Times: The Sony MiniDisc enjoyed a brief bite of the apple before being consumed itself by the iPod

[unignal]

From Times

Gadget aims to end DVD war and prevent another Betamax disaster

Chris Ayres, Los Angeles

# New player can read both formats

# Apple to make big announcement

Can a single gadget save the world’s biggest technology companies from one of the most embarrassing and costly follies in modern corporate history?

The answer to the question may be found in Las Vegas this weekend as an estimated 150,000 executives, reporters and analysts gather to browse the newest electronic products from around the world. It is the biggest trade show in the United States and the largest conference of its kind.

So far, the most pressing issue of the 2007 Consumer Electronics Show, or CES as it is universally known, concerns the next generation of DVDs.

After years of public squabbling between technology companies and billions of dollars spent on research and development, these new DVDs that promise high-definition picture quality have failed to capture the public’s imagination.

The format of next-generation DVDs has been split into two rival camps: Sony, the champion of Blu-ray discs, and Toshiba, with HD-DVD. Consumers have been left wondering if there will be a replay of the VHS-Betamax debacle of the 1980s, in which millions wasted money on soon-to-be-obsolete Betamax machines.

That has resulted in painfully slow uptake of either Blu-ray discs or HD-DVDs. Even the inclusion of Blu-ray capability in the new Sony Playstation 3 failed to produce enough High Street momentum.

But one gadget is promising to come to the rescue. Tomorrow, the South Korean company LG Electronics will unveil a DVD player that supports both Blu-ray discs and HD-DVDs. At the same time, Hollywood’s Warner Bros studio will unveil a new type of high-definition disc that can hold recordings in both new DVD formats simultaneously. LG and Warner Bros hope to convince CES delegates that these advances can save the home video market, worth about $24 billion (£12 billion) a year in the US alone, or $460 million a week.

Hamilton Faber, media analyst at Atlantic Equities in London, said: “If LG can get the price low enough, this could be a very attractive product.”

But others caution that the LG player may not be the Holy Grail. Having seen the traditional music industry seriously damaged by Apple’s iPod and iTunes online music store, analysts are questioning whether the same thing could happen again with online video. The website YouTube is already proving to be a rival to TV networks, attracting an estimated 20 million users a month.

The website Itwire.com said that it would take until 2008 for the prices of next-generation DVD players to come down to “sane” levels. “But by then it might be too late. Who will need Blu-ray or HD-DVD when consumers will be downloading movies and TV shows right to their hard drives?”

But other issues also remain. Companies as powerful as Microsoft and Intel have already thrown their weight behind Toshiba’s HD-DVD format, which is so far leading the field, largely because of price: a standard Blu-ray player costs about $600, compared with $400 for an HD-DVD player. To complicate matters further, LG will have to pay royalties for both the Blu-ray and HD-DVD patents, which could make it prohibitively expensive.

Meanwhile, a wild card will be played in San Francisco, at the rival Macworld conference, where Apple is expected to make a typically bold announcement. It could involve a breakthrough technology called iTV, which allows video to be beamed wirelessly from a computer to a TV set. In other words, consumers will soon be able to watch YouTube from the comfort of their sofas.

Steve Jobs, the co-founder of Apple, is already taunting the Blu-ray and HD-DVD camps with a new advertising slogan that implicitly threatens to bury their formats: “The first 30 years were just the beginning,” it boasts. “Welcome to 2007.”

Technological turkeys

# Although claims are still made for Betamax’s technological superiority, its two-year lag behind VHS, expensive price tag and limited film catalogue sank Sony’s home video format in the 1980s

# Though the much-touted LaserDisc, which went on sale in 1978, offered similar picture and sound quality to a DVD but at a much higher price and larger size, it did not take long for it to join the ranks of the great unused

# The Sony MiniDisc, a small step ahead of CDs but a giant leap behind MP3 players, enjoyed a brief bite of the apple before being consumed itself by the iPod

I hate uninformed journalists comparing a spoon to a fork.

[Sparky191]

Agreed. Most media articles are very poorly researched.

[King Ghidora]

Gee I guess I better not put my son's Ipod in the same drawer with my MD's. It would seem like MD is the one with the mouth but who knows. I'd like to see an Ipod eat a MD really. Maybe I could sacrifice just one of my MD's.

