1kyle

The Made in Japan battery was the original that came with the R90 unit --AT LEAST 7 years old so I doubt if it's counterfeit. In those days counterfeiting a gumstick battery would have been an expensive process making the copy more expensive than the original. Charging up with the R90 takes longer than using the RH10 and I think limits the charge to quite a bit less than the fully rated1400 / 1350 Mah but you can press Charge again immediately on the R90 to give the battery "another dose". I think the R90 limits the charge so you can't (without difficulty and considerable time) actually overcharge the battery.--This is not "Gospel" but from what I've assumed based on observation. An RH10 on the other hand won't overcharge a battery --when it thinks it's charged it won't charge any more even if you press charge again after completing a charging session. I don't like opening the battery door on the RH10 unless I really have to so I'm quite happy to use the R90 as "the charger" for spare batteries. Cheers -K

Hi there Sparky --you beat me to it --but this shows that people DON'T always use the same equipment / conditions or whatever for their tests. Cheers -K

NH1 has a line out Cheers -K

I should have mentioned the output from the Pre-amp -- I didn't mean from the actual cartridge itself --you'll probably break it if you try and take a connection from the actual pickup. The gear I was also referring to were like those cheap and nasty units such as "Dansettes" --anybody remember them --they are probably worth a little bit in the collectors market today however. Some ceramic cartridges were actually quite ok provided the weight of the playing arm wasn't too great-- I've still got an old Lasky's radio catalog giving some specs on those devices --in those days London's Tottenham Court Road / Edgware road areas were full of "self build" electronic and "Hi-FI" shops. --Remnants are still there today --Tottenham Cour Road is still a great place for the latest gizmos etc. If you've got a high end turntable the chances are that you'll have gear to match and the "Hum problem" won't have raised it's head. I can remember messing around with some of the old "Heathkit" stuff years ago ( great electronics self build kit which were brilliant for teaching purposes) where you could actually take an output from the cartridge itself before it went into a preamp. This was so you could feed the signal into an Oscillascope -- as an instruction on the sort of response a cartridge would yield. Cheers -K

Another reason could be that since decks on the whole pre-date fast cheap computers and Broadband Internet --downloading relatively compressed music wasn't a common occurrence in those days -- most people used MD's for decent 292 kbs SP recording (by pretty general consent quality almost indistinguishable from normal CD's). Computer sound cards and speakers were abysmal in those days compared with a deck hooked up to high end gear. Even today computer sound systems sound pretty horrible for a lot of music -- they are geared more to playing games and DVD's --nothing wrong in that but there is a HUGE difference in the listening requirements of an action movie DVD in 7.1 surround sound with gunfire etc all around to an exquisite 'Cello piece played in a String quartet through top end mission speakers. For DVD's a computer sound system can sound great -- but for serious music listening a dedicated system is far better - even today. A computer will sound OK but won't be anything like the same. Once compressed music was easily available and of course before they were shut down -- file sharing services such as the original Napster supplied this -- then while of "Listenable" quality for 100,000's of people the quality didn't really compare with a decent SP recording made from a CD. I think by consensus as well apart from DRM issues and other crud like that nobody will agree that downloaded music from stores such as "Itunes" etc. can compare with a properly recorded CD --there's no reason why "Itunes" etc. couldn't supply high quality uncompressed music --aparet from the normal "Piracy" paranoia. The current Hi-MD units --certainly the RH10 if recorded at PCM / Hi-SP @ 320 or even ~ 256 provided the original source was uncompressed WAV will certinly sound very good indeed when played through a decent Amp with quality speakers. Highly compressed music will actually sound better on "worse" equipment --it will probably depending on the compression rate sound excruciating on high end gear --so in the end "You pays your money and takes your choice". Another "intangible" is the sheer listening experience --it's great to just sit down on a room and listen through great gear without having a computer or any other "Officy / work" type equipment around --but you can't quantify that scientifically --it's just so much more enjoyable. Cheers -K

