Jump to content

Is a Hi-MD Player Better Than an iPod?

Rate this topic


Gonzaloif

Recommended Posts

Hi

that´s pretty much it. I need to convience my brother who is in doubt... and i´m sure a bunch of people gets in this forum to decide what poertable music player to buy, and definitely the iPods are a choice.

the line in, the high quality audio recording, the size, the versatility of switching discs... that{s enough for me... but i need more stuff!

thanx for the help... dry.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I'm concerned, MD is for recording, and hard-disc players are for those who only care about playback of files from their computer. SonicStage is just too much of an annoyance for someone who doesn't also need MD's recording capability.

I use my MD for recording and I like to pack a dozen CDs onto 80-minute discs via SimpleBurner when traveling since I already have the MD.

Philosophically, I like removable media (MD), and I wouldn't want to stash my whole library on an iPod and then have the disc crash. The NH600D, now under $100 all over the place, would be a fine bargain iPod alternative if you didn't have to deal with SonicStage, and you'd still have the discs after it wore out.

But assuming the files are also stored somewhere else, on computer or discs, then the disadvantages of SonicStage outweigh any affection I have for MDs. An iPod mini is smaller, it can play back all the music you'd need for a long long time, and you can get it on there with iTunes.

Sony's software--and the anti-user DRM thinking behind it--are simply a disgrace to its hardware, which is why hardly anyone considers MD a threat to the iPod. Those little Sony flash and HD players look enticing, too, but not with SonicStage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Minidisc all the way. I-puddle, when it crashes you lose everything. Minidisc, if you lose a disc, only a few songs.

Minidisc, great live recording, with HIMD you can finally get your stuff back in the computer.

I-Puddle, great marketing, Sony should have used there marketers, Minidisc would be far more accepted.

With the RH10 and MZ-NH1, you have an incredible looking machine, not a generic lump of plastic like the puddle.

with an I-Puddle your HD will crash not if but will, how many drops before it dies.

Minidisc has hit the ground many times, like a Times, still keeps ticking.(they don't like salt water baths though} have a nice paperweight now.

Bottom line get a minidisc.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I'm concerned, MD is for recording, and hard-disc players are for those who only care about playback of files from their computer. SonicStage is just too much of an annoyance for someone who doesn't also need MD's recording capability.

The NH600D, now under $100 all over the place, would be a finel bargain iPod alternative if you didn't have to deal with SonicStage, and you'd still have the discs after it wore out.

I think SonicStage3 is easy enough to use, and Simple Burner is just that, dead simple, so no problems for anyone who can use a computer. Still not Sony's iTunes really though.

And an NH600 is only the cost of a mere iPod shuffle, yet add few discs and you have a hugely more versatile, and economical alternative.

Then there is the question of whether you want to be one of the iHerd, or a Minidisc owner . . . . !

Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

that´s pretty much it. I need to convience my brother who is in doubt... and i´m sure a bunch of people gets in this forum to decide what poertable music player to buy, and definitely the iPods are a choice.

the line in, the high quality audio recording, the size, the versatility of switching discs... that{s enough for me... but i need more stuff!

thanx for the help... dry.gif

DEFINITELY HI MD!!! Linear PCM justifies it all. If you are a person with a good musical ear, you will notice that the compression used by Ipods really sucks. Sound is not complete and they reinforce treble and lose bass. It's a pity but Ipods don't sound well- Their playback lacks of the wholeness of pure sound. Hi-Sp mode of Hi_Md's is definitely superior to ipod and itunes. If you have the oportunity to compare them you'll see. rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DEFINITELY HI MD!!! Linear PCM justifies it all. If you are a person with a good musical ear, you will notice that the compression used by Ipods really sucks. Sound is not complete and they reinforce treble and lose bass. It's a pity but Ipods don't sound well- Their playback lacks of the wholeness of pure sound. Hi-Sp mode of Hi_Md's is definitely superior to ipod and itunes. If you have the oportunity to compare them you'll see. rolleyes.gif

