cochra1

No man, it's a really nice high-end seperates CD player, very minimalist, can't even program it! Certainly no 'bass boosts' or anything like that. The optical out is just a pure digital signal of the CD. I also have an optical connection from my DVD player, and recordings to my minidisc from that are equally good. Let me emphasise, the improvement to most people would be very subtle, not like a bass boost. Many on this forum have said they can tell no difference, although I KNOW this is down to their limited listening abilities, and I don't say that to offend them. The improvement is in a more 'weighty' bottom end (in other words bass drums, for example, pack more of a punch and sound more dynamic), and also the top end (ie. treble) has more clarity and sparkle, and the whole sound is smoother and less coloured or 'broken-up' sounding. But again, to your average bod who wouldn't know hi-fi if it slapped him about the head with a wet fish, the difference wouldn't be recognised. The only way to understand my point is to make 2 copies of the same song yourself (preferably one with a good solid beat), one optically and one via software. Put the tracks on the same disc. Listen through earphones, close your eyes, experience the sound in your head, the movements, the dynamics, the timbre. Then switch to the other version. Pay attention to the bottom end. Does it pack the same punch? Listen to the top end. Does it shine in the same way? For me the answer is unmistakably NO. And no, it's not placebo, or anything else, it's just fact. And to anyone who has any other bright suggestions about why I might be wrong, eg bass boosts on my CD player, using low bit rates on SS, placebo effect, conjecture (that was a good one), etc: stop being so lazy and just try the test for yourself (if you can be bothered, or if not, fine). If you can't hear any difference then cool, continue to enjoy SS. No, Greenmachine, it's a timbral thing, not an issue of volume. I'm talking about the pure tonality and dynamics and warmth (or lack of warmth) of the recordings. Realtime recordings do not REQUIRE you to adjust the volume, they just give the option. Look, this is ridiculous everyone. Why are you all so damn eager to argue without actually trying it and listening (closely) for yourselves? It's like some of you are scared to find out SS (in terms of sound quality) has a problem. Actually, hears a simple way to explain it. You know when you import a song from a CD into your SS library? You can choose between importing it quickly, or using a slower capture but reaping the benefits of a higher quality sound. Well, real time recording is just another step up the quality ladder.

I'm starting to see these HiMD decks in an entirely new - almost sexual - light.

I know what you mean. But I'm just thinking logically (go with me on this!): usually to normalise a track it needs to be analysed first to ascertain the highest peaks and then to raise the volume of the whole track as much as possible without the peaks 'clipping' in order to maximise the said track's overall volume. But your minidisc player isn't going to do this - the only way of 'normalising' your songs in realtime would be to apply some kind of limiting or compression before raising the volume. Afterall, it doesn't know in advance if suddenly in the middle of a calm, peaceful song there is going to be a sudden blast in a loud chorus or whatever, which would clip if the overall volume had previously been raised with no limiting. I'd be genuinely interested in your response, if I'm way off here. No need to roll your eyes at me.

You would certainly think so, but see my posting elsewhere (click on my name and look at my other topics, there aren't many). I have done numerous testings and found that without a doubt the quality of recordings captured in realtime via an optical cable are superior to even the highest spec copy made using SonicStage software. It's more tedious - but the gains are worth it. I say 'without a doubt', but you wouldn't believe how hard this is to convince others of! But see my posting.

You're right - Hi-SP is 256kbps, I was wrong about that. I'll clarify what I compared. I compared a song transfered to my NH600 in Hi-SP mode via SonicStage (both from a WAV source and from a 352kbps source) WITH the same song copied in realtime via an optical cable (CD source). But yes, absolutely, the realtime optically-captured sound is superior to transfering within SonicStage (either from a WAV source or from a 352kbps source). No doubt. I shall continue my trawl of the web to try and find analytical data on this. Update I have just tried a SonicStage transfer from an import captured in just ATRAC (not advanced lossless) at 352kpbs, and transfered to my minidisc in the original format (no further conversion). Again I used highest quality (rather than fastest). Alas, this was still not as nice as the realtime copy, but was the best SonicStage version yet (in terms of the end product on my NH600 minidisc). My conclusion based on my observations (and one colleague's) alone The NH600 (I can only speak for this model) captures and converts music at a higher quality in realtime than using the SonicStage software to capture. (But I am still searching the web for analytical data to back this up for the rest of you!)

