Valued Contributors
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About bluecrab

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Jabber
    Massachusetts, USA

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Reading, MA

Previous Fields

  • Sony Products I Own


  • Headphones
    Sennheiser PX-200, EH-150, Koss Porta-pro
  • Minidisc units
    MXD-D400 (2), MXD-D40 (2), MDS-JB940, MDS-JB930, Kenwood MD-2070, MZ-DN430P, MZ-R500 (2), MZ-R37, MZ-E40, MDX-CA680X, MDX-C7970, Kenwood KMD-673R (2)

Recent Profile Visitors

12,143 profile views
  1. Even though I have neither of these machines—the lack of either S/PDIF or USB is the deal-breaker for me—it's good to see this kind of community spirit!
  2. So how exactly do you record MD > Computer in real time from a legacy MD deck? Is there a device that will take S/PDIF output and send it via USB? I don't think I have optical or coax in on my computer. Sonic Stage is no help because it will not let you upload digitally recorded files. (I am aware of the Hi-MD exception. I do not have Hi-MD gear and don't expect to.)
  3. As another example, the MDS-JA22ES (JPN model) supports a GUI interface via PCLK-MD1. Its fraternal twin, the MDS-JA20ES (ROW) does not support it. I have a 22ES and would love to give it a try, but there are more issues involved than I want to overcome.
  4. The E10's SM has this: e10.tiff That's the only hint! While the U/G has this (along with the usual text): "You can make only a first-generation copy through a digital-to-digital connection." Could things get any weirder?!
  5. Thought it might be worthwhile to note that the Sony MDS-E10 (pro MD deck) not only can ignore the SCMS copy-protect bit—when set to do so—but also will not propagate it. I tested this and I was, for example, able to copy a protected MD from the 930 to the E10, and vice-versa, once the E10 had stripped the SCMS. Sony does not mention this feature in the E10's manual, at least not in the version I have. The E10 is Type R. I don't know if this applies to other decks in the E-series.
  6. I once asked my brother, he of the long-ago audio engineering degree, why he thought US and UK source material sounded so different. He did not know why, but he suggested that voltage diffs could be a factor.
  7. My 940 is most assuredly the US model, as was my prior 940. I have long considered the 940 to be one of the better all-around bargains. Just FTR, my sound comparisons between the Sony MD and CD units are based on the [JA20ES and XA20ES] vs. the Musical Fidelity V90 DAC. The 940 doesn't enter the picture much, because when I use it for playback, usually its output is directed digitally to the JA20ES, which in that case serves as a DAC. In any case, IMO the 940 sounds more like both the 20ESs than it does the Musical Fidelity. When I get a chance, I hope to output iTunes to the JA20ES and see what that sounds like, as opposed to the MF DAC. It's all good!! :-)
  8. Although I recall some discussion of the "British ears" aka "UK Sound Tuned" ploy over on the Facebook MD group (said discussion instigated by me), I cannot find it...and there were some responses. Second-best: found this: ...from which I gleaned: "Generally speaking it was an attempt to get closer to the sound of British hi-fi as opposed to the bright and brash end of the spectrum. Of course, there is always a marketing element to these things as well." This makes a kind of sense, in that some people find Sony's digital sound to indeed be too "bright" or "harsh." Perhaps the "UK tuned" thing is an attempt by Sony to make the sound a bit more analog-like. Applying my own experience to this, I find it reasonable. Although I do like Sony's sound as produced in the Sony CDP and MD decks I have used, it is noticeably different from the sound I get from my Musical Fidelity DAC, which is used for both iTunes and Internet radio playback. That sound is more analog-like, yet at the same time very detailed. It may not be coincidental that Musical Fidelity is a British company. If I listen to an MD or CD on a Sony unit, then switch to the Musical Fidelity, the difference can be almost a bit jarring. I appreciate both kinds of sound-shaping, although not sure yet which I prefer.
  9. I cannot chime in on the Tascam, as I do not have that model. I do have both the JB930 and JB940, though. These two are similarly (but not identically) featured, even given the MDLP diff. For me, the 930 has the better SQ for listening. Not to say the 940 isn't very good—it certainly is. But the CXD-8735N DAC in the 930 goes a long way. This is the same DAC as in the the JA20ES (and my JA22ES). The 930 sounds almost as good as the 22ES. Almost. The 940 misses that rung by a half-step. Good luck!
  10. 100% agree with sfbp. Noting that the "given" here is that the recordings to which Type S is applied are of equal quality. Just wondering, I mean, if every Type R recording on every Type R machine is the same quality. Would be interested to know, as an aside, if your SQ via external DAC exceeds that of the native 940/980 DAC. I have an external DAC (Musical Fidelity V90), but I use it for optical out from computer.
  11. Thanks again, as now I can read Part !!
  12. Cannot read that format, Freddy, but the article is also available as PDF, here: World - July 2016.pdf Interesting stuff and with a pro-MD slant. From your excerpt, I agree for the most part. However, I believe the SQ from my JA22ES might exceed that of some "modern" DACs (my Musical Fidelity, for example). Thanks for the link.
  13. Thanks one and all. I finally found the right article to read about MP3 and I now understand that, as far as decoding/uncompression, MP3 and ATRAC are more similar than different. Neither is truly compressed in the same sense as a compressed, non-lossy data file. In any case, I intend to go on listening to MD and to avoid MP3 when possible, at least in the realm of lossiness. Pretty happy with ALAC, too, although to my ears, the best digitally sourced sound is still to be had from CD. (Maybe I like my CDP-XA20ES and its bass-heavy DAC a bit too much!)
  14. Let me as the OP just hop in for a second, if you would. I completely understand that ATRAC files are decoded, not uncompressed, for playback. There is really nothing left to uncompress. So I wanted to know if MP3 also works that way. As for ALAC/FLAC, these files are assuredly compressed to begin with; then they have to be decoded for uncompression. So I think, anyway. The reason I thought of any of this at all was that while listening to my JA22ES, I thought it sounded really good. And I wondered if, since an ATRAC file does not need uncompression, that might be a kind of processing benefit (like one less step). Wondered, too, if MP3s are similar to ATRAC files in that way, or not. I really didn't mean to start anything contentious though!
  15. I'm having a hard time finding an answer for this: It seems to me that MD ATRAC1 files don't actually get uncompressed for playback, as they already contain all the data they will ever have. So, they don't have to be uncompressed dynamically for playback. Is that true? How about MP3 (et al.) then? Same as MD or is there a different process used for playback? To give another example, just so I'm being clear, FLAC and ALAC files, while compressed, do contain 100% of their original data; thus, it seems to me that such files are uncompressed/decoded dynamically for playback.