The Hum will most cerrtainly come from the Vinyl turntable / playback combination rather than the MD unit --can almost 100% guarantee that. One of the problems with recording from Vinyl unless you have a really top notch deck aka old Marantz or similar is that unless the impedance from the cartridge (magnetic --very low gain and highly non linear equalisation or ceramic --bit more like tape and hence more linear equalisation) is matched to the pre-amp of your recording device you'll pick up not only the rumble from the turntable (remember a cartridge converts vibration -- hopefully most of it from the record groove and not the extraneous equipment) to the analog sound wave that goes into your recording device) but also any stray hum due to the 50 / 60 HZ mains --unless the metal parts of your equipment are perfectly earthed or grounded. The 50 / 60 Hz hum is often picked up from vibration and stray magentic fields generated by the mains transformer in the turntable / amplifier gear. You shouldn't have ANY probs with mains units on MD recorders BTW but using a battery is fine for MD recording in any case. A good way generally to record from vinyl --especially if you have an amp with an optical out-- is to play the vinyl with all "Tone settings" at FLAT or LEVEL and record from the optical out into your MD player --the Amp on which you are playing the vinyl should already have the "proper equalisation" set up for the cartridge you are using on the vinyl. This will usually produce "Hum Free" recordings If you have a Soldering Iron and are using a Ceramic (not magnetic) type of cartridge you can also solder two leads direct from the rear of the cartridge. At the other end a mini stereo plug can go straight into your MD recorder --there's enough gain on a ceramic cartridge to do this and the linear equalisation is similar to a tape so it should work just fine. Won't work satisfactorily however with magnetic type of cartridges. Cheers -K

The Output power of the speakers has very little to do with the inherent quality of the evential sound output --- would you consider the high power speakers at a Football Stadium to produce better fidelity sound than a pair of high end Mission speakers even though those at the Stadium are rated at a higher power output. In general High end decks have better amps, less "Wow and flutter" --although this even on a MD portable is pretty neglgible these days and high quality output matched for typical quality pre-amps that are "the front end" on high end audio listening gear. A portable unit --especially with no decent Line out won't yield the same quality --The headphone output of the RH10 is not bad but an optical or decent line out would of course have been better --we shall have to see what the new unit delivers. You'd have to be a "Real fanatical audiophile" to really hear any noticeable difference as portables can give a pretty good account of themseleves if the recording is done properly. HI-SP at 320 (or even 256) provided it was recorded from WAV in the first place or PCM through a decent amp will sound more than acceptable to most people. Cheers -K

These are actually the SAME batteries that shipped with the old (but really GREAT) looking R90 which I've bought out of retirement and am using again regularly --love the "Tactile" feel of this unit. I had to charge and discharge the batttery 5 times before performance was restored (the unit hadn't been used previously for nearly 7 years --Works a treat now and I use it in places where I don't want to take the RH10). The OLDER versions of the batteries were made in Japan whilst the newer one's I believe (made in china) should actually be higher capacity --1400mah. Just charge and discharge --they should work. Another tip is that if you have any invisible grease etc on the contacts either on the battery or on the unit then you'll lose performance rapidly. Just scrape LIGHTLY the + end of the battery and VERY LIGHTLY scrape the battery connector on the RH10 --CAREFUL CAREFUL as the battery compartment hinge can easily break (unlike the R90 which is a bit more ruggedly built --although that still has one of those stupid hinge / lever systems as well). As your RH10 is new maybe just scrape the battery --should be enough. A tiny film of invisible grease on the battery contacts yielding poor electrical contact can reduce the performance of the battery by up to 80%. Like all rechargeable they have a finite number of Charge / Discharge cycles so it depends on how often you use your equipment. You should be able to get around 500 complete charge / discharge cycles with these. Also a tip --Never re-charge the battery until it is empty / nearly empty --wait until the "Low Battery" indicator flashes before re-charging. For recording take the external AA adapter --BTW re-chargeable AA's work with these too --recharge using a separate charger of course --the large capacity 2200 Mah one's are great for recording sessions and cheaper in the long run than buying dry cell (non rechargeable) AA's. --The R90 has a decent external adapter like the RH10 - no USB cradle needed unlike the NH1. Cheers -K Cheers -K

