recordings to HI-MD vs. to irivers?

[kuuan]

Which would give the best recording quality:

an HI-MD

or, I hope anybody here is familiar with any of them:

an iriver iFP 799, resp. H 1xx resp. H 3xx

Well, I know mentioning iriver mp3 players here could be an unpopular thing to do, but frankly, what do you think?

My iriver iFP799 + Giant Squid mics is recording in mp3 format only ( 44,1 kHZ, 320 kbps = max. setting ) and I am not really satisfied with the recording quality.

However the iriver H-1xx records in WAV also and so does a socalled 'rockboxed' H-3xx. ( see e.g.: http://www.misticriver.net/showthread.php?...6376#post466376 )

Would HI-MD recordings be of higher quality anyway?

A never had any 'contact' with Atrac yet.

How easy to use are the HI-MD recoders?

How do I upload my recordings to the PC? Do I need special software?

Any other issues?

I'd mainly use the recordings as audio for videos.

thank's a lot for any answer!

Edited June 28, 2006 by kuuan

[atrain]

without rockboxing the firmware himd has the advantage of being able to record in pcm [wav] & for a longer period.

can't comment on the rockbox though

[Tunster]

without rockboxing the firmware himd has the advantage of being able to record in pcm [wav] & for a longer period.

can't comment on the rockbox though

It would be difficult relying on rockbox. Still with quite a few bugs around in the firmware/software, you'd be better off with Hi-MD. You also know you an split tracks much more easily on MD units using track mark .

[lamewing]

It would be difficult relying on rockbox. Still with quite a few bugs around in the firmware/software, you'd be better off with Hi-MD. You also know you an split tracks much more easily on MD units using track mark .

BE VERY CAREFUL about splitting tracks with at least the 1st gen HiMD units!!! If you record several file and then try and fuse them into a single file on the unit you can eaisly damage the recording and then be forced to "upload" the file via line-in on the PC (Yes my battery was full). I have had this many times and end up getting an error stating the files cannot be fused. Then I tried to upload them (expecting to use Sonic Stage to make on large recording) and SS said NO...files damaged or something to that affect.

Why did I make track marks...because I didn't quite trust the HiMD to make LONG recordings without problems. I NEVER had this problem with my MDLP units. This might not be a problem for the 2nd and 3rd gen units, but my NH910 (multiple units) had this issue.

[alrose312]

Which would give the best recording quality:

an HI-MD

or, I hope anybody here is familiar with any of them:

an iriver iFP 799, resp. H 1xx resp. H 3xx

Well, I know mentioning iriver mp3 players here could be an unpopular thing to do, but frankly, what do you think?

My iriver iFP799 + Giant Squid mics is recording in mp3 format only ( 44,1 kHZ, 320 kbps = max. setting ) and I am not really satisfied with the recording quality.

However the iriver H-1xx records in WAV also and so does a socalled 'rockboxed' H-3xx. ( see e.g.: http://www.misticriver.net/showthread.php?...6376#post466376 )

Would HI-MD recordings be of higher quality anyway?

A never had any 'contact' with Atrac yet.

How easy to use are the HI-MD recoders?

How do I upload my recordings to the PC? Do I need special software?

Any other issues?

I'd mainly use the recordings as audio for videos.

thank's a lot for any answer!

You can not edit your recordings with the iRiver. With HiMD, you can split tracks, add track marks, move them around - you can do all sorts of things that a real recorder is capable of. The iRiver is NOT a recorder (though it has some recording features).

[lamewing]

You can not edit your recordings with the iRiver. With HiMD, you can split tracks, add track marks, move them around - you can do all sorts of things that a real recorder is capable of. The iRiver is NOT a recorder (though it has some recording features).

This sounds good on paper, but the HiMD units (at least 1 gen) have issues with combining tracks.

[Orion]

Hi,

I have an Iriver HD340 and an RH1 minidisc.

Recording quality is far better on the RH1 at Hi-SP compared to 256k MP3 on the Iriver.

The mic amp is better on the RH1, lower noise. Haven't done any line in comparisons as I only use them for live voice / music recordings.

Hope that helps

Cheers

Orion

[alrose312]

This sounds good on paper, but the HiMD units (at least 1 gen) have issues with combining tracks.

From personal experiance, I've had an iRiver H120 and an NH900 HiMD (yours, actually, Lamewing)...and the HiMD is just much more intuitive as a recorder. I haven't had ANY issues with recoding with the NH900. AND the quality is impeccable.

[lamewing]

From personal experiance, I've had an iRiver H120 and an NH900 HiMD (yours, actually, Lamewing)...and the HiMD is just much more intuitive as a recorder. I haven't had ANY issues with recoding with the NH900. AND the quality is impeccable.

I am glad to hear it is working well for you. No, my NH900 worked wonderfully, unless you make multiple recordings and then try to piece the tracks together. Others mentioned the same problem. The solution was to upload everything and then let SS do the rest. Unfortunetly, once you get the error, then uploading isn't an option anymore.

[kuuan]

Hm...this is very interesing, thank's a lot for your input.

