dex Otaku

You can write WAV files using the same method: write them to an audio CD [or CD-RW] as audio tracks, then rip them into SS as OMA PCM [or dump them straight to HiMD/MD as OMA PCM using Simple Burner]. No, there's no straightforward way, but that method does work.

You're welcome. Take a look through the FAQ / info sub-forum in the HiMD forum. There's info there on doing transfers &c. - which admittedly hasn't been updated since Sony released their WAV converter, though I think the majority of us here are sticking with marcnet's HiMDRenderer. SS does have a bug that trashes tracks occasionally during upload - so know in advance that it's recommended that HiMD owners backup their own recordings by copying them in realtime before doing the SS transfer. Yes, it sounds like a pain, but I find it not that inconvenient knowing that in the end I get a full-digital transfer of my original recording. Mind you, I'd rather that Sony just fixed the bug.

Haha! Thanks for the correction, then. As to the rest, I think we're quietly agreeing that .. the purpose of most codecs is in fact to reproduce what comes in as faithfully as possible on output. Which makes all of this moot.

Heh. No, not skin and bones. I was about 200lbs there, I'm about 155 now. Someone recently called me 'waifish' though...

This is frequently used in the audio industry, actually. Everything from the RIAA equalisation in a turntable preamp to EQ built into cassette decks for different tape fomulations to the MPX filter on most FM stereo receivers to the de-emphasis circuits required in CD players to conform to industry standard basically fits this function. I would seriously doubt that the hedphone amp in any HiMD or MD unit is EQ'd in some way to make ATRAC sound better, though. Filtering is done by the ATRAC codec itself, yes - and likely a high shelf used after the DAC. Apparently there is a small amount of bass EQ applied to the [non-digital] headphone amps in order to compensate for the average impedance of earbuds as well, but again - this is not compensating for ATRAC, it is compensating for earbuds, and not in order to enhance sound - rather, to try and keep response as flat as possible under most circumstances.

What are you writing -from-? In SonicStage you can rip CDs directly to OMA PCM [there's either that or WAV PCM, which can't be put directly on HiMD]. If you're trying to import an mp3 or WAV file, it won't work that way [as you've noted]. I'd suggest using watcher666's method detailed here: http://forums.minidisc.org/viewtopic.php?t=6790

No MD models allow uploading. This can only be done with HiMD. Given the versatility of HiMD [with backward-compatibility as well as the HiMD mode with higher disc capacities] I would suggest that either an NH700 [not sold in the US] or NHF800 would suit your needs well. See http://www.minidisco.com/mz-nhf800.html

1) What model is the unit? 2) What kind of discs are you using, and have you tried more than one? 3) What are the tracks you're trying to copy - ripped to SonicStage from CD, transcoded mp3, &c.? 4) Are there any other devices sharing the USB interface the unit is plugged into? 5) Is there software running in the system tray for any USB devices you've installed? [examples: speakers/audio devices, webcams, scanners, &c.]

Ah! So you did. Yes, imported tracks get transcoded either when you write them to HiMD/MD or whenever you choose to do so. I missed the actual point of what you said the first time though - to use mp3 decoded to PCM and put PCM straight to the HiMD to avoid transcoding. Which is a valid point. I, personally, just avoid transcoding mp3s. I usually find HiSP transcoded material is good enough for portable listening, though. I'd rather have 2:20 / HiMD-formatted MD80 @ HiSP than the 28 minutes you can get with PCM, too. I reserve PCM for recording.

I'd ask why, but.. why bother.

It seems like an awful lot of extra work and time for something that can be done just by importing and converting the track directly with SS, then putting it to HiMD. Not to mention wasting a CDR for something that doesn't require one at all.

HiMD itself was a compromise solution created specifically to bridge the gap between MD/MDLP and the next full generation. MD and HiMD both use the same optical system, which is part of what limits the capacity of HiMD media to 1GB. Had they not chosen to maintain backward compatibility, they could easily have fit 2-4.7GB on the same-sized 64mm disc. Such would have been accomplished by using a narrower-focusing laser, for one thing. If they eventually make the choice to move to a newer [higher density] optical system, MD compatibility will disappear completely from the player/recorders. I couldn't say whether 1GB discs would still be compatible,though - it's possible that because of the DWDD system they use, they might still be usable even with different optics. So - the discs being the same size is not the only factor in determining backward-compatibility. If anything, it's the least important factor.

Try looking at the other threads asking about mics. The recommendations people [including myself] have are likely to be the same - feel free to ask questions in those threads too, of course. [specifically, just below this one in the forum listing is a thread about 'best mic for NH700' ..] Cheers.

