MDCenter.nl Posts Full Review of MZ-RH1

[Christopher]

Marck from MDCenter.nl has done it again: with an excellent variety of pictures to accent the thousands of words in this piece, there's no reason to miss this rare full review of the MZ-RH1. This is the most authorative composition to date of this unit; read this before anything else.

[whams]

A huge thanks to the pair of you for making this review happen.

It was a fantastic read...I can't wait to get mine!!!

Cheers

[Sparky191]

Thanks for the review. It certainly looks like a fantastic unit. Not perfect, but lots of improvements in many areas. Well done to Sony for listening. I would like one myself. Love the Styling.

[jadeclaw]

Time for some thank yous:

To Marck for this excellent review,

to Sony Netherland for making it possible,

and to Sony Japan for creating such an excellent piece of technology.

One RH1 will definitely go into my direction later this year.

Edited April 20, 2006 by jadeclaw

[Hungerdunger]

At last we have finished the English translation of Marck (MD Freak's) review of the MZ-RH1.

The review is currently hosted at Marck's own site here:

http://www.mdcenter.nl/redirect.php?file=h...h1/index_en.php

Please feel free to post any questions for Marck or myself pertaining to this review in this thread. Thanks.

Enjoy!

Firstly, many thanks to both of you for such a detailed review.

Just one question for now: You refer to the "Pitch Control"; does this just speed up (or slow down) the playback while the actual pitch remains the same (this is what happens with the NH1), or does it mean that on a fast playback, the speaker ends up sounding like the Chipmunks? (which used to happen on an older machine [the N1???])

[Richard]

Firstly, many thanks to both of you for such a detailed review.

Just one question for now: You refer to the "Pitch Control"; does this just speed up (or slow down) the playback while the actual pitch remains the same (this is what happens with the NH1), or does it mean that on a fast playback, the speaker ends up sounding like the Chipmunks? (which used to happen on an older machine [the N1???])

It is the same as on the NH1 yes.

[sebastianbf]

Finally! Thank you all who make this possible

[dex Otaku]

Great review.

I still wonder though, why, when people do frequency response tests, they do not use sweeptones [which would show the response in a linear fashion which is very easy to simply glance at and instantly understand for what it is].

[Mork]

Do you think there will be a way to disable european volume limitations (as in MZ-RH10)?

thanks

^M0rk^

Do you think there will be a way to disable european volume limitations (as in MZ-RH10)?

thanks

^M0rk^

[raintheory]

Do you think there will be a way to disable european volume limitations (as in MZ-RH10)?

thanks

^M0rk^

Do you think there will be a way to disable european volume limitations (as in MZ-RH10)?

thanks

^M0rk^

If there is I am sure we will find it.

If there is I am sure we will find it.

[Sn8W]

Great!

Thanks to Marck for this hard work.

[pethunia]

Thanks! Now I really want one..

AH

Edited April 20, 2006 by pethunia

[MDfreak]

Great review.

I still wonder though, why, when people do frequency response tests, they do not use sweeptones [which would show the response in a linear fashion which is very easy to simply glance at and instantly understand for what it is].

Just testing with normal music is maybe because we are lazy? No, because you have to do with all kinds of codecs and they all have their own characteristics and behaviour it is the easiest to take a "real life" piece of music. Furthermore I used the same music to determine by listening if the difference was audible. With a sweep it would be very difficult to hear the difference.

[dex Otaku]

Just testing with normal music is maybe because we are lazy? No, because you have to do with all kinds of codecs and they all have their own characteristics and behaviour it is the easiest to take a "real life" piece of music. Furthermore I used the same music to determine by listening if the difference was audible. With a sweep it would be very difficult to hear the difference.

With a linear sweep [easily produced with free software and can be found anywhere online, I actually have test discs with things like this on me at nearly all times] you -should- be able to hear a 9dB drop between 1-10kHz quite plainly [unless you've been working in a machine shop all your life perhaps].

"Real world" doesn't apply to graphing in a case such as this [where the only thing being indicated is linearity of frequency response]. Graphing like this, from codec to codec, is almost entirely meaningless in terms of demonstrating artefacts, distortion, &c. because it only shows you the one thing you're measuring. Since the measurement in this case is the only thing of importance [showing a basic frequency response plot], a sweep would be far more meaningful than an aggregate graph of music. The music shows the same plot, true, but a sweep shows it plain as day - it's either flat, or it's not; it's either full-bandwidth, or it's not. You're not trying to measure anything else, so why bother pretending that there's some difference between a sweep and music, other than the fact that music is harder to read and provides far less useful information?

