md_...@usa.net wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 03:51:30 GMT, Hal Nexus <hal_...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Put the best MD unit against a $600+ CD player, and $2000+ amp/preamp
CD.
> >Period.
>
> Using the same DAC? I question any statement where "period" is
> emphasized like that. Blind tests are the only way to really know.
Not at all. I am not a fan of blind test.
>
> >And there is a difference in minidiscs themselves. Not really in
audio
> >quality, but DROPOUTS. Maxell is the worst. TDK the best.
>
> Another blanket statement.
A TRUE statement. One apparently you don't like. Live with the facts.
>
> >I love MD, but if I were to spend the money again, it would be
> >recordable CD's. CD R/W to record and edit, then copy it to CDR.
>
> I doubt you'd really hear any difference in a blind test, and MD has a
> lot more flexibility after the recording is made.
>
> MDF
Hearing a difference would depend on system equipment. With my old
system, there seemed to be little, or no difference between a CD or
it's MD copy. There was a difference between vinyl and MD copy, mainly
in the low end. My new system is another story. The is a slight
difference is sound. Also, in listening to favorites (copies of CD's),
sometimes low level detail music items disappear...the magic of
throwing things away with ATRAC. Live with it.
greg pavlov
>
>Digital zeros and ones are "quite close" to analog tape? Or are you
>talking about dropouts in certain MD off-brands?
>
The recording media are very similar in
principle (as compared to CDs and records).
greg pavlov
[not affiliated with DFCI or Harvard]
**************************************************************************
For the definitive intro guide to rao, see:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/
**************************************************************************
James Houston
MDF <md_...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:j2ahqscap8vugpk1v...@4ax.com...
> Are you still farting in the wind about MD? Notice that it has
> settled into a solid niche market in the U.S., as people who use it
> and understand it predicted long ago.
>
> MDF
Well, here in the UK, it has been fairly successful, certainly
I'd imagine, more so here than in the US...
JH
greg pavlov
>
>....The biggest advantage of CD burning IMO is speed,
>but that only applies when you're ripping directly from a source CD.
\
For most of us, I believe, the biggest advantage of burning
CDs would be that we could then play them on the equipment
we already have scattered about in our houses, cars, offices,
etc.
Greg Pavlov
greg pavlov
>....I
>find CDs too awkward and scratch-prone in a car stereo.
>
I don't. I find them to work just fine.
Greg Pavlov.
Hal Nexus
player portable, sometimes with expensive dedicated batteries.
And buying a MD car unit is just too expensive for what they are.
And you can't lend MD's to friends who don't have one.
In article <djnjqs8cad6gruvml...@4ax.com>,
Hal Nexus
protection for a number of years. Only ONE got any kind of scratch,
and that was minor and did not skip.
MD's have a finite life, because they have a mechanical shutter
system. Sooner or later, that will give out.
James Houston
Brian L. McCarty <opera...@worldjazz.com> wrote in message
news:B5CFA60D.39BBC%opera...@worldjazz.com...
>
> Not much of a "feature", given that the files are grossly degraded by
> putting them on MD.
Simply not true...
> >
> > Almost all of that can be done after you've recorded to MD from vinyl,
> > and you can often notice more defects after listening to tracks for
> > awhile.
>
> Since the guy was asking about "archiving" important LP's, MD is a poor
> choice. LP's should be archived to the best available format, not this
> degraded MD nonsense.
>
Now, this is just groundless, opinionated tosh...
JH
James Houston
> Absolutely. With MD, you must shell out for a special, expensive
> player portable, sometimes with expensive dedicated batteries.
They're not that expensive anymore, at least, they
aren't here in the UK...
> And buying a MD car unit is just too expensive for what they are.
Not really, since they have anti-skipping features
which would be useful in-car...
> And you can't lend MD's to friends who don't have one.
>
Well, that's *their* problem really, innit?
JH
MDF
wrote:
>I am careful of broad statements. You be careful yourself.
>I have about 50 Maxell CD's. Half of them easily have dropouts.
>The Memorex and TDK and most of the Sony's do NOT have dropouts.
>The old adage that "they are all made is the same factory is rubbish.
>The fact that TWO brands are perfect, and one brand has a high error
>rate speaks for itself.
Did these dropouts occur over time or did you notice them on the first
playback?
MDF
MDF
<ja...@houston73.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> Since the guy was asking about "archiving" important LP's, MD is a poor
>> choice. LP's should be archived to the best available format, not this
>> degraded MD nonsense.
>>
>
>Now, this is just groundless, opinionated tosh...
The man is mentally ill. I can see no other explanation for such
ignorant repetition.
MDF
MDF
wrote:
>> >Put the best MD unit against a $600+ CD player, and $2000+ amp/preamp
>> >and suitable speakers, and you WILL hear a difference between MD and
>CD.
>> >Period.
>>
>> Using the same DAC? I question any statement where "period" is
>> emphasized like that. Blind tests are the only way to really know.
>
>Not at all. I am not a fan of blind test.
That says volumes about your objectivity! Anyone who refuses to take
a blind test raises big questions about their motives. It's also
strange coming from someone who seems to have liked MD at one point.
>Hearing a difference would depend on system equipment. With my old
>system, there seemed to be little, or no difference between a CD or
>it's MD copy. There was a difference between vinyl and MD copy, mainly
>in the low end. My new system is another story. The is a slight
>difference is sound. Also, in listening to favorites (copies of CD's),
>sometimes low level detail music items disappear...the magic of
>throwing things away with ATRAC. Live with it.
