Jump to content

Thorgal

Members
  • Posts

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Thorgal

  1. hi, Its a great help, thanks! I was planning on bying me an Onkyo deck, but I am going to do some testing for myself so I have decided, so I will by an ES-deck as well. What I dont like about MD is the SP codec, which Sonicstage isnt familiair with. The only way possible to get it on disc is real-time recording, while Sonicstage operates so much easier, and with the possibility of downloading at a 352 kbps bitrate. Its a pity Sony abandonned SP.....
  2. Hi, off-topic here, but interesting are your earlier posts regarding PCM-ripping by Sonicstage. I've done some testing and the results are remarkable. When ripped with EAC and transcoded with Sonicstage at a bitrate of 64kbps the result is accaptable. Not that I will use this bitrate for daily use, but it is accaptable. I can remember Sony's claim that atrac+64kbps equals LP2, equals SP first genaration. This claim was argued a lot. But now I must conclude the claim is right after all.
  3. Thanks for the advice. Especially for the JA333ES. I was also considering bying that one. But with type R for my older LP2 recordings thats no option anymore. A friend of mine owns a JA30ES. But that one has problems with discs created with Sonicstage. He told me that that deck is not compatible with teh newer type R codec. Can you please mention some other Hi-md decks besides the 105 and 133 from Onkyo?
  4. Thanx for all the thinking. I am reading some new considarations here. It's the combination of equipment and codecs which makes a choice difficult. Codecs is one, the equipment is two. I can indeed compare codecs. But I was also wondering if Sony ES equipment is much better than an Onkyo Deck or another normal Sony deck. Can I expect a Sony deck to produce much better sound? Can I expect the Sony deck to last longer and if it gets broken in lets say 15 years, can I find someone to repair it? If my Onkyo deck fails can I find someone in europe to repair it? All these considerations must lead to one definite choice.
  5. Budget is no limitation. I want to stay with MD, because I like the format. Material used for recording are CD's or lossless downloads. I already own a RH1 so I can record to any format I want. The main question just is: what sounds better: Himd at 352 kbps on an Onkyo Hi-md deck (analoge connection) or SP on an Sony ES-serie (digital or analoge connection to receiver)?
  6. Hi, I am at the point of buying myself another home-deck and I was wondering which one to buy to get the best sound as possible. The choices are: An Onkyo Hi-md deck (MD-105 or MD-133), new of course or an older Sony ES-serie deck like the JA333ES, JA50ES, JA30ES etc. Not new of course but some new-like decks are available. Sound quality is most important to me. I dont want to use Hi-md discs so on Hi-md 352 kbps is the highest rate possible. On the Sony MD decks SP is the best possible. SP is only possible if recorded via line in. Via Sonicstage the real bitrate on the disc is LP2 even when SP is chosen. This is a known fact. So for the best quality recording must be done via line in. So more time consuming. An Onkyo deck must be imported from Japan. When it gest broken it not easy to get it fixed. Question: what do you think offers the best sound quality? And any things I have forgotten to think about when chosing between the 2 decks?
  7. I just think that frequency analysis is more reliable than my ears...... on the other hand, not everyting can be measured by words and figures....
  8. Hi, Glad I found this thread. Seems I am not the only one with an addiction. Sometimes it's away for months or years, but than suddenly it's back like it's never been gone. I am already a proud owner of two (just in case one gets broken) MZ-NH1 one MZ-NH600 But this didn't stop my from bying a MZ-RH1 yesterday. Also have an Onkyo hi-md deck (105) and an old Sony 510 At this moment I am bying lots of discs on ebay and one or two more decks. Also I want the Onkyo Hi-md deck (133). I am collecting because I think it''s now or never. Supply will drop the coming years. I hope I will have enough equipment that will keep me going for 30 years..... I am very interested in sound quality and I am always comparing teh different codecs. Yesterday I listend to the same cd on both HI-SP (352 kb) and normal SP. SP sounded better to my ears. Also I was listening to some 4 years old downloads on Hi-LP. Those seemed of worse quality than recent ones (also Hi-LP made with Sonicstage 4.3. Has the codec improved over the last years? Don't get me wrong: it's not the codec I use frequently.
  9. Hi, a few months ago i installed Sonicstage 3.4 on my Beta Vista. After that install Vista could not start up anymore. Now I want want to install Sonicstage 4.0 om the new released Vista RC1. I want to install the 32bits version and I was wondering if there are bad experiences to be shared? In that case I can save me some trouble. I hope sony updates sonicstage to be compatable with Vista. Thorgal
  10. Ok, I compared the codecs to versions like 3.1 and 3.2 and I noticed not much difference. Comparing to SS 2.X is indeed another thing. Pity I don't have any transfers left done with SS 2.X Glad to read progress is still being made. Pity though that progress is very little over time, due to the fact that atrac is proprietary. Which makes me wonder, cause Sony must also recognize this fact. They can never hold up to formats like mp3 or ogg vorbis. Doesn't this mean that in the end Sony will end the development of atrac and adapt on open but secured alternative?
