dex Otaku

As has been theorised over many times before here, probably because of speed issues.

Sounds like a possible request for a birthday gift, here. Do you know where to find inexpensive chargers for these?

It's possible that it actually was a passing train. I have made recordings with the Sony ECM-MS907, out in the country, where train sounds that I wasn't aware of myself at the time are audible in the noisefloor, especially in the lowest octave. [Train tracks would have been at least 3 miles away, by the way.]

Suggestion, keeping in mind that the playback system becomes the reference when doing this: Situate the mic in front of your stereo speaker. Play a sweeptone, recording with the iMP [i love your acronyms!]. Do the same, recording with the BoB. You now have a point of reference [the stereo system] with a single test signal [the sweep], a single mic, and a basis for comparison between the preamps. You might want to put to mic in front of the tweeter, btw.

AAD / ADD recordings are generally as good as the master they originate from. DDD recordings have mostly been made, since the beginning of digital audio in studio use, with DASH recorders that use linear A/D convertors which can still kick the sh*t out of much of the equipment around now. The DASH systems I've seen [made by Sony], like older analogue multitracks that used cards to upgrade noise reduction, can also still be updated in terms of their A/D, D/A and so on, if I'm not mistaken. The earliest DDD recordings I've listened to [including Sting's first album, others by Peter Gabriel, Dire Straits, &c.] still sound better than 90% of what is produced now, to my ears. Mind you, production and engineering style, console-type [consoles back then were all analogue, now they can be fully digital], the kind of mic preamps and mics used, effects processing, &c. all have their impact on the chain. The first digital studio I ever saw [at the school I briefly attended in Vancouver, BC] used a Sony DASH 24-track which was the only digital element in the entire recording chain; everything else, from the automated 56-channel console to all the effects-processing [including reverb and delay, compression, gating, et al] were analogue. DDD / ADD / AAD were really misleading terms, in other words. DVD sound is generally from movie soundtracks. Sound for film is heavily standardised [compared to the music industry, where there basically are no standards at all], from measured standard monitoring levels to the frequency response curves of playback equipment, amplifier headroom, and a number of other things. From the beginning to the end of the chain, attention is paid to level and overall sound, which is pretty ironic considering that most soundtracks end up in Dolby Digital [AC3] which tends to make them sound absolutely grating when things get busy in all the channels. AC3 itself carries [or can carry] in its bitstream information about the type of monitoring used, what levels should be used for each channel on mixdown to stereo, preferred mixdown method [stereo vs. dolby surround], and a number of other things meant to help in maintaining standards from the beginning of the recording chain to the end - playback in a movie house or your own home. DVD soundtracks are noticeably different from music recordings, yes. Part of the answer why is because of the effort to keep the recording chain standardised from end-to-end. Another part of why is because film sound engineers are doing a vastly different job from their counterparts in the music industry - music doesn't have to follow the action on a screen, or maintain distinct separation between channels for full effect, or enhance specific sounds for added impact.

In reality it's pretty ironic that laypeople are concerning themselves with high-resolution audio; their playback systems are generally not even capable of reproducing 96/24 audio with full fidelity, though many [including myself] would argue that the higher resolution in the normal audio band is more important than reproducing ultrasonics. The plain truth is that 16-bit playback systems aren't even properly exploited, capability-wise - especially considering the fact that most CDs these days have a total dynamic range of about 6dB [exaggeration]. Properly-mastered 16-bit/44.1kHz recordings have the potential to be vastly better than most of the shite mastering that's now considered industry-standard.

Yes, it works, but it also potentially inflates the size of your library by a full order of magnitude if you're going from HiSP to WAV. If you're then converting back down to HiSP or another ATRAC format, you're also incurring a second [or third or fourth] quality loss in the process. This method would have no impact on size for people like myself whose entire library consists of 'live' recordings I've uploaded, almost all of which are LPCM. For anyone else, especially users who rip their own music or record in HiSP or other modes, the increase in total size of their library could be quite dramatic, not to mention the quality loss of re-encoding anything that originated in modes lower than HiSP.

It's called a transition phase, and anyone who has been paying attention to HiMD since its official announcement in early 2004 should have been fully expecting this to happen. The idea behind the transition phase is to provide units that provide full backward-compatibility alongside the features of the new generation. This is done more as a courtesy than as a requirement. With many other formats out there, no effort is made for backward-compatibility at all. DVD would be a notable exception to this, though in all honesty, I have only ever met one person who uses their DVD player to also play audio CDs. Most of the others I know aren't even aware that their DVD player can play CDs, and are surprised by it when told. If you can't accept that formats evolve [MD -> MDLP, MDLP -> NetMD] and eventually are superceded [HiMD], then all I can suggest is that you don't buy or use the products in question. Some of us [i am in this camp] have no reason to use MD/MDLP modes at all. I have no legacy equipment to concern myself with compatibility over. For those of you who are looking to maintain full backward-compatibility because they have a large library of legacy MD or MDLP discs, playback compatibility has been maintained in HiMD. If you need to make discs for compatible playback, there is a huge market out there for used equipment, and some manufacturers are also still making MD / MDLP midi systems and portables. For all intents and purposes, however, MD and MDLP should be considered officially deprecated by Sony, the company that created both. HiMD itself will likely go through at least another phase of this if Sony decide to release higher-capacity discs than 1GB. For more info, check out the research section on www.minidisc.org.

