To Type-R or not to Type-R?

[disturbed]

Ok first and foremost I have not yet expierenced Type-R Encoding

.

I have a MZR-900 and I am sure it doesnt do Type-R recordings

Now I do have a pair of Ety ER-4P so even in portable environments I should notice a subtle different right?....unless I have cloth ears

So should I sell off the R-900 and get the R-909 which has type-R?
Or should I invest in a Home Deck which supports Type-R?
I dont get it some people say Type-R is backward compatible....is that true? Does Sony say that too? If yes then why do they sell the e900 ehich supposedly supports Type-R? WHats the pont wouldnt the e900 be sufficient?

So Home Deck or r909?


On a side note....I am getting tired of switching cd's on my marantz to put in music on my MD player. I have decided to put most of my cds ad WAV files on my hardisc and output it thru my pc to make some nice playlists...now what I need is a good quality sound card...I saw this one on Minidisco...http://www.minidisco.com/minispecs/deltad2496.html
seems nice as it has both optical in and out...though I couldnt find reviews on this...somehow all the reviews I found were on the Audiophile 24/96 which doesnt have optical outputs...

Any Insights anyone?

 

[utdeep]

From what I've heard, most people have scoffed at Type R and have claimed its another Sony gimmick. Anyway, I'm pretty sure the e900 doesn't support type-r. Type-r needs to be supported for full effect, but plays in all minidisc players. type r only works in SP mode.
I've scanned through most of the posts discussing the issues you brought up, and the conclusion that I gathered was that portable recordings are identical in every way to deck recordings.

 

[fiddler]

Quote:

Anyway, I'm pretty sure the e900 doesn't support type-r. Type-r needs to be supported for full effect, but plays in all minidisc players.

ATRAC is backwards-compatible. Type-R only affects the encoding (the recording), and therefore the benefits of Type-R can be heard on ALL minidisc players.
Type-R does make a subtle improvement over ATRAC 4.5 (that's Sony's ATRAC 4.5; Sharp has developed its own encoding system, and thus uses different version numbers).. I haven't really done an A/B comparison, so I can't really say if there's a clear audible improvement.

So, if you want to upgrade to type-R, just get a deck that has Type-R (most of them do), and you can play better-quality sound through your R900. Other than Type-R, there really isn't much point in upgrading to a 909. It's basically the same unit. Titling is MUCH easier with a deck, and there are better editing functions.

 

[gloco]

I'm definitely happy with this new deck i purchased:

http://www.store.yahoo.com/sonylink/hommindispla.html

With Atrac R, everything sounds so much more crisp and airy! Acoustic guitars have "snap" to them and the midrange has warmed up quite a bit compared to Atrac 4. With this deck, i will definitely have a hard time distinguishing MD from CD.

George

 

[fiddler]

Quote:

With Atrac R, everything sounds so much more crisp and airy! Acoustic guitars have "snap" to them and the midrange has warmed up quite a bit compared to Atrac 4. With this deck, i will definitely have a hard time distinguishing MD from CD.

Are you talking about the sound you hear out of your deck VS the sound you heard out of your old deck? Have you tried recording on both, then listening to the two recordings on the same unit? If not, then it's not really a fair comparison between ATRAC 4 and ATRAC Type-R; you're also comparing the D/A stages of the two decks.

Hmm... I think I just might go do that kind of comparison now.

 

[gloco]

I'm comparing my new deck to the old one. I'm doing A/B comparisons via my MD player. The problem is that my old deck was hooked up via rca jacks so all i had were analog recordings. Hmmm, maybe i'm hearing the difference between analog and digital. I'm definitely interested in reading a comparison between Atrac 4, Atrac 4.5 and Atrac R.

George

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by utdeep Anyway, I'm pretty sure the e900 doesn't support type-r. Type-r needs to be supported for full effect, but plays in all minidisc players.

Type-R is encoding-only. An MD encoded with Type-R is "supported" on any MD player. There is no special "Type-R decoding" on the E909 or R909.

I have yet to hear a Type-R recording, so I cannot comment on how much better it is.

 

[disturbed]

Intresting......a deck would be nicer especially for the titling

I think Ill look into this type R more before making the drop

Now the only problem is what soundcard to purchase that sounds good and DOES not resample...etys make it difficult......

 

[utdeep]

Excellent!
So the Sony marketing that says that the E909 is better than the E900 because it supports the type-r DSP is not really true (in all the ads for the E909 player they mention it while its not in the E900 specs)? I'm ecstatic!