I believe you that recordings to a HiMD 'usually' simply will be better than to an iriver, but I do want to inquire further:

Orion, I am interested in the H1xx and H3xx irivers because they can record in WAV. So I7d like to find out how their best recording quality which is recording in WAV compares to HiMD recording. Recordings of an RH1 at Hi-SP obviously should be superior to a 256k MP3 on the Iriver. To record WAV to an H320/340 it must be 'rockboxed' though.

alrose312, you have the H120 which does WAV recordings 'natively'. Have you ever compared the quality of WAV recordings of the iriver to recordings to your NH900 HiMD? Because I believe that there are many members of the very active forums of misticriver and rockbox who would not agree with your statement that: 'The iRiver is NOT a recorder (though it has some recording features).' It seems that there are more people out there using those irivers recording concerts etc. than there are using HiMDs, and they seem happy.

The HiMD might be more intuitive as a recorder as you put it, and Ibelieve that chances are that it's recording quality simply is better than to an iriver.

I'd really like to find out if WAV recordings to an iriver might almost match up however since it's functionality as an external drive which enables uploading recorded files to an computer without any software would be such a big advantage for me. - I record while travelling for months at a stretch and I carry an external harddisc. Docking the player and my HD via USB to any computer in any internet cafe would enable me to upload my recorded files.

Or do ask differently: Do I necessarily need extra software like sonic stage to upload the recorded audio files to a PC?

[e1ghtyf1ve]

Hm...this is very interesing, thank's a lot for your input.

I believe you that recordings to a HiMD 'usually' simply will be better than to an iriver, but I do want to inquire further:

Orion, I am interested in the H1xx and H3xx irivers because they can record in WAV. So I7d like to find out how their best recording quality which is recording in WAV compares to HiMD recording. Recordings of an RH1 at Hi-SP obviously should be superior to a 256k MP3 on the Iriver. To record WAV to an H320/340 it must be 'rockboxed' though.

alrose312, you have the H120 which does WAV recordings 'natively'. Have you ever compared the quality of WAV recordings of the iriver to recordings to your NH900 HiMD? Because I believe that there are many members of the very active forums of misticriver and rockbox who would not agree with your statement that: 'The iRiver is NOT a recorder (though it has some recording features).' It seems that there are more people out there using those irivers recording concerts etc. than there are using HiMDs, and they seem happy.

The HiMD might be more intuitive as a recorder as you put it, and Ibelieve that chances are that it's recording quality simply is better than to an iriver.

I'd really like to find out if WAV recordings to an iriver might almost match up however since it's functionality as an external drive which enables uploading recorded files to an computer without any software would be such a big advantage for me. - I record while travelling for months at a stretch and I carry an external harddisc. Docking the player and my HD via USB to any computer in any internet cafe would enable me to upload my recorded files.

Or do ask differently: Do I necessarily need extra software like sonic stage to upload the recorded audio files to a PC?

Hard disk based players that *can be made* to record to WAV such as the iRiver sound fairly good to my ears - good enough for speech and the noises coming out of an overdriven public PA system. However, they were engineered and built for playback only, not recording. They cannot compare in sound quality to a real recorder.

All optical drive recorders (including CD recorders) need special software (CD machines have most functionality they require built into desktop operating systems) to access them from computers. This includes the HiMDs. So yes, you need Sonic Stage or the HiMD Music transfer packages for the RH1. If this is unacceptible to you, then try the M-Audio MT, which records 24-bit WAVs to CF cards. It costs only slightly more than the RH1, though. The media are still horrendously expensive compared to the HiMD blanks - look out! Also, in my not so humble opinion, the MT, in my ownership experience, is an unmitigated overpriced piece of junk. But I knew what I was getting when I bought it!

Those of us who truly care about quality don't mind in the least the little hurdles putting our precious takes on computer.

Let me add that even though the market is moving to flash based media, in no way does that change the fact that flash is ancient technology, as is the hard drive. MO (magneto-optical) the latest and greatest, and while not the fastest for some hobbyists out there, nothing beats the durability, economy, and quality.

cheers

[A440]

I have no experience with the Iriver hard-drive players.

However, I have tried to use the IFP795 at concerts. Recording with an external mic overloads it. And at one concert I did the experiment of using my line-in setup--mic and battery module--with both my MZ-NHF800 and my IFP-795. The MZ-NHF-800 on Hi-SP sounded as good as always. The IFP-795, through line-in, sounded muffled and watery. According to this post at misticriver.net, it's because the recorder doesn't pick up any high end

http://www.misticriver.net/showpost.php?p=...amp;postcount=2

Also, with the 700 series, the firmware upgrade that makes it work like a USB drive REMOVES the high-bitrate recording choices, so once again you have to use proprietary software: Iriver music manager software, which is as klutzy and unintutive as SonicStage in its own way.

I've looked at those misticriver forums and it seems they are always trying to find workarounds to make their flash players do what MD does simply and well, or shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Yeah, but it looks so cool!"

MD also has the advantage of trackmarking (you can switch to a new track with a brief pause on the 795, but you can't join tracks on the unit as far as I know).

I like my 795 as a little voice recorder and a portable mp3 player. Sometimes transcoding mp3s to ATRAC for the minidisc ruins them. But as a music recorder, give me the MD.

Lamewing, I have done a lot of trackmark adding and removal on the unit. Since SonicStage 3.4 I have had no problem uploading any of them from the NHF800. I think the problem you had was a software problem, not a first-generation problem.

Edited June 29, 2006 by A440

[lamewing]

I have no experience with the Iriver hard-drive players.