Ipod is still years behind MD if you ask me. You still can't record with them and you have a limited amount of storage space available no matter which model you get. Sure it's a sleek format with lots of uninformed fans. Maybe someone should tell them that compressed audio doesn't sound as good as uncompressed audio. But they wouldn't listen of course. They only pay attention to the teeny bopper gadget crowd. When they grow up maybe they'll figure out why the bought the wrong thing. AT least it would certainly be the wrong thing as far as I'm concerned. I use my MD's to record a lot. I use them as players too (one of my MD's is a play only device) but their value would greatly diminish if they weren't able to record.

Now if they made Ipods that would record in uncompressed formats I might be interested. Oops! They already do but their called M-Audio MicroTrack's, Edirol R-09's and Zoom H4's.

[Sparky191]

...You still can't record with them and you have a limited amount of storage space available no matter which model you get. Sure it's a sleek format with lots of uninformed fans. Maybe someone should tell them that compressed audio doesn't sound as good as uncompressed audio. But they wouldn't listen of course...

No offence but perhaps you're guilty of the same blinkered outlook.

Since you synch the iPod to the computer with iTunes, your really only limited by how much you can keep on you computer. You can add many disks to your PC, even networked storage. Also compressed audio isn't the problem. Lossy audio is the problem, and Apple has a lossless format. That said you'd need golden ears to hear the difference between a well encoded compress format in a portable situation, environment. Many audiophiles use iPods, they just use them differently to the sheeple.

Edited January 6, 2007 by Sparky191

[rayzray]

^ well,, this was a nice read;; thanks.. i think i will settle down with my 27 MD/Hi-MD units and my 11 Panasonic DVD recorders and laugh at this whole thing..

at almost 64 years old;; i certainly feel that i am all set with audio/video gadgetts;; i make the pirate of the carebbean look like a row-boater..

i will NEVER pay a high price for ANY of the upper Gadgets;; but i should rooot for one or the other..

as much as i Hate Sony and computers,, i HATE Apple even more;; why did i even say that..

i'll go with used equipment anyday;; proven equipment;; like common sense;; my gutt feeling;; i will keep my MD's and Hi-MD and "Ride out da Storm"..

i have spent my whole life screwing the system;; and why should i change now..

yous all can keep this NEW tech stuff;; i will buy something only when it has proven itself..

as a little boy;; i always hung around the BIG guys;; and until one of the technologies proves it is a "Big Boy" i will enjoy my lots-of-little stuff..

this was a statement from the Rayzray paradise..

Edited January 7, 2007 by rayzray

[tekdroid]

It seems it's time to buy a superior MP3 player. Thank god for tech journalism putting me right.

(link is broken, btw)

[King Ghidora]

No offence but perhaps you're guilty of the same blinkered outlook.

Since you synch the iPod to the computer with iTunes, your really only limited by how much you can keep on you computer. You can add many disks to your PC, even networked storage. Also compressed audio isn't the problem. Lossy audio is the problem, and Apple has a lossless format. That said you'd need golden ears to hear the difference between a well encoded compress format in a portable situation, environment. Many audiophiles use iPods, they just use them differently to the sheeple.

I do understand how the format works. I just think the Ipod is overblown in the area of storage. Yes the hard drives can contain a lot of compressed data but a box full of HIMD's will allow you to take more data with you in the most common mobile enviorment where audio is an important consideration. I can carry quite a few HIMD's in the back seat of my car. I can keep more data with me like that than with a hard drive based Ipod.

But my real knock on the Ipod's is the on the Nano's. I can swap out a gig of music in a flash but it takes quite a while to do that over a USB cable into those Nano's. Yet people portray the Nano as a device of considerable storage. I just happen to think they aren't all that great in the storage arena. I think HIMD exceeds them in that area hands down.

