dex Otaku

This may be true, but SS might be upsampling them to 44.1kHz/stereo, the standard format for all audio on MD and HiMD. This would bloat the file beyond 2GB if it's the case.

Ah. I stand corrected.

Mine came from Japan, from audiocubes. There's a note somewhere in the fora here on how to switch to Engilsh.

Yes, MD-Canada is the only place I know of with a reasonable price in Canadian dollars. When I said "where I live," I was referring to the specific city I live in, which isn't Montreal.

If you're interested in keeping the original discs as they are - you can still title all the tracks using SonicStage, and organise things into groups.

The NH600D, as told by the "D" designation, is a downloader only. It has no digital [optical] in, no line-in, and no microphone input with preamp. Unfortunately, there is no way to record with this unit. It is intended for downloading music from a computer with SonicStage only. If you have the funds to purchase a recorder, please check out the equipment browser to compare models. It's especially useful for figuring out what vaguely-described units being sold on eBay or other auction or classified sites have for features. Check out www.quietamerican.org for some inspiration while you're out there browsing.

No retailers carry them where I live, still. Radioshack will order them in at $13.99CAD apiece, which is a total ripoff. Even standard MD80 blanks average $5CAD apiece here, though.

A few points for Nano: * Only HiMD allows transferring records from the recorder to a computer, which requires SonicStage * Conversely, no portable consumer MD units from any company allow transfer from the recorder to a PC via USB * Sonicstage will run under Virtual PC, see Oivindi's post above * You can copy audio via analogue connections to your Mac from any recording device with a line or headphone output, including all MD and HiMD recorders, hard disc recorders, flash recorders, VCRs, video cameras, DVD players, microcassettes, 8-tracks, you get the idea * People [including thousands of broadcasters worldwide] have been using the analogue method for over 10 years with excellent results * Home or pro decks with an optical output can be used to copy MDs digitally to anything with an optical input [consumer equipment follows the restrictions imposed by SCMS] * HHB make a professional [broadcast] MD recorder that has "in the clear" USB transfer capabilities: see here; note the pricetag is something like $1,500USD

I thought they were working on a combined standard to avoid this whole hassle. What a bunch of farking boneheads. Yay, another unnecessary format war.

It sounds like you're quoting my own theorising, so I'll try to clarify something for you, noting that this is my opinion and has never been stated by any at Sony: * ATRAC [sP] does not support DRM other than SCMS * ATRAC [sP] is high enough quality that it appears to be something for Sony to worry about * ATRAC3 modes do not support DRM either; SCMS only, same as ATRAC, along with "TRPROT" or "TRFROMPC" which are just protect tags same as track write protection, not actual DRM in any sense * ATRAC3 modes are poor enough quality that it's nothing to worry about * HiMD recording modes, including both ATRAC3plus and LPCM, are the only ones to support actual DRM, hence the allowance to upload from them * HiMD doesn't have the SP codec because it would imply SS/SB support; since such support is refused to NetMD users, it's refused across the board

Updated with more direct comparison to NH700.