However, I have tried to use the IFP795 at concerts. Recording with an external mic overloads it. And at one concert I did the experiment of using my line-in setup--mic and battery module--with both my MZ-NHF800 and my IFP-795. The MZ-NHF-800 on Hi-SP sounded as good as always. The IFP-799, through line-in, sounded muffled and watery. According to this post at misticriver.net, it's because the recorder doesn't pick up any high end

http://www.misticriver.net/showpost.php?p=...amp;postcount=2

Also, with the 700 series, the firmware upgrade that makes it work like a USB drive REMOVES the high-bitrate recording choices, so once again you have to use proprietary software: Iriver music manager software, which is as klutzy and unintutive as SonicStage in its own way.

I've looked at those misticriver forums and it seems they are always trying to find workarounds to make their flash players do what MD does simply and well, or shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Yeah, but it looks so cool!"

MD also has the advantage of trackmarking (you can switch to a new track with a brief pause on the 795, but you can't join tracks on the unit as far as I know).

I like my 795 as a little voice recorder and a portable mp3 player. Sometimes transcoding mp3s to ATRAC for the minidisc ruins them. But as a music recorder, give me the MD.

Lamewing, I have done a lot of trackmark adding and removal on the unit. Since SonicStage 3.4 I have had no problem uploading any of them from the NHF800. I think the problem you had was a software problem, not a first-generation problem.

Not a software problem as the problem occured on the unit itself. It would combine about three tracks (with a full battery) and then just choke giving me a error message. At that point I could no longer upload them to SS. Others here did mention that they also had they same problem. I wonder if it is specific to the NH900? I did try this with my RH1 and cannot recreate the error.

[e1ghtyf1ve]

Not a software problem as the problem occured on the unit itself. It would combine about three tracks (with a full battery) and then just choke giving me a error message. At that point I could no longer upload them to SS. Others here did mention that they also had they same problem. I wonder if it is specific to the NH900? I did try this with my RH1 and cannot recreate the error.

Same experience here. No problems on the RH1 FW rev 1.0. Sony engineers must've been working their butts off fixing bugs on this one.

[kuuan]

I have no experience with the Iriver hard-drive players.

However, I have tried to use the IFP795 at concerts. Recording with an external mic overloads it. And at one concert I did the experiment of using my line-in setup--mic and battery module--with both my MZ-NHF800 and my IFP-795. The MZ-NHF-800 on Hi-SP sounded as good as always. The IFP-799, through line-in, sounded muffled and watery. According to this post at misticriver.net, it's because the recorder doesn't pick up any high end

http://www.misticriver.net/showpost.php?p=...amp;postcount=2

Also, with the 700 series, the firmware upgrade that makes it work like a USB drive REMOVES the high-bitrate recording choices, so once again you have to use proprietary software: Iriver music manager software, which is as klutzy and unintutive as SonicStage in its own way.

I've looked at those misticriver forums and it seems they are always trying to find workarounds to make their flash players do what MD does simply and well, or shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Yeah, but it looks so cool!"

MD also has the advantage of trackmarking (you can switch to a new track with a brief pause on the 795, but you can't join tracks on the unit as far as I know).

I like my 795 as a little voice recorder and a portable mp3 player. Sometimes transcoding mp3s to ATRAC for the minidisc ruins them. But as a music recorder, give me the MD.

I also own an iFP and I am not satisfied with it's recordings this is why I want to upgrade.

Your link to the micticriver forum leads to a post which says:

The really sucking point with the iFP is the fact, that recording is limited to 12.5 kHz! You wont't find this in any specification but you will easy find out when using spectrum analysis with your recordings. For better quality I use iHP and Rockbox.

This means that the iHP players I am interested in specially with Rockbox do offer better recording and DO pick up thise highs you were missing with your iFP.

The iHPs do work as external drive without loosing high bitrate recording.

So I am missing the relevance of the drawbacks the iFP players you mention to my interest in the iHP players.

reading this:

All optical drive recorders (including CD recorders) need special software (CD machines have most functionality they require built into desktop operating systems) to access them from computers. This includes the HiMDs. So yes, you need Sonic Stage or the HiMD Music transfer packages for the RH1. If this is unacceptible to you, then try the M-Audio MT, which records 24-bit WAVs to CF cards. It costs only slightly more than the RH1, though. The media are still horrendously expensive compared to the HiMD blanks - look out! Also, in my not so humble opinion, the MT, in my ownership experience, is an unmitigated overpriced piece of junk. But I knew what I was getting when I bought it!

Those of us who truly care about quality don't mind in the least the little hurdles putting our precious takes on computer.

Let me add that even though the market is moving to flash based media, in no way does that change the fact that flash is ancient technology, as is the hard drive. MO (magneto-optical) the latest and greatest, and while not the fastest for some hobbyists out there, nothing beats the durability, economy, and quality.

actually rather gives me the impresion that somebody here is tryin to find workarounds to make the MD look more appealing than maybe it is.

I'd certainly find a post which said: 'yes, sonic Stage is needed to upload' more impartially informative than a sermon which - well, to my limited knowledge - makes wrong statements: Any CD I burn I can open in the explorer and upload files, no special software is required, and I am very certain that flash drives are juist starting to take off and are far from being outdated. ( even the new to be relaesed Panasonic HD videoecorders will use SD cards )

I am still curious how recordings of iHPs and HI-MDs both at their max. rec. settings compare, other issues aside!