Having spent a bit of the morning at the computer (It's snowing outside so I can't do any photography, Gardening etc etc) I decided to have another go at making some sense of some of the new advances in MP3 technology Anyway I tried converting some tracks of fairly easy Classical music (Corelli--no huge dynamic ranges etc in it) from WAV to MP3 @ 320 using the latest stable LAME converter. Here's the parameters http://www.1kyle.com/mp3test.jpg Actually it compared OK against the 320 ATRAC plus. It seems that the encoding mechanisms have improveed considerably since my last foray into MP3's. Now to see if this will play on the RH10 Converting using the SS converter to change to MP3 doesn't seem as good as using the LAME encoder. So I'll try some other settings and mess around with VBR / CBR etc and different music -- but certainly it's vastly improved from when I attempted this stuff before. Cheers -K

This little guide makes for some interesting reading http://mp3.radified.com/ Cheers -K

Actually that's an advantage to ATRAC3 as you DON'T need to know what you are doing --just transfer @ 320 to the Hi-MD device from your WAV and it's fine --no bother or fuss. Actually I wasn't even aware of the "Ipod / LAME" problem -- and the myriad ways of generating MP3 files -- I certainly WAS aware of the not very good quality of downloaded music from Itunes etc compared with the original CD's. Seems this whole MP3 thing boils down to "What is an MP3" file and how was it generated. Reading on Hydrogen Audio and others it seems there's no definitive way of making a "Bog standard" top quality MP3. There's more encoders out there than cars on the M25 (the UK's notorious road with a 72 mile (most but not quite its entire length) long car park). The flexibilty might well be the downfall in the end unless there is a "definitive" encoding standard. However in response to the original thread I certainly like the look of the new device and would certainly get one myself when it appears. Cheers -K

In the end it does come down to Ears -- however there does seem to be a lot of "chatter" over the web about how Ipods (and some other MP3) devices really don't handle Lame 320 kbs very well. http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....27entry200327 Cheers -K

To lose the SCMS why not run the optical IN cable into your DVD player / recorder and then take the Optical OUT from the DVD player / recorder into your minidisc recorder. The optical OUT on most decent DVD players / recorders is simply a "Pass thru" so you won't lose any quality by "double encoding". You should find the output of the DVD has "stripped" the SCMS bit off in the output data stream. (At least the European models imported from China / Taiwan do). --I think the reason the SCMS bit gets stripped off is that the optical signal can also be fed into l 5.1, 6.1 /7.1 and various other combinations of external Pro logic / Dolby / DTS decoders. Cheers -K