I have both the NH700 and the RH10. First thing - check my review here. To rehash what's already said there: In terms of usability, the RH10 has few true advantages over the NH700. After a couple of weeks' use, I now find that the RH10 is easier to start recording with one hand. Handling is a matter of personal preference - I find that the RH10's roller rather than the NH700's jogdial is slightly more difficult to handle, for example. The overal design of the RH10 feels more like a tiny audio component, though - with jacks at the top, battery compartment at the bottom, AA sidecar on the side, and disc door opposite that. The layout makes more sense to me than older MDs did and the NH700 does. In terms of function, the RH10 has only two features that the NH700 doesn't: OLED display and the options for it, and the "file list" function which has the potential to be useful but I doubt I will be using very often [i almost never use the USB storage features, myself; it's faster to burn a CD-RW]. Otherwise they are functionally identical. The RH10's big advantages come from the much larger, self-emitting OLED display. Setting levels in pitch darkness [or a thunderstorm as I did the other night] without carrying a flashlight is now possible. The display on the NH700 is sufficient [3 small lines] but due to the depth at which it's set in the unit, it's difficult to read even in reasonable lighting conditions; the case itself shadows the display. In terms of recording, there is basically no difference between these units at all. The RH10 lacks the NH1's timestamping feature [sHAME ON SONY! for omitting such a simple feature] which is the only thing that separates the NH1 from the rest of the pack. Mic preamp, line input et al are basically identical across the board from what I've seen. I am just as confident using my NH700 to record as using the RH10. There is no clear superiority thing happening here. The RH10 includes the side-caddy for AA use, and the included NH-14WM [gumstick] battery provides truly surprising longevity. The AA caddy appears flimsy but if you're not totally careless with your equipment it shouldn't be any more of an issue than the NH700's [very solid] all-plastic construction. The MP3 feature of the RH10 is flawed, but I use it anyway. For portable listening, the 9dB difference in the high end isn't enough to bother me when I can just apply EQ to it anyway. The convenience of being able to deal with my large MP3 collection directly far outweighs the difference in sound. MP3 playback is closer to gapless than I've seen with any other hardware device, too. The RH10's biggest fault is the clear plastic coating on its face, which is easy to scratch or scuff. The NH700, despite being all-plastic, in fact appears to be far tougher; after 10 months' use [in some adverse environments, too], my NH700 is yet to be visibly scratched or scuffed. In fact, rather than scratches, the NH700's plastic case is showing wear through its silver paint instead. It looks like loving wear, though. In the end I'd say it's really a toss-up. My final criteria would be what your primary use is and budget; since the function of the two units is nearly identical, and the recording capabilities are arguably identical, if recording is your primary use and you're feeling budget-conscious, get a NH700 and a mini-maglite. If you can afford to spend more, the OLED display of the RH10 is worth it, IMO. In either case, the MP3 playback of the RH10 is little more than a bonus feature unless your primary use is as a portable player, not a recorder. Low Volta answered this already, but here's a couple more notes on the matter: The meters have 9 segments; the bottom seg is about -40dBfs, the first dot [call it an HiMD equivalent to 0VU] is -12dBfs, and the top dot is the threshold below 0dBfs [clipping]. The actual top segment of the meter basically indicates that you're already clipping.

I find there's more to it than that, since I distro recordings to the artists with: 1) A CDDA disc and 2) A CD-ROM with FLAC'd image, cuesheet, FLAC software, FLAC plugins for winamp and Nero, and Foobar2000 with all the extras Changing to another format midstream is almost like trying to quit smoking or something.

No, it's not possible to copy OMA files directly from one machine to another. The entire point of Sony's DRM is to prevent you from copying those files to another computer. Apparently there is a way to authorise up to 3 computers to use the same SS library [using SS 3.1] - as I have no use for this [i don't keep a library using OMA tracks with SS, nor do I have another computer to attempt it with] I have no idea how this is done, though. You can look in SS's help under "Device Authorization via the Music Service" for some info on this. In a pinch, what you can do is use SS's backup tool to back up an entire library and copy it to another computer. In any case, I would advise usin Simple Burner and your original CDs rather than having a library in SS. If your notebook is having difficulty ripping CDs with SS, you might try turning on the "use smoothing" option in its preferences. This basically enables error-correction and might fix the problem if you're really bent on having a library on your notebook in SS.

http://www.minidisc.org/equipment_browser.html Have fun - especially useful for matching models found on eBay, which are often posted with incomplete or outright incorrect specs.

My RH10 [JP/world model] does not have the VPT acoustic engine [which I'm happy with not having, it's a useless feature to me].

it's interesting that they'd be able to switch the way metadata is stored sort of midstream. You'd think it would break compatibility with existing units to do so.