( regarding the other I'd prefer having min. 20 GB on board, the external drive functionality, the live recording level adjustment and recording levels on a 7rockboxed' iHP player to trackmarking and combining tracks functions of the HiMD. But it could be, I even suspect that the quality of the HiMD recordings are superior, and that only would make me incline towards the HiMD, even if having to forsake advantages I clearly see with the iHP iriver...in my view )

Edited June 30, 2006 by kuuan

[A440]

Your initial post asked about the Iriver IFP799. I have the 795--same thing at 512K rather than 1GB--so I told you about the flash recorder I've used.

You can adjust the recording levels live on every Hi-MD recorder.

However, it is best to find a recording setting with enough headroom and just leave it, unless you want to hear the recording levels go up and down in your finished recording.

[kuuan]

A44 I am sorry if my last post sounded harsh.

Please let me asure you that I am very grateful for all the useful information very helpful posters like yourself offer here.

There also has been a small misunderstanding: in my first post I had mentioned that I already have an iFP-799 but was not satisfied with it's quality and that therefore I was looking for a better alternative.

I'd be pleased if the irivers did record as well as the HiMDs because personally I find them to be overall a more entertaining toy.

However from all my enquieries I slowly do draw the conclusion that the HiMDs should do better recordings than the irivers.

So it it high time I learned more about the HiMD's features:

e.g. you say that they do offer live level adjustments. How nice!

Can you give me more hints how to best use an HiMD recorder to get best recording results?

- though this might stretch it a bit as I am sure that I can find it searching the forums, which now I certainly will anyway.

two question now particularily interest me:

is it essential to have an external preamp or powered mics.? - or can I get very good results with a good condenser mic as the AT822?

and: is the RH1 essentially better for recording than the RH10?

[Sparky191]

....

actually rather gives me the impresion that somebody here is tryin to find workarounds to make the MD look more appealing than maybe it is. ...

Its hard to get an objective opinion here alright...

I am still curious how recordings of iHPs and HI-MDs both at their max. rec. settings compare, other issues aside!...

Me too, I've never seen a comparision with Rockbox installed.

[e1ghtyf1ve]

Its hard to get an objective opinion here alright...

Me too, I've never seen a comparision with Rockbox installed.

I owned a Rockbox flashed iRiver HD player. I still own and use the MT, PCM-M1 DAT, 2 RH910s, 1 RH10, and of course a brand spanking new RH1. I also on occasion use the iFP-895 and iFP-799 I own for voice recording. Aside from these pocket size recorders, I'm proud to use a Sigmatel based 24-bit 192kHz hard drive recording system - close to $3000 right there. I use Pro Tools and many other things.

I base my opinions on my personal experiences. I share these freely and willingly. If it's too much for you to handle, tough.

Yes, I mean to sound harsh here.

Cheers

Edited June 30, 2006 by e1ghtyf1ve

[Sparky191]

Did I miss a point by point comparision of recording Rockbox iRiver vs HiMD somewhere? Why the random rant/self promotion? On this thread I read...

