MD versus Sony MP3 sound quality

[woofcyn]

I own a MZ NF610 Net MD, but am considering purchasing a new HD Minidisk, either the MZ-RH910 or the MZ-RH1. I recently purchased the Sony NW-E005 MP3 Player and noticed under the exact settings in SonicStage for copying and transferring CDs, the MZ NF610 Net MD sounded better. Is there a reason (for example, writing to a disk sounds better than storing data on flash memory)? The MP3 Player is convenient, but I'd rather have better sound quality.

Secondly, does anyone know what are the significant differences between the MZ-RH910 and the MZ-RH1 that would justify the difference in price?

[Richard]

Welcome

Secondly, does anyone know what are the significant differences between the MZ-RH910 and the MZ-RH1 that would justify the difference in price?

The RH1 can upload legacy disks, features an HD amp (vs. straight digital amp of RH910), better build quality, oled display etc.. The MP3 playback is also improved in the RH1.

* Moved to Find Your Minidisc

[A440]

Is there a reason (for example, writing to a disk sounds better than storing data on flash memory)?

What's on the media--flash or disc--is just numbers. The difference is in the circuitry that translates those numbers back into sound.

If most of your music is in the form of mp3s, then you should seriously consider the RH1 because it will play back those mp3s without further conversion and with good sound. The RH910 will also play them back without conversion, but with duller sound.

On the other hand, if budget is a consideration and you are transferring CD to disc via Simple Burner--turning the music into ATRAC files--you could also get a first generation unit. The MZ-NH700 is $150 at http://www.minidiscaccess.com . I got an email offer from a place I don't know that is selling the NH600, with the line-in input, for just $99.

The RH1 has the best amp, is smallest and sleekest and is most versatile--for uploading legacy formats, for holding manual recording settings. Where sound quality is the prime consideration, it's the best choice. It also impresses the ladies.

[woofcyn]

What's on the media--flash or disc--is just numbers. The difference is in the circuitry that translates those numbers back into sound.

If most of your music is in the form of mp3s, then you should seriously consider the RH1 because it will play back those mp3s without further conversion and with good sound. The RH910 will also play them back without conversion, but with duller sound.

On the other hand, if budget is a consideration and you are transferring CD to disc via Simple Burner--turning the music into ATRAC files--you could also get a first generation unit. The MZ-NH700 is $150 at http://www.minidiscaccess.com . I got an email offer from a place I don't know that is selling the NH600, with the line-in input, for just $99.

The RH1 has the best amp, is smallest and sleekest and is most versatile--for uploading legacy formats, for holding manual recording settings. Where sound quality is the prime consideration, it's the best choice. It also impresses the ladies.

Very funny! I'm a jazz guitarist, so I was using the old MD to record live performances but found out that it didn't upload into the computer to burn CDs! However the recordings came out quite well, and I may not need the additional functionality for better recording quality.

I also use the MD to listen to music while traveling. Virtually all of my music are in CDs (I'm picky about sound). Aside from impressing the ladies, is the playback sound quality that much better to justify the price when tranferring CDs to the MD? The Sony 2 gig MP3 Player does impress the ladies, but so far, I'm not impressed by the sound quality.

[padillah]

... SNIP ...

I also use the MD to listen to music while traveling. Virtually all of my music are in CDs (I'm picky about sound). Aside from impressing the ladies, is the playback sound quality that much better to justify the price when tranferring CDs to the MD?

Well, being a guitarist you may understand these numbers, at the top end > 15kHz the old MD players were measured at loosing as much as 6dB when playing MP3s vs. ATRAC. The RH1 has the same frequency response for MP3's as it does for ATRAC.

And when I get home and open my new RH1 I MAY be able to tell you where to get one for $265. I want to make sure I'm not getting scammed first.

Tom P.

[woofcyn]

Well, being a guitarist you may understand these numbers, at the top end > 15kHz the old MD players were measured at loosing as much as 6dB when playing MP3s vs. ATRAC. The RH1 has the same frequency response for MP3's as it does for ATRAC.

And when I get home and open my new RH1 I MAY be able to tell you where to get one for $265. I want to make sure I'm not getting scammed first.

Tom P.

I'm really bad understanding technology. I do have the impression that ATRAC will sound better than MP3, just knowing Sony. I tried ripping and burning CDs using Windows Media Lossless and SonicStage Lossless and Sony's quality was far superior. I heard Apple iPods and found them unbearable.

I never used MP3s since I never purchased any songs online. I'd rather have the CD.

I am perplexed, though, why Sony's new NW-E005 flash player that uses ATRAC sounds worse than my MZ NF610.

Also, in New York, the only MDs available are the MZ RH910 and MZ RH1 online at Sony's website. Even the Sony store doesn't carry minidiscs anymore.