I don't dispute the otherwise excellence of the review or your abilities. I just opine that doing it in way that follows a well-established convention that's been used probably since about the time that analogue tape was invented, which is perfectly clear in its presentation [using music is not], and requires no additional effort aside from playing a test sweep instead of music, makes much more sense.

Quite simply: a sweep plot is easy to read and shows everything that needs to be shown in a case such as this [where it's the appropriate thing to use]. It's the right tool for the job, and it's far more informative about what you're trying to find out.

Correction: With a linear sweep, comparing directly [not even ABXing because it's so obvious] between a source that is flat and a source that drops 9dB between 1-10kHz, the difference should be plain as day to most people's ears.

[MDfreak]

With a linear sweep [easily produced with free software and can be found anywhere online, I actually have test discs with things like this on me at nearly all times] you -should- be able to hear a 9dB drop between 1-10kHz quite plainly [unless you've been working in a machine shop all your life perhaps].

"Real world" doesn't apply to graphing in a case such as this [where the only thing being indicated is linearity of frequency response]. Graphing like this, from codec to codec, is almost entirely meaningless in terms of demonstrating artefacts, distortion, &c. because it only shows you the one thing you're measuring. Since the measurement in this case is the only thing of importance [showing a basic frequency response plot], a sweep would be far more meaningful than an aggregate graph of music. The music shows the same plot, true, but a sweep shows it plain as day - it's either flat, or it's not; it's either full-bandwidth, or it's not. You're not trying to measure anything else, so why bother pretending that there's some difference between a sweep and music, other than the fact that music is harder to read and provides far less useful information?

I don't dispute the otherwise excellence of the review or your abilities. I just opine that doing it in way that follows a well-established convention that's been used probably since about the time that analogue tape was invented, which is perfectly clear in its presentation [using music is not], and requires no additional effort aside from playing a test sweep instead of music, makes much more sense.

Quite simply: a sweep plot is easy to read and shows everything that needs to be shown in a case such as this [where it's the appropriate thing to use]. It's the right tool for the job, and it's far more informative about what you're trying to find out.

Correction: With a linear sweep, comparing directly [not even ABXing because it's so obvious] between a source that is flat and a source that drops 9dB between 1-10kHz, the difference should be plain as day to most people's ears.

Indeed I will keep that in mind for future reviews.

So you mean this:

MZ-RH1

MZ-RH10

With:

- green: PCM

- red: Mp3 @ 256 kbps.

- purple: ATRAC @ 256 kbps.

Edited April 20, 2006 by MDfreak

[sharpsony]

Great article! Thank you very much!

[dex Otaku]

Cool. In my eyes at least, it would improve the otherwise already excellent quality of your reviews.

Oh, and I'll point out: while I did bring this up in your thread, this is not intended as a personal attack of any kind. I have seen the same kind of response plots made from music from several users on this board as well as well as others.

[MDfreak]

Cool. In my eyes at least, it would improve the otherwise already excellent quality of your reviews.

Oh, and I'll point out: while I did bring this up in your thread, this is not intended as a personal attack of any kind. I have seen the same kind of response plots made from music from several users on this board as well as well as others.

Just added to this topic what you requested. Also note that with the RH10 the characteristic of the PCM and ATRAC is also not totally flat (slightly more volume at the highs). Probably the difference between Digtal Amp and HD Digital Amp?

p.s. just in time to do this analysis via a sweep. Got to return the RH1 tomorrow :-p (and I don't want that)

Edited April 20, 2006 by MDfreak

[bobt]

Again, wow what a unit. Perfection would be a couple of tweake on SS and Simple Burner. Wouldn't it be nice if they had a make it fir bitrate so the last album recorded to fill a disc wouldn't have to have the last few songs at a low bit rate.

Sorry for going off topic slightly, great job in the translation, would look really good with my NH1's.

TTFN

Bob

[mdmania]

Thank you for the great review!!! I have something to look forward to this summer. Great work!!!

[viiv]

Mmm nice, guess I should hold off of buying the M100, agree? Does the M100 have any advantages over this.

[cthulu]

Excellent review, I especially like the comprehensive photos of the RH1's display, it looks very nice for a 1line display.

[MDfreak]

Mmm nice, guess I should hold off of buying the M100, agree? Does the M100 have any advantages over this.

As the M100 is almost idential to the RH10 I used to compare the RH1 with, see for yourself.

[ozpeter]

Got to return the RH1 tomorrow :-p (and I don't want that)

Presumably they will first have to drug you, tie you up, threaten you with hot implements, and so on?

Thanks for your hard work on this -I will be surprised if any more in-depth review appears anywhere any time.