Ipods are capible of Apple Lossless (which is a perfect PCM only compressed) so there is no difference between the two devices sound quality. However the Ipod audio driver has been critized for being to blah unlike Sony's sound equipment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think the hi md VS ipod debate is quite useless.. both have their advantages. these have been discussed more than once in these forums. searching might be beneficial to one and all here..

to say the ipod doesnt sound as good as the Hi MD is a matter of prefernce and how sensitive or rather insensitive your ears.. there are some who swear by the clean no frills ipod sound and some who cant have enough of their HD AMP Hi MD.. to each his own. please use the music you often listen to on the ipod as well as HI MD before making a decision regarding sound quality..

and ROMBUSTERS is right.. PCM=Apple Lossless(Lossless Compression)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My view on this subject is apparently somewhat unpopular around here, but here's what I think:

If you want a player, buy a player.

If you want a recorder, buy a recorder.

People have made many arguments about the versatility and robustness of removable magneto-optical media, and while I agree with the robustness charge, I think this is really a case of specious comparisons.

Removable media has the advantage of, well, being removable.

In the case of MD and HiMD, the media itself is:

* very robust

* sufficiently small to make for convenient handling

* sufficiently large to be written upon and not lost by accident [as with flash cards]

In terms of capacity:

* MD offers what was state-of-the-art in 1992 [60-80 minutes, same as CDs]

* MDLP offers a quality compromise for longer playback and recording times [LP2 was decent for the mid-to-late 1990s]

* HiMD offers reformatting legacy discs to higher capacities [MD80 = 291MB usable] by using more efficient error-correction

* HiMD's native 1GB DWDD discs offer just under 1GB of usable data capacity

* HiMD's native recording modes - atrac3plus 256, 64, and 48kbps as well as LPCM - offer reasonable recording/playback time considering the high density of the medium versus its form-factor/physical size [note that DWDD could be expanded for much higher densities still, up to single-layer DVD capacity per MD sized disc]

The medium isn't everything, though. To offset the advantages, there are caveats to be considered when using MO media:

* slow write speeds [usually about half the read speed] determined by the heating/cooling times of the "write" layer and low-power requirements [though not by any means limited to only these factors]

* slow read speeds determined by the density of data and low-power requirements [though not by any means limited to only these factors]

* under nominal storage conditions, MO should retain data longer than any dye-based WORM format [specifically thinking of CD-R here], however, exposure to very strong magnetic fields or relatively high heat can still data stored data

Both MD and HiMD have basically the same pros as cons. In both cases, the biggest problem from the consumer's point of view is likely to be the slow write and read speeds, which compared with any other currently-available medium [including CD-R and RW; DVD+/-R and RW; flash-RAM; CF-hdd; portable hard discs of any type] is noticeably slower by at least one order of magnitude, in most cases now by at least several orders of magnitude. Even the slowest hdd-based players should be able to download tracks from a computer at around 10* the speed of HiMD or around 25* the speed of NetMD.

HiMD doesn't even exceed the maximum speed of USB 1.1, 12Mbps, and MD averages at below half that for reading, and again about half of that for writing.

IMHO, Both MD and HiMD are great at what I see as their intended purpose - a highly portable, robust recording medium. While I use both of my HiMD portables for listening, my primary purpose for having both of them is for inexpensive location recording.

I view their playback features as little more than a bonus feature on top of what they're really made for - recording.

====================

No system is perfect, period.

Hard disc players, if used properly, are in my eyes basically a removable storage medium with playback hardware permanently attached to them.

If what I really wanted was a portable player, keeping in mind the limitations imposed by the use of hard discs [i.e. jogging with it will destroy the disc, high-altitude use is likely to seize the bearings, &c.], I would much rather have a hdd-based player than any MD, NetMD, or HiMD portable.

I would recommend the same to anyone who's looking for a player. I do not recommend MD or HiMD to anyone who is looking for a player.