A lot of this depends on the type of music you listen to and of course the original quality of the source in the first place. A 1000 KHZ sine tone test probably would sound fine even at 64 Kbs on almost any compression system. Music with very high dynamic ranges and lots of transients is usually the most difficult to compress and encode properly -if you don't believe me just take any mathematicians words -- to break the original Analog system up you have to start by "digitising" it -- this means amongst other things performing complex Fourier analyses on the waveforms which in a highly dynamic environment is incredibly complex. For the "Mathematically or Numerically Challenged" Fourier analysis is a mathematical technique of breaking any waveform up into a set of sine waves (which are easy to reproduce in analog at the audio level). By adding up the composite sine waves you'll (in theory) get the original waveform back. --Digital signals are essentally One's and Zero's -- like a set of Square waves -- Fourier analysis works on these too and is the basis of A/D and D/A hardware converters. MP3's take "A best guess" type of approach to simplify the maths --remember this started off as an "Open Source" project in response to a demand for a convienient portable music format which didn't require oodles of disc space and had the highest level of compression so the algorithms were hobbled together fairly quickly. At the time MP3's first started appearing even a 56 kbs modem (what's a modem some of you are saying) was rareish and a 10GB disc was a very expensive and almost impossible to find piece of kit. Download times (since people were on "Dial Up" connections had to be kept as small as possible to keep phone bills reasonable) and on less than a 56 Kbs modem even a smallish download could take a considerable time so the MP3 compression was built to maximize compression right from the start -- Quality considerations were secondary so long as the final file yielded acceptable results to its users. It did what it was intended to do and has succeeded for sure in that regard. Now ATRAC was designed with quality in mind first -- The Engineers did extensive tests on parts of the spectrum that could be reasonably omitted from the original sound source without loss or only minimal loss of fidelity. Some original tests were done using musicians from The Los Angeles Symphony Orchestra and recordings were compared with -Pre ATRAC systems. ATRAC came out very well indeed and even now the original SP (@292 kbs) is still regarded as one of the best audio compression schemes ever designed --even if the proprietary nature of the encoding didn't lead to (unfortunately) its universal adoption. Both MP3 and ATRAC have since developed beyond the original designs --the current level of ATRAC 3+ @ 352 maintains and improves the design specification of the original ATRAC and probably is still the best Compression algorithm around today. MP3 whilst the bit rates have improved is still based on a "best guess / fit" algorithm and this can't be changed too much without rendering millions of MP3 players effectively obsolete. A "Best Guess" type of fit algorithm that is not designed for the maximum fidelity possible will IMO will never compete with an algorithm designed for "Audiophiles" right from the start --even though for 1000's and 1000's of people out there for the music they play and in the surroundings they listen to it an MP3 player will be more than enough. For me however I find the quality of MP3's at any bit rate simply just not good enough and I'm sure there are others of like mind. It's YOUR ears so use whatever suits you. Cheers -K

I don't think cost was a major issue with MD's --the main problem was the absolutely and utterly absurd DRM restrictions --and before that the SCMS issue which would only allow you to make 1 generation of digital recordings EVEN OF YOUR OWN MUSIC --which you might have COMPOSED / written yourself. After the demise of the cassette radio I often wondered why they replaced the cassette system with a CD player when an inbuilt MD unit would have been perfect. I don't think in any case for serious audiophiles that MP3 is even on the starting blocks MP3's are fine for people who probably edit playlist etc on a computer and want relatively "average" sounding music to be played on small portable devices in typically noisy environments, --offices, The Street, trains, buses etc. Also probably useful for people who download music at horrendous compression rates (therefore lowish quality) from some of the download music stores. Absolutely unlistenable in general when played on a High end Hi-Fi system. If they want that that's fine for them --but I'm sure as they age and their tastes become more discerning they'll strive for better quality. There's ALWAYS a market for top notch stuff. Cheers -K

Without turning this into a Photography debate -- there are Pixels and Pixels --they have different sizes depending on the equipment and sensor size so "resolution" is a hard concept to quantify. Kodak have exited Professional level digital photography --their last professional attempt (14N) was a total disaster and a joke amongst pro shooters. They now concentrate on "Consumer" gear and sensor manufacturing. The main limitation in 35 MM digital photography is not the number of MP (mega pixels) but the limitation in current Lens design. A top notch 35 MM lens has a resolving power of around 50 -60 Lp/mm --line pairs per mm. This is a limiting factor in increasing the number of pixels in a digital camera. With film you get problems of "Grain" long before you get any where near the "potential number of MP" you need to compete with digital. --Even an expensive DRUM scanned image (100 USD for a SINGLE SCAN --no B/S as any Pro shooters here will know what I mean about Drum Scans) won't give you anything like the "Grainless" 16 MP digital image you can get from Canon's flagship 1Ds2 35 MM digital camera --these pics are often blown up to over 6 Feet X 4 Feet or even bigger. The 26 MP Kodak talks about is not sensibly useable --Grain as I've stated above will rear it's ugly head LONG LONG before that with film. The 40 MP of the Phase 1 Digital backs far exceed this --but you'd better have a FAST computer and a HUGE wallet -- Medium Format Lenses are again another order of magnitude more expensive than even the best 35 MM lens --but their resolving power is better as well --120 - 150 lp / mm --but if you are buying a schneider you'll need to win the lottery TWICE or mortgage 3 houses. And yes I hope to be still using my JB980 in 12 years time. Cheers -K