  11. With the coming of sonicstage 3.3 I saw a few people giving their thoughts on the codecs and how they are compared to earlier versions of sonicstage. I was just wondering: Are the codecs really getting better or is this just whisfull thinking. Are the codecs still being worked on? Is there any official confirmation (Sony) that this is truly the case? Are all the codecs still being worked on, or is it only on Atrac 3 plus? I read a posting saying that LP2 sounds better than in previous versions. If this is true (and I have no evidence for that, not on the Internet, and also my ears hear no difference) than I think also LP4 is under construction, which I find hard to believe. Other question: Will it ever be possible to reach Hi-SP quality with Si-LP? Just curious about your thoughts on this matter.
  12. My two NH1's arrived this morning via DHL. Battery arrived couple of hours later via airmail. What a coincidence. No local taxes, thanx Sefu! A really great package, exept for the two Spiderman cd's . Well you can't have it all. .... Thanks again, and for you and the rest hope you find a sollution to the battery problem.
  13. I got the same mail today as you did. Guess both our packages will be on the same flight! I totally agree with you, it's a superdeal. That's why I ordered two NH1 units. Just in case one gets broken in the future. Last week I also ordered the Onkyo deck via www.pricejapan.com. Today the postman rang, but I didn't hear it. Now I must wait till tomorrow. Can recommend this site, the service is very good and price is much much lower than on audiocubes. Also compliments here for Sefu. He is really trying to satisfy his potential customers. I think his service is great, answering all our questions, besides his busy job nowadays. Patrick
  14. Hi Sefu, Like Bond I am living in a country in europe which isn't listed in your list. I am very disappointed because i was looking forward bying me a NH1. Could you please add The Netherlands to the list? I am sure there are many interested here in ordering. Hope you will. Thanx!
  15. Nice to hear that. I am at the point of ordering the Onkyo Deck as well. I live in the Netherlands. Tell me how are your experiences with that deck. Did it arrive in a porper way? And how does it sound connected to your receiver? I am very curious how LP2 and Hi-Lp sounds. Can you tell me your experiences? I have been looking around, I don't know for sure but I guess it is not a second generation deck, so it doesn't play Mp3, am I correct?
  16. this is a discussion which I've seen in several threads here and I keep repeating it's a misconception that atrac is better then MP3. Au contrary: it's the worst codec around. But Atrac has some good luck indeed: at 256 almost every codec is nearly perfect. Again, look here: http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat12...28/results.html It's not a perfect test, but it's a very good one. It's not that I am anti-Sony (i own minidisc sets for my car, home-stereo and walkman), but Sony is very obviously losing the game right now. This NW-HD1 is a huge mistake. It's my own vison and one one can read this on almost every site on the Internet. After working and listening to my minidiscs for years, I've really had it: - The sound is not good enough for me. I use upper class equipment and Minidisc just doesn't sound as good as AAC, Ogg or Mp3. - The software (even version 2 of SS) is crappy shit. It's better then 1.5 , but its still shit. It chrashes constantly. - Indeed, converting from one codec to another takes my precious time. Time I rather spend in a more productive or relaxed way. Not converting. - Converting from one codec to Atrac always means quality loss - I hate this propriety stuff. I didn't hate it a year ago, but now I do. It's not of this time and people don't accept this anymore. Once on my minidisc (download) it's stuck there. A copy for safety reasons is just not possible. I can't live with that.
  17. If I read people saying that LP4 does not suck and that they will probably record in 48kbps, and that it will sound just fine, I can only repeat that one must be almost deaf. Are those the same people who say that Atrac is superior to Mp3? It would explain a lot. I totally agree with what Anont writes. As told i am interested in codecs. To produce CD-sound at 256 is no hard job for any codec. Of course Atrac sounds fine at 256, but so does MP3 at that bitrate (Lame > 3.00). But at 128-160-192 it IS getting interested: that's where differences can be heard. Sound quality at lower bitrates gives information about that particular codec. For me the test is a confirmation of something I have been hearing with my ears for years now: end of the story that Atrac is superior the Mp3.