Facts

~~~~~~

You can split/edit tracks on HiMD (may/maynot be buggy on some configurations)

A few bugs around in the firmware/software (which bugs exactly?)

Recording with an external mic overloads it. (IFP795)

IFP-795, through line-in, sounded muffled and watery. (...doesn't pick up any high end)

iHPs do work as external drive without loosing high bitrate recording.

The 700 series, the (USB drive) firmware ... REMOVES the high-bitrate recording choices

HiMD requires SS

Some iRivers (Flash?) require iRiver music manager software (HD players?)

iHP min. 20 GB on board,

iHP external drive functionality

iHP (rockboxed) live recording level adjustment and recording levels

You can adjust the recording levels live on every Hi-MD recorder.

e1ghtyf1ve owns a bunch of gear and means to sound harsh

Subjective opinions

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Recording quality is far better on the RH1 at Hi-SP compared to 256k MP3 on the H3xx

The mic amp is better on the RH1, lower noise.

Hard disk based players ...cannot compare in sound quality to a real recorder. (why?)

Suspect that the quality of the HiMD recordings are superior

That the summation of the post (here) thus far. I haven't read the iRiver forums thread yet. In the past the biggest issues against the iRivers HD players for recording was H1xx players supported WAV recording and the H3xx players didn't. Also you couldn't see the levels, and the internal mic picks up the HD noise on the player. Seems like these issues have been resolved to some degree with Rockbox. While its interesting to hear about the flash players I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that most people would primarily be interested in the HD units.

I note on the iRiver forums it says

...And its WAV recordings sound far better than MD. (Though the advent of Hi-MD now makes them fairly equal again)...

This suggests that WAV recordings on the iHP sound better than SP on legacy MD. Any thoughts?

Edited June 30, 2006 by Sparky191

[e1ghtyf1ve]

That's the constructive post we're looking for!

Let me be as specific as I can (dumped the iRiver HDD many months ago):

I recall the iRiver HD player Rockbox combo sounding much better than the R50. It should be, as it was a much newer product and recorded to WAVs vs compressed ATRAC1. I also seem to recall it introduced noise into the recording every time the HDD spun up. Can anyone tell me if that is still the case?

Other than that, since they are out of production for over a year now, well, I haven't thought of them as any competition to current recorders. To tell you the truth, I haven't thought of them much at all - they were simply players that could be forced to record in an emergency... If you want to go used, HD-based, the JB3 would be a much better solution. In my opinion. As always. Of course. You get the idea.

I have no need to self-promote or "rant" ( = differing opinion?) on an anonymous forum. In the real world I get paid real money for my opinions every day. Here I'm just sharing my experiences/opinions in the hopes they may be useful and even spare pain since recorders are not that cheap.

Nobody is forced to read what I write. The list of knowledgeable people in these forums is very long indeed: dex, A440, atrain, etc.... Listen to them instead, and maybe learn something...

cheers

Edited June 30, 2006 by e1ghtyf1ve

[toolmanwill]

As a proud owner of an iRiver ihp-120, i can say as long as you rockbox it, its perfect. I have made a many concert recordings with it and it has performed flawlessly. Previously I used a Sony MZ-R70 MD which worked and sounded great but disc and battery changes totally sucked. Then I borrowed a friends iriver to test it out, it was awesome! Had a few problems at first with iriver firmware recording limitations and sample loss problems, but once Rockbox was available all those boundaries and flaws were gone. I can now record for up to 9.5 hours on one battery charge, have on the fly level control with peakmeters, Custom time and filesize split times, Clipping protection (Automatic Gain Control), and most of all seamless file switch after the max filesize of 2GB(A FAT32 constraint) is reached!. Many people are also writing new features almost daily to implement any features possible. Even Optical digital recording is now possible altho it cannot provide 24/96 recordings as the the chip maximum is 20/96.

It's definitely worth the investment if you can find one (h-300 series too as they have the same guts)!!!

[Sparky191]

That's the constructive post we're looking for!

Let me be as specific as I can (dumped the iRiver HDD many months ago):

I recall the iRiver HD player Rockbox combo sounding much better than the R50. It should be, as it was a much newer product and recorded to WAVs vs compressed ATRAC1. I also seem to recall it introduced noise into the recording every time the HDD spun up. Can anyone tell me if that is still the case?

Other than that, since they are out of production for over a year now, well, I haven't thought of them as any competition to current recorders. To tell you the truth, I haven't thought of them much at all - they were simply players that could be forced to record in an emergency... If you want to go used, HD-based, the JB3 would be a much better solution. In my opinion. As always. Of course. You get the idea.

I have no need to self-promote or "rant" ( = differing opinion?) on an anonymous forum. In the real world I get paid real money for my opinions every day. Here I'm just sharing my experiences/opinions in the hopes they may be useful and even spare pain since recorders are not that cheap.

Nobody is forced to read what I write. The list of knowledgeable people in these forums is very long indeed: dex, A440, atrain, etc.... Listen to them instead, and maybe learn something...

cheers

iRiver HD introduces noise into the recording.. maybe.

....

It's definitely worth the investment if you can find one (h-300 series too as they have the same guts)!!!

Except that the H3xx lacks the optical I/O. Oddly enough the H1xx seems to be easier to source, on ebay etc.

Edited July 1, 2006 by Sparky191

[atrain]

i've used both the 140 & the 320 [both with standard firmware] for recording from a line in & there can be some HDD noise. i also find the interface a little clunky.

[A440]

i've used both the 140 & the 320 [both with standard firmware] for recording from a line in & there can be some HDD noise. i also find the interface a little clunky.

**

e1ghtyf1ve and atrain--you've both used the Iriver HD recorders. Can you elaborate a bit on why (or if) you prefer MD?

toolmanwill:

What is your recording setup with the H120? Mic-in or line-in? If you go line-in, what do you use between the microphone and line-in?

You have peak level metering. Can you also see recording levels before they peak, preferably on the remote?

