1kyle Posted June 18, 2005 Report Share Posted June 18, 2005 I've noticed that downloading LP2 from SS 3.1 to a Net-MD deck (MDS-JB980) seems to be slower than doing the same thing with a Hi-MD unit like the NH1 (also downloading LP2 from SS 3.1).The JB980 came with Open Jukebox --which I don't bother with but I did have to use the drivers of the CD before the computer recognized the unit. Otherwise SS 3.1 works with this unit as well. I've been using my Laptop as the unit is in my "Hi-FI" listening room away from my desktop computers.I'm wondering is it because transfer takes place on this unit at USB 1.1 speeds and the NH1 at USB 2.0Just curious. Cheers-K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Low Volta Posted June 18, 2005 Report Share Posted June 18, 2005 I'm wondering is it because transfer takes place on this unit at USB 1.1 speeds and the NH1 at USB 2.0←as far as I know they all use USB1.1, the Hi-MD's as wellgreetings, Volta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwakrz Posted June 18, 2005 Report Share Posted June 18, 2005 All MiniDisc units are USB1.1.The difference is probably because the NH1 spins the disc faster as it now has to cope with writing and reading PCM data. I dont think the original minidisc's span the disc at great speed as they were all dealing with SP as the highest transfer rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1kyle Posted June 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2005 (edited) All MiniDisc units are USB1.1.The difference is probably because the NH1 spins the disc faster as it now has to cope with writing and reading PCM data. I dont think the original minidisc's span the disc at great speed as they were all dealing with SP as the highest transfer rate.←That definitely seems to be the answer -- the data transfer measured on the computer doesn't even go anywhere near max USB 1.1 limits so it's got to do with the hardware on the units.It's not a major irritant -- I was just curious and normally I can download using the nh1.It's great listening to a quality deck however with large speakers and being able to read clearly what's on the display. !!Now come on Sony there's got to be a demand for High end HI-MD shelf units as well . Cheers-K Edited June 18, 2005 by 1kyle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dex Otaku Posted June 19, 2005 Report Share Posted June 19, 2005 MD media itself has a slower maximum speed for both reading and writing than 1GB HiMDs do. HiMD's higher-density DWDD format is capable of about twice the speed of MD both ways [at the least].Check the HiMD FAQ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yjs Posted June 19, 2005 Report Share Posted June 19, 2005 Will there ever be a possibility of HiMDs running at something close to that of USB2.0 DAPs? The HD series can do about 7-8Mb/s with Windows explorer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atrain Posted June 19, 2005 Report Share Posted June 19, 2005 doubt it in the near future. the 'bottleneck' is the physical movement of the recording head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dex Otaku Posted June 19, 2005 Report Share Posted June 19, 2005 doubt it in the near future. the 'bottleneck' is the physical movement of the recording head←I'd say the real bottleneck is the whole amount of power vs. time it takes to heat the change-layer to its curie temp vs. domain write speed.. not much to do with the physical mechanice of the units. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atrain Posted June 20, 2005 Report Share Posted June 20, 2005 my simplified explanation bows before superior branes. thanks dex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAVickers Posted June 20, 2005 Report Share Posted June 20, 2005 I'd say the real bottleneck is the whole amount of power vs. time it takes to heat the change-layer to its curie temp vs. domain write speed.. not much to do with the physical mechanice of the units.←I say cram a gig worth of memory in the unit and let all the writing be cached. The memory could be used as cache for playback as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dex Otaku Posted June 20, 2005 Report Share Posted June 20, 2005 I say cram a gig worth of memory in the unit and let all the writing be cached. The memory could be used as cache for playback as well.←So, basically, you want a flash recorder? Why not just buy a flash recorder, then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAVickers Posted June 20, 2005 Report Share Posted June 20, 2005 So, basically, you want a flash recorder? Why not just buy a flash recorder, then?←Because you either can't swap media with a flash recorder or the flash media is too expensive to carry 10 or 20 of them with you.I wouldn't use flash memory, either, but regular RAM (although I'm not sure how much it would soak the battery). RAM would work much faster and allow you to achieve faster writes when uploading from the PC to the device. You could upload a whole gig of stuff within a minute and then the device could take it's time writing to the media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobgoblin Posted June 20, 2005 Report Share Posted June 20, 2005 and while that is going on you cant play anything back on it or remove the media. basicly what your doing is just moving the "problem".i must say that i much prefer knowing that when the write is done its done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAVickers Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 and while that is going on you cant play anything back on it or remove the media. basicly what your doing is just moving the "problem".←Not necessarily true. In my made-up dreamworld there would be enough RAM to cover the capacity of the disc. If you uploaded a gig worth of material to the device and uplugged it to start playing, it could play back from the RAM while still writing to the device in the background. The write operation could be indicated on the LED and prevent you from turning the unit off or ejecting the disc until it completes (much like it does now).It's already doing this somewhat as I'm pretty sure MD devices carry a little bit of cache memory with them. I just propose putting enough cache memory in to cover the capacity of the media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dex Otaku Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 Because you either can't swap media with a flash recorder or the flash media is too expensive to carry 10 or 20 of them with you.I wouldn't use flash memory, either, but regular RAM (although I'm not sure how much it would soak the battery). RAM would work much faster and allow you to achieve faster writes when uploading from the PC to the device. You could upload a whole gig of stuff within a minute and then the device could take it's time writing to the media.←RAM also sucks power as it needs to be refreshed constantly. Very impractical.MDs and HiMDS have a fairly large cache [something like at least 4Mb, that's bits, not bytes]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.