I do recommend that the user try out whatever players they can, to see what their interfaces are like. A usable interface is more important to the majority of people than good sound quality is, even. While MD, NetMD, and HiMD have mostly-usable interfaces on the units themselves, if there's one thing that they seriously and detrimentally lack, it's a usable interface for downloading music to the player. SonicStage and the limitations that Sony impose on their customers is absolutely ludicrous.

I also tend to point out that hard discs are totally unsuitable for rough handling - something which sales people never seem to point out. Ever. Most people have never even heard of a head crash until it happens to their beloved $400 player which they decided to take mountain-biking or something else that's ridiculously G-inducing.

For people who want to do more vigorous activities while listening, I'll recommend flash players first, and HiMD last.

The most often-cited argument against hdd players is that "if the disc crashes, you lose all your music". My answer to that: what kind of complete utter moron would trust their music collection to a portable hard disc that they carry around in their pocket? MTBF for these units is usually a max of about 3 years, and that's if handled judiciously, which most audio players are -not-. You'd have to be totally daft not to keep copies on your home computer or some other removable media [like DVD+/-R, which is extremely cheap and now quite fast].

Given the choice, I would opt for a purely solid-state format over either hdd or MO. No mechanical parts, lower power consumption, no chances of head crashes, skipping, data corruption from jostling, &c... My biggest beef with flash isn't the cost, either. The cost will eventually come down, for one; more importantly, the offset of the medium being totally non-mechanical is worth paying for if you can afford it. No, my biggest beef with flash is the fact that the cards are so small that they're easily lost. I would rather see a flash card made half the size of an MD that has 5GB on it or something, than to use a tiny XD card the size of a postage stamp, that you can't write on and are more likely to misplace than an MD.

====================

A well-designed player should be good at that thing, and that thing only. Cameras, java support, photo and text readers, &c. are completely unnecessary on an audio player, IMO. A device made for one function is virtually guaranteed to be vastly superiour to one that has been extended for other uses to the point that it actually needs an operating system and loads of bug-riddled software in order to just be turned on, let alone used.

That said, NetMD and HiMD are generally the -last- formats I would recommend to anyone looking for a player. There are people for whom it's a logical choice, especially if they're accustomed to maintaining a portable library consisting of multiple discs [like friends who have MP3-CD collections, which is what I moved to HiMD from]. It's a great medium for people who are patient.

The vast majority of people would rather be able to copy their entire music collection in under 5 minutes than to have to wait at HiMD's extremely leisurely writing pace of 10-15 minutes / reformatted MD80 [note that's 10-15 minutes for only 290MB of data] or 22-40 minutes / 1GB.

Despite everything I've said here about MO formats and their pros and cons, NetMD and HiMD's biggest stumbling block from my POV is one and one only: SonicStage. While it has improved vastly since v2.1 [what I started with], it still has an incredibly long way to go in terms of general usability, user-friendliness, and especially how it deals with uploading tracks. SS 3.1 still has specific problems with trashing users' recordings under certain circumstances.

IMO, Sony should trash SS and start totally from scratch. It sounds as though someone may be doing that job for them, so I hope it turns out well.

As regards SS and drag&drop support, there's absolutely no reason why Sony couldn't write the OpenMG module with shell hooks/as shell extensions, enabling true drag&drop both to and from HiMD devices without any use of SonicStage at all. They could also include support for transcoding of any audio format that has a DirectShow filter.

====================

Lastly - I'll repeat: no device is perfect.

Form and function are both elements in how people choose things like audio players.

In the end, I don't think that either format [MD/HiMD or hdd-based] is technically superiour to the other. What you find works best for you is what should determine your choice, among other factors such as cost.

Being well-informed about what you're buying is far more important than buying what everyone else says is best, in any case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My view on this subject is apparently somewhat unpopular around here, but here's what I think:

If you want a player, buy a player. 