For stealth at a concert, can you start recording from the H120's remote? (That would be an advantage over MD. With MD, the best you can do is to start recording on the unit, set on pause, then un-pause with the remote.)

Is the battery removable? Is there an outboard battery attachment? Or does the unit simply have to be recharged once the battery runs out? If so, MD's removable batteries are an advantage (especially the NH700 or NH800F, one AA battery).

And, well, have you ever dropped it?

Kuuan:

We still have not ascertained that MD recording is higher-quality than Iriver. I hope someone who has used both can provide some observations.

My current favorite recording setup is omni mics-->9V battery box-->Line-in. You can listen in the Gallery to recordings by me and others.

-------------

I am fond of minidisc because of the quality and ease of recordings I've gotten from it.

If something better came along, I'd keep an old minidisc recorder/player for my current discs and switch happily to the new gizmo. I considered the Creative Nomad Jukebox 3, another hard-disc recorder, but (1) it was too big, the size of a CD player and (2) it had no mic-in, only line-in. If the Iriver H120 is indeed "perfect," maybe I'll try that next.

Edited July 1, 2006 by A440

[Sparky191]

Theres an offical outboard AA attachment for the H3xx.

http://www.iriver.eu.com/accessoires.html?p_id=393&L=0

[A440]

Nice about the AA add-on, and after taking a look through the misticriver forums it's clear the internal battery is replaceable with a $16 1st-gen Ipod battery too. I prefer one AA in the unit--NH700/NHF800--but whatever floats your boat...

And now I remember why I didn't get the H1xx series when it was released: the famous Iriver "glitch"--clicks in the recording every 30-60 seconds. Apparently that was fixed at the end of 2005. And Rockbox firmware has given the unit recording-level meters, removed some length limitations, etc.

Very nice, but it's third-party software and this is two years after the H1xx came out. I guess your choice is between iffy firmware updates on the units (Iriver) but drag-and-drop capability, or no firmware updates (MD) but the mandatory SonicStage installation. Neither is ideal.

Also, there are still things like this on misticriver, from the guy who did their live recording guide, that would give me second thoughts:

http://www.misticriver.net/showpost.php?p=...p;postcount=143

"I think most people would agree though that true audio fidelity isn't one of the iRiver's strong points. However, loss of bass in a live recording situation isn't always a bad thing - A lot of the venues I've taped in are bass-heavy, requiring me to turn up the bass roll-off on my mics. A dip off in bass response by the iRiver allows me to run my mics 'flatter', and most live recordings need some equalising in post anyway."

That's what I call a workaround. I'd rather get a full-fidelity recording from the start. Maybe Rockbox has fixed this by now.

That live-recording thread has some posts from former MD users. They don't seem overly delighted.

[rcoleman1]

With regards to recording quality and preservation, I personally think Hi-MD has any hard drive-based recorder out there beat by a mile. First, Linear PCM is pristine audio to any audiophile ear and secondly, I wouln't trust my "TREASURED" recordings for storage on a hard drive. Hard drives are unstable, problematic and not as durable as a removable blank Hi-MD! Be aware

[Sparky191]

...Hard drives are unstable, problematic...

Thats a tired old argumrnt. Some HD maybe, the majority are fine. I see plenty of 5-10yr old drives still working fine. Besides a HD has many other advantages over optical drives, like capacity and speed. Its not designed as a long term archive medium.

[kuuan]

I consider to get either of these three and their ranking concerning recoding could be:

1) HiMD recorder

2) Nomad jukebox 3

3) iriver iHP 120

this ranking I conclude ( for myself ) mainly from postings in this and in that: http://www.misticriver.net/showthread.php?t=6193 thread, where again the same guy who wrote the H1xx recording guide also remarks on it's limitations as recorder.

I am in Japan right now where I could very likely get a Sony RH10 for about 210 USD, and iHP-120 for 170 USD and a Jukebox 3 for about 90 USD at internet auctions. ( NH700 or 800 nowhere to be seen, but there are socalled 'Net MD recorders?? back in Europe the all of them certainly would cost me more )

I do not need 'professional' recordings, but they should be much less noisy than the ones my iFP-799 produces. With the iFP-799 I use Giant Squid Omnis, the same you use, A440? I still wonder if the more important upgrade would be a better mic anyway...

I will record mostly while travelling for months. The fact that I might want to record for hours before having access to a computer to upload would mean that I have to carry quite a bunch of MD with me. The HiMD also is the most expensive.

The jukebox takes 2,5inch Harddiscs, I have a spare 40 GB I could put instead of it's 20 GB, I could get it cheap but it is bulky. What above all concerns me it that it might need an external preamp for ext. mics. Can anybody confirm?

Or do ask differently, can anybody tell me if an AT822 ( which Iplan to buy for my videocam, see: http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/wired_mi...5bdf92967733dc/ which is a AA powered condenser would perform well with the three recorders listed, or if I'd need an extra preamp, specially with the NJB 3?

Even though the HiMD seem to be the best recorders, the iHP-120 for it's storage and because it does not - necessarily -need an external preamp still looks like a very good option for my needs.

Edited July 2, 2006 by kuuan

[A440]

First of all, forget NetMD recorders. They are obsolete. They don't upload, they don't put as much on a disc and they only record in compressed formats.

The Nomad JB3 only has a line-in input. You may be able to get away with a mic plus a battery module, which is what I would recommend with Hi-MD as well, but having never used one I can't be sure.

I use Sound Professionals BMC-2 mics, Sound Professionals CMC-8 mics (with omni capsules) and small Church Audio binaurals (not the kind he is selling any more).

I wouldn't buy Giant Squid because their sound samples on this page are pathetic: very exaggerated midrange (the vocals), little bottom, tinny.

http://www.giant-squid-audio-lab.com/gs/gs-stereo1.htm

The Foo Fighters sample doesn't have any low-end instruments, but listen to the Blue Notes sample. Do you really think the drums and bass sound so muffled on stage? Maybe they were using bass roll-off and didn't say so, but it's not a sample I would choose to showcase my microphones. Compare it to this from Hi-MD with very basic binaural mics--and it's not even PCM, but Hi-SP.

http://forums.minidisc.org/index.php?act=m...si&img=2769

The microphone jack in your IFP-799 is slightly recessed, so not all mics will plug into it, but the Giant Squids will, which is why they're popular with Iriver users. I doubt the H120 has the same weird mic jack, so it's probably a workaround you wouldn't need.