I also understand the lossless format. I just don't agree that it should be ok to lose quality just because a device is primarily used for mobile enviorments. I wear my MD's around the house in a fanny pack for extended periods at times. I know the quality of the Ipod's and it doesn't compare to the quality of my HIMD's. My son has a hard drive based Ipod and my daughter has a Nano. I'm familiar with the sound quality of the Ipod and MD. I'll take the MD any day of the week. I don't accept that quality is less of a concern in a mobile enviorment either. I plug my HIMD into my car stereo quite often and sound quality can very much become an issue when I do. At what point do you think compression artifacts become a nuisance? Because I can hear them when the backgrond noise is low I know the artifacts are there when I listen drivingdown the road at 65 mph. I believe the brain tunes in to the distortions at times when it knows they are present giving the listener a less than perfect musical experience. It's like in the old days when a scratch was known to exist on a vinyl platter your brain would be tuned in to hearing that crackle making the audio less enjoyable.

BTW since I depend on my HIMD to record high quality audio for my video projects (which I do make money from and am currently working on a major project requiring better audio than the "sheeple" will generally settle for I think I qualify as something of a pro or at least a semi-pro. I can see uses for an Ipod like keeping notes or whatever but I could never use Ipod audio in a project because the quality just isn't there IMO. I'm with rayzay here in that I much prefer the tried and tested old standard of MD to the flash in the pan Ipod. One level of audio compression may not be bad but when you start stacking levels then you will certainly have an audio problem pretty quick. Two levels of compression wouldn't be all that bad but there are lots of other reasons Ipods don't qualify as acceptable in the audio department for my projects.

I guess what I was beating around the bush to get at in my previous post was that Ipods are far inferior to MD in many respects and the ability to record in the fiield is a big part of the inferior nature of the Ipod. Yes Ipods can be acceptable as players but those that think they are years ahead of MD (as suggested in this article for example) are just completely out of touch with the reality of the situation. I don't believe Ipods have even matched the level of quality of MD yet. Yes they have some advantages over MD in some respects but they fall far short in others. For my needs an Ipod is completely out of the question. Not only are they priced far higher than similar quality MD's but they can't do some things MD has been doing for years.

[Sparky191]

You're missing a lot of reality dude. For one that iPods don't need to do what MD does, and for most people the iPods advantages outweigh its disadvantages for most people. When you start taking about carrying 80+ HiMD's is easier than one 80GB iPod that's nonsense. The iPod has about 70% the entire MP3 player market, and its expected about something like 24 million of them will be sold in 2006 alone. Its been on the market 5 yrs and each year its sales increase. Thats hardly flash in the pan.

You don't understand lossless because it doesn't lose quality. Compression of Lossless files has no effect on audio quality. Are talking about transcoding? Thats a different subject entirely. Incidentally not all iPods sound the same, the latest generation 5.5g is much better over earlier generations and you can use a line out on them. Copying 1GB to a Nano is considerable quicker than copying it to HiMD. Swapping HiMD is only faster if you have exactly what you want on a disk. Personally I couldn't say that was true ever time and usually I'd have to prepare a few disks for the week, or a trip.

I don't even know why you are comparing a use case of recording device with that of a playback devices. its like comparing an Apple and an Orange. Most people don't need and will never need to record. That the reality. I do record which is why I use a HiMD. But for playback most of the time I use a UMS flash MP3 player, its just more easier than a HiMD and the quality (to my ears) as good as my NH700 (no HD amp I know).

Edited January 8, 2007 by Sparky191

[MDX-400]

From Times

Chris Ayres

Technological turkeys

# Although claims are still made for Betamax’s technological superiority, its two-year lag behind VHS, expensive price tag and limited film catalogue sank Sony’s home video format in the 1980s

# Though the much-touted LaserDisc, which went on sale in 1978, offered similar picture and sound quality to a DVD but at a much higher price and larger size, it did not take long for it to join the ranks of the great unused

# The Sony MiniDisc, a small step ahead of CDs but a giant leap behind MP3 players, enjoyed a brief bite of the apple before being consumed itself by the iPod

I hate uninformed journalists comparing a spoon to a fork.

So do I. Particularly the uninformed part. Chris Ayres should not be living it up as a journalist, instead he should be a homeless person trying to find food. If that was the case and he was as good at finding food as he is for doing research he'd have died of starvation long ago.

Does this idiot even realise that when he states the [betamax] "two-year lag behind VHS" is a retarded statement considering Beta was released to market before VHS? Seriously, why does this guy have a job writing articles?

