dex Otaku

If you transfer them to a main PC, immediately convert the files to WAV, and use the WAVs for everything [including backing up and copying to the other PC], you should have no problems.

That's called compression artifact, and is a demonstration of how lossy data compression works, or rather, how it fails to work. If you're using LP4, try switching to LP2. If you're already using LP2, record in SP mode realtime from a CD player using the line or optical in, if the N510 has them.

Give me an upload client that supports batching and reads id3 tags for file info, and get rid of the "feature" that mutilates filenames by replacing them with something useless, and I'll upload more. :*)

Why not? All of the newer remotes are compatible with the full lineup of HiMDs. The 40 has the added advantage of recording meters, as well.

I must admit, I've been lazy in the past, I almost never make recordings using the line in, and I just assumed that the live recording FAQ was correct because someone else tested it. However - I always leave Time Mark on, set to 6 minutes. During my test recordings with my RH10 and NH700 earlier this week, I noted that despite this being turned on, both units still automatically insert trackmarks when using the line in. The live recording FAQ states that with Time Mark set to 60 minutes, this is defeated. I haven't tried this myself, but I had always expected that the interval wasn't the important part - that it was on at all was. I suppose I should just test this myself, but honestly - can anyone actually confirm that it's only if TM is set to 60 minutes that this works?

Don't uninstall/reinstall. It's completely unnecessary. I use SS 3.1 with an NH700 and RH10 [connected simultaneously at times].

I wonder how many of the 110000110110100000110110011110110 people in the world really get that.

This seems pretty silly, to me. That must be frustrating.

Updated the original post. Scroll up.

Wow. This is the most entertaining thread I've seen in a long time. Kudos!

As measured 2 days ago and not yet posted, its headphone output with EQ disabled comes very close to 1V peak-to-peak, within 3dBV of line level.

d'oh. Yes, aluminium which is covered with a clear plastic coating - which can get scratched and scuffed from as simple an act as putting it in your pocket [which happened today to mine, right in the middle of the display, the readibility of which isn't really hindered by this, but it's very annoying nonetheless].

I take it as a direct acknowledgement from Sony that: * SP is higher quality than they want people to have access to from a computer without DRM [as well as the reasons I already mentioned] * LP2 is of low enough quality that it's nothing to worry about * HiMD must be LP2-capable because that's what their online music store uses [garbage, IMO] I could have said this before, but I took it for granted that it would be obvious.

Hi-MD has a completely different data structure than MD. All unit-playable audio is DRM'd, track info is stored in a vastly different manner, &c. It uses, more or less, a filesystem of its own on top of FAT16, permitting storage of any files you want to throw on the disc, as a standard USB storage device. MD was designed specifically [and exclusively] for audio use, long before DRM really existed. It uses a filesystem, or rather, data structure, much like CD's. The closest thing to DRM supported by it is SCMS, which is easily defeated. HiMD supports high-bitrate encoding and PCM because it has "real" DRM. Sony's choice to not allow writing of SP from SS is most likely based on the weakness of MD's copy protection measures [sCMS]. Their choice to not allow writing of true SP to HiMD is most likely based on a decision like, "if NetMD users can't use it, HiMD users can't, because that would be unfair, and difficult to control to boot."

Principle differences from where I'm standing [a new RH10 owner, have had a NH700 since they came out in Canada]: NH1 - metal case; RH10 - plastic case NH1 - has timestamping [only model that does]; RH10 - no timestamping NH1 - tiny LCD display; RH10 - big organic EL display [its biggest plus] NH1 - comes with 40ELK multi-line remote with record meters; RH10 [in North America] comes with displayless stick remote NH1 - ridiculous cradle arrangment; RH10 - cradle for charging only NH1 - no dry cell [AA] support; RH10 - gumstick NiMH plus AA support [using screw-on caddy] Despite my gripes I'm very happy with my RH10 [JP model]. Even the crippled MP3 playback [which the NH1 doesn't have at all] isn't so bad. If you look in the HiMD forum you'll find my experiences so far. I look forward to recording with this unit. The lack of AA battery support [and the cost of its batteries] basically detracts from any pluses the NH1 has, IMO. The better remote can be purchased separately and works with all HiMD units.

First: Please stop shouting. Second: they haven't abandoned MD completely. All HiMDs can -play- MD and MDLP. Third: Did you expect the format to last forever? MD itself came out in 1992. Newer and better things are possible now. As with anything technological, you can either severely compromise the next generation by maintaining 100% backward-compatibility, or you can simply accept that it's time to move on. It's time to move on.

