MD real time optical record or hi-speed transfer

[nick danger]

I have a Sony MZ R900 and was thinking about buying a cheap MD (410?) to do some hi-speed xfer of mp3s from my computer. Currently I use winamp and an optical cable and it works pretty well. I would continue to use the R900 for playback. Does anyone have any experience with this?

 

[jumpy]

You could go for a Hi-MD player, but they aren't exactly "hi-speed". A 1gb disk takes around 30mins to record! I imagine NetMD players are proportionatly as fast (slow). Transfer times will also be affected by the speed of your computer as mp3s will need to be converted to Atrac or Atracplus
So while your transfers will be a faster than realtime, don't expect transfer speeds of hd-based players.

 

[Parijizzle]

I would say screw it and just by a Hi-MD model, but the 410 is a good choice for transfers. There are also net md decks i think.

 

[nick danger]

Will the 410 USB recorded sound file any different than the optical out. I'd not want to lose any of the quality of a "superior" recorder / recording method just for the time savings.

 

[D-EJ915]

The 410 doesn't have an AC-Adaptor, so I would avoid it at all costs. It may be fine as a cheap portable, but NOT for recording.

 

[jmb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick danger Will the 410 USB recorded sound file any different than the optical out. I'd not want to lose any of the quality of a "superior" recorder / recording method just for the time savings.

The R900 is a great unit. I have one myself. Unfortunately it is on its last legs.

Anyway...

You are already double compressing your music MP3 to ATRAC. My experiments with that are that the resulting files sound pretty bad. Plus, if you are using the Xitel PCLink via USB, that is not the best way to connect to your computer with an MD unit. I tried recording WAV files to MD through the Xitel Digital and it created clicks and other noise. You might not have this problem though. Now I burn WAV files to CD and record in realtime to my MZ-R50.

If you want higher quality sound, try CD to MD (optical patch) in realtime at SP. It takes some time, but well worth it for the quality of sound you will get.

Make sure you got a decent pair of cans too.

If you are concerned about space and number of discs. Consider one of the new HiMD models w/ the 1GB discs.

A decent HD player is a consideration too. That way you can just transfer your MP3s without recompressing them.

Did you create these MP3s or did you download them? Basically, what bitrate are your MP3s at? What software was used to encode?

If your looking to aquire a good sounding portable set-up to fit your needs, some more info might help.

Nature of collection (quality/bitrate, format, size)?
How you use your portable?
What are your priorities (sound quality, portabilty, or comfortable balance)?

 

[nick danger]

Thanks for the replies
I agree that with no AC input the 410 makes it a undesirable for recording.

Nature of collection (quality/bitrate, format, size)?

Most mp3 are 160 VBR and greater, I'm happiest with 320 but 256 VBR is pretty good to my ears. I've burned the mp3s to CD and use winamp for playback.

How you use your portable?

I use the R900 while walking at the local track listening through a pair of Shure E3c.

What are your priorities (sound quality, portabilty, or comfortable balance)?

My first prioritiy is sound quality. I'd prefer to have enough power to get by without an amp, but will use a meta 42 or cmoy at home. That said, this is a bold statement as I've not created too many of these files and can't tell if they were the best of rips. I do use tone controls and find that with headphones that this can make a big difference in enjoyment. I do think a balance of sound/portability would be acceptable.

I'd like a NJB3 due to the replaceable battery and hard drive, but could I live with the size? I'd like the zen for the equalizer settings or the karma for the size and equalizer settings but don't like the idea of a non-replaceable battery for these. The nitrus would be very cool if it were a 4gig drive.

I'll have to try burning a wav and optically recording from my cd player. Do you convert from mp3 to wav before you burn? I usually use nero to do the entire mp3/wav/burn process. I do use the xitel/optic option and get some artifacts that cause track inserts but I don't hear them. I will experience other anomalies from time to time that I believe are due to cpu overload. I wonder if the optical out on a sound card like the Chaintech AV-710 would be better for recording than a USB/xitel.

 

[bangraman]

How much actual portable recording do you do?

 

[rauer]

One lossy codec converted to another lossy codec does not sound like a very good idea.

Regarding the USB transfer (usually Sony's Sonic Stage), take notice that even though there's an SP option in the software, it's really only LP2 quality. So at least if you are recording from a good quality source, optical is the way to do it.

It'a pity you can't get SP quality at more than 1 X speed, but that seems to be the case.

 

[nick danger]

I have not done any portable recording and probably will not. I either record from disc using the optical out from my CD player or mp3s using winamp through the USB port using the optical out from the xitel.

I agree, lossy to lossy isn't even close to being the best. However, I can usually get a good mix using winamp's equalizer to compensate for some lackluster recordings. Typically I'll step down instead of doing any digital boosting.

 

[zombietycho]

Are you recording MP3->LP2?

Because if you are, go with highspeed, if MP3->SP, then optical is your only hope.

 

[dura]

Darn, is this true?
1) optical/realtime recording sounds better then recording through the USB?
2) SS at SP only delivers LP2? But isn't that a ridiculous useless loss of diskspace?
Glad that I always used LP2 optical/realtime, my recordings are save from doubts

 

[rauer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dura Darn, is this true? 2) SS at SP only delivers LP2? But isn't that a ridiculous useless loss of diskspace?

Here's for example one thread explaining it.

 

[dura]

Quote:

actually transfer of SP through NetMD is not possible...it isn't "true" SP but rather a "phantom LP2 track"...i.e. a higher encoded ATRAC3 format that is recognised by the unit as an SP track

I'm in doubt; this does not seem completely convincing but what do I know about net-MD? (For MD I use a very simple old player/recorder; player and discs are still in good state though, despite being treated roughly). What about the track-size? SP is 256 kbs I think; so about twice as large as the same track on LP2?

 

[zombietycho]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dura I'm in doubt; this does not seem completely convincing but what do I know about net-MD? (For MD I use a very simple old player/recorder; player and discs are still in good state though, despite being treated roughly). What about the track-size? SP is 256 kbs I think; so about twice as large as the same track on LP2?

To sum it up, SS converts your MP3 into LP2 bitrate, then it reconverts it into SP. Thus, making a uber-crappy recording in SP so older recorders and players can take advantage of the "highspeed" transfer.