Plus Beta did not sink as fast as he'd have us believe. Especially if you consider countries other than the USA. But of course he couldn't possibly consider that considering he didn't research his article at all right? And as if he goes on about "claims are still made" in a manner such as to imply those making such claims don't know what they're talking about. If he'd actually look at the technical details he would see it was "technilogically superior" and most of it's innovations within-format were also ahead of the VHS equivalents.

As for LaserDisc I can't really disagree too much but he didn't say much about it. I'm sure he didn't do any research there either.

Finally the joke (or surely it has to be considered a joke) that MD "enjoyed a brief bite" is pretty funny. I mean does he realise MD was around since 1992? Though it is probably not as popular as it once was, it's 2007 now and it's still going. That makes like 15 years. How long has the iPod been around again? 6 years? But I guess 15 years is "brief" in comparison to that Even if you take the year iPod was introduced and cut MD off right then (ignoring that the 1st gen iPods were not popular) we'd have 9 years for MD and 6 years for iPod. But yes 9 years is a relatively brief period compared to 6. Mr. Ayres either failed math class or english class because he either doesn't understand 9 > 6 or what the word brief means--given his absolutely uninformed article I'd actually think it was both.

In closing Mr. Ayres I do hope that your employer(s) realise the exact level of your incompetence and fire you, leaving you as the homeless person you deserve to be. There (on the streets) you will probably find people that are far smarter than you and simply had some tough breaks in life. It's ashame considering you on the other hand have clearly gotten far too far on your low level of intelligence. The only turkey here is Chris Ayres.

[King Ghidora]

You missing a lot of reality due.

Why do you do feel the need to throw in a personal insult "dude"? It doesn't advance your argument any more than claiming that large sales figures translates to higher quality. They sell a lot of penis enlargment pills but that doesn't mean it's a good product. But hey maybe you bought that stuff too like you bought an Ipod. See that insult stuff works both ways. Now let's try to be civil shall we?

For one that iPods don't need to do what MD does, and for most people the iPods advantages outweigh its disadvantages for most people. When you start taking about carrying 80+ HiMD's is easier than one 80GB iPod that's nonsense. The iPod has about 70% the entire MP3 player market, and its expected about something like 24 million of them will be sold in 2006 alone. Its been on the market 5 yrs and each year its sales increase. Thats hardly flash in the pan.

Actually sales dropped last year. So does that mean they aren't as good as they were before? And you can try to explain to me why anyone has a genuine use for carrying 80 gig of compressed audio around with them. How much listening can you do before the battery goes dead on that Ipod? When that happens it's back to the house and the charger so the idea that it takes 80 discs to keep up with an Ipod is absurd. You're talking thousands of hours of listening which is also completely unneccessary. If they make a 80 tb version of an Ipod will you argue that it's an advantage too? I have over 2500 albums. Do you know how often I listen to some of those? Never is the answer. So why would I need to carry a copy of all of them around with me? Why would I spend the time loading all those on an Ipod? Why would I risk losing all the work I did loading all those if my Ipod failed? 80 gb of compressed music is overkill to the extreme. BTW I carried hundreds of tapes around in my car at one time. If I wanted that much music now I could do the same with an MD but I never really had a need for all those tapes to be with me. Even when I used my cassette walkman until it wore comletely out I could stick a couple of tapes in my pocket and be set for hours. If I got tired of those tapes I swapped them for a few more out of the car. The idea anyone needs thousands of albums in their pocket is just incredibly silly.

You don't understand lossless because it doesn't lose quality.

And you think you're a mind reader. I've been doing audio since long before you were born most likely. Just because they say it's so it doesn't mean it is so. I make my own judgements on quality issues. I can hear quite well and I know what I hear from Ipod's isn't as good as HIMD. That includes a model from this year too so please refrain from telling me that because I don't agree with you that I'm somehow less intelligent than you and don't assume that I don't know the issues. It just makes you look silly when you make assumptions.

Compression of Lossless files has no effect on audio quality. Are talking about transcoding? Thats a different subject entirely. Incidentally not all iPods sound the same, the latest generation 5.5g is much better over earlier generations and you can use a line out on them. Incidentally copying 1GB to a Nano is considerable quicker than copying it to HiMD. Swapping HiMD is only faster if you have exactly what you want on a disk. Personally I couldn't say that was true ever time and usually I'd have to prepare a few disks for the week, or a trip.

