Would you really buy a 3rd Gen HI-MD?

[Sparky191]

Yes, as I and others have said, poor marketing kills MD.

I don't agree. Before MP3 was even mainstream. They failed to replace cassette. They drove lots of MD users and potential users away with poor software and overly restrictive DRM. High cost was an issue and still is IMO. Even with new unit its going to be expensive.

My beef with MS is that it isn't a good product, it's an average (and often unreliable) product that wins only because people don't get offered any choice. I hate and loathe having to suffer it every minute of my working day just because the people with clout say it's a standard.

No idea which product you are talking about. Most companies seem to get along just fine. All computere products have some problems. Thats simply the nature of computers and software. Humans create it all. Anyway complaining about MS products on a MD forum is ironic. Given the horror that SS was until recently.

Happily I didn't say that. Universal support is a good thing. I was just pointing out that (a) MP3 support is not universal (99%(?) of car stereos; heck, most people are driving round with no better recordings than cassettes to listen to, and not even chrome or metal ones at that (the younger generation will no idea what I'm rabbitting on about!)) and ( universal support in itself doesn't make for a good product.

What DAP's don't support MP3? Even the current Sony units too. MP3 support is universal on old products or products based on older technology. For example nearly every DVD player has MP3 support now. Really CD players (unless you are taking about HiFi that don't support MP3 are obsolete.

[1kyle]

I don't agree. Before MP3 was even mainstream. They failed to replace cassette. They drove lots of MD users and potential users away with poor software and overly restrictive DRM. High cost was an issue and still is IMO.

I don't think cost was a major issue with MD's --the main problem was the absolutely and utterly absurd DRM restrictions --and before that the SCMS issue which would only allow you to make 1 generation of digital recordings EVEN OF YOUR OWN MUSIC --which you might have COMPOSED / written yourself.

After the demise of the cassette radio I often wondered why they replaced the cassette system with a CD player when an inbuilt MD unit would have been perfect.

I don't think in any case for serious audiophiles that MP3 is even on the starting blocks

MP3's are fine for people who probably edit playlist etc on a computer and want relatively "average" sounding music to be played on small portable devices in typically noisy environments, --offices, The Street, trains, buses etc.

Also probably useful for people who download music at horrendous compression rates (therefore lowish quality) from some of the download music stores. Absolutely unlistenable in general when played on a High end Hi-Fi system.

If they want that that's fine for them --but I'm sure as they age and their tastes become more discerning they'll strive for better quality.

There's ALWAYS a market for top notch stuff.

Cheers

-K

[dex Otaku]

Yes, if I had the money, I'd buy a 3rd-gen unit.

And to add to. the side-debate on photography:

The only reason I see left for using film is long exposure photography [night photography, for example]. Show me a DSLR that can properly expose for 5-10 minutes.

Also, to back up 1kyle's points about film resolution, I have made 2700dpi scans of modern 400 and 800ISO 35mm film and that clearly showed the dye clouds in the film itself as being larger than the scanner's resolution. 26Mp? Maybe with 64ISO transparency and the finest prime lenses that exist. I think Kodak were stretching it a bit, there.

[greenmachine]

I wonder if we can ever get rid of these "mp3 is generally crap" prejudices. Mp3 - like all lossy audio compression formats - can be very low quality or - on the other end - virtually transparent (indistinguishable from the original) depending on the bitrate, encoder and settings you use. Actually from own and public listening tests, i'd say it can reach transparency at even lower average bitrates than SP (292kbps). And yes, i often use (high bitrate vbr) mp3 for listening through my hifi (which is propably above average quality).

Please refrain from generalisations like these until you can back them up with (blind) listening tests.

[Sparky191]

I don't think cost was a major issue with MD's...

The units are still very expensive from official channels. 2nd they are resonable. But for us in Ireland a NH1 is still almost €400. Thats more expensive that a new 30G iPod. I couldn't justify the price of a new one myself.

After the demise of the cassette radio I often wondered why they replaced the cassette system with a CD player when an inbuilt MD unit would have been perfect.

Yes I don't get that either. But I cassette decks, walkmans and car stereo's are a lot cheaper than a MD.

I don't think in any case for serious audiophiles that MP3 is even on the starting blocks... MP3's are fine for people who probably edit playlist etc on a computer and want relatively "average" sounding music to be played on small portable devices in typically noisy environments, --offices, The Street, trains, buses etc.