AT822 is a cardioid mic, so it's directional. Video shooters like it because it can be camera-mounted and picks up sound depending on where you point the camera. Its bass response starts to roll off below 150 Hz, about an octave below middle C on the piano, although it does go down to 30 Hz, which is just above the lowest note on a piano. Personally, I prefer omni mics, because I think cardioids sound artificial--no sound behind you--but it depends on how you're using them.

If you go to http://www.taperssection.com and search for at822 and jb3, it looks like most people are using a mic preamp with the AT822.

Edited July 2, 2006 by A440

[greenmachine]

If you should decide for the NJB3, you'll need an external preamp plus ADC (which makes it quite bulky, power hungry and expensive), it's analog input is pretty lo-fi - the simulated preamp / added gain via fimware update sounds awful and thus is useless. Opposedly, (Hi)MD has very usable built-in high quality analog circuits including a high quality preamp in most models. The NJB3 also lacks usable level meters. Compressed (mp3) recording even at highest bitrate doesn't sound too great, whereas HiMD's compressed Hi-SP is quite usable (in my opinion).

[kuuan]

WOW, A440 you are so kind, and thank you greenmachine as well!

that link to the tapersection is gold I am just working my way through there, more later.

it seems the number of people who like the H120 for recording is growing: http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=64277.0

or: NJB3 vs. H120: http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=67290.0 very interesting indeed!

Edited July 2, 2006 by kuuan

[e1ghtyf1ve]

Thats a tired old argumrnt. Some HD maybe, the majority are fine. I see plenty of 5-10yr old drives still working fine. Besides a HD has many other advantages over optical drives, like capacity and speed. Its not designed as a long term archive medium.

It's not a tired old argument. No real pro uses them for long term storage. Weeks, months maybe. A year, and you're taking chances. "Plenty" is not good enough. If you treasure your recordings, you're wanting closer to 100% reliability.

A440/atrain helped me remember now about the iRivers: HDD noise, and those glitches at regular intervals! Anyway, they're no longer being made. Yes, the glitches were eventually fixed, I guess... after we dumped them.

Kuuan, I'm still not sure what you're looking for. Read A440's, greenmachine's, and of course atrain's posts, and you can see that they're talking about quality. Pure quality. Not storage quantity, or drag'n drop convenience. These are real experiences.

If you want both extremely high quality and storage capacity (short term), take a look at:

http://www.sounddevices.com/products/7.htm

It will cost you, though.

Let me repeat from personal experiences, as you seem to have missed my earlier posts: Any HiMD recorder will blow away any iRiver - be it flash based or HD - when it comes to sound quality.

If you want to record, it's just natural to assume you're interested in the sound. For someone to assume something else, well, ...

I was all enthusiastic about taperssection as well, until I started listening to their "tapes." Bootlegging is not my cup of tea. Poor quality takes of shot speakers overdriven by PA systems are not my idea of a good time. Also, I couldn't help but notice how the few HiMD users were being mobbed. Most of them are now gone.

cheers

[greenmachine]

Kuuan, I'm still not sure what you're looking for. Read A440's, greenmachine's, and of course atrain's posts, and you can see that they're talking about quality. Pure quality. Not storage quantity, or drag'n drop convenience. These are real experiences.

Let me repeat from personal experiences, as you seem to have missed my earlier posts: Any HiMD recorder will blow away any iRiver - be it flash based or HD - when it comes to sound quality.

If you want to record, it's just natural to assume you're interested in the sound. For someone to assume something else, well, ...

Exactly. Quantity, convenience and all that are nice, but in the end it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing - if you know what i mean.

[A440]

I looked at the posts you linked to. In fact, the section about connectors in the FAQ for the H120 is something worth cut-and-pasting here--equally applicable to MD, and very well thought out.

Of course the taperssection people love the H120 more than the JB3: it's smaller, has meters, doesn't need to have a digital input (although see the FAQ below--digital input is much preferred). Kind of like a minidisc. That's just not a relevant comparison.

Then there are bits like this in the FAQ:

"[310] Do I have to use an outboard ADC?

You don't have to, but you'll generally achieve signicantly better results if you do. While the iriver isn't terrible, it's not all that great, either (depending on how discerning your ears are). There's a reason it's such an inexpensive device: they had to cut corners somewhere. Two popular outboard pre/ADCs for the iriver are the Denecke AD-20 / Zefiro Inbox and the Edirol UA-5. Inexpensive (relatively speaking), easily powered in the field, and significant sound quality improvements over the iriver’s analog inputs and ADC."

[MY NOTE: The analog-to-digital conversion in minidisc units is very good if not excellent. No extra box to carry, extra connectors and batteries to worry about, etc. Hi-MD also accepts optical input if you do get an ADC. Also, if I read it correctly Rockbox doesn't yet support optical recording, so you'd be recording from the ADC with the Iriver firmware.]

[MORE NOTES: If you are using an ADC, it's turning the sound into digits and your recorder is doing storage and playback. You're bypassing the recording part of the recorder. So if you add an ADC, what you're looking for in a recorder is not really its recording capability but its storage capacity and interface. Even here, I like MD with its track marking and editing capability, but you might think drag-and-drop or 20GB of space is more important. Double the price and size of your setup if you get an ADC.]

"[170] Does using the remote introduce interference?

Yes. It seems on most units that having the remote plugged in during recording does introduce a ticking noise, which is only really noticeable when amplified. For example, with no gain the extra noise is about 3dB. So if you're using an external pre the issue is moot. However if using the iriver's pre at quiet gigs for a lot of gain (eg about 30dB), you may notice the extra noise."

[MY NOTE: Minidisc remote isn't ideal either: lighting up the display during recording produces a burst of static. However, if you do that during applause, it's not a problem--much preferable to ticking throughout the whole recording.]

"[390] If I run out of power while recording, will the iriver shut down gracefully, saving the recording?