As I said [though perhaps not clearly] you -can- change it. However - certain functions that use the roller aren't affected by the setting [most prominently, manual record levels].

More notes after a few more days' use: * The record button is not that hard to press. I was just being impatient. In fact, it's now possible for me to go to record-pause by pressing the two buttons [side-by-side] with my thumb in a rolling motion. So - there's one issue resolved for me. * The roller takes getting used to. It still skips, but I'm getting there in terms of being able to use it "accurately". I think I will always prefer the wheel on my NH700, to be honest. * I tried scanning the unit, but the reflectivity of its fach makes it show up as black. Which looked WEIRD in the scan [buttons floating in space with an orange edge on it] .. I didn't bother keeping the scan. Someone else already posted pics of the orange RH10 anyway. I ran some tests on the RH10 compared to my NH700 last night. The results were bland, but some interesting bits popped out: * Confirmed the MP3 defect [which is what I'd call it] for myself * The RH10 comes -very- close to actual line level on its output [or, well, 1Vp-p anyway]. * The mysterious distortion I experienced when putting ultrasonics into the NH700 has now disappeared, and is also not present with the RH10. That's it's gone with the NH700 [when it was plainly present 9 months ago] is baffling me; I had to have made a mistake somewhere along the line. I'll post the graphs soon.

The above was basically my first impressions, based on about 2 hours' use. I plan to make this my main recording unit from now on. The EL screen alone is reason enough to do so in my books. The fact that the featureset and interface is virtually identical to my NH700 is actually something I consider positive, though some might find that odd. Of all the things I've mentioned so far, the only one that actually irks me severely is the lack of timestamping. Even the ease with which the face can be scratched isn't very important in my books; I fully expect the unit to get worn. More later.

No. Your friend is part-correct on the stereo thing, but there's a caveat to that terminology as I'll point out. What you need is a cable that goes directly from XLR to "stereo" [dual mono] 3.5mm. What you appear to have is cabling that goes from XLR to mono [tip-sleeve, or TS]1/4", adapted to stereo [tip-ring-sleeve, or TRS] 3.5mm. The end result of going from mono 1/4" to stereo is that the right channel of the 3.5mm connection is connected to the ground of the 1/4" connection, hence only having one channel of audio. The caveat about "stereo"? TRS connections have two main usages: first, as balanced mono connectors, similar to bantam as used in patchbays with pro gear. Second is as unbalanced two-channel stereo. If you go looking for a "XLR to 3.5mm" cable, you might end up with the balanced kind rather than the stereo kind - though in all honesty, I don't know how the recorder will take to a balanced connection [it might work correctly or not, I have seen stranger things]. I would suggest looking at places that sell these accessories online and getting specifically the cable you need. Using adapters from a heavy cable to plug into the recorder will put a great deal of stress on the connector and logic board inside the unit, and will eventually cause it to break. If you live somewhere where these kinds of cabling are available in music or audio stores, try looking there as well. What you need is "balanced female XLR to unbalanced male 3.5mm stereo".

By hardened DRM I mean the digital rights management system used by HiMD and other recent Sony players. I also mean other variants of DRM used by other systems, especially those which rely on online music sales. MD / MDLP recordings are limited to using SCMS, which basically no longer counts as a form of DRM, because it is so easily bypassed.

True SP does not support hardened DRM. End of story.

An SM57 is a balanced monaural dynamic stage mic. I have usually reserved these for close-mic'ing guitar amps and drums [mostly toms] or other instruments whose voice is limited primarily to the midrange. In a pinch I've used them for vocals [what they were designed for in the 1960s when they were new - I have footage of The Doors using SM57s, heh], but I wouldn't recommend one for general use in any case - their response curve is fairly severe [limited] compared even to microphones that cost half as much. Chances are, if you're getting the recording in one channel only, it's your cabling. Proper cabling to connect a balanced mic like an SM57 to an MD or HiMD recorder would adapt from its balanced XLR end, splitting the signal to both the mic preamp's input channels. A straight XLR to 1/4" balanced cable with a 1/4" to 3.5mm adapter will cause the problem you're experiencing. In the case that you have proper cabling, you can test whether it's your recorder's headphone output by listening to something else on it, of course. You can also test whether it's the mic input by using a stereo microphone made for 3.5mm connection.