I must admit, I'm getting more than a little disillusioned with reading all these comments, but here goes! The max bitrate to store songs on your portable minidisc is Hi-SP mode (besides PCM of course). I'm advised this is set to 256kbps. I have experimented in SonicStage in terms of importing into library from CD, choosing both ATRAC Advanced Lossless (recording Quality set to High, using 352kbps) and WAV (then converting to 352kpbs at the transfer-to-minidisc stage). I couldn't perceive any difference what-so-ever between either of the above methods upon listening to the results on my Hi-MD walkman in an A-B test. Both were adequate enough. HOWEVER As soon as I listened to the same track taken from an optical real-time recording (in Hi-SP mode) the difference was immediately recognisable. More weight in the bottom end (bass drum) and a clearer, more transparant top end (most noticable on the hi-hats and cymbals). The whole track sounded more alive. I then went back to the SS-created track. Again, less bass weight - the bass drum doesn't have the same power - and with the top end the hats and cymbals have lost clarity and sparkle. The mid frequencies appear the same to my ears. If it makes any difference, I can tell you I had a colleague (fellow studio engineer/musician) listen to the different versions of the track today briefly to see if he could hear any difference (I did this cos I thought I was going mad and was maybe imagining it after reading some comments) - and I didn't prejudice him by giving any information. I simply said 'tell me which, if any, is the better sound'. He picked out the optical one, for the reasons I outlined earlier regarding the improved top and bottom ends. So maybe we both have very fine-tuned ears. But that is not the point. The real point is that there IS a difference. But at the end of the day, if your ears cannot perceive this difference then it's not a problem for you. I would still be interested if anyone has any analysis data on this though! I will continue to trawl the web to look for any. Regards Andy P.S. the reference track I used was 'Abacab' by Genesis

To be honest, if you find you can't notice the difference then you need to see an ENT specialist! In short: LP2 = Nasty. Hi-SP = Sweet! 1GIG discs = close to 8 hours of Hi-SP recordings. Statement: There is absolutely no point in owning a Hi-MD recorder and using LP2 mode to record. This would be like owning a jacuzzi and never turning on the bubbles.

Gonna sound a bit negative here guys, but I think Sony are wise not to produce a Hi-MD deck. It's such a niche market (for so many reasons thanks to Sony), I'm surprised even anyone at all has produced one, and I must say that even I - a seasoned MD user - can't really see too much benefit for the cost. When I'm not using CDs I'll continue to plug my portable Hi-MD into my stereo via its headphone output. As long as a fair quality lead is used for the connection, and the Hi-MD machine's EQ is disabled/set to flat, and the nasty auto volume limiter thing is hacked then you'll get a very decent sound through a seperates amp and won't see the need to fork out for a deck. The biggest advantage to the deck I can see is, it looks sexy and desirable - but that novelty would wear off quite quickly. See the image of the rear of the unit. It has analogue outputs. These connect to a seperates amp, or to any stereo with aux inputs.

That's good that it is turn-offable, thanks for the advice, it's encouraging. Just to explain why I really detest these 'normalisers' or 'volume limiters'. They don't just control or level out the volume. They seriously degrade the sound quality of the track being listened to. Just compare a CD on a (decent) stereo system with a song being broadcast on FM radio (or DAB for that matter). Radio stations feed all their signals through a 'compressor' (do not confuse with data compression, this is dynamic compression). This levels out the volume, squashes the high volumes down and raises the quiet volumes up. This saps energy and dynamics from mixes and causes a pumping effect, especially for music with a beat (rock, pop, etc). All music is recorded and mixed and produced using compressors anyway, but is factored into the intended mix and is applied much more intelligentally, often targeting specific frequency ranges (multi-band compressors). A cheap 'n nasty digital compressor/limiter is built into our modern minidisc machines (and all personal media players), which they call 'normalisers' or 'auto volume limiters' and we are told these are good things. These only kick in at the louder levels - but not that loud. Well, if you want everything sounding flat and loudish for, say, noisey train journeys or whatever, and if hi fidelity is not an issue, then great! But otherwise, turn the damn thing off (use a hack if applicable) and enjoy your tracks in their original dynamic form as intended by the bands and producers who made them. But each to their own!

You're absolutely right my friend, well done for spotting the deliberate mistake! Seriously, yeah, I was muddling up my machines - I think it was 4 yrs ago when I bought my previous MD, so I guess I did get my NH600 in '04. Damn jog wheel just doesn't work anymore.

I'm seriously considering getting one of those sexy little MZ-RH1s for 2 reasons - 1 my NH600's jog wheel has packed in after 4 years (!) 2 the RH1 handles mp3s also, which is a more convenient format in terms of file moving/storing/sharing But as I was about to order one, I was checking out the specs, and to my horror of horrors it has a...(wait for it...) * DYNAMIC VOLUME NORMALISER!!! * I hate these kinds of things that mess with the sound in any way. Some tracks are just meant to be quieter or louder than others. Question is: Can this be disabled on a menu? Or do you need a hack to remove it? I have only just hacked my NH600 to get rid of the horrible volume limiter (which has improved the sound no end) so don't want to be lumbered with another limiting device. All advice would be most welcome!

I set the value of mine to 30 (not 25) and the gains are fantastic (I mean in terms of quality sound at higher levels without that horrible pumping compression/limitation). Of course there is always the danger of me doing danger to my ears - but I'm a free adult, and I'm quite capable of regulating my own volumes without having the nanny European Union doing it for me 'for my own good'. Still, that's for another forum! Many thanks to all involved in getting the hack.

