mediageek

So, I have two Intel Macs running OS 10.5.2 and the newest version of Parallels. I'm having a heck of a time trying to upload legacy MD recordings to Sonic Stage (tried versions 4.0, 4.2, 4.3) under parallels from my MZ-RH1. I've gotten this to work in the past under earlier Parallels versions and my recorder works just fine with my ancient Windows XP machine. But with both my Macs either the upload hangs at 98% or it gets to 99% and then starts over and hangs at 1%. Anyone have a similar issue? Is anyone else using this set up without problem? Thanks!

I just recorded an interview on my RH-1 on a Hi-MD in PCM mode and hit pause.. Then, I'm not sure what happened, but think I jostled the unit and when I looked at it, it was off. Then when I started it up again, there was no recording. Is there any way to retrieve the data that might be on the disc but obviously failed to write to the ToC? Any help would be greatly appreciated. --Paul

Yes! I use the legacy upload function every week. I produce a radio program at a community radio station where we have nice Tascam MD-LP decks that can record the air signal. I record my show onto MD in mono SP, then take it home and upload it with my MZ-RH1. I've also used that function to create MP3s and CD-Rs of music I have on vinyl. My best turntables and preamps are hooked up to my listening stereos, not computers. But I have MD decks on both of them, so it's easy to record records to MD, then upload that audio to my PC. The minor loss of quality in the transcoding from ATRAC is more than made up for by the convenience for me.

I agree with the folks who urge holding onto your vinyl. Believe it or not, the US Library of Congress is using 78rpm shellac records to archive digital and analog recordings, because they've found that this medium holds up the best over time (even if fidelity isn't the best). And with 78s all you need is a cone and a needle to hear what's on it -- no computers, no decks, no electricity, even. See this story at NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1216161 Of course, cutting shellac records is out of the question for most of us (but you can buy a machine for cutting your own vinyl 33 and 45 rpm records at home: http://www.vestax.com/v/products/recorders/vrx2000.html ) So, more practically, I also agree with the advice of keeping as many copies of things on as many different formats as possible. For instance, I do a weekly radio program that I also podcast. I record the show on MD (SP Mono), which I then upload to my PC using an RH1. I keep a .wav uncompressed file and make an MP3 and ogg vorbis for the podcast. I then save the .wav, .mp3 and .ogg to CD-R and DVD-R. I also hold on to the original MD. CD-Rs are actually a decent archival format, provided you buy quality media -- brands like Verbatim, Maxell and Sony, but not Memorex or store house-brands. Plus, they're so cheap and easy to copy that it's easy to keep several copies in case one of them goes bad. Just based upon the sheer number of players, I wouldn't consider Hi-MD the best archival choice. However, if you like using your Hi-MD player and find it convenient, I think it makes a good choice to use as your listening copy. Rather than putting wear and tear on your more fragile tape and vinyl, copy them to MD and listen to that. Provided you have a working MD player, MD media is very robust, especially because it's encased in a nice plastic shell, making it difficult to be ruined by fingers, sharp objects or sunlight. I think archiving is a very important topic, especially if you have recordings that are valuable (to you), unique and/or irreplaceable. The Pacifica Archives lost hundreds of hours of what turned out to be historically significant recordings because back in the 50s and 60s open reel tape was so expensive they reused them, not knowing that some of the people who appeared on them would turn out to be major figures in the civil rights movement 10 years later. Luckily, blank media is so cheap these days that it really is possible to try and keep your copies alive.

Thanks for the nice feedback everyone. I don't use the RH1 as a Walkman because I prefer to carry around a $60 beater MD rather than my $325 RH1. The RH1 is valuable as my main production machine, so I don't want to drop it in a puddle while trying to catch the bus.

I thought members of this forum might be interested to read my (long) review of the MZ-RH1 on Epinions: <a href="http://www99.epinions.com/content_287610080900">http://www99.epinions.com/content_287610080900</a> I've had the RH1 for about 6 months where I've used it weekly, if not daily, primarily for radio production and archiving my old legacy MDs. Two years ago I did a similar treatment for the NH1, which was may primary production recorder until buying the RH1: <a href="http://www99.epinions.com/content_167300599428">http://www99.epinions.com/content_167300599428</a> Your comments are welcome.

Interestingly, I have no problems uploading write-protected Hi-MD discs to my Intel Mac Mini using Hi-MD Music Transfer. I'll have to double check with my PC (or Windows in Parallels).

Thanks for the analysis. The results look really good. Better than most sound cards and for the mic input better than even some CF card recorders, like the Marantz 670. With regard to the 670, my experience is that my RH1 (and my NH1 for that matter) are much quieter with good dynamic and condenser microphones than the Marantz, even though the Marantz has XLR inputs. A rep from Marantz visited my work recently and one of my colleagues questioned him about the relatively noisy preamps on teh 670. He acknowledged that they are a bit noisy, saying that the company believed it was good enough for the target market of podcasters, speech recording, radio journalism, etc.

I have both the RH1 and the NH1. I've had the NH1 pretty much since it arrived for sale in the US, and I got the RH1 about five days ago. So, I feel pretty confident discussing the NH1, while I'm still getting to know my RH1. For me the killer feature of the RH1 is the ability to upload legacy MDs. I have hundreds, which include many airchecks of radioshows I produced, along with interviews and performance audio from the last 9 years. The RH1 is worth the $329 for that feature alone. Aside from that, I think the differences are mostly minor. The NH1 feels like a sturdier unit to me; perhaps it's the brushed magnesium that gives this impression. I've been carrying it all over the place to conferences, to record my weekly radioshow, and to record performances for the last two years and it's held up very well. I use it primarily as a recorder, not a music player. The display on the NH1 itself is next to useless and I hate it. No backlighting, just one slender line of text. But the display on its three-line remote is very useful. The display on the RH1 is great for recording. The bright OLED display is much better than the backlit LCD on the NH1's remote. And I have to say that it actually makes a lot of sense for it to be on the side of the unit rather than the front panel. I also agree that the RH1's USB-only power and data configuration makes a lot of sense, especially since it will charge off the USB connection. While I like the NH1's charging cradle, I hate the fact that I have to take it out of the cradle and connect a proprietary cable to make the USB connection to my PC. The RH1 also has a universal voltage-capable AC adaptor. So if you plan to travel outside your home country/continent, it's a nice feature to have. Another small difference that I think really makes life easier is that the RH1 remembers retains your settings between uses. So, if you use manual recording levels and then shut off, it will be set for manual recording levels when you start up again. This isn't true for the NH1, where you have to dig into the menus and set it for manual every single time, which is annoying. So, my final conclusion is that if you don't need the legacy MD upload capacity, then the advantages to the RH1 are mostly minor, and may not be worth the extra cost. If it weren't for the legacy upload I wouldn't have bought my RH1, even though the additional refinements are all worthwile.