OK, I'll bite smile.gif

I primairily use my MD (not Hi or Net jet) as a player. Of course I record CD's to it, but if I could upload music to it faster (and not thru SS) I would. So I don't really require realtime recording (although it's a nice feature and I don't exaclty need to lose it).

The thing I like best about the MD is the MD itself: the disc. Removable, cheap and small. That's what I want (not a fixed medium, since my music wouldn't fit on any MP3-player). Removable storage, and there's really only one option: MD. Only too bad Sony doesn't support a lossless format yet tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I'll bite smile.gif

When did you bite? You fall into my category of users for whom the format fits their needs or preferences. Did you actually read the whole post, or just the first 10 lines?

I would assert that the majority of users out there don't fit into that category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I decided on MD (first NetMD and very soon Hi-MD) for recording live music (both myself and my friends) rather than simply ripping somebody else's CD or paying some mega-corp 99 cents per track for the privilege of listening.

Compared to what the iPod offers as far as recording options goes...it is abysmal! Of course, you will never convince iPod owners of that...they think that everything their little staus symbol does is 'magic'!

Have a look at this article gushing about the

Voice Recording MAGIC with the iPod

Yes, the 'Magic" recording options are MONO...no stereo recording at all. Even if you spend extra for the adapter that allows you to use a better microphone...it still reocrd ONLY in MONO.

We won't get into battery issues...mentioning battery problems and the iPod is a bit like kicking somebody when they are down! ohmy.gif I won't metion sound quality and the iPod..that would be a cheap shot but let' say that the only other overrated status symbol with WORSE sound than the iPod has GOT to be Satellite Radio! It's amazing what people will listen to!

So, for the recording alone, MD is the way to go. All the other advantages are just extra perks. cool.gif

the line in, the high quality audio recording, the size, the versatility of switching discs... that{s enough for me... but i need more stuff!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say if you want a player...then get neither. Get an iRiver not something that's crippled with locked in terrible batteries and Apple's restrictions.

If you want a recorder it's pretty obvious.

In my mind it depends more on if your a consumer who's not too pushed and just wants much for commuting, or if your an audio enthusiast.

This might help: http://www.pretentiousname.com/mp3players/

Btw, I have both...biggrin.gif

Edited by bri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The iPods earphone out is pretty poor, theres a bass roll off and adjusting the eq to improve the sound reduces the sound quality further. The Shuffle however has fantastic quality from its earphone output. Best of any MP3 player probably. The sound quality from the iPods line out (via dock, portable dock) is apparently excellent. Most Audiophiles will use Apples lossless or ACC at a very high bitrate via the lineout and via a portable amp. Thats pretty much as good sound quality as you can get.

Personally I've always found Sharp MD to sound a lot better than Sony's. But even my Sony G750 sounds better from the earphone socket then an iPod earphone socket. With the 2nd Gen HiMD you have the problem with MP3 sounding worse than ATRAC files.

I like the idea of AA batteries rather than gumstick batteries. SO I'm kinda disappoint I can't get a 2nd Gen with good MP3 playback, internal AA a line in, and line out, and a FM radio. Also it should have USB2. Criminal that it doesn't.

However the Apple units are players not recorders and thats a fundamental difference, which makes all comparisions null and void. The iPods+iTunes as a package is a better MP3 player, than the MD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also it should have USB2. Criminal that it doesn't.

USB2 wouldn't make any difference, HiMD doesn't even use the full capacity of USB1.1... it's not the transfer that is slow, it's the writing process itself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

DEFINITELY HI MD!!! Linear PCM justifies it all. If you are a person with a good musical ear, you will notice that the compression used by Ipods really sucks. Sound is not complete and they reinforce treble and lose bass. It's a pity but Ipods don't sound well- Their playback lacks of the wholeness of pure sound. Hi-Sp mode of Hi_Md's is definitely superior to ipod and itunes. If you have the oportunity to compare them you'll see. rolleyes.gif

The compression used by iPods can be MP3 or AAC (M4A container) or Apple Lossless. In principle, no lossy compression is as accurate as PCM. But as a longtime audiophile and professional classical musician, I would defy anyone to tell the audible difference between my AACs or MP3s and the WAVs from which they were encoded in controlled, double-blind ABX testing. So I would argue that a difference which MAKES no difference IS no difference - at least from a practical point of view.