[attachmentid=1104] [attachmentid=1105] <FONT size=5><B>BIGGEST PROS:</B></FONT><UL><LI>OLED display, which is well worth paying extra for and <B>vastly</B> better than either LCD or backlit LCD; the larger display is also far more readable in general, with longer lines of text and more information presented in one go</LI><LI>combination of gumstick battery and AA gives the ability to record a full 1GB HiMD in HiSP mode [7 hours 54 minutes] nonstop</LI><LI>orientation of inputs compared to face makes for better handling [and makes it seem more like an audio component, IMO]</LI></UL> <FONT size=5><B>BIGGEST CONS:</B></FONT><UL><LI>lack of timestamping is a serious omission</LI><LI>scratchability of plastic coating on face</LI><LI>defective MP3 support [keep reading though, it's not as bad as it might seem]</LI><LI>having to use SonicStage for anything, even if it has improved</LI></UL> <FONT size=5><STRONG>General Notes:</STRONG></FONT> <UL><LI>As I was aware of quite some time ago, <STRONG>there is no MD or MDLP support when recording via analogue or optical</STRONG>; I was already aware of this, and it doesn't matter to me. I have no legacy MD, MDLP, or NetMD equipment to worry about compatibility with, for one; I also have an NH700 which supports MD and MDLP modes if I need them</LI><LI>orange sure is pretty </LI><LI>the face is <B>VERY</B> easy to scratch; so much so that gently wiping dust off from the packaging [with a clean cotton t-shirt] scratched it immediately after removing it from the box </LI><LI>addendum to that: scuffing is worse than scratching; today [2005-06-14] I scuffed the surface [over the display, of course] by simply carrying it in my jacket pocket; thankfully the scuffs and scratches don't interfere with the OEL's readability</LI><LI>organic EL is beautiful </LI><LI>it has more heft than expected </LI><LI>thank <I>bob</I> for the fora [as Douglas Adams would put it], otherwise it would still be in Japanese </LI><LI>the AA battery caddy has all the feel of something that will be the first thing to break, though in all honesty the longevity of the NH14WM-A gumstick battery has truly surprised me</LI><LI>thank Audiocubes for sending the universal power adapter [regulated!!!]; <EM>note that as kurisu pointed out, JP models come with the "world" power supply, so that explains this</EM></LI><LI>it came with the universal power adapter, bag, battery, manuals, super-short USB cable, extra CDs for the English software versions, better earbuds than the NH700, &c. - <B>but no blank disc!</B> Kinda funny that the gen1 bottom-end recorder came with a free disc, but the gen2 top of the line [excepting the camera model] doesn't. <EM>Note: kurisu has informed me that JP models don't come with blanks</EM></LI><LI>the internal mechanisms are somewhat quieter than the NH700 </LI><LI><B>where's the timestamping? there is no timestamping.</B> this seems a really ludicrous omission - and means that this extremely simple to implement and very useful feature [which I for one would make use of with almost every recording I make] is available only on the now discontinued NH1</LI><li><b>The JP model RH10's headphone output [is the European RH10 Eurocrippled?], when set to 29/30 volume and EQ off, is extremely close to actual line level. Any complaints about it not having a line-out or line-out mode like the NH900 are unsubstantiated.</b></li><LI>initial listening tests with material encoded directly to HiSP from CD using SS suggest that the digital amp -does- make a difference; there is a slight emphasis on the high-end as well as slightly better overall clarity - the most obvious effect of which is that certain forms of compression artifacting becomes much more obvious when listening through the RH10</LI><LI>I tried scanning the unit, but the reflectivity of the aluminium-under-plastic made it show up as black. Someone else already posted photos of the orange unit, anyway.</LI><LI>the fontopia earbuds included with the unit actually fit in my ears [the ones that came with the NH700 are completely useless in this regard; they actually fall out without even applying pressure to the cord], and while not fantastic, they don't sound like total crap</LI><LI>I have confirmed for myself that the MP3 issue is real, and from a purist standpoint this has me raging.. however - my hyperacusis likes the way MP3s sound on it; the unit's defect actually softens out exactly the range that causes me physical pain, an unexpected benefit which means that the EQ I apply to MP3s is actually <I>less</I> severe than what I apply to everything else</LI><LI><B>the benefit of being able to drop whatever I want to listen to right now on the unit and not have to wait for transcoding outweighs the quality loss for my own use, but -</B><LI><B>SONY need to fix the MP3 issue [and do so at zero cost for <I>all</I> customers] if