The best minidisc sound

[dogville]

Which Sony minidisc offers the best sound in all?. I'm taking into account the possibility of buying a hi-md player/recorder and what interests me most is THE SOUND QUALITY above any other aspects.

Is it important if the amplifier is HD or not?

Do you think sony will release new hi-md players comparable to the new RH-1 as far as sound quality?

thanks

Edited April 11, 2006 by dogville

[Stuge]

I can`t say much but (You can read the review in the review section) many people have said in the forum that sound Quality of DH10P is the best ..b`coz it has a HD amplifier & RH1 will also have that so sound quality might be equavalent to that ..

But some people have also said the couldn`t find the difference b/w sound quality of NH1 & DH10P ...

[Skradgee]

Check out a Sharp standard MD player. I don't have a specific model in mind, but I may eventually pick one up to hear the difference in sound that people talk about. The Sharp players apparently sound 'warmer'.

The NH1 and DH10P should sound the same since each has the HD amp. If you're looking for the best sound quality overall from a Sony model, I'd say choose a player with an HD amp. IMHO, those models will offer the best sound (in a NH1 vs. RH10 situation, for example).

[jaylen]

Yeah, all the Hi-MD units with HD amp (NH1, NH3D, NH900, DH10P) are supposed to sound the same and better than those with the regular digital amp (RH10, RH910). I second the Sharp Auvi line (I have 2-DR80 myself). Many people have said the Auvi beats the HD digital amp, but it's up to you to decide.

If you want Hi-MD with sound, great remote, recording ability, and looks - NH1

If you want Hi-MD with sound, great remote, download-only ability, and looks - NH3D

If you want Hi-MD with sound, recording ability, and affordability - NH900

If you want Hi-MD with sound, great color display, download-only ability, and camera - DH10P

If you can deal without Hi-MD, but want great sound and looks - Sharp Auvi line

I'm HOPING that Sony releases a new player-only after the RH1, but who knows.

Good luck!

[A440]

Yeah, all the Hi-MD units with HD amp (NH1, NH3D, NH900, DH10P) are supposed to sound the same and better than those with the regular digital amp (RH10, RH910). I second the Sharp Auvi line (I have 2-DR80 myself).

Reviews of HD amps are mixed--some say they're harsh.

Another question is whether Hi-MD, playing PCM through a regular digital amp or HD amp, sounds better than Sharp playing SP through the Auvi. Someone who has the units and a good pair of headphones should do that test.

[pauljones52]

I think hd amps sound good when playing hisp music, but regular digital amps sound better for higher bitrate music (eg 352kb/s or pcm)

[burns3016]

Reviews of HD amps are mixed--some say they're harsh.

Another question is whether Hi-MD, playing PCM through a regular digital amp or HD amp, sounds better than Sharp playing SP through the Auvi. Someone who has the units and a good pair of headphones should do that test.

I thought that digital amps helped to prevent the units from heating-up as much & saved power etc.? If the sound were different to non-digital amps wouldn't that be stated in the specs.?

[jaylen]

Reviews of HD amps are mixed--some say they're harsh.

Yes, which is why I said "supposed to."

Another question is whether Hi-MD, playing PCM through a regular digital amp or HD amp, sounds better than Sharp playing SP through the Auvi. Someone who has the units and a good pair of headphones should do that test.

Edit: I would do the test, but I'm having trouble deciding on headphones and I'm not very good at describing audiophile-type things.

Edited April 11, 2006 by jaylen

[A440]

What headphones are you choosing among?

[AVITWeb]

Digital will always sound different to analog...thats the nature. Digital is capable of reproducing almost ALL of the frequencies (even the ones we can't hear) which is why some people say that they are harsh. There tends to me more on the higher end of the spectrum. better or worse?? Personal decision.

[A440]

If you want to get philosophical about this, digital is always an approximation, sampling a sound tens of thousands of times per second and then reconstructing it, akin to the way a film (at 24 frames per second) reconstructs a moving image. Analog doesn't have those infinitesimal gaps between samples, so an ideal analog recording would be a perfect analog of the original waveform rather than a digital approximation. Of course, there are physical limitations to analog recording.

But a harsh high end in a digital recording is not necessarily due to better fidelity--it could be due to artifacts from the digital processing at recording or playback. Analog, not digital, could be a more exact reproduction to begin with. The advantage of digital is that when you want to copy that reproduction, you can make a perfect copy of the first digital approximation.

[jonny mac]

At the end of the day digital has higher potential for fidelity. The sample rate can be increased and if you take that to it's extreme digital virtually becomes analogue but with far greater control and ability to filter/avoid unwanted noise. It's technology for the future but it'll happen eventually. For now digital is better because the sound is so much cleaner and clearer.