Jump to content

some questions about the RH1

Rate this topic


WaywardTraveller

Recommended Posts

It finally happened....the RH1 is starting to catch my eye more and more often. :rolleyes:

I do, though, have some questions for those of you who are fluent in this stuff and/or own the RH1 already:

1. Are the spectrum analyzer and "11 Segment Recording Level Meter Display" actually useful, or is it more eye-candy than anything else?

2. I know that the MZ-M200 is the RH1 + mic., but Minidisc-Canada states some "differences" in its webpages that I'd like clarification on: under "Main Recording Function" for the M200 page there's a reference to "Optical input 32kHz/44.1kHz/48kHz" - my newbie knowledge told me that everything is more or less sampled in 44.1Khz, so what do the differences in sampling rate mean, in fact? I did a search and got a bit of information, but am not sure what the end-result difference wopuld be if you're listening to, say, 32kHz vs. 44.1kHz.

3. Has anyone actually put the RH1 up against the NH900/NH1 to compare playback sound quality? Also, trolling through some old threads, many have great things to say about Sharp's Auvi 1-bit amp...any comparison between that and Sony's Hi-MD HD digital amp?

peace

WaywardTraveller

Edited by WaywardTraveller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. the 11 segment rec-level meter is great when you are recording... it is the same as on other models (shows you when the recording will start clipping/brickwalling), but it is in beautiful glow in the dark OLED this time!

2. there is no difference between the M200 and the RH1 except for the mic... you have got mics, forget about the M200 (it's just Sony trying to make money :lol: )

3.a. the RH1 and NH900 (and NH1) use the HD digital amp and it was supposedly even improved for the Rh1... I don't hear much difference between the two I own (RH1/NH900) but that is a good thing as they both sound brilliant! (and as the RH1 looks much better than the NH900, the opto-acoustic-placebo-effect enhances the sound even more :P )

3.b. the main difference between the sharp amp and the sony amps? the sharp amp doesn't come in a HiMD machine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys...can anyone address the sampling rate issue? I understand it basically as: the higher the kHz, the more detail and quality in the sample (and more file space required in principle). Is this correct? Even so, I'm not sure why you'd want to switch sampling rates, as I see 44.1 as being pretty standard...?

peace

WaywardTraveller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're basically right... Sampling rate is the number of samples per second. More samples per second = more accurate representation of original sound.

44.1kHz (44.1 thousand samples per second) is the standard for Audio CD, and by far the most common consumer sampling rate.

I am fairly sure that any signal you put into the minidisc will be resampled to 44.1kHz anyway.

Some good info about 3/4 of the way down on this page - http://www.saecollege.de/reference_materia...s/Recorders.htm

Edited by raintheory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44.1kHz (44.1 thousand samples per second) is the standard for Audio CD, and by far the most common consumer sampling rate.

I am fairly sure that any signal you put into the minidisc will be resampled to 44.1kHz anyway.

Thanks for the helpful information! But what you say begs the question...why would they advertise these different sampling rates if you're unable to use them/unable to set different sampling rates?!?

peace

WaywardTraveller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the helpful information! But what you say begs the question...why would they advertise these different sampling rates if you're unable to use them/unable to set different sampling rates?!?

peace

WaywardTraveller

I can only assume it's because certain optical outputs may be one of those different sampling rates, and you can record from them just fine (with resampling)... Much the same way that some older NetMD units said "Mp3 Compatible" which they really weren't, but in the sense that SonicStage would re-encode to ATRAC, they were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the 32khz sample rate is relevant for playback on the RH1 in relation to MP3's. MP3's recorded in 32 /48 khz sample rate can now be played back without conversion. Even the 2nd gen Hi-MD could only playback 44.1khz MP3's.

As regards the 32/48khz input on the optical as Raintheory says this will automatically be re-sampled to 44.1khz. This capability already existed on the NH1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First,sorry for my bad English.

I must receive a Rh1 on 23/10...

I have a first question :

Are my Old Standart MD formatable in Hi-Md format ?

In the user manual , this is not very clear....they speak about a format command usable for only hi-md MD.Is-it à spécial spécifications for the rh1?

thanks for yours responses

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First,sorry for my bad English.

I must receive a Rh1 on 23/10...

I have a first question :

Are my Old Standart MD formatable in Hi-Md format ?

In the user manual , this is not very clear....they speak about a format command usable for only hi-md MD.Is-it à spécial spécifications for the rh1?

thanks for yours responses

regards

Welcome on board!

Yes, the old standard MD media can be reformatted to HiMD using the RH1. Once you do this, you increase the capacity of the disc but it will no longer play on old non-HiMD machines. For much more information, please read the FAQ:

HiMD FAQ

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now this is fun (frequency comparison, etc.).

Never forget about bitrates, and even then:

Compare a really good (LAME) mp3 made from a CD (which is 44.1 kHz/16 bit/and, say 192 kbps) with a musical DVD 2.0 stereo soundtrack containing the same program (usually at least 48 kHz/24 bit/and definitely 192 kbps, as required by the standard (well, LPCM is also allowed, but that's a different story)).

The funny thing here is that the DVD soundtrack will sound much more naturally, though the compression is much higher (24 bits vs. 16 bits, and at a higher frequency).

Want an answer? The bit resolution (24 vs 16). Forget about bitrates, frequencies, etc. We are encoding THE SAME INFORMATION.

Edited by Avrin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...