A lot Audiophile's (at least the ones on Head-Fi) realise that theres little point in lossless formats on a portable. Yes you can do it, but hearing the difference between a high quality rip and a CD is nigh impossible in a portable scenerio. This is people who consider portable to be a HD DAP, with a line out to a mini dock, portable amp and full sized set of open backed earphones. The other point is that cache on portable players simply isn't big enough to hold lossless formats so HD is going all the time, or the CD is spining all the time which destroys the battery life, and increases wear and tear. Obviously you avoid this with a flash based player like a 4GB Nano. But then you can't hold as much. So then you go the route of portable CD walkman with analog or optical line out. The new ones compress everything in the anti skip buffer, so you use a old vintage unit. By this time you're carrying a small suitcase around.

Then you realise in a ABX blind listening test you really can't hear the different 90% of the time with 90% of your music.

Lots of rigs to consider over here...

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showpost.ph...8&postcount=374

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showpost.ph...0&postcount=113

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showpost.ph...5&postcount=117

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=155048

Edited March 11, 2006 by Sparky191

[atrain]

Since DAPs do not support UMS filetree for music, USB ports aren't that useful.

many of them do, iriver for one, iaudio,

http://www.dapreview.net/news.php

[Sparky191]

I should have said "most" DAPs.

[greenshank]

What DAP's don't support MP3?

I wasn't talking about DAPs in general. I'll say it again: I imagine that most people's car stereos can't handle MP3s, either on CD or via USB. Judging by the age of many of the cars round here, I would expect that many of them can't even handle CDs! (Maybe I should do a survey... prowl round carparks staring in at dashboards. Hmmm, maybe not ) Edited March 12, 2006 by greenshank

[greenshank]

I wonder if we can ever get rid of these "mp3 is generally crap" prejudices.

I expect this arises mostly from all those crappy downloads (I expect mostly illegal, but that's an unfounded generalisation, ahem).

Going back over this thread (and others) I think that most (not all) people know better than to indulge in the afore-mentioned prejudice.

It's a funny thing... trying to listen really critically to my 64k recordings, every time I hear something that sounds like an artefact, I go back to the the original CD, and there it is too! So it's either a poor recording, a poor pressing (hmmm there's an anachronistic term) or poor equipment. So far I haven't found anything that I can definitely pin down to a low bit-rate. (Cabirio, I'll get round to your samples soon, honest!)

[Sparky191]

It's not ironic, then, it's a very good example of what I meant.

I wasn't talking about DAPs. I'll say it again: I imagine that most people's car stereos can't handle MP3s, either on CD or via USB. Judging by the age of many of the cars round here, I would expect that many of them can't even handle CDs! (Maybe I should do a survey... prowl round carparks staring in at dashboards. Hmmm, maybe not )

Well I'm confused to what you meant. Windows/iPod is successful because it dire and that its just good marketing? That SS/MD is unsuccessful because its a great product and is marketed poorly? Sorry I can't agree.

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

....It's a funny thing... trying to listen really critically to my 64k recordings, every time I hear something that sounds like an artefact, I go back to the the original CD, and there it is too! So it's either a poor recording, a poor pressing (hmmm there's an anachronistic term) or poor equipment. So far I haven't found anything that I can definitely pin down to a low bit-rate. (Cabirio, I'll get round to your samples soon, honest!)

If you prefer one sound over another, and can pick it out consistently, say 80% in a blind listening test than thats good enough for me. I'll admit I don't have golden ears, but I'm not deaf either. I don't have the best gear aswell. But as someone else said on Head-Fi, if you have to look that hard to find a difference then its neligible enough not to be significant.

Anyway this is all gone off topic to a certain degree. I apologise for that. Would you really buy a 3rd Gen HI-MD? Well I would just for recording though, as I prefer other alternatives for playback. I'd also buy it because I love the techo gadget blackness of it. I prefer my old metal MD's to my HiMD as a gadget. But the HiMD is soo much better to use.

Edited March 12, 2006 by Sparky191

[1kyle]

I wonder if we can ever get rid of these "mp3 is generally crap" prejudices. Mp3 - like all lossy audio compression formats - can be very low quality or - on the other end - virtually transparent (indistinguishable from the original) depending on the bitrate, encoder and settings you use. Actually from own and public listening tests, i'd say it can reach transparency at even lower average bitrates than SP (292kbps). And yes, i often use (high bitrate vbr) mp3 for listening through my hifi (which is propably above average quality).