I still find it amazing that SP (Old codec although nice high bit rate at 292) can still compete with Hi-SP @ 256 and even at 352 most people probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Of course Hi-SP on a 1GB disc gives a much longer recording time. It says volumes for the original designers of the ATRAC codec. What a real shame that SONY didn't open up the codec. Anyway finally at the 11th hour SONY are making the whole MD exercise much more user friendly --no check in / outs, DRM crud etc etc. If only .............. What might have been. Cheers -K

Absolutely NOT true anymore for PROFESSIONAL Gear --like Phase 1 Medium format 40 MP digital backs @ 20,000 USD each or a Canon 1Ds MK II 16 MP 35 MM professional digital camera a bit cheaper at around 8,000 USD. Don't compare these at ALL with the consumer point and shoots that most people confuse with "Photography" or even horror of horrors mobile phone "cameras". Some high end fashion magazines and a lot of commercial advertising are now shot almost totally with digital equipment and almost NO press or Sports stuff is done any more on film. Even "The National Geographic" magazine -- certainly full of very serious and top notch world class photography has embraced digital submissions from its photographers. If it's good enough for that magazine then I think you can say end of argument. If you still need more convincing just lurk on any professional photography forum where this is now a non issue --most shooters are friendly people -- they won't "bite" you for reading their forums. 3 or even 2 years ago I *might* have agreed with you but not now. I'm a Pro shooter and I can assure people that the days of film in Professional Photography are all but gone --in 35 MM it's about 98% extinct, in Medium Format film will last a bit longer just because of the very high price (currently) of digital medium format backs and the quite considerable computing power required to process the MASSIVE files generated by these 40 MP digital backs. The only areas where film is still a major player is in the very niche orientated LF (Large Format) work or in scientific type applications --X-Ray, medical and infra-red. However to get back to the topic Hi-MD etc. --I think you'll also find that some of the high end decks around (MDS980 etc) are more than likely to last 12 years or more if used properly. Portable players aren't built to quite the same set of Engineering standards unfortunately but you should be able to get 4 or 5 years use out of them without too much problem. My past experience with portable players shows this to be a reasonable expectation. Cheers -K

If you want to listen on a deck then I'd go straight from DAB (optical out if you have it) direct to SP via optical IN on your deck (Or even LP2 if you must) -- unless the recording is longer than 80 mins @ SP mode. Then if you need to make a Hi-MD SP disk you can then use the optical out from your deck to the optical in on the MD unit. The problem with starting from the Hi-MD unit is that you don't have any optical out -- another possible alternative would be to optically record at HI-SP with your HI-MD unit, save to SS, play with SS on the computer using a sound card with an optical out and connect the optical out on the computer to the optical in on your deck where you could then get a reasonable SP disk on your deck --- you could also split the recording over more disks if you needed to. The only reason I'd use the Hi-MD in the first place is that if you want longer than 60/74/80 mins in SP depending on the disks you are using --you'll have to be around to swap disks when they get full up if you record straight to the deck. The Hi-MD @ HI-SP will give you nearly 8 hours of UNATTENDED recording time. Cheers -K

Actually for an SP disk it's not too bad since the sort of discs I listen to have on the whole less than 20 tracks each --however would habe been nice to have had an "Auto Edit". At least SS allows you to edit an SP disc. Re-listening to some LP2 stuff again I can say SP definitely IS better. I'm going to get rid of the LP2 stuff entirely. I've got some Audio books in LP4 --these are fine but for music on legacy gear SP is the way to do it == I've got enough MD blanks to last a lifetime. Now I've got HI-SP as well I'll use the HI-SP discs for portable music whilst I'll have the old SP discs for home / "fixed" listening from a deck such as the jb980. The new Hi-MD 352 kbs bit rate is IMO so indistinguishable from PCM / WAV as to be perfect for Hi-MD --- I always start with the WAV / PCM format in SS however). I've now got all my CD's on 2 X 300GB dedicated external hard drives in WAV format so I can always make a HI-SP disc without relying on the optical out of an MD deck. BTW even if the music ISN'T already in your library Simple Burner will also retrieve CD info from CDDB and you can cut and paste there as well -- saves importing the CD into your library if you don't have space or just don't need the music on your computer. Cheers -K Cheers -k