it can be done, because this kind of defect is rather massive and completely unacceptable from a company that should simply know better</B></LI></UL> <FONT size=5><STRONG>Usage notes:</STRONG></FONT> <UL><LI>orientation of display/controls vs. disc mechanism and inputs/outputs [now on top rather than side] is more convenient for general handling than having things on the side as with older models</LI><LI>the interface is much nicer than on the NH700; same functions, but more nicely presented; a larger display is a <B>good</B> thing </LI><LI>is functionally identical to the NH700 with the addition of the "File List" function [useful if you use it for USB storage] and an option for always on/auto-off with the display</LI><LI>the jog-dial/roller is weird as hell: when in menus, it behaves as the setting for "normal" or "reverse" tells it to; when using it to set the record levels [and in at least one other place where it's counter-intuitive, though I don't recall what at the moment], it behaves the opposite of what one would expect, [e.g. rolling it up turns down the levels and rolling it down turns up the levels, though if thought of as an attenuator it works as expected] and the jogdial direction setting has no effect on it </LI><LI>the jog-dial/roller is more diffcult to use than the NH700's jogdial</LI><LI>starting the unit in rec-pause is a simple one-finger operation; it's actually quite easy to press record-pause with the thumb in a single rolling motion - this is handly since I usually start in rec-pause to enable manual levels anyway</LI></UL> <FONT size=5><STRONG>Notes related to the RM-MC35ELK remote:</STRONG></FONT> <UL><LI>the included RM-MC35ELK remote [with backlit display] is much more functional than the displayless lipstick remote, though I still don't envision myself actually using the display often; the additional keys and press/slide play/forward/back is a good touch; the reversible clip is one of those "finally!" kind of features; it also works great with my NH700</LI><LI>the buttons are less easy to press accidentally, something that happens frequently with the RM-MC21 included with the NH700</LI><LI>the ability to switch EQ modes and alter the custom settings with the remote is <B>really</B> nice</LI></UL> <FONT size=5><STRONG>Comparing the RH10 directly to the NH700:</strong></font> <i>I know this doesn't exactly belong in this review, but others have been asking for such a comparison. This is taken almost verbatim from another such post. Some of what is here is repeated from above in plainer language.</i> 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 [other than MP3 playback] 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. The RH10's display lines are both larger and longer, meaning actual readable titles. In terms of recording, there is basically no difference between these units at all. The RH10 lacks the NH1's timestamping feature [<b>SHAME ON SONY! for omitting such a simple feature</b>] which is the only thing [other than its remote, which can be purchased separately] that really distinguishes the NH1 from the rest of the pack when it comes to recording. 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. Sound-wise, the differences between the NH700's analogue amp and the RH10's digital amp are pretty minor. The digital amp has a higher output and seems to emphasise treble in a way that makes compression artifacting generally more obvious. For portable use in moderately noisy environments, this is a non-issue, as outside sound will mask such things away. For listening at home through good headphones at moderate volume, the NH700 is preferable to me as it seems gentler, to be honest. In reality, its supposedly less-accurate amp is probably fudging the sound enough to blurr out some of the artifacting that the RH10 sometimes makes glaringly obvious. 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. To repeat directly from above: <b>The JP model RH10's headphone output [is the European RH10 Eurocrippled?], when set to 29/30 volume and EQ off, is extremely close to actual line level. Any complaints about it not having a line-out or line-out mode like the NH900 are unsubstantiated.</b> 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. If you're trying to choose between these two models, my final criteria would be what your primary use and your budget are; since the function of the two units is nearly identical, and the recording capabilities are arguably identical, <STRONG>if recording is your primary use and you're feeling budget-conscious, get a NH700 and a mini-maglite.