Please refrain from generalisations like these until you can back them up with (blind) listening tests.

A lot of this depends on the type of music you listen to and of course the original quality of the source in the first place.

A 1000 KHZ sine tone test probably would sound fine even at 64 Kbs on almost any compression system. Music with very high dynamic ranges and lots of transients is usually the most difficult to compress and encode properly -if you don't believe me just take any mathematicians words -- to break the original Analog system up you have to start by "digitising" it -- this means amongst other things performing complex Fourier analyses on the waveforms which in a highly dynamic environment is incredibly complex.

For the "Mathematically or Numerically Challenged" Fourier analysis is a mathematical technique of breaking any waveform up into a set of sine waves (which are easy to reproduce in analog at the audio level). By adding up the composite sine waves you'll (in theory) get the original waveform back. --Digital signals are essentally One's and Zero's -- like a set of Square waves -- Fourier analysis works on these too and is the basis of A/D and D/A hardware converters.

MP3's take "A best guess" type of approach to simplify the maths --remember this started off as an "Open Source" project in response to a demand for a convienient portable music format which didn't require oodles of disc space and had the highest level of compression so the algorithms were hobbled together fairly quickly.

At the time MP3's first started appearing even a 56 kbs modem (what's a modem some of you are saying) was rareish and a 10GB disc was a very expensive and almost impossible to find piece of kit.

Download times (since people were on "Dial Up" connections had to be kept as small as possible to keep phone bills reasonable) and on less than a 56 Kbs modem even a smallish download could take a considerable time so the MP3 compression was built to maximize compression right from the start -- Quality considerations were secondary so long as the final file yielded acceptable results to its users. It did what it was intended to do and has succeeded for sure in that regard.

Now ATRAC was designed with quality in mind first -- The Engineers did extensive tests on parts of the spectrum that could be reasonably omitted from the original sound source without loss or only minimal loss of fidelity.

Some original tests were done using musicians from The Los Angeles Symphony Orchestra and recordings were compared with -Pre ATRAC systems. ATRAC came out very well indeed and even now the original SP (@292 kbs) is still regarded as one of the best audio compression schemes ever designed --even if the proprietary nature of the encoding didn't lead to (unfortunately) its universal adoption.

Both MP3 and ATRAC have since developed beyond the original designs --the current level of ATRAC 3+ @ 352 maintains and improves the design specification of the original ATRAC and probably is still the best Compression algorithm around today.

MP3 whilst the bit rates have improved is still based on a "best guess / fit" algorithm and this can't be changed too much without rendering millions of MP3 players effectively obsolete.

A "Best Guess" type of fit algorithm that is not designed for the maximum fidelity possible will IMO will never compete with an algorithm designed for "Audiophiles" right from the start --even though for 1000's and 1000's of people out there for the music they play and in the surroundings they listen to it an MP3 player will be more than enough.

For me however I find the quality of MP3's at any bit rate simply just not good enough and I'm sure there are others of like mind.

It's YOUR ears so use whatever suits you.

Cheers

-K

Edited March 12, 2006 by 1kyle

[dex Otaku]

1kyle - I don't know where you get your info from, but from what I can recall [and look up on multiple sources right now] -

MP3 was designed [proprietarily, by a corporation's research division] for digital broadcast use [i.e. radio and TV]. It was not open source or public domain, and much of the most significant research into psychoacoustically adaptive data reduction methods were done by corporate interests. Universities and other academia were involved in the same [and have been for a long time] but MP3 itself came out of the effort to produce a usable relatively low-bitrate reduction algorithm for digital broadcast - something that has and had nothing to do with modems [and I'll note that at the time that MP3 and ATRAC were both being developed, 56kbps modems as we know them now didn't exist yet; most people were maxing out at 14.4kbps or less back then]. Further, while people still seem to assert that MP3 and ATRAC were developed with different aims, I still think they're all wrong - both were developed specifically for audio's "full" bandwidth [20Hz-20kHz], i.e. they are both general-purpose codecs; MP3 is also tunable to a certain extent, and can actually have superior transient response to ATRAC's. If anything, MP3, since it was designed specifically for lower bitrate encoding than ATRAC, and as a general-purpose codec, is probably more versatile. My point? That MP3 was designed to encode audio, and that ATRAC was designed to encode audio; they don't do things exactly the same way, and in some specific ways each is more efficient than the other, so really - this difference, given intentionally good encoding conditions [i.e. using close to identical output bitrates of both], is precious little.