The Bit rate of DAB in the UK is a bit disappointing --even BBC R3 (Classical music service) is not that great and in some parts of the UK you might still be better off with "Old Fashioned" FM. The best source for a decent Bit rate is via a Sky (in the UK) Satellite Dish and if you've got an optical connection and the new Sky HD (High definition TV Box with optical out) then this will be better than DAB -- for some BBC broadcasts (R3) it will be pretty much CD or even exceed CD quality --check for transmission times as some pre-recorded stuff is still compressed. In any even it won't be lower than 192 kbs. BTW you don't need to suscribe to SKY TV for BBC programs (radio and TV) -- They've even abandoned soft encryption --all transmissions are 100% in the clear. For those in Continental Europe you'll need the dish to be at 28 deg E rather than the standard Astra satellite set at 19 deg then you can pick this stuff up as well FREE. For more info on UK DAB Bit rates http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/bbc_bitrates.htm Finally --how did you record the original program --if you started out with a lossy format any amount of "Converting to WAV" and converting again will just degrade the quality even more. The JB980 is an exceptional piece of kit -- any decently recorded MD in SP mode will sound stunning provided the original source is fine. I've you've got a DAB radio you can plug the optical out - (The sony XDR-X1 has an optical out as some others do as well) into the optical in on your JB980 and use the timer feature. I think most of your problem has been that your original audio capture bit rate wan't high enough to start with. Cheers -K

If the equipment still gives you the quality you want in 12 years time and continues to function perfectly why stop using it if you still enjoy it. What on earth would you do with your solar powered 55 Trillion track device in 2018 when all you want to do is play of 7 or 8 tracks (apart from how do you even FIND them in that size device)and it's been snowing for days so no power --and no place for an "obsolete" dry battery. Just pick up any high end audiophile magazine -- look and see how many high end amplifiers are still made using glass VALVES (or "Tubes" as I think they are called in the US). These are really expensive pieces of kit (often over 5,000 USD) and command a loyal following --in spite of the fact that that technology (Vacuum tube technology) has been essentially obsolete for over 35 years. People still use film even though digital cameras are the norm now and whilst the Horse is obsolete for most travel -- people still ride them. Don't chuck stuff just because it's "Old" == That's how some people are laughing all the way to the Bank. Cheers -K

I've still got a deck that can do high speed CD==>MD transfer (well it's 2X faster than real time but OK). At least with this I can get Genuine Digital SP transfer rather than SS 's fake SP. For Non Hi-MD stuff I've gone back to SP --still sounds better than LP2 and it doesn't bother me carrying around 3 or 4 discs -- 4 hours listening woth headphones in one session is more than enough IMO anyway. If I'm at home popping discs into a nice jb980 isn't a problem. Now is there any easy way to get the track info on to the disk (instead of Trk1, Trk2 etc) or do i just have to insert the CD into a computer and with a bit of cutting and pasting do it manually. I did see some possibilities of a Linux program which used the Infra red commands from the remote (LIRC) but this looks "too Geekish" for me to try it. Cheers -K

Actually --there's no friction on a MD "recording Head" --it won't wear out so don't worry about recording head breakdown / wear. The recording is OPTICAL --there's no physical contact between disk and laser. The mechanical parts of a portable MD unit such as Battery levers, Jog dials, etc are much more likely to break down LONG before any problem with the laser (assuming you don't mis treat the unit severely). Cheers -K

Thanks --your answer makes sense. Actually the 352 sounds very good indeed --excellent compromise if you just want decent music playback. PCM still rules for libe recording however. Glad also about the new 3rd gen unit --looks great as well. Cheers -K