One could almost imagine the RH1 as a shrunk-down MD-deck.

Interesting thought - I do agree!

Perhaps even more beautiful you can upload your MD discs in write protect mode so that your old recordings can in no way be lost.

That's good news, if only for peace of mind.

You haven't mentioned the record level setting use of the knob which also provides forwards and backwards, but I guess that's a standard way of doing things with Hi-MD recorders anyway.

Edited April 21, 2006 by ozpeter

[agafly]

Thank you for the great review!!! I have something to look forward to this summer. Great work!!!

Yep I too can not wait to get one... I have already ordered a 3line remote in anticipation.

One small question Sorry if this has already been addressd, but is post recording TM insert and divide options

available as in RH10?

Either way I'm still definately getting one... or two

[MDfreak]

Yep I too can not wait to get one... I have already ordered a 3line remote in anticipation.

One small question Sorry if this has already been addressd, but is post recording TM insert and divide options

available as in RH10?

Either way I'm still definately getting one... or two

Yes, even with "rehearsal-mode" which means the RH1 let's you hear the point of division before actually inserting a trackmark (so you can fine-tune the point of division).

[agafly]

Yes, even with "rehearsal-mode" which means the RH1 let's you hear the point of division before actually inserting a trackmark (so you can fine-tune the point of division).

It get's better and better!

Thankyou again!

[garcou]

Great review Marck !

It 's incredible to see how much Sony improved writing and reading speed with old 80min discs!

Such speed would allow an HIMD mpeg4 or even mpgeg2 camcorder...

Edited April 21, 2006 by garcou

[enriquez]

Excellent review, improved mp3 playback, faster transfer, real MAC support, settings memory, and possibly a DIY battery pack may push me to get one final minidisc recorder (I hoped my NH1 would be the last).

I don't know if the technology prevents this, but a delete last track option while recording is paused would be REALLY great. Anyone know if this is a possibility, or if there will even be improvements made to the RH1 over the years?

[sinus]

Great review Marck !

It 's incredible to see how much Sony improved writing and reading speed with old 80min discs!

Such speed would allow an HIMD mpeg4 or even mpgeg2 camcorder...

Ever heard of Hi-MD video? http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/atta...CC-04-193A1.pdf

[sallymae_hogsby]

This isn't a criticism of the MZ-RH1, but just a question about a possiblity for the next version of it (the 2007 model?). Is there any reason why the playback info that's on the remote couldn't also be put on the main body on the front? There's all that empty surface there.

I understand the whole "view the side from the shirt or pants pocket" situation for recording, and how the remote is an extension of this. I also understand that it's primarily a recording device. Would having a "playback readout" on the front require it to be extra thick or something?

[MZ-1]

Outstanding review.

The lack of disc info on the display is a bit disappointing but it's a prototype/beta being reviewed so firmware can change.

Maybe there's hope.

Paul

[Asia]

I understand the whole "view the side from the shirt or pants pocket" situation for recording,

yeah it, back in old years of MD, a player had a screen like that but in this case of the RH1..the Headphone/remote connector is not built in the right way but upside down....think of the device in your pocket, the side view screen is supposed to be up, then with this connector, the remote cable goes the other way around (down)

[Hunga]

This review is worth a novel.

I consider this device as my next deck. Personnaly I would just miss my direct keyboard input. I read that SP transfers would keep titles even for WAV files. Can you as easily title new tracks from the PC with HI-MD recordings? I have no experience on this.

By the way its size should be the size of what we could get for most hi-fi shelve components. Or is it not so yet?

Edited April 22, 2006 by Hunga

[chogaman]

I want one. Just what I was looking for in a live-concert recorder.

[veezhun]

i have a question.. does this unit upload tracks recorded from mic-in/line-in after you have added or deleted some track marks??

[Richard]

i have a question.. does this unit upload tracks recorded from mic-in/line-in after you have added or deleted some track marks??

As far as I am aware yes. Don't all Hi-MD players do this? I know there were previously some issues reported by some users in this respect but I believe there were related to Sonic Stage (and fixed in 3.4).

[Ysl]

It would be interresting to know wich firmware version come with the first units released in Japan

And then find out wich are the modifications done...

Edited April 23, 2006 by Ysl

[batfastad]

This is great news.

For me the MP3 playback is decent enough. But the improved quality may well be worth an upgrade on it's own. Certainly full transfer access to my old MD collection will be well worth it.

Cannot wait.

Just give me a deck now Sony!!

[reefbeef]

Does the remote supplied with the RH1 have a clip that swivels simlar to the 40ELK?