Before hackles rise...

Notice I said MY AACs or MP3s. If you are using the Apple iTunes Store's downloads as your benchmark, I would agree with you. But I encode my own, using the Compaact! encoder at 320 kbs or the highest possible variable bitrate, not the 128kbs or 192kbs (most people achieve transparency to their satisfaction on most music at 192 kbs) distributed by Apple for downloads.

For MP3s I encode with LAME 3.96 at a constant 320kbs rate. At that bitrate I cannot consistently tell the difference between the resulting MP3s and the original PCM WAVs even with harpsichord, which is particularly vulnerable to compression artifacts. By contrast, most encoders' default bit rate is 128kbs and that is what most people use - good enough for typically overproduced pop and hip-hop junk maybe, but not for jazz or classical or anything else that calls for sonic cleanliness.

[As for the playback through the iPod itself, that is another issue entirely. It speaks NOT to the quality of the music encoding process, but to the quality of the playback mechanism, electronics and software in the player.]

If I want compression but don't want LOSSY compression, I use FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Compression). I would NEVER use Apple Lossless, because it is a proprietary Apple format that no one else in the galaxy supports and no one else ever WILL support, because as is typical for Apple, they refuse to license the codec to anyone. Apple Lossless files cannot be played on anything but an iPod or a Windows XP or MacOS computer that has iTunes installed. That's a deal-breaker.

My problem with MiniDisc as a portable music player is that it is firmly locked into ATRAC, a Sony proprietary format with NO support beyond Sony and MiniDisc. Sony has chosen to include no native support in MiniDisc for MP3, AAC or any other compression algorithm. As a purely recording medium, this is not fatal. But Sony IS actively promoting and selling the MiniDisc not only as a recording medium but as a viable medium for portable music players.

If you want to transfer some MP3's to your minidisc player for listening on the go, they are transcoded from MP3 to ATRAC before being saved onto the minidisc. This transcoding DOES create audible problems with the music - to my ears at least. It is a generally accepted principle that transcoding - or essentially superimposing one codec upon another - can severely affect the music by multiplying and enhancing the artifacts of each. On the stupid cheap little earbuds that everybody tosses in with portable players, it may not be an issue, but on the $250 ones I use, IT IS!

[in the analog days, some poor ignorant souls thought using Dolby Noise Reduction in conjunction with DBX would achieve the Holy Grail of the hissless audio tape. Like in the transcoding example above, they were superimposing one compression-expansion curve upon another. BAD IDEA!]

Now, if my music portable uses minidiscs, I can get around that issue by simply encoding all my music in ATRAC in the first place using SoundStage. But there again, I have the "Apple problem" - those files will NEVER be usable on anything else but a minidisc player! Or on a computer with SoundStage installed. If I HAVE to use SoundStage to get my files off my computer and into my minidisc player, that is bad enough, but I WILL NOT USE IT to play, encode or organize my music!

Or I can simply use straight PCM WAVs. ANY player supports that! Two problems: One gigabyte is just not enough room if I am going to use WAVs. One CD of music per disc? I am not willing to carry a bulging pocketful of minidiscs! Worse, I STILL have to use wretched SoundStage to get the files onto them! And with USB, at a glacial pace to boot for those HUGE files.

The hassle is almost enough to make me throw up my hands, surrender and buy an iPod with all the other millions of sheeple out there. Indeed, SoundStage is almost a deal-breaker just by itself. It's more complex than it needs to be, it's kludgy, it's unstable and it's just ugly to look at.

IF Sony absolutely MUST insist on transcoding MP3s instead of providing proper native support for them, why not make the transcoding software resident in the portable player's firmware?