</STRONG> <STRONG>If you can afford to spend more, the OLED display of the RH10 is worth it, IMO. </STRONG> 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. <HR noShade SIZE=1> <FONT size=5><B>dex's Unscientific Tests:</B></FONT> Once again - this isn't tremendously scientific, and I do not have professional test equipment. The following do not give any realistic idea of what the units sound like. They do, however, given the basis of comparison between original files, my Revo looped-back, and the input and output of the two recorders, give some idea of their differences. This is testing done with only my own recorders; your mileage may and will vary. <B>Note that nothing here is actually calibrated properly.</B> What I refer to below as "calibration" is using my Revo as the point of reference, meaning the results are skewed according to its capabilities. <B>These should by no means be considered definitive or to be "official" measurements. They are simply for comparative purposes, keeping the frame of reference [my Revo] in mind.</B> <FONT size=5><B>PCM analogue recording tests:</B></FONT> <B>Conditions:</B> <UL><LI>used M-Audio Revolution 7.1 in stereo mode with all levels at maximum [should generate a maximum of 1Vp-p on output] </LI><LI>both units were operated on battery power only </LI><LI>line-in "calibrated" by playing 0dBfs 880Hz tone and settings levels on both recorders manually; 18/30 gives peak reading on the RH10's meters at the second dot, second segment from the top; </LI><LI>mic-in “calibrated” by playing 0dBfs 880Hz tone and setting levels on both recorders manually to 18/30, then dropping the output level of the Revo to meet the second dot on the RH10's meters </LI><LI>levels were left the same as set for RH10 for testing the NH700 </LI><LI>line in: RH10 peak level is at -0.7dBfs; with the NH700 peak level is at -0.3dBfs </LI><LI>mic in: RH10 peaks at -0.9dBfs; NH700 peaks at -0.3dBfs </LI><LI>recorded tracks were uploaded using SS 3.1, converted to WAV, and tested with SpectraPLUS software</LI><LI>Graphs were made with the following settings: 1024-point FFT; “Flat Top” smoothing window; FFT overlap at 90%; peak hold on; logarithmic scaling for both amplitude and frequency axes. The resolution is fairly coarse, but sufficient for purposes of rough comparison. Anything greater would be overkill.</LI></UL> <B>The following test files were used:</B> <UL><LI>10-second long, -6dBfs (peak) 16-bit/48kHz sweep as generated by Sound Forge 8's "Simple Synthesis" </LI><LI>10 seconds of digital silence </LI><LI>10 seconds of white noise (16-bit / 44.1kHz, correlated stereo, a.k.a. mono) as obtained from an AES testing website </LI></UL> I also ran all the same tests with pink noise, brown noise, blue noise, and violet noise, all from the same AES-related site, but no unusual results were found, so I didn't bother keeping these plots. Both the line and microphone inputs were also tested for self-noise/noisefloor by grounding their inputs, then recording for 10 seconds with manual levels set to 0/30, 18/30, and 30/30. The graphs are aggregate for the full 10 seconds and compared with looped-back silence from the Revo. Each graph's amplitude axis was scaled for best fit, as can be seen on the graphs themselves. While I tried to maintain the scale between comparable graphs, they were not made to directly compared with one another, since each contains multiple results as overlays. <B>If you're comparing them to each other, pay attention to the differences in their amplitude axes.</B> <B>PCM Recording Test Graphs:</B> <blockquote>Line input - Null signal [silence] recorded from the Revo, level = 18/30 [attachmentid=1106] Notes: Here the RH10's noisefloor appears to be almost 10dB quieter than the NH700's. Woohoo! .. almost. Check the grounded noisefloor plots. Line input - logarithmic sweeptone, level = 18/30 [attachmentid=1107] Notes: Nothing surprising here. Line input - whitenoise, level = 18/30 [attachmentid=1108] Notes: I don't know what was going on with the loopback recording. That bump in the bottom end takes place in the last 1sec of the recording and is not present in any of the others from the same source. Mic input - Null signal from Revo, level = 18/30 [attachmentid=1109] Notes: Considering the difference between the RH10 and NH700 on the line input, the lack of difference here is almost surprising. Mic input - logarithmic sweeptone, level = 18/30 [attachmentid=1110] Notes: Nothing surprising. Mic input - whitenoise, level = 18/30 [attachmentid=1111] Notes: Nothing surprising. RH10 line input - selfnoise [grounded input], levels at 0, 18, 30/30 [attachmentid=1112] NH700 line input - selfnoise [grounded input], levels at 0, 18, 30/30 [attachmentid=1113] Notes: Compare the plot of results from the RH10 with the NH700 - The RH10, when brought up to 30/30, has a massive jump [10dB @ 1kHz] in its noisefloor, decreasing with frequency, for some unknown reason. Comparing this with the null signal recorded from the Revo, the difference is somehow appreciable. Can anyone think of why? <b>Note that noisefloor figures such as these aren't really that useful, since I haven't measured the actual preamp gain to give any idea of actual signal-to-noise.