I digress: I'm completely full of sh*t there. Even the pages that I've looked back on [the ones I'd read over before] with comparisons are clear about how "average" FLAC is. I must have scrubbed that from my own memory. My apologies for being full of sh*t. I was going to do my own codec comparison, but I simply don't have the time. There are a number of them out there, including the following: http://www.firstpr.com.au/audiocomp/lossless/ [oldish and doesn't include FLAC] http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...less_comparison http://members.home.nl/w.speek/comparison.htm http://www.lossless-audio.com/comparison.htm http://flac.sourceforge.net/comparison.html As you can see, even from FLAC's own comparison chart, FLAC is very much of "average" performance. It appears I convinced myself somewhere along the line that it's better in those terms than it actually is. I'll note, and this is important: Compression ratio is not actually the crucial element for me - especially when the difference between best and worst is usually about 5% [i'd call 10% a degree of magnitude, and if FLAC were consistently over 10% worse than the rest then we'd have a problem here]. Availability, cross-OS support , functionality/features, and tag handling, pretty much in that order, are what are important to me. Speed isn't my primary criterion either; I -always- use L7 compression with FLAC, and have no complaints about its speed at that level [which is often redundant processing]. I had started off using Shorten because it was the dominant lossless codec used on archive.org; I looked at Monkey's Audio and have used it on and off, but ended up settling on FLAC primarily because of its open-source nature. Since then I've discovered its other features like embedded cuesheets, being able to use disc images directly in Nero, tagging, et al. I don't have anything against any other format. I see advantages and disadvantages to any and all formats. As I said, I recommend APE to people who are less versed in computer and audio technology - FLAC especially lacks good friendly standalone frontends that support all of its options [especially --lax for 24-bit encoding]. My [very mild] prejudices against APE are mostly due to the fact that the standalone interface has more of a "toy" feeling than a "tool" feeling to it. This doesn't prevent me from using it by any means. I am a big proponent of open-source software. I use Openoffice far more often than MS Office, my most-oft used video and audio players are open source, my most-oft used codecs for both are open source, and my preferred internet clients tend to be open source. Were it possible already, I would switch to using open source software and for the most part never touch another commercial product again - not because commercial products are inherently bad or software companies evil, but because my funds are extremely limited. WavPack is pretty compelling. I might switch, I might not. It's also open source, and it appears to be better than FLAC at almost everything. FLAC fits well with my workflow [where anything that's being manipulated is WAV anyway] because I made it fit, and its old-style parser et al are the kind of tools I get along with. In the end the choice was actually quite arbitrary.

Um. I've seen at least two tests that put FLAC at the head of basically all lossless-packing formats in terms of compression. I've also tested it myself, limited to between Shorten, Monkey's Audio, and FLAC, and FLAC is consistently the highest-compressing. So what are you talking about? I forgot what my real #1 reason was, which is also the reason FLAC is getting hardware support: FLAC supports sample-accurate positioning. If you want to jump to a specific spot in a file, you can simply jump there and pick up the stream. As far as I know, FLAC is the only format that supports this, which is how it can do internet streaming, positionable playback from hardware devices, and embedded cuesheets that actually mean something.

It's unfortunate, but I've yet to see any editor that supports opening or saving as FLAC. It seems odd to me that software companies refuse to support formats that cost nothing to implement and are known to work very well. I have a personal bias against cool edit/audition; I've never liked the interface [in fact, I've always outright hated it]. Nero supports FLAC with cuesheets for burning CD images, btw.

Applause for that sentence. Serious applause.

My coolest gadget ever would be my 14-bit Technics Digital Audio Processor, the SV-100, which was meant to be used with a portable VHS video recorder. I made my first live recordings with my SV-100, and the ones I have still play. btw - that SV-100 is currently sitting about 1m to my right.