Anyway. Enough niggling points on that.

Part of the problem with any discrete transform coding method [fft, dct, &c.] is that the resolution of the time-based data [samples] to be analysed determines the highest resolution of the frequency-based data it can produce [part of the reason for packet-overlap, too]. This actually makes a good argument for using high-resolution audio. 16-bit, 44.1kHz stereo audio limits how finely [timewise] you can convert to packets in the frequency domain; using higher sampling rates means potentially increasing the size of the packets to be analysed [using the same length of time per packet] or using the same packet length for much shorter periods of actual time, either of which results in higher transform resolution/accuracy.

There's a tradeoff involved in the accuracy/packet vs. packet length; longer packets of PCM to be analysed means higher transform accuracy, but longer packets also mean poorer transient response [among other things]. This is one of the complains about ATRAC/3/plus, that it's packet length is so long that transient response is poor [causing pre-echo, &c.].

Until the source data [PCM for example] moves to high-res [read: specifically, higher sampling rates], everyone will be limited by what's in use. You can't pull extra resolution out of data that simply isn't there to begin with.

Anyway.

[1kyle]

In the end it does come down to Ears -- however there does seem to be a lot of "chatter" over the web about how Ipods (and some other MP3) devices really don't handle Lame 320 kbs very well.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....27entry200327

Cheers

-K

[Sparky191]

But they handle other encodings fine. Besides it only certain iPods. This does't mean Lame MP3's are bad. It means you need to know what you are doing.

[1kyle]

But they handle other encodings fine. Besides it only certain iPods. This does't mean Lame MP3's are bad. It means you need to know what you are doing.

Actually that's an advantage to ATRAC3 as you DON'T need to know what you are doing --just transfer @ 320 to the Hi-MD device from your WAV and it's fine --no bother or fuss.

Actually I wasn't even aware of the "Ipod / LAME" problem -- and the myriad ways of generating MP3 files -- I certainly WAS aware of the not very good quality of downloaded music from Itunes etc compared with the original CD's.

Seems this whole MP3 thing boils down to "What is an MP3" file and how was it generated.

Reading on Hydrogen Audio and others it seems there's no definitive way of making a "Bog standard" top quality MP3. There's more encoders out there than cars on the M25 (the UK's notorious road with a 72 mile (most but not quite its entire length) long car park).

The flexibilty might well be the downfall in the end unless there is a "definitive" encoding standard.

However in response to the original thread I certainly like the look of the new device and would certainly get one myself when it appears.

Cheers

-K

[Sparky191]

MP3's aren't the native format for an ipod, and the iTunes store is a completely different subject. How well is a native MP3 played on a HiMD? Poorly. Even a 320 as you suggest can be played natively or tanscoded. A lot of people transcode their MP3's to ATRAC probably to HiSP 64kps out of ignorance. Basically theres a lot of ways to encode ATRAC theres even HQ settings and lossless and the bugs with that.

IMO Sonically a good rip in either format is indistinguishable from each other, and the CD in the majority of cases.

[1kyle]

This little guide makes for some interesting reading

http://mp3.radified.com/

Cheers

-K

[The Low Volta]

guys guys please... we've all heard this MP3 vs ATRAC bickering before and it is/could be very interesting but:

- I haven't really read anything yet that hasn't been said umthousand times before (on these forums as well)

- I'd like to see this discussion being fed by arguments and not by speculation

and most importantly...

- this is very off topic!! the real questionw as: "Would you really buy a 3rd gen HiMD?" so please take this somewhere else (start a 'new' thread or something or perhaps the mods can do that with all these posts here as those posts haven't really contributed anything to the main question)

or just agree to disargee, but please stop discussing such in this thread...

[Sparky191]

Ok sorry.

[rayzray]

i am so afraid of asking this question about my latest LOVE; DVD'ing and MP4'ing.. so i won't; for now.

to re-answer the on-topic question:

it's a tie;; a draw; a tit-tat..

i have 5 DVD-Ram Recorders now and 10 DVD Players; most Ram-readers. using them for my A/V projects BUT, also for "Personal Music". what a surprise.

do i want another Hi-MD recorder or another DVD Recorder; could use one of each; but i think the scale is leaning towards anothe DVD-RAM Recorder for my "up-coming A/V Field set-up; who needs a computer on the field; i need more bling blings; i need to "Take it on the road".!