 

[nallyvaico]

Quote:

Are you talking about the sound you hear out of your deck VS the sound you heard out of your old deck? Have you tried recording on both, then listening to the two recordings on the same unit? If not, then it's not really a fair comparison between ATRAC 4 and ATRAC Type-R; you're also comparing the D/A stages of the two decks. Hmm... I think I just might go do that kind of comparison now.

Probably, I am the only one who did some type of an A/B comparison of Atrac 4.5 v Type R

I own the JE520 MD deck with Atrac 4.5 and the R909 MD portable recorder with Type R encoding capabilities. I did the auditioning on my hi-fi system that consists of NAD C320 amp, B&W CDM2 speakers, and the source CD-player is Rotel RCD951. The acoustic cable is the bi-wired Nordost Solar Wind (very good indeed), and interconnects the Solar Wind and MITerminator 2.

I purchased the R909 online a few months ago, and right off I was eager to find out how it compares with the 520 deck.

I made a series (maybe 5-6) of various comparisons, primarily comparing their digital and analogue recording capabilities.

Digital: I copied a few CD track abstracts (2 min long) digitally from CD to the 520 via coax cable. The CD has no optical out, so what I did was I connected an optical from the 520 MD deck to my R909, while the CD signal was sent digitally via the 520.

The materials auditioned were 2 Russian groups (names won't be telling: probably Cranberries-type music, and a guitar-based rock group (Bob Dylan?) - a very good quality recording indeed).

The auditioning revealed that the Atrac 4.5 recordings in comparison with Type R sounded a bit clipped in the treble making it obscure. Further, the Type R recordings sounded more dynamic, more airy and open. Generally, Type R recordings sounded far more real-life like.

To sum it, the biggest improvements I believe are the very clear treble and superior imaging and airiness .

Analog: The analog comparison was more revealing. The material copied actually was Suzi Bogus (country music) and Iron Maiden's 82 album (geee, can't remember the name

). Please note that I copied those on an MD from a cassette tape. Also, the Type-R copy gave an analog recording with a very balanced output level (practically at 0 db all the time), while the 520 deck made it hard to fine-tune the analogue recording, so the Type-R copy was to sound "louder".

The result: On the Type R copy I heard details and nuances that I never heard before... Again, the highs were excellent, and the sound overall was very dynamic, with excellent imaging. The 4.5 copy sounded... well... generic.

In conclusion, I am convinced that the overall sound improvement is worth the upgrade. Now I record all Type R only, even though it is not very convenient. Considering upgrading my 520 deck to JB940

 

[fiddler]

Wow, thanks for that!

 

[gloco]

See i told you so!

nallyvaico hit the nail right on the head by stating "To sum it, the biggest improvements I believe are the very clear treble and superior imaging and airiness ."

Atrac R recordings sound so much more cleaner than Atrac 4.5 and especially 4.0, which sound a litte bland and lifeless. At this point in time, i'm cloning all my favorite cd's to MD.

 

[fiddler]

Ok then. I think I'll go re-clone one of the CDs I recorded with my MZ-R70 on my new deck. I'll see if I get similar results..

 

[Odin]

Quote:

Originally posted by fiddler Sharp has developed its own encoding system, and thus uses different version numbers)..

So is there a Sharp's equivelent recording technology that's similar to Type-R? Beside, how does this technology function?

 

[fiddler]

Quote:

So is there a Sharp's equivelent recording technology that's similar to Type-R? Beside, how does this technology function?

I was actually wondering this myself, but I'm sure Sharp's latest ATRAC is every bit as good as Sony's latest.

To quote Sony:
Quote:

With the MDS-JA33ES/JA22ES we have developed a new Type-R DSP that has, at its core, two times more signal processing power than before. In addition, a newly developed intelligent bit re-allocation algorithm that fully utilizes this increased processing power has been adopted. The algorithm re-analyzes the musical data and searches for subtle, redundant bit allocations that up until now had been difficult to find. The algorithm re-allocates these redundant bits preferentially to psycho- acoustically important bands, essentially refining the allocation of bits and improving the reproduction of the source signal. Keeping the accuracy of each processing result is essential for digital signal processing. In making the Type-R DSP for ATRAC, each processing step was checked and very accurate processing has been enabled. As a result, the reproduced sound has become euphonious and quite close to the source sound.

Anyway, I just re-recorded one of my MDs with my deck (MDS-JE530), so I had two copies: one recorded with 4.5 (on my portable) and one with Type-R. Sony is right when they say it's more "euphonious"! The treble is much more natural sounding, and it seems there's more "air" around each note.. it just sounds more spacious. The 4.5 recording sounds very plain in comparison. Dammit, now I'm going to have to re-record all my MDs on my deck!