If you can give me some specific examples, please post them. I made a
post awhile back to alt.audio.minidisc detailing the one and only
significant ATRAC artifact I've heard. It was a slight "scattering"
of hiss in a song intro (search deja.com for "md artifact jung" ).
Said song had some sort of weird artificial hiss and it was a big
fluke in my experience. It was only audible with headphones too.
I maintain that a decent pair of headphones on a mid-range system can
tell you more about sound quality than the most expensive rig with
just speakers. When the soundstage is inside your head it's a lot
easier to pick out subtleties. The exception might be super-low
"felt" bass.
MDF
MDF
wrote:
>>Digital zeros and ones are "quite close" to analog tape? Or are you
>>talking about dropouts in certain MD off-brands?
>>
>
> The recording media are very similar in
> principle (as compared to CDs and records).
Uh.....OK.
MDF
MDF
wrote:
>Agreed, MDF, Arny does not have a clue when it comes to minidisc.
Kruger probably just doesn't have a need for them and is indifferent.
MDF
MDF
<opera...@worldjazz.com> wrote:
>> With MD you can always
>> fix mistakes later.
>
>Not much of a "feature", given that the files are grossly degraded by
>putting them on MD.
Golly, I've never seen you post that lie before. After all this time
are you still going to refer to vague AES tests, and refuse to give
specifics when pressed? I hesitate to get into this time-wasting
nonsense again.
>Since the guy was asking about "archiving" important LP's, MD is a poor
>choice. LP's should be archived to the best available format, not this
>degraded MD nonsense.
See above.
MDF
MDF
wrote:
>Absolutely. With MD, you must shell out for a special, expensive
>player portable, sometimes with expensive dedicated batteries.
>And buying a MD car unit is just too expensive for what they are.
>And you can't lend MD's to friends who don't have one.
You can now get several portables for under $100 (US) and car decks
have broken the $300 mark. If you truly understand and appreciate
what MD can do, the price is more than worth it. If you find the cost
exorbitant you obviously don't have enough of a use for the format.
MDF
MDF
It's hard to tell how it's really doing in the U.S. but it's selling
well enough so that prices of blanks at Tower Records have dropped
dramatically (down to $2 per disc on sale recently).
I think a fair number of college students, musicians, DJs, home
recording enthusiasts and pragmatic car stereo owners are keeping it
healthy. I think it's the next best thing to solid state for
portables or car stereos.
MDF
MDF
wrote:
>>find CDs too awkward and scratch-prone in a car stereo.
>>
>
> I don't. I find them to work just fine.
I just don't think unjacketed discs go well with narrow car-stereo
slots. CDs were designed for tray mechanisms originally. If you're
on any sort of bumpy road it's tricky to insert a CD without brushing
or scratching the disc surface. When I'm trying to pay attention to
driving I don't want to do finger gymnastics. And that's just ONE
good thing about MD.
MDF
MDF
wrote:
>I had a 12 CD changer in the trunk, mounted on the FLOOR, with no shock
>protection for a number of years. Only ONE got any kind of scratch,
>and that was minor and did not skip.
Can you say the same for the discs put in the CD slot, especially on a
less that mirror-smooth road? Some of the most scratched CDs got that
way in cars.
>MD's have a finite life, because they have a mechanical shutter
>system. Sooner or later, that will give out.
I've never heard that argument before. The shutter is not
spring-loaded, so there's no fatigue in that area. Replacing a
shutter also doesn't look difficult, if it ever came to that.
MDF
SdW
>>Not at all. I am not a fan of blind test.
>That says volumes about your objectivity! Anyone who refuses to take
>a blind test raises big questions about their motives.
FYI, Brian McCarty is a strong proponent of blind tests.
--
SdW- "Garbage in, garbage out. And blurping inbetween."
Steve Zipser
says...
> MDF <md_...@usa.net> said:
>
> >>Not at all. I am not a fan of blind test.
>
> >That says volumes about your objectivity! Anyone who refuses to take
> >a blind test raises big questions about their motives.
>
> FYI, Brian McCarty is a strong proponent of blind tests.
Did Brian blind test Bose and Genelec when he put GENELEC into his
studio? Did he A/B BUMBOY Buttburgers as the sponsor of his phony
studio?
Wanderer
Brian L. McCarty <opera...@worldjazz.com> wrote in message
news:B5D82759.3B4C7%opera...@worldjazz.com...
> in article tgt0rscm0a26s8kft...@4ax.com, MDF at
md_...@usa.net
> wrote on 2/9/00 14:20:
>
> > It's hard to tell how it's really doing in the U.S.
>
> No it isn't. It's a dead letter. Four attempts by Sony to "launch" this
> format have been totally useless.
>
> > but it's selling
> > well enough so that prices of blanks at Tower Records have dropped
> > dramatically (down to $2 per disc on sale recently).
>
> It's called 'closeout".
>
>
>
> 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
> Zippie SOCKPUPPETS http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=374900703
>
Paul D.
>> It's hard to tell how it's really doing in the U.S.
>
>No it isn't. It's a dead letter. Four attempts by Sony to "launch" this
>format have been totally useless.
Minidisc is going strong in Europe.. it's an extremely popular
consumer format. It's also established itself as the standard
location recording tool for BBC reporters, amongst others.. and has
replaced the horrendous cart technology in many radio stations.
When it comes to location recording there are now few advantages for
DAT.. and many disadvantages. A number of quality professional
portable minidisc units have been introduced for the purpose.
S i g n a l . . . . .
Bob Masakari
subsequent uses. Seems to be a bad spot on disk.
In article <l6t0rsohhupjlvj66...@4ax.com>,
--
-------------------------
Bob Masakari