I'm talking about what I hear coming from an Ipod. Buzz words really don't impress me. I learned better than to listen to buzz words 25 years ago. In short they can call it lossless if they like but from where I'm sitting it isn't. Lossless is an analog signal from a brand new vinyl album. There's no such thing as lossless digital of any kind and lossless compression only exists in marketing meetings. And it's completely bogus to infer that the speed of replacing the data in a MD player is slower than replacing data in a Ipod Nano. I've "prepared" my discs years ago for the older MD formats. I have "prepared" enough discs for my HIMD to satisfy a very long period of listening. I don't need to make new recordings every week.

I don't even know why you are comparing a use case of recording device with that of a playback devices. its like comparing an Apple and an Orange. Most people don't need and will never need to record. That the reality. I do record which is why I use a HiMD. But for playback most of the time I use a UMS flash MP3 player, its just more easier than a HiMD and the quality (to my ears) as good as my NH700 (no HD amp I know).

Well I do have a playback only MD device so that's apples vs. what apples should be. And the point of being able to record is that when you want to you can. Sure it isn't "needed" but none of this stuff is really needed. It's just something I want and if I can get better audio quality and the ability to record that makes for a better device which is of course what I said.

The only thing Ipod has over MD is the size. And this "most people" argument doesn't change that fact. "Most people" do all sorts of things I don't do because I know better. If we always went by what "most people" want then Apple would have been dead long ago and there wouldn't be an Ipod because "most people" want to use Windows. I don't think what "most people" want has anything to do with what I want. Maybe that's where you got the idea that people are "sheeple" which is a disgusting and destructive mindset. There are lots of people that think for themselves and don't believe what they read on the back of the box just because someone put it there.

So how about you stop insulting my tastes in audio equipment and I won't come after you in my next post revealing you for what you really are? You can stop putting people down because they don't swallow the hype of the masses and I won't show the world that believing what you hear from others doesn't make you smart but rather just makes you easy.

The bottom line is I can hear a difference between the two devices and the fact that you can't doesn't make it true that there is no difference. I really don't care to discuss it any further with you because you think insults equate with winning an argument. I could easily demonstrate that the best insult really doesn't make your argument stronger but what they point of that? It only proves that the person making doing the insulting is crude and not very good at real debate.

Edited January 8, 2007 by King Ghidora

[Sparky191]

I say reality because your facts are incorrect, If you want to take that personally thats your choice. That wasn't how it was meant.

I never said high sales - high quality. Why make stuff up?

I never made the connection that Sales = quality. Simply that huge sales over a few years is not flash in the pan.

Same reason for carrying 80GB of uncompressed audio. The iPod can do either. But since uncompressed audio is the same data as compressed lossless data you'd use lossless at the very most. As it maximises battery life, and can be tagged for no loss in quality. Thats just logical. You want more capacity so you have maxium choice of what you listen to without having to reload music. Its simply for convience. You might choose to do this to via a dock a HiFi just to avoid handling your CD's.

What assumptions? Uncompressed is the same data as Lossless. Thats a fact. Its has nothing to do with iPods and nothing to intelligence.

If you want you can use an iPod with uncompressed audio, with a line out to a high end DAC/Amp. By your logic because you use uncompressed audio it must be HQ than compressed audio. In fact its the same thing.

I'm talking about what I hear coming from an Ipod. Buzz words really don't impress me. I learned better than to listen to buzz words 25 years ago. In short they can call it lossless if they like but from where I'm sitting it isn't. Lossless is an analog signal from a brand new vinyl album. There's no such thing as lossless digital of any kind and lossless compression only exists in marketing meetings.

Actually its a technical term, and thats how I'm using it. Ditto transcoding.

...Lossless data compression is a class of data compression algorithms that allows the exact original data to be reconstructed from the compressed data. This can be contrasted to lossy data compression, which does not allow the exact original data to be reconstructed from the compressed data..