Since I am pleading with Sony, I might as well stay on my knees and beg for the immediate deepsixing of SoundStage in favor of something clean and elegant - like iTunes or Windows Media Player 10. Or, better yet, instead of re-inventing the wheel, just provide software plug-ins so minidiscs can be loaded from iTunes or WAP or even MusicMatch?

Or, EVEN better yet, WHY not allow the computer's operating system to mount the minidisc player like it would any removable disc like a floppy or a zip? That way, putting music on your player becomes a simple drag-and-drop.

As others here have related, MiniDisc has some great advantages as a portable music player medium over HD players. But Sony is utterly hamstringing MiniDisc by compromising the quality of music files loaded onto them through transcoding and by forcing us to use a software package that makes the process of using the player unnecessarily complicated and just plain un-fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem with MiniDisc as a portable music player is that it is firmly locked into ATRAC, a Sony proprietary format with NO support beyond Sony and MiniDisc. Sony has chosen to include no native support in MiniDisc for MP3, AAC or any other compression algorithm. As a purely recording medium, this is not fatal. But Sony IS actively promoting and selling the MiniDisc not only as a recording medium but as a viable medium for portable music players.

sorry but gen two himd [rh10, rh910, nh710] all support native mp3 along with both atrac3 & atrac3+

Now, if my music portable uses minidiscs, I can get around that issue by simply encoding all my music in ATRAC in the first place using SoundStage. But there again, I have the "Apple problem" - those files will NEVER be usable on anything else but a minidisc player! Or on a computer with SoundStage installed. If I HAVE to use SoundStage to get my files off my computer and into my minidisc player, that is bad enough, but I WILL NOT USE IT to play, encode or organize my music!

atrac3/+ since 3.2 can be drm free allowing multiple uses. there is still the codec to be installed on nonsonicstage computers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in Dex's and bri's corner on this. I have a Zen Micro, a Creative Nomad, and have played with numerous Karmas, I riv's and I-things and have gone through a fleet of MD players including HiMD's.

For just pure listening pleasure and minimal fuss (easy to use), for a newbie- as much as I hate to say it, IPOD wins. Ya don't go wrong on it. My girfriend liked to play with my toys, but she'd always get pi$$ed off at dealing with their quirky interfaces- and each one of them has its own unique anomolies. I got her an IPOD.

The headphones suck, but they sound pretty nice with a decent set (actually any headphones sound better than the IPOD issued set) Lack of .wma support is actually a GOOD thing! Windows Media is not a music format- it's a disease!

If your brother is fairly active, perhaps a Creative Labs Muvo might be a better choice. It's solid state, much more durable than an hard drive based IPOD for active people. Not as simple to use, but I didn't have to fuss so much with listening to music on a Muvo than with others.

If you want recording capability, The HiMD rules. The only thing I found that I liked that had that kind of recording capability was the Creative Labs Nomad 3. IRiver made some really nice looking pocket sized 20 gigabyte recorders, but users report a horrible popping noise in their recordings about every 30 seconds (the Nomads didn't do this).

Edited by g52ultra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

that´s pretty much it. I need to convience my brother who is in doubt...

First ask him what he plans to use it for. Then the answers are pretty simple. Each has notable strengths and weaknesses listed here, so no point repeating them again.

4GB Flash Ipods coming soonish, btw. Dunno if he wants to wait, but word is Apple could be buying up to 36% of Samsung's NAND flash output, depending on what sales are like later this year when they release it. The chances of Apple making a decent recorder are pretty slim, tho.

Samsung also plans to release some new models in this half of the year. But again, no point if he can't wait a bit to suss out the competition.

Personally I go "ewww" whenever I see a portable with a HD and/or a non user-replaceable battery (or flash card) in it, so nothing featuring those even raises an eyebrow.

Edited by tekdroid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know but you can still wish... Transfering large amounts of data across USB 1.1 is painful.