  18. Hi, Regarding one your remarks I shall keep this posting both short and clear. We wíll not agree about the quality of the test. Like I said many professional websites about audio regard Roberto Amorim as an authorization. If you think this test sucks, you are in a very small minority but you are entitled to. Quality of testing was not my subject, quality of atrac3 (plus) at 64 or 132 is! Test or no test, atrac 3 at 132 or 64 just sucks. To make an equal comparisation: Ogg in CBR at 64 or 132 sounds a lot better. Not only Ogg, but several codecs I tested myself over the years. And quality is all that counts to me. Bad test or no bad test.
  19. hi, I've done a scientific education myself, and there's one thing I can tell you: the prefect test just doesnt exist. One can only strive for the perfect test, but it just can't be achieved. It's an illusion, and that is one of the reasons why scientific research, afters decades, still goes on, and always will. Roberto Amorim hasn't reached the status of authority for nothing. His test comply with the standards that are used in scientific environments. That is why his test have such an impact and are often linked to. You can be sure that this report lies on deck of many exectutives at Sony and that some people at Sony have something to explain right now and have to take action. Specially considering the launch of Hi-MD. It is not fair of polario to take just one song and set that as an example. It is the other way around. Some codecs just don't offer VBR, which may be considered as a minor point of that codec. In this case Atrac 3. Because is is not the bitrate that is important, it's the size of the file that is! To make an honest comparisation between the codecs Roberto has solved this problem by taken 18 songs. That way he offers a solution for a weakness of some codecs, which don't offer VBR. Polario uses this weakness against the test! After all it is leading to an acceptable average bitrate for the 18 songs in total: Averages are : iTunes: 128 MPC 136 Ogg 135 Lame 134 WMA 128 Atrac3 132 Difference are to be considered small and acceptable. Fact is that Atrac 3 is considered by far the worst codec around, and Ogg is the best. I am just as surprised as many others. Lots of professional sites regarding audio offer links to the test and show their surprisement. But on the other hand I am happy that there's nothing wrong with my ears! It just is a pity that few hardware support Ogg Vorbis!
  20. Hello, This is my first posting here. I make use of Minidisc since 1997, have an deck in the living room, car equipment and a Net-MD. I like Minidisc mainly because of its size, but I have always had questions about the sound quality. I am very intererested in the several codecs and their soundquality. I think it is interesting to see how people or orginisations succeed in making files smaller and/or improve the quality. Two things surpised me lately. The first thing I mentioned already and that’s the quality of Atrac 3. Second is the quality of MP3. More often I read that the mp3-codec is old and that real high bitrates are needed to get an acceptable sound. My experience is a different one. I think MP3 sounds okay when its encoded with Lame at 160 or 192 kbits. My equipment at home is very good, I own a Harman Kardon amplifier. I enjoy listening to it, its relaxed with hardly any artifacts. Ogg gives me already very good results at 128 kbits. I wish I could say the same of Atrac 3, but it just can’t. Listening with my headphones gives me the best result (how strange). But listening in my car is sometimes really bad. I have minidisc mixed with several codecs and just be listening I can tell which codec is used, SP, LP at 132 or LP at 66. LP at 66 is really bad, but differs from the music. The same goes for 132, but that is less worse. Some people say it sounds good. When I read that I can only think: are you deaf or so? No offense, but it’s really what I think. SP sounds fine, but no wonder at 292 or so. Interested in codecs as I am I was very curious about Atrac 3 plus and I had great expectations. Depending on the results I would love to buy a Hi-MD. Now I have done some testing with Sonicstage 2 and I am really disappointed. I hear almost no difference with Atrac 3. Try for yourself and encode the latest cd of Anastacia to atrac 3 of atrac 3 plus at 64 or 132. It just sounds horrible. Mp3 als gives no real satisfying results but is much better then Atrac. In minidisc forums all over the world you can read people telling about the superior quality of atrac compared to mp3. I always found myself alone in thinking that Mp3 just sounds a lot better. Now for the first time results about atrac 3 compared to other codecs have been published by Roberto Amorim. His test are anonymous and blind and world –wide taken. He is seen as objective and is seen as an authorization. You can read the testresults here http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat12...28/results.html The test show clearly that Ogg is the best and Atrac is definitely the worst codec around. Finally is get some backup here! My conclusion: I stick to Minidisc but will not replace the stuff when it is broken, I will not buy Hi-MD. Sony has to do some work first on their codec. But I wonder if Atrac will ever reach the quality of Ogg or MP3. Explination is simple: on mp3 or Ogg are working lots and lots of people, Atrac is only used by a very small minority. Sony has to increase sharehouldersvalue and are the only ones to invest in the codec. They just will not be able to compete with the others. This is what I expect and I think it is a pity. I already said I love the minidisc because of its size, but also flexibility.
×
×
  • Create New...