If the battery runs out of power, the iriver may or may not shut down gracefully, saving your recording. Users have reported mixed results with auto-saving the recording when the internal battery dies. If the iriver does not shut down gracefully, it is usually possible to salvage the recording up until the last buffer write, with a combination of chkdsk /f and Kuba’s handy wav header repair utility: http://www.fi.muni.cz/~xvanek4/repair/repair.zip "

[MY NOTE: Minidisc saves your recording automatically when its battery is about to run out.]

Also, I see that the H120's internal battery cannot be replaced without a modification. So once you're out of power, you can't continue recording until you recharge.

Many of the taperssection folks are audiophiles who are willing to carry a suitcase full of equipment to a live gig: recorder, fancy mics, power supply, ADC, preamp, etc. All for a live concert where the sound is variable, the audience is making noise, etc.

If you want to go that route, and have money to burn, then here's another alternative for you:

http://www.core-sound.com/pdaudio_system/1.php In addition to Core-Sound's mics, preamp/ADC and flash storage recorder you will also need a PDA or computer and CF cards, which are far more expensive per GB than Hi-MD blanks.

Me, I'm not that wealthy and I'm not that obsessed.

Taperssection has also been around long enough to have very unpleasant memories of pre-2004 MD--not Hi-MD--when SonicStage was computer-crashing malware and MD recordings could not be transferred digitally and thus would not give them bit-perfect copies. Those days are over, but their prejudices and Internet traces linger.

I get very listenable recordings with equipment I can hide in one pocket: MD, mics, battery module, remote. It seems you need more outboard stuff to do the same with the H120, basically because its processor just isn't as strong as the one in the MD. There's also talk in the H120/JB3 comparison in taperssection that the sound quality of basic music playback on the H120 is mediocre--it doesn't even fulfill its main purpose very well.

Get the H120 if that's the gizmo closest to your heart. As I see it, the H120 has two advantages over Hi-MD: drag-and-drop, which is definitely a major asset, and a size of up to 2GB per file. But the disadvantages--recording quality, remote noise, no track marking, battery needs to be recharged, problems at end of battery life, etc.--would make me choose Hi-MD instead.

Listen to some of the recordings in the Gallery here, and poke around taperssection or misticriver for H120 recordings. Your ears will tell you what you need to know.

Edited July 2, 2006 by A440

[alrose312]

Did I miss a point by point comparision of recording Rockbox iRiver vs HiMD somewhere?

Here are some more facts about recording with an iRiver H120 - there is an audible "click" every few seconds or so when playing back a recording. Apparently this has something to do with the motor on the hard drive. Also - you can only record one file for a limited number of times before it stops by itself. Long recordings of things like concerts would have to be interupted to stop and then start recording again.

[A440]

Apparently that was the original Iriver firmware, alrose.

Rockbox has eliminated the click and extended the file size to 2GB of PCM recording, which would be just short of three hours, followed by the seamless start of a new file.

Here's what Rockbox says it can do.

http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/FeatureComparison

http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main...ures_of_Rockbox

It sounds good--and boy, do I wish Rockbox would apply itself to Minidisc or make an alternative to SonicStage.

But if the unit itself can't get decent recording quality without an external ADC, then what's the point?

Edited July 2, 2006 by A440

[MDGB2]

I don't know, all these "Hi-MD Vs This" "Hi-MD Vs That" threads.

If Hi-MD decks appeared it would be "HI-MD Vs NOTHING!"

[kuuan]

thank you all of you, specially A4440, also greenmachine and e1ghtyf1ve. You give me so much information, and there is much I'd like to respond to in detail. Just now I am short of time and I have to make it fast:

A440 concerning mics: I do own the socalled 'iriver Giant Squiods' already, so I may not get the ones you mentioned as yet. I had read that the Giant Squid cardioids are bad, but the omnis usually get very good reviews. What's your take on this?

As for recorder:

battery life: I suppose both HiMDs and theiriver coud be used connected to AC current, yes?

HDD noise: should not be too much problem when using external mic. And that means that the HiMD does not have onboard noise, yes?

again:

I do believe by now that the HiMD does superior quality recordings, as much as I understand mostly due to it's better preamp resp. ADC.

Since the difference of quality is disputed though the iriver still might be the better solution for me: ( this is a quote from my last post from the misticriver thread where somebody asked me what my intended use was: )

About two years ago I started to make videos, it is purely a hobby. Now I want the possibility to record audio only which I can use as audio for my videos. I bought an iriver iFP-799 and a socalled 'iriver' Giant Squid mic ( actually two of these mono omni mics to combine them with an Y adapter trying to get stereo as an option ) This solution works fine for voice recording specially because the equippment is so small e.g. for an interview but the recordings are very noisy and I want to get something better for recording music or ambience. I shoot my videos while travelling, hence it is important that my equippment is not bulky. One project I am planning to do is to film and audio record a 10 day long music festival in South India where there is music for many hours at a stretch.

By yesterday I pretty much was decided to get a H120. I particularily like that it has a big storage on board and it's drag and drop functionality. I believe it is the better solution for my needs.

The latest post at the other thread I had started at minidisc.org made my doubt again as I arrived to believe that a HiMD does somewhat superior quality recordings. I do not like the fact that I would have to carry a bunch of MDs, and I still doubt it's practicality for issues of uploading, having to use sonic stage etc.

I have learned a lot these last days. I know I should not ask these questions and research first, but now time is a bit pressing, therefore I dare ask, specially about the 'work flow':

Once I record in PCM on a RH10:　Can I also listen to it on the recorder? ( strangly in the equippment browser whee it says what it plays only mp3 and ATRAC are mentioned, though it also says it supports WMA and WAV ).

then I connect it via USB to my PC, yes?

then I can upload to Sonic Stage.

any issues?

well, sorry, I have to run now...come back later.

Edited July 3, 2006 by kuuan