Edited March 12, 2006 by rayzray

[pata2001]

We can talk about codecs all day long, but do we listen to the algorithm, or the music? Still want to find out which codec sounds better? Just do ABX yourself, and pick your favorite codec.

After all those lengthy discussion, whos's going to get the RH1?

Still no news whether sony is going to release new HiMD player only units?

[surripere]

I doubt if I'll go for it, I don't do enough recording to justify it. I use my RH10 mostly for playback of CDs but I do some recording from vinyl and then uploading to the PC. When I bought it I figured that a deck would follow but I'm not sure now and without a deck I feel less certain about my future with the format. A deck would give the option of making lengthy compilation discs and compiling albums that give quality hi fi playback in the living room, personal stereos are great and I do a lot of listening on my RH10 but I still find myself awestruck at how good music sounds through a very ordinary hi fi. Plugging the portable unit into the hi fi is okay but fiddly and not the same quality as listening to SP on my MDLP deck. To reiterate early comments on this thread (without the font), please Sony give us a deck and I'll be with the format for many years!

[RobA]

Now that I'm getting an rh910, there is no chance of me going 3rd Gen. Can't wait for my rh910.

[metal]

Still no news whether sony is going to release new HiMD player only units?

But Sony have already released two player only units in Nov last year.

Don't think they will release any more shortly.

[1kyle]

Compressing in a buffer doesn't actually have to be done "Lossy" or at least doesn't involve another "lossy" transcoding operation.

The signal from the minidisc can be compressed again (losslessly) into loads of formats even ZIP / LZW etc if necessary as the machine won't PLAY this directly since it's just data held in a buffer.

This will be de-compressed again just before playing into the EXACT copy of the signal going INTO the buffer whether or not the original signal was in PCM or any other codec.

Hardware compression / decompression can be achieved very quickly.

As for whether or not losseless formats are any point on a portable device is really a question of what you want the device FOR.

Simply as a playback device you have a valid point but remember the MD is designed above all as a portable RECORDING device and the PCM mode here makes a considerable difference.

Solid state players have a disadvantage on the whole due to the expensive nature of the solid state device (even a 2GB card still costs around 120 USD compared with 7 or so USD for a 1GB blank minidisc) and in the cheaper players at least is not ususally removable so when it's full no quick swapping in a new disc to continue recording.

Hard disc players suffer from other problems mainly of high current consumption and lower "ruggedness". Hard discs are notoriously more fragile than MD's or Solid state devices and I'd hesitate to use these where knocks and bashes are the order of the day certainly for recording in a "Media Pack rat" frenzy.

Whatever the "Dinosaur Technology" appearance some people associate with MD's there really AREN'T other comparable CHEAP and convenient recording systems around at the moment.

OK I've looked at the very nice Marantz solid state (removable) pro recorder but you can't compare one of these at around 1600 USD with a small convenient portable MD recorder at around 170 USD.

The MD will be around for a long time yet even if the new RH1 is the LAST unit to be made.

(Hand held computers and organisers are still more cumbersome to use than "Pencil and Paper" notebooks in a lot of situations and in spite of decent SAT NAV gear reading a LARGE map is often easier to use than looking at some of the fiddly little screens on the cheaper SAT NAV equipment around).

And Yes I WILL get the RH1.

Cheers

-K

Edited March 16, 2006 by 1kyle

[oti]

If Sony built a Hi-MD DECK then yes.

Decks for recording, portables for listening

And so It was written...

I would say the reverse:

Decks for editing and listening, portables for live recording

(interviews, making bootlegs or legal recordings for study, demo or archiving purposes).

Well yes, it depends off course on what you're recording if you're only copying cd's than a homedeck will do; and if you only listen to your copied music outside then it's clear too. You probably even don't need a homedeck so badly, or?

I see a full fledged home-deck as an important transfer point between MD and HiMD.

Oti

[Mikami]

I would buy anything... but please Lord (here SONY)LET THERE BE A Hi-MD DECK

And there was a HI-MD Deck:

http://www.minidisc.org/part_Onkyo_MD-133.html

and it was very good!

[garcou]

And there was a HI-MD Deck:

http://www.minidisc.org/part_Onkyo_MD-133.html

and it was very good!

so priority shout for himd car unit!