</b> RH10 mic input - selfnoise [grounded input], levels at 0, 18, 30/30 [attachmentid=1114] NH700 mic input - selfnoise [grounded input], levels at 0, 18, 30/30 [attachmentid=1115] Notes: Comparing the RH10 results with the NH700, it appears that either: * the NH700 fares slightly better by a very narrow [i.e. imperceptible] margin, or * that the RH10 has a marginally higher gain ratio overall.</blockquote> <FONT size=5><B>Playback tests:</B></FONT> I compared the NH700 with the RH10, both with their volume control set at 29/30, using the same files transferred directly to HiMD using SS in PCM mode. These are again referenced to the original files and the Revo's looped-back results for comparative purposes. Results from the RH10 and NH700, recorded by the Revo at unity gain, were not corrected. This show the level difference coming from the units themselves. <B>Playback test graphs:</B> <blockquote>Digital silence [PCM transferred from SS]: [attachmentid=1116] Notes: Were these results calibrated, the lines would overlap almost exactly, with the NH700 higher by maybe 1dB throughout. Logarithmic sweeptone [PCM transferred from SS]: [attachmentid=1117] Notes: The NH700 has a flatter response curve! The RH10's output slowly raises response starting at about 3.5kHz until it's actually up by about 2dB at 20kHz [not an audible difference for most listeners with average hearing]. This might help explain the slight sweetness to the sound of the RH10. Whitenoise [PCM transferred from SS]: [attachmentid=1118] Notes: No alarms, and no surprises.</blockquote> <FONT size=5><B>MP3 playback test:</B></FONT> A final test was performed comparing the original files, files transferred to HiMD as PCM, HiSP, lame MP3 [--preset-insane], and Sound Forge 8's Xing MP3 encoder [@320kbps]. I could have tested the iTunes FhG encoder, FhG/Radium, and a couple of others, but again, it would just be overkill. The point here is to show that the same results are achieved with at least two encoders' output; I expect the same to happen regardless of what encoder was used. The Xing encoder's plot is the magenta line on each graph, as only 4 overlays are allowed and listed in the legend. <B>MP3 playback test graphs:</B> <blockquote>Logarithmic sweeptone: [attachmentid=1119] Notes: Can anyone explain the ~1dB notch in HiSP's curve at about 4.5kHz? MP3 playback response starts to fall perceptibly at almost exactly 1kHz. <b>This looks exactly like a -9dB, -3dB/oct high shelf set at 1kHz.</b> Whitenoise: [attachmentid=1120] Notes: The Xing encoder appears to be distorting the signal more than lame does.</blockquote> That's it. Have fun. Any questions - do ask. If you see any errors, please tell me. In particular, the graph legends may have mistakes in them as I had to re-create them several times and may have missed labelling them properly.</B> <HR noShade SIZE=1> Notes after nearly 6 months' use: the unit is starting to develop character - the face is covered with tiny scratches, and the forward/back buttons have lost most of their silver paint at the edges, revealing white plastic beneath. It looks well-appreciated, and it is.the fact that the buttons are all beside the display helps the display to not get scratched.the gumstick battery still lasts longer than I ever expected it to. I almost always use the AA sidecar when recording; with the gumstick fully charged and AA connected, I technically could fill a 1GB disc in HiSP mode [7 hours 55 minutes] without having to stop or switch batteries. I use the display on the remote far more often than I ever thought I would - though almost exclusively for changing the EQ, not for searching for tracks on discs.I ditched the cradle after about a week; if it were a USB cradle rather than a charging cradle, I might use it, but since I'm constantly plugging in/unplugging both of my wallwarts to carry in my recording kit [with my the RH10 and NH700], it never gets used. Having a cradle for USB would be more convenient - I have actually considered doctoring the charging cradle for this purpose but haven't got to it yet.both the remote and the unit [being orange and shiny] get noticed a lot - I find myself explaining what is quite often to people who ask "is that an mp3 player?" while pointing at the remote.

Standard CD players have higher peak voltages than 1V. This has generally been true since they were introduced in the 1980s. Unity gain on a consumer MD or HiMD recorder is compared to equipment referenced to the -10dBV consumer standard. The standard does not define how much headroom the system has; it only defines that -10dBV is equal to 0VU when metering the signal. Many types of equipment exceed 1Vp-p; HiFi/AFM VTRs, CD players, &c. generally all do.