Transferring to and fro MD isn't limited by it's USB version, but by the discs itself. Slapping on USB2 will increase tranfering speed zero percent. And I don't really mind, I quite happy as it is.

About this ridiculus comparison, it is stupid. A HiMD can be better than an iPod, and an iPod can be better than a HiMD. Depends on personal whishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Transferring to and fro MD isn't limited by it's USB version, but by the discs itself. Slapping on USB2 will increase tranfering speed zero percent. And I don't really mind, I quite happy as it is.

About this ridiculus comparison, it is stupid. A HiMD can be better than an iPod, and an iPod can be better than a HiMD. Depends on personal whishes.

Just because a feature isn't of use to you, doesn't mean its not useful or critical to someone else. I need to bring data with me quite a lot, and usually its a few hundred megs. Using a MD for transporting this amount of data is just not practical. Its simply too slow (for whatever reason) So I bought a MP3 player (Zen Micro) for this now. If you only need to move a few documents then HiMD would suffice. But for me it was a non runner. If it works for you then great. I guess thats off the point though....sorry.

Mp3 players and MD are very different. Like you say it depends what you are looking for. I find having one of each works well for me. I wonder though do many people do back to back listening test between one device and another. I noticed myself that all the portable audio devices I have, some sound much better than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So would the upload (reading speed) be faster?

Nope. And that's the point.

Just because a feature isn't of use to you, doesn't mean its not useful or critical to someone else. I need to bring data with me quite a lot, and usually its a few hundred megs.

HiMD is intended as an archive medium, and as such it doesn't require high speeds, but large quantities.

Edited by Breepee2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand that point. MD is read by a laser so it should be possible to read it around the speed of a CD, shouldn't it?

No? FOr example, a CD can be read at 1, but also at 2 and 4 and 48 speed. Even at .1 speed. It all depends on how the manufacturers define how the hardware handles the disc. In HiMD's case, speed wasn't the primairy point.

And: Today i read on buffalo's site their MD unit supports USB2 at full speed.

It won't make the disc spin any faster smile.gif Transfers will be pecisely as fast as with an USB1.1 device.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No? FOr example, a CD can be read at 1, but also at 2 and 4 and 48 speed. Even at .1 speed. It all depends on how the manufacturers define how the hardware handles the disc. In HiMD's case, speed wasn't the primairy point.

Hmm...

And why is this not possible with MD/Hi-MD?

Or is it just because they don't build in a more powerful motor for given reasons

i.e. it's likely to be done in a possible internal computer drive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as Dex explained earlier in this same thread

* slow write speeds [usually about half the read speed] determined by the heating/cooling times of the "write" layer and low-power requirements [though not by any means limited to only these factors]

so it is due to the medium itself: the HiMD disc needs to be heated etc... to write data/music, so you simply can't 'speed up' that process... using USB2 to flood the internal processor with more data wouldn't help anything, as it simply can't be used/written away any faster... so forget 'faster data-HiMD' (unless you would install a 1gb ram tongue.gif) and use it for what it was intended: live recording, not data storage... that's what we've got flash-sticks/ portable HD's for

(even though you can of course use HiMD for data storage, but stop whining about the slow write speeds)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem with MiniDisc as a portable music player is that it is firmly locked into ATRAC, a Sony proprietary format with NO support beyond Sony and MiniDisc. Sony has chosen to include no native support in MiniDisc for MP3, AAC or any other compression algorithm. As a purely recording medium, this is not fatal. But Sony IS actively promoting and selling the MiniDisc not only as a recording medium but as a viable medium for portable music players.

If you want to transfer some MP3's to your minidisc player for listening on the go, they are transcoded from MP3 to ATRAC before being saved onto the minidisc. This transcoding DOES create audible problems with the music - to my ears at least. It is a generally accepted principle that transcoding - or essentially superimposing one codec upon another - can severely affect the music by multiplying and enhancing the artifacts of each. On the stupid cheap little earbuds that everybody tosses in with portable players, it may not be an issue, but on the $250 ones I use, IT IS!

