Paradox about DRM

[relaxmike]

Hi !

I am wanting to buy a MZ-RH910 to record lectures. I will use an external mic.

I have a question about this product. I downloaded the user's manual of the MZ-RH910 from www.sonicstudios.com. In the user's manual, P. 84, it is written :

"This recorder uses the Serial Copy Management System, which allows only first-generation digital copies to be made from premastered software. You can only make copies from a home-recorded disc by using the analog (line out) connections."

In the same manual, p. 96, it is written :

"Tracks that have been recorded on a Hi-MD Walkman can be imported to My Library of SonicStage on your computer only once."

So, suppose that I record a track on the MZ-RH910 with Mic-in in Hi-SP format.

On the topic "A Guide To Hi-MD Uploading.", I read that, with SonicStage 3.3, I can upload this track from the Hi-MD to my computer and convert the file into a .wav file. It is written : "The new .wav files are yours to do with as you wish, unencrypted with no DRM."

On the topic "Marc's Hi-MD Renderer", I can even read that I can convert the file directly into .mp3.

I am all confused !!!

Can the MZ-RH910 can restrict the use of the files, yes or not ?

Any help is appreciated.

[greenmachine]

Since SonicStage 3.2/3.3 there is no more 'upload only once' restriction. You can upload as often as you want. The uploaded file can be decoded to wav directly with Sonicstage. After that, you're free to convert / transcode it to any format you want. Or alternatively there is HiMDRenderer, which can convert to a number of different formats without having to decode to wav first. It also allows to convert realtime recordings via the optical input of the recorder - whenever you might need it - which SonicStage doesn't.

[e1ghtyf1ve]

As greenmachine said, Sony has gradually lifted the restrictions. The important key here is that you must download Sonic Stage 3.3 - it will not come with the recorder when you purchase it.

[relaxmike]

Thank you greenmachine and e1ghtyf1ve.

I wish that the user's manual will be updated !

Now, my understanding of the machine is clearer.

But these additionnal steps from the recording to the actual .mp3 file seem to be tedious and tiresome.

How long it will take from the USB connecting of the MZ-RH910 to the actual .mp3 file will obviously depend on my machine. Anyway, can you estimate this time ?

I think that a Microtrack 24/96 or Edirol R-1 would be good recording machines too :

- no proprietary software,

- no need of an additionnal file converter (the boxes generates .mp3 files directly),

- the compact flash cards are fast (especially with a USB2 connector).

But there are also some drawbacks with Microtrack and Edirol recorders :

- they are more expensive,

- the batteries cannot be easily replaced on the Microtrack,

- the Edirol R-1 box is poorly designed and fragile.

So I am hesitating but this is beyond the purpose of this forum...

Edited December 8, 2005 by relaxmike

[e1ghtyf1ve]

Thank you greenmachine and e1ghtyf1ve.

I wish that the user's manual will be updated !

Now, my understanding of the machine is clearer.

But these additionnal steps from the recording to the actual .mp3 file seem to be tedious and tiresome.

How long it will take from the USB connecting of the MZ-RH910 to the actual .mp3 file will obviously depend on my machine. Anyway, can you estimate this time ?

I think that a Microtrack 24/96 or Edirol R-1 would be good recording machines too :

- no proprietary software,

Very true.

- no need of an additionnal converter.

That depends on how much control you want over the bit rates. You will find that you'll need good mp3 encoding software anyway.

- the compact flash cards are fast (especially with a USB2 connector)

USB 2.0 is much faster than Hi-MD USB 1.1, but the cards cost 5 to 10 times more than Hi-MD blanks.

But there are also some drawbacks with Microtrack and Edirol recorders :

I own[ed] them and compared them to my HD 24-bit and Hi-MD recorders - I found their analog (mic, line) performance to be lacking.

- they are more expensive,

...and don't forget the media costs.

- the batteries cannot be easily replaced on the Microtrack,

You will probably have to send it in.

- the Edirol R-1 box is poorly designed and fragile.

I noticed that as well. The Microtrack is not much better. The Hi-MD recorders are not made like the old Japanese-made MD tanks, but are much better quality (Malaysia).

So I am hesitating but this is beyond the purpose of this forum...

If you are lucky like me you can buy and try. If it's too junky you can return it...

Cheers

[relaxmike]

So what is your conclusion about Hi-MD vs Microtrack / Edirol R-1 ?

I think that the robustness is the most important point and the Hi-MD recorders have major advantages :

- possibility to change the battery / add a battery case,

- buy another cheap Hi-MD disk if one fails,

- the quality of the box itself.

I formerly had an Archos Jukebox Recorder and it failed many times during the past 4 years because of the low quality of the box, of the batteries, of the software, etc...

So I think that I will buy a MZ-RH10.

But one more detail is embarassing me :

is it possible to directly record into a mp3 file with the MZ-RH10 or with the MZ-RH910 ?

[KJ_Palmer]

No, you cant record to MP3 with any Hi-MD recorders - only to Hi-SP (256k), Hi-LP (64k) or PCM.

[e1ghtyf1ve]

So what is your conclusion about Hi-MD vs Microtrack / Edirol R-1 ?

