[bangraman]

That was very... informative.


(pauses to lift head from desk

)



No MD deck will be used because most people won't buy one. This is about equivalent comparisons. It'll be comparison of the N10's Type-S codec against alt-preset-insane.


As a more practical test however, there'll also be a test of the maximum allowed computer-transferable/cd-ripping quality (LP2 data onto SP?) against alt-preset-insane.

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

Originally posted by bangraman That was very... informative. (pauses to lift head from desk ) No MD deck will be used because most people won't buy one. This is about equivalent comparisons. It'll be comparison of the N10's Type-S codec against alt-preset-insane. As a more practical test however, there'll also be a test of the maximum allowed computer-transferable/cd-ripping quality (LP2 data onto SP?) against alt-preset-insane.

you're welcome. keep in mind that for md sp (standard play) atrac s is the same as atrac r. the only improvement you get from atrac s is when using the lp2 or lp4 mode. atrac s (remember, same as r in sp) in sp mode is what you should use for maximum quality (making a digital rip) using a cd (or .wav's) as a source (or good vinyl, if you will). ripping mp3 onto atrac is double-compression and should be avoided.

btw, i picked up a used jbs930 sony deck (one of the last to use sony se style dac's in a non-se md deck) for us$175. anyone can buy one, and they can be had very cheap. and why not use a md deck for comparison? you are using a highly advanced and expensive computer to encode your mp3's for the test, is it fair to use a relatively cheap tiny md unit to encode your atrac files against a fully loaded pc? trust me, decks are cheap, better sounding than portables, and in fairness should AT LEAST be used in comparison with a pc-hardware based system for encoding.

for playback pick a couple of similarly priced or featured mp3 and md devices and have at it. if you are playing your mp3 through a high quality soundcard on a computer, then you should play back you atrac files on a md deck. if you are playing mp3 on a portable, compare with a portable md. etc.

 

[SunByrne]

Well, this thread has successfully been jacked, so I'll weigh in on the MD/iPod issue...

Anyway, I've been in MiniDisc since 1999, before the MP3 thing really got serious. I never really liked MP3's because ATRAC Type R blows away the "standard" 128 kbps MP3 in terms of sound quality (yes, even with LAME encoding). I had little interest in solid-state MP3 players when they first came around, and while I thought the first iPods looked cool and all, I still wasn't inclined to switch over.

What moved me over was the combination of AAC encoding, reasonable drive sizes, PDA features, and size of the 3rd gen iPods. While they aren't as good as ATRAC R, 192 kbps AAC files encoded with QT's "best" setting are actually good enough for the places where I tend to use portable players--airplanes/airports, buses/taxis, mowing the lawn, etc.--noisy places. So I took the plunge and got an iPod.

Wow, do I ever NOT miss MD. Having 1000+ tracks on the iPod means that I don't have to have remembered to pack a specific disc if there's a particular song I want to hear later. I never have to dig through my bag on an airplane for a disc which I can't tell from another one in the dark. It's tons easier to make a mix via playlists in iTunes than it is to record one to MD.

Of course, that may be because I don't have a "NetMD" since those weren't on the market when I got into it. In fact, I don't have a portable player that even supports MDLP because they didn't exist back then, and even though all I want is a play-only player, I can't get one with a remote for less than $100, and I ain't blowing that for another player just to get a modest technology boost. But I can get firmware upgrades for my iPod. (Actually, I don't think I could use a NetMD anyway since I'm on a Mac.)

So for me, the iPod convenience makes up for the difference in sound quality. Anathema on this board, I know, but that's how I feel.

At least in the U.S., I give MD like five more years tops--it's a dying technology that even Sony only supports in a half-ass way here. Oh, and Sony's role as a member of the RIAA doesn't exactly put me in their corner, either. That fundamental tension between supplying things which allow you to break copyright, and fighting (seemingly to the death) over copyright violations, well, seems to me Sony has a conflict of interest there and some of that filters into the MD products.

 

[redshifter]

sunbyrne summed up nicely why there is so much good used md gear out there for cheap right now.

i rarely have the need for 1000+ songs at my fingertips. usually 4 or 5 md's will get me to my destination and back. the fact that i have to work just a little harder for the quality is worth it to me. especially with the option of a good amp.

sorry for the thread-jack, bangraman. personally it took me forever to create just the right earplug for my ety er6. once i got it right the sound went from great to unbelievably fantastic.

 

[bangraman]

Thanks for steering it back a bit

I have the opportunity to see how an identical output stage affects the MP3 vs ATRAC argument. My NZ90 handles both natively and is blessed with an output cleaner (sound quality wise) than a 3G iPod. Unfortunately there is a bit of a problem getting ATRAC files to be recognised by the NZ. I've had so many other pieces of gear to look at recently that I haven't had the time, although I think this could be one of the most interesting comparisons from the audio-geek point of view. If this test is done with the E5, I think there will be few doubters, hopefully, maybe, perhaps... although I'm sure there will be people shouting "you didn't get a proper seal"* if the result goes against their chosen format

[size=xx-small]* Either that or claim the hood is impeding proper hearing

[/size]

 

[MacDEF]

What SunByrne said