Actually, your're wrong. 2nd generation HiMD units, which have been out for months, support MP3 natively, and newer versions of SonicStage can encode MP3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as Dex explained earlier in this same thread

so it is due to the medium itself: the HiMD disc needs to be heated etc... to write data/music, so you simply can't 'speed up' that process... using USB2 to flood the internal processor with more data wouldn't help anything, as it simply can't be used/written away any faster... so forget 'faster data-HiMD' (unless you would install a 1gb ram tongue.gif) and use it for what it was intended: live recording, not data storage... that's what we've got flash-sticks/ portable HD's for

(even though you can of course use HiMD for data storage, but stop whining about the slow write speeds)

I understand about the writing speed with the magnetic layer has to be

heated to change the magnetic property (south or north).

But sorry I was only talking about the reading speed.

Because while reading the disc has not to be heated up (since the data won't be

changed) but it is read by laser only. If i recall correctly the degree in which the

layer reflects the light (laser) is slightly different between the north polarisation and

the south polarisation. That's how it differates "0" and "1".

So I still see absolutely no reason why the reading speed could not be

increased.

BTW.: Speed is not one of my primary concerns.

Since I use it for playback as a main purpose I would probably be out of MD otherwise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But sorry I was only talking about the reading speed.

ok, I misread your post and I thought you were talking about write-speed... but:

Because while reading the disc has not to be heated up (since the data won't be changed) but it is read by laser only.

this is not correct! even when reading, HiMD discs need to be heated (best to first read all you can about the technology before you make assumptions like that)

the recording medium is actually a 3 layer sandwich consisting of (from top to bottom) the displacement (aka readout) layer, the switching layer, and the memory layer. When the switching layer is heated to its Curie temperature (which is below the Curie temperatures of the memory and readout layers), it allows a small magnetic domain in the memory layer to appear larger than it really is in the readout layer.

the above quote and further info (including a very simple and revealing animation) about the medium can be found at the minidisc.org HiMD faq's

so it does have to be heated for a readout, but agreed, not to the same temperature as for writing there's even more...

* slow read speeds determined by the density of data and low-power requirements [though not by any means limited to only these factors]

so the requirements to keep the medium (discs) small and the recorders portable (so not draining their batteries within five secs) slows down the read speed even more

so my conclusion: USB2 is useless for HiMD... but nevertheless it's one heck of a medium/recorder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I still see absolutely no reason why the reading speed could not be

increased.

* slow write speeds [usually about half the read speed] determined by the heating/cooling times of the "write" layer and low-power requirements [though not by any means limited to only these factors]

If the drive was faster, battery will surely not last as long as we known.

Plus i could see others reasons : there is surely not as many drive makers for MD as for CD, so less cash for R&D to improve the concept. And the main use is for music, so increasing reading speed is probably not a priority.

EDIT : The Low Volta has been quicker wink.gif And i agree with him, the main strength is recording possibilities ...

Edited by Roamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter, mmp64 -- weirving raises a point he wasn't even intending to -- it'd be insanely difficult for Sony to clear the misconceptions that are now installed in mostly everyone's mind at this point.

Agreed. In fact, I think most people still think that MD can only be used to do real-time recording - i.e. - hook up your CD player to a deck, press "play" and "record."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT : The Low Volta has been quicker wink.gif And i agree with him, the main strength is recording possibilities ...

I think it's the only strength that's left. After getting a NW-HD3, I really couldn't imagine using any MD unit for playback purposes only and NOT recording. Hence why we see less and less playback only units each year. The ability to record for any line source and the live recording ability is the only true merit MD has in the world -- playback is just a bonus. Maybe if they increase density and write speed things may change, but it's extremely doubtful we'll ever be where we were during the late 90's.

can i request the mods to close this thread. i have read enough about this Ipod vs HI MD debate..

feel free to delete my comment too...

Done. wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...