There are no existing units that do SP via USB. It would be a superfluous feature, considering the fact that none of the software Sony make includes a SP codec. The headphone output of the RH10 is within range of normal line level for consumer equipment when used at 29/30 volume. By within range I mean, as measured with my unit, within 1-2dB.

The problem you were experiencing is with SS's LP2 codec [the highest quality available for NetMD use from both SS and Simple Burner]. Basically, IMO, it's crap. I've listened to LP2 recordings made live and found them to be of listenable [if not always high] quality. SS's LP2 codec sounds like garbage to me.

My experience with SFC is that it's highly unreliable. The amount of time it would take to use it, followed by the amount of time it would take to correct all the errors it causes [like overwriting SP-updated files with non SP files but the system still thinks the SP files are there, or asking for SP discs when the files are in the dllcache, or refusing to accept the SP discs after you've gone to the trouble of obtaining them, not to mention to hours it takes simply to run on some machines..]... It's faster to wipe an reinstall than to use SFC and hope it turns out okay [which it has for me 0% of the time in probably around 70 attempts at using it] and then having to correct all the crap it causes when it doesn't [which is always, by my experience].

Sorry to say this, but it sounds to me like the problem is completely unrelated to either SS or the drivers themselves. It sounds more to me like your running installation of XP either has some corrupted components, corrupt or otherwise invalid INFs that apply to the same device ID as the player, or some other software installed that is incompatible with the player's drivers. Whatever it is, the problem existed in your Windows installation before you ever started any of this process. My only suggestion at this point is to back up your data [especially licenses for anything], completely wipe the current installation of Windows XP on your computer [it's not necessary to delete all of the data, just the Windows and Program Files folders], and reinstall Windows from scratch. Incidentally, had I read this thread sooner, I would have recommended a full reinstall [of Windows] as soon as you mentioned it working on someone else's machine but not yours. Especially after having Windows reject what are probably valid drivers when you tried installing them.

Nice featureset. I'd be interested to know what the interface is like. Shame it doesn't support any lossless-packing formats.

RAM also sucks power as it needs to be refreshed constantly. Very impractical. MDs and HiMDS have a fairly large cache [something like at least 4Mb, that's bits, not bytes].

The difference is in the max SPL the mic can transduce. If you're recording low-level sounds, there is no benefit to higher bias voltage that I'm aware of.

You forgot the last steps, though: * back up your originals before editing * back up your editing after you're done

So, basically, you want a flash recorder? Why not just buy a flash recorder, then?

I don't believe this for a second. I think that this problem is simply because of the nature of the plastic Sony used on the unit's face. The OLED itself is not the entire face, and the entire face has the problem. Considering the cost of the unit, Sony could have put an extra $2 in manufacturing them to include a scratch- and reflection- reducing coating much like they use on eyeglass lenses. I would note that my NH700 has a clear plastic face which is highly scratch-resistant. After almost a year's use the display is unscratched and most of the visible wear on the unit is the silver finish wearing off to expose the plastic body underneath.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_system_measurements http://www.dpamicrophones.com/page.php?PID=35 [Microphone University's "How to read Microphone Specs", very useful]

Digital recordings can be uploaded but not converted to WAV using SS.

I concur. BTW, I've noticed that Ss 3.x craps out on uploads of tracks where the unit was jarred or jostled during recording [with both the NH700 and RH10]. SS doesn't delete the track, doesn't damage its DRM info, and still allows playback - just not uploading. As a result I've had to use total recorder to copy a few tracks that this happened with.

I'd say the real bottleneck is the whole amount of power vs. time it takes to heat the change-layer to its curie temp vs. domain write speed.. not much to do with the physical mechanice of the units.

If it works for you, why question it?

S/N is not the end-all-be-all. A microphone with a higher sensitivity rating and/or a lower self-noise figure would likely benefit you more than one with a higher S/N. This is probably your best bet. A better preamp would be my first bet. Like I said, sensitivity and self-noise ratings are just as if not more important than dynamic range and S/N ratio. If you're really interested in increasing the dynamic range of your recordings: * Get balanced microphones and cabling * Use mics that are properly biased if they need power [not with just 1.5V or something, but full 12-48V phantom power] * Use a low-noise, high-gain mic preamp with balanced inputs and lastly * Consider using an external A/D convertor

MD media itself has a slower maximum speed for both reading and writing than 1GB HiMDs do. HiMD's higher-density DWDD format is capable of about twice the speed of MD both ways [at the least]. Check the HiMD FAQ.