Just wondering if a better source = better MD recordings, using digital outputs. If so, then I'll take the time to rerecord my MDs once my...umm thing comes in, otherwise I'll leave my MDs alone.
I was thinking about this too..
I guess a better transport will give a better digtal signal. But I doubt it would make a difference when recording to a portable MD. Just try it with one of your CD's and post your findings!
His body's not a canvas, and he wasn't raised by apes.
Joined
Jun 29, 2001
Posts
9,196
Likes
3,476
Well if you have a lousy CD player/DA converter as a source, then you get lousy MDs. Garbage in, garbage out. If you have a good sounding source, you get good sounding MDs.
Who needs headphones when there's the JVC MX-GT80?
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Posts
742
Likes
11
The only thing that can degrade the MD recording are read errors, which i'm sure are minimal--> non-existant after error correction.
Normally, factors like jitter and DAC quality are more important, but these are not important in MD recording. As coolvj said, all modern MDs (after '95 i think) use asyncronous sampling rate convertors that reclock all the sames with a new (hopefully "better") clock signal, so jitter from the original transport will not be recorded into the MD.
It seems to me that eliminating stages is always a good thing.Using a digatal output from the source componant means bypassing the DAC,analog filter stage and output section.Digital is digital so even an inexpensive CD player would have the potential to produce a signal as good as a higher priced model.
And bypassing the line in stage of the MD recorder could also prove beneficial. You would be going directly to the ADC .By my count we just bypassed four active stages.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.