I just bought a Sharp IM-DR420. It's pretty nice. It's my first MD with LP2. I'm going on a trip where I will do a lot of recording, and I wonder about the quality of LP2 v. Standard.

I've been recording with MD for about 10 years, so I know what to expect from Standard, but I've never had LP2 before. I searched the web for test results, but came up with mostly anecdotes. Has anyone done any tests to determine exactly what you compromise when you use LP2.

I'm thinking that when I'm recording something playing through a PA system, that the PA will be the weakest link. Actually, in many cases the sound man might be the weakest link, but that's another thread...

Thanks for any tips.

Bob R.

Recent tests peg ATRAC3 as weaker than properly encoded LAME mp3 files, my ears don't agree, but if I just say that I'll bet you money that people will start complaining. So, I've got more test results.

From AV Watch tests a while ago...

Original wav data of music


ATRAC3 132kbps (used in LP2)


An earlier test also compares using a 1kHz sine wave @ -10dB. This test is supposed to indicate the THD and S/N performances.
Original wav file


ATRAC3 132kbps (used in LP2)


The author marked these results as strictly "for reference only" (non-conclusive), but says the tests show ATRAC3 to have roughly a 68dB S/N.

For headphone listening, LP2 is slightly less airy, the individual sound elements less distinct than using SP. LP2 is absolutely listen-able, but when I switch back to SP I tend to feel, "aah, this is definitely the way to go, life is goooooood" This is my perception and seems to correspond with the S/N result.

Hope this helps :eggosmile:

Looking at the graphs suggests that LP2 works pretty well up to 14khz, which is almost as good as my ears are. It's sad that I cannot hear the TV anymore.

As I look at statistics from previous recordings, I see that most of them only have about 30Db of dynamics.

I have a little time tonight I can try a couple tests for myself, and now that I know a little more about what I'm looking for will help, so thank you very much.

It's kind of sounding like if the PA is really good, then I should use SP, but if the PA is marginal, then LP2 is probably "good enough".

Bob R.

Yeah, your own opinion is definitely a main factor. When MDLP first came out I really didn't like LP2, and I absolutely wouldn't go near LP4,but since then I've changed my mind considerably, and I've even used LP4 for music.

Thanks for the advice Leon.

I am back from my trip, and I recorded exclusively in sp2. I am amazed by the quality of the results, which easily captured everything the sound system was capable of producing.

I haven't had a chance to analyze anything, but I'm looking forward to that, too.

Bob R.

LP2 is ideal for recording double-CD compilations.

Quote:



Leon! I'm surprised about that, but in some situations I suppose it could be tolerable. It sure does feel like a muddy experience with LP4, although a digital amp'd unit can color it a bit. Does LP4 vocal tracks sound good with a Pana?

Quote:



I love reading people who are content with MD live recordings, because seemingly it's not discussed on boards as much as it used to. The Minidisc's recording ability in this scenario is still pretty unrivaled in this price range, and really one of the few benefits of the format that still exists [hi-md is nice, but the shortcomings will sway many, I assume].

What'd you end up recording?

Quote:



*small repressed second-generation immigrant voice* well growing up I was hammered into thinking, it's only morally sound if you're open to all possibilities, if I icked or ewwed, they, they kicked me! *hic*

Seriously speaking, yeah I used to record radio in LP4 all the time, so I did music to try it out. On the iPod side I also swing between LAME insane and 48kbps AAC.

Pana's nice, but for the purpose of alleviating the "muddy experience," it's gotta be an Auvi You can of course, also turn up the treble on a Sony

I find the advantage of doubling the amoutn of music I can fit on an MD to outweigh the consequences of having reduced quality and a high-end roll-off with LP2. I can live with LP2, honestly. My portable phones (usually MX400)aren't all that great, anyway. LP4 must be murder, though...

The above being my personal expirience with my MZ-S1 and SonicStage. I honestly wish I sould dump SonicStage for a better program, but I seem to be stuck with it (don't know anything else compatible with NetMD), so that is what my expirience is limited to.

Quote:



Have you tried Sonicstage 2?

I use NetMD SimpleBurner, it works very well.

You can actually burn music files from the hard drive, with a bit of work:
1) decode your flac/ape file to wave
2) create a cue sheet with your favorite cue sheet editor
3) use daemon tools to load the cue sheet as a virtual drive
4) burn with simpleburner

imho, this proccess doesn't really take more time than normal sonicstage or openmg. And you don't have to worry about stupid check in/out.

Quote:



Yeah, that method is grand and all... sitll doesn't beat simple file tranfer with mp3s/other file formats

That's why I dumped my MD plus it doesn't as good as my MJB3

Quote:



Sonicstage 2 has no check in/out limitations, even with NetMD units.

Quote:



I went to a festival with a lot of folk music. It was all mic'd acoustic instruments and voice at moderate volumes. I put the mics in front of one of the PA stacks.

I can frequently hear the distortion that I heard through the PA system while I was there, but I don't hear any additional distortion.

Live recording is the only thing I use MD for, and it is really good at it. I still need to do some test recordings with LP2 to see how much different it sounds to me in blind tests.

Bob

Ok, i got a couple things i kindly need explanation with.
What is:
1)digital pitch control.
2)digital amp.
3)VPT" Acoustic Engine

I'm talking mostly about NHF800. Also what do you think are pros/cons of the following Hi-MD recorders: NHF800, NH900, NH1 (consider, design, sound, extras, looks, functionality, etc.) Thank You.