[stuartr]

Other than to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the women...'cause that's always best.
Specifically, is it better to use an excellent source and an analog cable, or a mediocre source with a optical connection. I basically have two options: I can run a traditional rca to miniplug from a conrad johnson DV2b cdp (~2000 bucks), or I can take a toslink to optical mini from my panasonic dvd player (~200 bucks). The thing doing the recording is a Sony MZ-R55 md walkman.
It boils down to this: which is more important -- the quality of the source, or the quality of the transport method? The dv2b assuredly extracts more information from the cd, but it goes D to A to A to D, while the panasonic gets less from the cd, but goes D to D, probably with a better method of transporting the data. So, what is best? I have been using the digital method, but I am interested in hearing some more knowledgeable people's views.

 

[aeberbach]

Everything prior to your amp is source, so you can't really look at the cables in isolation. In your case using an optical connection leaves out two unneccessary conversion processes and it's probably going to be better than using analog no matter how good the DAC in your CDP and the ADC in your MD are.

Why do you say the panasonic gets less out of the CD? I don't believe this. Why not read your CDs using EAC in a PC drive and then output the WAVs digitally using a good sound card direct to MD? You know then if there was any problem reading any part of the wav because EAC will tell you.

 

[stuartr]

That's a good idea, but I don't have a good soundcard...all I have is a Dell laptop and the stock soundcard. As for why I think that the CJ extracts more from the cd, well because it is a far superior transport -- there is surely less jitter, the laser is better quality, as are the tracking motors and power supply, and overall it is a precision component, while the panasonic has simply been made for mass production. Though I could be wrong, I would imagine that the CJ gets more from the cd. That said, I agree with you that the D to D process is a better way to do the mini-disc recording. It also allows me to synchronize the recording so I don't have to worry about track marks or when to start and stop...I was just wondering if the sound quality was the same. I think you are right in suggesting it is.

 

[D-EJ915]

you should probably buy one of the newer recorders (NetMD or DR7), I'd suggest the MZ-N910, or the MD-DR7, they're the best currently on the market for portables, or you could just get the D40 MD/CD deck, it records directly from CD to MD..., the N910 is 300, the DR7 is 250 and the D40 isn't in prod., but'll sell for abour 250+

 

[mbriant]

Why not record the same recording both ways and see if you can hear a difference?

Then let us know.

 

[blip]

You probably already know this, but if you do go optical everyone seems to think that investing in good optical cables will really improve your experience.

I believe Kelly had a thread on this a week or two ago.

Anyway... good luck!

 

[Braver]

look at it like this: what do you trust? the digital output of the Panasonic, or the AD convertor of a portable unit?

I'd go the optical way, if only to automatically get the trackmarks right.

 

[stuartr]

D-EJ915, how would buying a new recorder make a difference? The r55 was the top of the line in its day, and I thought the general trend was that they were better in the old days....do you have a specific reason to recommend this?

mbriant -- I would do this, but I am living in Japan this summer, so I don't have access to either of my systems. I was just curious, as I have been recording from the line out of my d777 with less success than before...I will try when I get back.

I will look for Kelly's thread, but do they have good optical cables that terminate in a mini-plug? I still have my basic one that came with my md, because I figured that any higher quality optical cable would not terminate in a mini-plug...

edit: braver I think you hit the nail on the head. The weak point is surely to be had in the md, not in either of the players, so digital is the way to go...I just wish I could do that now...

 

[jpelg]

Making d-to-d recordings to MD has a number of advantages associated with it. Not the least of which is convenience, as you mentioned. No recording levels to set, all tracks come over exactly as on the original CD, breaks and all. I also believe that the less converting done in the process, the better, and the more true to the source. When I did the MD-thing, that is way I always recorded.

But when comparing to an analog recording, you must be careful not to be swayed by setting levels too high. This can have the effect of making some recordings sound more dynamic, and possibly fooling the listener to think it is better or has a higher degree of fidelity. Of course, this opens up the very real possibilty of clipping during extreme portions of the recording.

As i said, I just always went digital using a basic plastic optical cable. Can't really say I had the highest fidelity over other methods, but MD is a lossy format already (ableit one of the best), and I never had a problem or mistake this way.