Most of the mp3 recorders out there lack serious recording features such as usable metering, decent microphone preamps, mic plugin power (required by condensor mics), manual level controls, and the list goes on. One notable exception [though I haven't read any actual usability reviews of it and likely won't actually see one for quite some time] would be the Roland / Edirol R-1, which is a flash-based recorder that records in 24-bit PCM as well as mp3 at various bitrates. Recording compressed is not always a bad thing. Just make sure you use the least-impacting compression possible, i.e. 320kbps mp3 is fine for a first generation recording that will likely only be recompressed once after editing. It does depend on what you're recording, of course. Some types of music are more likely to turn up compression artifacts than others. See http://www.edirol.com/products/info/r1.html

Yeah. And my av .. me sitting in front of a bunch of equipment recording the bed tracks for a demo album that never got finished. Sexy. And 8 years old, too. I'm now about 40-50lbs lighter than I was then.

I can't help but wonder that we're all already dealing with Sony's abandonware.

Heh. I used OS/2 from when 2.1 came out to [upgrading to Warp 3] sometime in 1997. I also ran all kinds of unix software under OS/2, had TCP/IP daemons running, &c. And I remember how angry I was when Windows95 came out - seeing how M$ had directly ripped off so many key features of OS/2. And funny .. later on, Apple did the same, copying the dock directly from OS/2 Warp 3. It's a shame that IBM were 7-8 years ahead of their time, really. I'd rather still be using a version of OS/2 than any version of Windows. I don't doubt that the Mac and Mac OS X [and its descendants] will be around for some time. Macs have always held a strong niche market, especially in the publishing, graphics, film, and broadcast industries. Which is specifically why I tend to question why Sony are such boneheads about Mac support - considering how strong the market is in that 'niche' for exactly the kind of people who would use quality pro / semipro / amateur broadcasting-related equipment ... I don't know. I don't exactly agree with bjsilva's saying "The usual reason a company won't develop their product for the Mac is simply because they don't feel like it," because the reason they don't feel like it is usually perceived market economics. It costs a crapload of money to develop software for a specific platform, and then you have to support it afterwards... many companies look at the Mac market, think of how much they'd sell of their product to those people, and then the costs of supporting to product for a market that already lost money hand over fist just from the development and distribution and advertising costs.. and think that it's simply not worth it. That doesn't make it correct. It's just how many companies perceive that particular market.

Most older CDs have much lower average levels, because engineers at the time didn't have workstations like we do now and they were accustomed to dealing with analogue tape moreso than digital. The end result is that older recordings tend to have more headroom [possibly without having used the top few dBfs], and usually MUCH larger dynamic ranges than most that are made now. In theory, you shouldn't have to worry about digital recording levels when dubbing directly from CD to MD/HiMD. KJ is correct with what e says about making compilations, however. When mixing sources it's actually preferable to normalise [in the traditional sense, not in the more common sense of bit-pushing until there's no dynamic range left whatsoever] using editing software and then assemble the compilation. This way you can be assured that the average levels between tracks are relatively well-matched, rather than bouncing all over as much as 20dB.

SS basically has no tech-related settings whatsoever. You either trust it to work, or you don't use it. The problems I've run into with SS dumping uploads were with my HiMD being the only device plugged into that specific [uSB 2.0] interface, with a computer that is otherwise idle.

The MD version is ATRAC. It may be ATRAC coded from 20-bit PCM, but it's still ATRAC, in which case the bit resolution is still basically irrelevant. Compressed audio does not have a bit resolution in the traditional sense [i.e. that of PCM]. Period. What you have is a marginally more accurate ATRAC encoding than one would get from a 16-bit source. Saying that "on the MD version it truly is 20 bit" is a misnomer. ATRAC itself is neither 8, nor 16, nor 18, nor 20, nor 24, nor 2-billion bit audio. It's ATRAC. Period. Comparing 16- vs. 20-bit output .. well, you will have the longer wordlength from your ES deck. You will get 20-bit audio. But it's only as good as the source, which in this case is ATRAC, not the 20-bit master. Again: yes, you'll have slightly more accurate decoding, but it's still only as good as the source - ATRAC.

FAQs and more on http://www.minidisc.org .

TOSLink and coax digital both follow SPDIF conventions [though the implementations are not identical]. In other words - yes. As long as the audio format being carried is standard, it will work. Note that your Fostex desk is fairly likely to use 48kHz PCM [DAT "analogue" standard] rather than 44.1kHz PCM - in which case your HiMD will be resampling all audio coming into it from the Fostex.

A simple database of discs based on disc title would probably suffice. Even just a text listing [i.e. not a spreadsheet or actual database] using individual sequential text files [in Unicode?] per disc with the basics ["album" with indented listing of artist - track# - trackname, track# being optional since it's not really used on HiMD anyway] ... Perhaps not basing it on disc title but rather on whatever the disc's actual IDs are would be better, but I don't actually know how that works or if it's consistent between formats/initialisations. A better document-based solution would be to use one of the XML doc templates used by OpenOffice would be good. Note that OpenOffice's doc formats have been proposed by the European Union as a good basis for an international / Union standard. To begin with, a simple listing would be great [and likely not hard to implement]. KJ: godlike-status indeed!

bump.

One user reported that the new version of VPC with SonicStage was so slow as to be completely useless. i.e. it would take hours to rip a single CD, &c. There is actually a thread specifically about Mac support. It hasn't been posted to for quite a while, so it's fallen down the list.