Does the RH1 require a remote to see the Artist/Album/Song title? I never use remotes.

Finally, do you know the difference between ATRAC and ATRAC Lossless on SonicStage? Which is better?

[A440]

I do have the impression that ATRAC will sound better than MP3, just knowing Sony.

I am perplexed, though, why Sony's new NW-E005 flash player that uses ATRAC sounds worse than my MZ NF610.

Does the RH1 require a remote to see the Artist/Album/Song title? I never use remotes.

Finally, do you know the difference between ATRAC and ATRAC Lossless on SonicStage? Which is better?

Lossless should be lossless and sound the same as the source. Did you do a blind testing?

Compression formats discard information. Lossless formats are supposed to somehow pack the information so that it's all there, but regular ATRAC, mp3 (and .ogg and others) all select what information to keep and what information to discard. How much they keep depends on the bitrate: how much data per second of music.

Mp3 isn't all the same. Conversions are done at various bitrates. When you get up above 192, or even 256, it can sound excellent because they're keeping more information. Albums ripped to 128 kbps don't sound so hot.

But it's not just the file. It's the playback. An mp3 will sound different on a Sony, an Ipod, an Iriver, etc., because they are each playing back through different converters and amps. That's why the Sony mp3 player doesn't sound as good as the MD. Different playback electronics.

Yes, the RH1 needs its remote--all that's on the unit display is track number.

Lossless is better. But lossless is just for storage on your computer. If I understand correctly, ATRAC lossless files have two components: a compressed part, which goes to your portable unit, and the rest, which stays on your computer.

Since you're not playing back mp3s and you don't like remotes, I'd still recommend the first-gen units from www.minidiscaccess.com . The RH910 has a shiny plastic case that's a scratch magnet.

Have you tried J&R (www.jr.com) or BH Photo (www.bhphoto.com) in New York City?

[pata2001]

1. The E00x series seem to be "noisy." Maybe Sony use a cheap amp for those. Use a low impedance ear/headphone, and switch the volume to zero. You'll here perfect silence. Increase volume to 1, and you'll here the hiss/background noise. I rarely hear this with past Sony portables.

2. RH910 vs RH1, definitely get the RH1. RH1 has HD-amp, "proper" MP3 playback, and the fact that it can upload legacy MD recordings.

[woofcyn]

Lossless should be lossless and sound the same as the source. Did you do a blind testing?

Lossless is better. But lossless is just for storage on your computer. If I understand correctly, ATRAC lossless files have two components: a compressed part, which goes to your portable unit, and the rest, which stays on your computer.

Since you're not playing back mp3s and you don't like remotes, I'd still recommend the first-gen units from www.minidiscaccess.com . The RH910 has a shiny plastic case that's a scratch magnet.

Have you tried J&R (www.jr.com) or BH Photo (www.bhphoto.com) in New York City?

I tried comparing the same level of compression: ATRAC Advanced Lossless 132K vs ATRAC 132K. The former is slightly better, though the differences are practically imperceptible. Going up to 256K makes a difference, but 352K doesn't make an incremental difference from 256K to justify the additional file space to me. It did sound great when ripping CDs at the highest setting and burning them, though.

You may be right about the circuitry or amplification; the same files, when played back on my laptop and minidisc sound better than on the E005 player. I find the sound unnaturally hard and digital; I get fatigued listening to the NW-E005. Maybe the components are cheaper so they can sell at an attractive price. However, I'm unable to detect the hissing noise as some described. The volume does not go "on" without any music.

I was satisfied with the sound quality of the MD, even at 132K. Of course, I'd rather have live music or vinyl, but the MD sound is satisfactory for traveling.

MD is quickly becoming a cult, it appears. J&R stopped selling it. I haven't tried BH Photo, but I'd be surprised if they have it. Everyone here wants the iPOD.

[A440]

J&R stopped selling it. I haven't tried BH Photo, but I'd be surprised if they have it.

Surprise!

http://www.jr.com/JRProductPage.process?Product=4134866

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller...oughType=search

If you're a sound-quality fanatic, get the RH1. If you're happy with your current MD unit, you'd also be happy with the NH700.

Unfortunately, it looks like the ones at www.minidiscaccess.com are gone. They still have them in Canada.

http://www.minidisc-canada.com/shopexd.asp?id=675

[woofcyn]

Surprise!

http://www.jr.com/JRProductPage.process?Product=4134866

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller...oughType=search

If you're a sound-quality fanatic, get the RH1. If you're happy with your current MD unit, you'd also be happy with the NH700.