I don't know where some of you formulate your opinions from but here's how I see things: * Monkey's Audio is WAY friendlier in terms of user interface et al than any of the other lossless-packing formats * FLAC compresses marginally better than the other formats I know of [including optimfrog, wavpack, shorten, monkey's, &c.] * Monkey's Audio is free but not open-source * FLAC is totally open-source * Both support tags very well, but * FLAC supports cuesheet data in the file itself; tags as well as DAO cuesheet data can be included as metadata, meaning you can have a single file that is an entire CD, contains trackmarks, accurate gaps, and indexes, as well as track titles, album name, &c. * FLAC supports 24-bit audio [when using the --lax option] while I don't know about such support with the others * FLAC has hardware playback support, though it's still rare. I'm not aware of any other lossless-packing format that has hardware support other than Apple's, which is supported only by Apple hardware, and WMA, which is just plain crap and I wouldn't touch with someone else's 10-foot pole, let alone my own. [This is excepting MLP which is part of the DVD-A standard.] The last reason is my primary reason for sticking with FLAC; #2 is that it's totally open-source; #3 is that I can get encoding, decoding, and live playback support for it on virtually any operating system; #4 is that it does compress slightly better. If it outperformed the rest of the cars, yes. I care give two sh*ts about the name. Function and efficiency are king. I use FLAC exclusively for things I'm encoding myself. All my archival material is FLAC'd. For less-experienced users I recommend Monkey's for the simple reason that it has a friendly and functional frontend. FLAC's frontend sucks rocks, to be blunt. I now do most of my transcoding right in Foobar2000, by the way. It transcodes to every format I use [except Sony's of course], and even passes tags between formats correctly. Foobar2000 is too convoluted for beginners, but for power-users there's really nothing else that even comes within a few parsecs of it in terms of function. It will convert, tag, mass-tag, mass-rename, fetch FreedB info for albums, &c. .. it also has a decent EQ if you need it, full 24-bit decoding support from any format with good dithering, &c. &c. It also supports DTS, AC3, WAV, OGG, MPC, Shorten, APE, Wavepack, MP3, AAC .. iTunes is left in the dust by it for the format support alone. Winamp is absolutely put to shame by it. Most of the utilities out there for tagging files are also put to shame by it. This is a true tool, not just a player.

PCM data transferring from HiMD to the PC [it's the same speed with both my NH700 and RH10] runs at between 2.5-3x realtime. A full 94 minutes on a 1GB disc takes 30-45 minutes to transfer, and possibly longer depending on whether you have a lot of tracks or not. A single large track takes less time than a bunch of small ones. Download speed is about the same. This is mostly a limitation of the media itself, not because of the transport used, low power concerns, or being limited to USB 1.1; The reason USB 1.1 is used is because the media itself doesn't [and can't] move data any faster than it's maximum speed [12Mbps]. The rest of your questions are answered already in the FAQ, though I will address this one: I wear my NH700 or RH10 while walking [i walk fast enough to nearly keep up with people who are jogging], and have never had a single skip, ever. The more vibration that the unit experiences during play, the more it has to seek to maintain the playback buffer in proper order and avoid skipping. The jogging itself [not jogging as in with your feet, but the motion of the player] contributes to wear and tear in general, as can be expected. That kind of error correction requires more head movement et al, so going for a jog might be the equivalent of playing a disc 3-4 times in terms of wear. Still, I've put my NH700 through quite a bit of my walking, and never experienced a single skip, and also have no problems recording with the unit still. Eventually that kind of wear & tear will cause things like optical block misalignment, recording head misalignment, wormgear wear, &c. It's a mechanical device, after all. The lifetime of a particular unit depends on how much wear it's exposed to, and as I've said above, jogging with it playing is the equivalent of higher than normal wear. While the scratchability of the units is a problem, the lack of line out isn't in my view. Just turn off the EQ and turn the volume up; my RH10 measures [with volume at 29/30] so close to line level that I consider it to be such. [We're talking a difference of 1-2dB.]

I don't, actually. And how is that an attack? It's a legimate question.