I think that the robustness is the most important point and the Hi-MD recorders have major advantages :

- possibility to change the battery / add a battery case,

- buy another cheap Hi-MD disk if one fails,

- the quality of the box itself.

I formerly had an Archos Jukebox Recorder and it failed many times during the past 4 years because of the low quality of the box, of the batteries, of the software, etc...

So I think that I will buy a MZ-RH10.

But one more detail is embarassing me :

is it possible to directly record into a mp3 file with the MZ-RH10 or with the MZ-RH910 ?

I'm glad you asked!

The answer is no. I believe this is a good thing, and here's why. I've never heard a good mp3 hardware recording (I also had an Archos Jukebox). I've tried iRiver and Creative Nano plus as well. A good Lame/Ogg/WMA(!) encoding at similar bitrates will beat them hands down. I suggest you record using PCM or Hi-SP 256k ATRAC3+, then encode for best sonic results. I'm assuming of course that you are trying to record music or nature sounds/sound effects. If it's just voice, take a look at a cheap Olympus DM-10. Also, if you plan on recording live, invest in good microphones - they will make all the difference.

Cheers

[greenmachine]

I'd say the software side of Hi-MD is a little bit of pain, but it's compensated by excellent recording quality.

[relaxmike]

"If it's just voice, take a look at a cheap Olympus DM-10."

Although I want to record voice, this is a too low quality recorder for me. The conference will be heard by many people and I want to get a decent quality (at least).

"No, you cant record to MP3 with any Hi-MD recorders - only to Hi-SP (256k), Hi-LP (64k) or PCM."

Therefore, I am planning to record into Hi-SP (256k) mode. For a voice recording, it will be very good and will guaranty a limited file size, so that the download from the Hi-MD to the computer will reasonably fast.

"I've never heard a good mp3 hardware recording (I also had an Archos Jukebox). I've tried iRiver and Creative Nano plus as well. A good Lame/Ogg/WMA(!) encoding at similar bitrates will beat them hands down."

You are really demanding... For me, when it worked, the mp3 files produced by the Archos Jukebox Recorder were satisfying. When it worked... But, many time, it failed during the recording. The reasons were : batteries too low, bugged display, box suddenly turning off, mp3 file not saved, etc... That is the reason why I want to buy another recording device.

"Also, if you plan on recording live, invest in good microphones - they will make all the difference."

I completely agree with you !

I previously experienced low quality mics and the results are poor, poor, poor. I will probably use an studio mic (Senheiser B2 Pro) with a pre-amp (Presonus) and a K&M microphone stand. This hardware has an excellent quality, may be too much for my needs : but I like to use the best hardware as I can so that I can get satisfied with the final result. I can borrow this from a friend of mine so it cost me nothing, except time.

[e1ghtyf1ve]

"If it's just voice, take a look at a cheap Olympus DM-10."

Although I want to record voice, this is a too low quality recorder for me. The conference will be heard by many people and I want to get a decent quality (at least).

Understood. Then you are after all in the right place!

"No, you cant record to MP3 with any Hi-MD recorders - only to Hi-SP (256k), Hi-LP (64k) or PCM."

Therefore, I am planning to record into Hi-SP (256k) mode. For a voice recording, it will be very good and will guaranty a limited file size, so that the download from the Hi-MD to the computer will reasonably fast.

SS v3.3 really isn't so bad in my opinion. I use iTunes every day and on a modern fast PC both software packages work similarly.

"I've never heard a good mp3 hardware recording (I also had an Archos Jukebox). I've tried iRiver and Creative Nano plus as well. A good Lame/Ogg/WMA(!) encoding at similar bitrates will beat them hands down."

You are really demanding... For me, when it worked, the mp3 files produced by the Archos Jukebox Recorder were satisfying. When it worked... But, many time, it failed during the recording. The reasons were : batteries too low, bugged display, box suddenly turning off, mp3 file not saved, etc... That is the reason why I want to buy another recording device.

Well, I was able to do many hours of side-by-side comparisons. If I were truly that demanding I would only stick to my 24-bit DAT and HD recorders.

I previously experienced low quality mics and the results are poor, poor, poor. I will probably use an studio mic (Senheiser B2 Pro) with a pre-amp (Presonus) and a K&M microphone stand. This hardware has an excellent quality, may be too much for my needs : but I like to use the best hardware as I can so that I can get satisfied with the final result. I can borrow this from a friend of mine so it cost me nothing, except time.

Thanks for clearing up your intentions. It sounds like you are set for some great recordings with the Sennheisers and Presonus.

Have fun!

Cheers

[e1ghtyf1ve]

One quick note: If you do decide to buy an RH10 (great little deck) make sure you can return it hassle-free. The reason I'm saying this is that there appear to be two hardware revisions of the RH10 that I know about. The first ones had problems with titling the tracks (missing letters, a minor problem) and a few had the volume keys occasionally crossing circuits with the search button. I had to exchange my RH10 at the local brick and mortar store due to these reasons. My second RH10 has performed flawlessly for about 150 hrs so far.