Unfortunately, it looks like the ones at www.minidiscaccess.com are gone. They still have them in Canada.

http://www.minidisc-canada.com/shopexd.asp?id=675

Thanks. Looks like J&R only sells this on-line. I visited the store a couple weeks ago. The iPOD counter is a madhouse and the MD counter is empty. Looks like RH1 is a great product; I see a lot of raving reviews about it on this website. I'll have to check to see if the NH700 is available on-line somewhere. The 910 looks large and clumsy, but on Sony's website, seems to do everything the NH1 does.

[A440]

The 910 looks large and clumsy, but on Sony's website, seems to do everything the NH1 does.

If you really mean the NH1, then the RH910 includes direct playback of mp3 (rather than converting, but not sounding so great) which the NH1 does not have. However, the NH1 will record via line-in or mic-in to old MD formats--SP, LP2, LP4--and the RH910 will not.

The RH1 has good mp3 playback, records in old MD formats, holds its Manual recording settings and, most important, uploads recordings made in old MD formats.

Minidisc-Canada seems to be the last dedicated minidisc dealer with NH700 in stock. If you find another place that has them (or the NHF800, same unit plus radio remote), then please post it here.

[woofcyn]

If you really mean the NH1, then the RH910 includes direct playback of mp3 (rather than converting, but not sounding so great) which the NH1 does not have. However, the NH1 will record via line-in or mic-in to old MD formats--SP, LP2, LP4--and the RH910 will not.

The RH1 has good mp3 playback, records in old MD formats, holds its Manual recording settings and, most important, uploads recordings made in old MD formats.

Minidisc-Canada seems to be the last dedicated minidisc dealer with NH700 in stock. If you find another place that has them (or the NHF800, same unit plus radio remote), then please post it here.

Ok. Is there an advantage of using old MD formats (other than using old MD playerss)? Has Sony improved the ATRAC format (132K) under SonicStage v4?

[A440]

Ok. Is there an advantage of using old MD formats (other than using old MD playerss)?

Not really. Old formats are largely for backwards compatibility.

For people who have old MD units or home MD decks, it's important to have discs they can play.

ATRAC isn't only 132 kbps.

ATRAC, like mp3, has different bitrates. SP was 292, Hi-SP is 256, LP2 was 132, LP4 was 66, Hi-LP is 64.

Presumably experience has helped Sony improve the performance at each bitrate through the years. For a while they were indicating improvements by naming them Type R and then Type S. Since Hi-MD arrived in 2004, Sony hasn't had much incentive to improve the old formats since then.

Some old-school MD users are very fond of the original SP at 292 kbps. Whether or not that's nostalgia, I can't say. LP2 and especially LP4 just don't compare to the Hi-MD format of Hi-SP at 256 kbps. And PCM is better than all the other formats because it's not compressed. Since you can fit almost eight hours of Hi-SP onto a 1GB disc, I don't see the point of using the legacy formats with Hi-MD .

[woofcyn]

Not really. Old formats are largely for backwards compatibility.

For people who have old MD units or home MD decks, it's important to have discs they can play.

ATRAC isn't only 132 kbps.

ATRAC, like mp3, has different bitrates. SP was 292, Hi-SP is 256, LP2 was 132, LP4 was 66, Hi-LP is 64.

Presumably experience has helped Sony improve the performance at each bitrate through the years. For a while they were indicating improvements by naming them Type R and then Type S. Since Hi-MD arrived in 2004, Sony hasn't had much incentive to improve the old formats since then.

Some old-school MD users are very fond of the original SP at 292 kbps. Whether or not that's nostalgia, I can't say. LP2 and especially LP4 just don't compare to the Hi-MD format of Hi-SP at 256 kbps. And PCM is better than all the other formats because it's not compressed. Since you can fit almost eight hours of Hi-SP onto a 1GB disc, I don't see the point of using the legacy formats with Hi-MD .

This is very helpful. Thanks. I've been experimenting with the different ATRAC and ATRAC Lossless formats under SonicStage v4. I do hear a difference between ATRAC3 (132K) vs ATRAC 256K, though it doubles the file size. The Lossless 132K doesn't sound all that much better than the other two, and the file size is crazy. But using the highest setting under Lossless to duplicate CDs yields excellent results.

For some reason, it's harder to hear the difference on Sony's Flash Player, but maybe the amplifier is not that good as another person mentioned earlier. I was using my NF810 as a portable player as well as a recorder until it broke down. At LP2, the sound was still pretty good. I'm tired of carrying so many disks, though.

[woofcyn]

ATRAC, like mp3, has different bitrates. SP was 292, Hi-SP is 256, LP2 was 132, LP4 was 66, Hi-LP is 64.

PS. Is Hi-SP the same as ATRAC 256 setting in SonicStage v4?

[jonny mac]

PS. Is Hi-SP the same as ATRAC 256 setting in SonicStage v4?

Yes, these two are one and the same.