Everytime a file is converted from one format to another, some loss occurs (in sound quality), so it is never recommended to convert any more than is strictly necessary.

Absolutely right, it has improved, I agree. As I said, I always use the maximum quality bitrate for HiMD recordings, whether using SS or reat-time optical recordings. But while the bottom end (bass end) is now sorted (it used to roll off considerably) the top end (high treble frequencies) are still just slightly duller, and the whole timbre is slightly less smooth when using SS. I have a very good, trained ear - I'm a musician and sound engineer and have experience working with DAT masters and all sorts of wonderful recording formats, so I trust my ears! No, I only use the top bitrates in HiMD mode whether copying tracks in SS or recording realtime from an optical lead. I trust my ears - I'm a musician and sound engineer, and very experienced in recording in lots of formats (I used to use DAT for mastering years ago), and have a very acute awareness of sound and timbre and frequencies. To me the difference is so stark (even though subtle) there's no question of a 'placebo' effect. I've had a few replies from scepticle people all questioning me further, but so far no one seems to have actually tried an A-B test (blind or otherwise) themselves... Regards Andy

Enjoyed your post, my friend, very nicely written.

Hi Wizard! Sorry my friend, I couldn't let that comment about the volume limiter go without a response! I can't believe you like that (although I'm not criticising you, so please don't take offence). Most people hate it; it was put there as an EU regulation (Nanny State) to protect our poor wittle ears! It has a detrimental effect on the sound quality when played at upper volume levels (squashes and compresses the sound - but don't confuse this with data compression, this is audio dynamic compression). American players (at least true last time I researched this) don't have this limiter installed and thus have been very popular with buyers in Europe obtaining them from the USA via mail order.

That one is even worse! It saps the lower frequencies out of a recording and again sounds very harsh. Sorry if I sound fussy, but I'm a musician and like to hear things in reasonable quality (which minidisc is very capable of) but can't put up with the quality of ATRACK files created in Simple Burner or Sonic Stage (the better of the two). I'm sure there will be others out there who have noticed the improvement with real-time recordings via optical cable. Try the comparison yourself my friend and see if you agree! Thanks for replying and kind regards Numbskull Andy Hi Richyhu No, I haven't done any frequency analysis, I never felt the need as the audible difference is so blatant! I would be very interested of course to see the results of an analysis (and would be surprised if no one yet has done this) but for me the most important thing is trusting my ears. The very first time I used the Simple Burner software to copy an album from CD I was instantly aware of a weakness in the bottom end and subtle distortion. The latest version of Sonic Stage is, admitedly, much improved, but still doesn't match real-time recording through the optical lead. See my original reply. I should also mention, I did a quick experiment with Sonic Stage as follows: I took a recording of a song that had been made in real time. I transfered in into my Sonic Stage library. I then transfered it back to my minidisc. Again, I did an A-B test between the original recording and the one that had been transfered back-and-forth, and the latter definitely had an audible reduction in the upper frequencies and sounded less transparant, less smooth, more 'digital'. This convinces me that the moved file went through some form of processing during the move, and was not simply transferred from one location to another in its original form. Not sure what you meant when you asked about which 'SS options' I used, but if you meant which quality setting, I always use the best quality mode in Hi-MD (not PCM but the top quality compression mode). Hi GQ Have to say I never experienced that problem, but I'm glad you're considering the option of using real time recording through the optical lead as I know from personal experience that this pays dividends in a subtly - but definitely - improved quality.

Really wouldn't recommend using the LP4 format anyway, my friend. It gives a really harsh sound which takes it's toll over long listens. Even LP2 is pretty nasty. If you need more capacity I couldn't recommend Hi-MD enough, with 1 GIG discs.

Absolutely right - Hi-MD is the best portable digital medium out there for reasons of sound quality, longevity, and the fact it has removable media. However, please see my post in the 'criticisms' forum with regards to SoundStage. You say you didn't wish to go through the task of recording your catalogue in real time. Well, if you were to take this (admitedly tedius) option, you would reap the rewards of superior quality over using SoundStage. By the way, I've been using an MZ-NH600 for about four years now. The jog wheel packed in a few years ago, but I still never venture out without the player and a couple of discs!

Hello fellow MD users. Has anyone else out there found that the quality of music tracks converted into ATRAC by SonicStage are inferior to those recorded in real time via a digital output from a CD player? Just try an experiment. Get your favourite CD track and use SonicStage to import the song and get it onto your Hi-MD player. Then record the same song from your CD player onto the same minidisc, but this time record in real time using the optical input. Make sure you stick to the same recording standard, ie. Hi-MD best quality. Now do some A-B testing. The SonicStage version will be duller in the high frequencies, and harsher, less smooth than the real-time version. The difference is subtle, but strong enough to merit not using SoundStage to capture your tunes. I would be really interested if any bods out there know why this is so, and if there is any other conversion software out there which can match real-time recording for quality.