..Transcoding is the direct digital-to-digital conversion from one (usually lossy) codec to another. It involves decoding/decompressing the original data to a raw intermediate format (i.e. PCM for audio or YUV for video), in a way that mimics standard playback of the lossy content, and then re-encoding this into the target format... Transcoding can also refer to recompressing files to a lower bitrate without changing formats.

An original analog master recording is obviously lossless. But how is it possible to get a exact copy of a master disc? Considering a lot of music is no longer released on Vinyl. Is it actually recorded in the studio, or live in analog or digital. I dunno. But Lossless is generally taken to mean lossless data compression in the context of digital audio. If you consider you can't actually listen to analog on a MD/HiMD its digital only. So a PCM file on a HiMD should be the same data as a WAV on an iPod or a Apple Lossless file. Or any other DAP, it doesn't have to be a iPod.

I think you are confusing audio compression with data compression.

The write speeds are fact. That was my point. I can't argue if you have made disks for every possible mix you might think of in the future thats amazing. But an alternative view point is that someone has all their music on say a 8GB Nano and never needs to change it, they never need to swap disks at all. So that would be quicker. But the point of my argument was that criticizing transfer speeds of flash memory device compared to a HiMD is laying it a bit on a thick IMO.

Well I do have a playback only MD device so that's apples vs. what apples should be. And the point of being able to record is that when you want to you can. Sure it isn't "needed" but none of this stuff is really needed. It's just something I want and if I can get better audio quality and the ability to record that makes for a better device which is of course what I said.

Better device for you. Look at the OP comment "I hate uninformed journalists comparing a spoon to a fork"

The only thing Ipod has over MD is the size. And this "most people" argument doesn't change that fact. "Most people" do all sorts of things I don't do because I know better. If we always went by what "most people" want then Apple would have been dead long ago and there wouldn't be an Ipod because "most people" want to use Windows. I don't think what "most people" want has anything to do with what I want. Maybe that's where you got the idea that people are "sheeple" which is a disgusting and destructive mindset. There are lots of people that think for themselves and don't believe what they read on the back of the box just because someone put it there.

Like the iPod Shuffle? The iPod is a success because its appeals to more people. Its a more popular product. Even though in many ways its an inferior product to competing products. So you have to ask why do more people choose an inferior product. Hence sheeple. You're offended because I'n not defending the minority view, and offended because I'm critical of the majoirty opinion. Jeez

So how about you stop insulting my tastes in audio equipment and I won't come after you in my next post revealing you for what you really are? You can stop putting people down because they don't swallow the hype of the masses and I won't show the world that believing what you hear from others doesn't make you smart but rather just makes you easy.

I'm not insulting anyone. I'm pointing out the factual errors in your comments, and I'm disagreeing with your point of view.

The bottom line is I can hear a difference between the two devices and the fact that you can't doesn't make it true that there is no difference. I really don't care to discuss it any further with you because you think insults equate with winning an argument. I could easily demonstrate that the best insult really doesn't make your argument stronger but what they point of that? It only proves that the person making doing the insulting is crude and not very good at real debate.

I might as well argue I've heard LP4 on a MD with stock buds vs Lossless on a iPod through a STAX and the iPod sounds better.

Not everythings an insult because it disagrees with you, btw. Nothing I've posted was intended as an insult, just lively debate.

Edited January 8, 2007 by Sparky191

[rich1068]

Well here's another article that you guys might like

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/digitalmusic/0,390...49259042,00.htm

From March 06 but I thought it would make you smile. I especially liked his final thoughts.

[Sparky191]

Nice link.

I agree problem with Sony is the conflict of interest with Sony Music, thats for sure. Obviously lack of promotion. Sony where probably conflicted that MD was the perfect home copying medium. So how to advertise it with out promoting home recording and copying. Also where I am MD was always too expensive compared to CD discman and much more hassle. (for most people) Though I also loved the size of the format, and the units. Dang it hes right theres just something cool about MD's, especially to those of us who were big users of cassettes.

Edited January 8, 2007 by Sparky191

[King Ghidora]

Just so you know Sparky I didn't read your post. You like to insult people too much.

[Sparda]

Well here's another article that you guys might like

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/digitalmusic/0,390...49259042,00.htm

From March 06 but I thought it would make you smile. I especially liked his final thoughts.

Now that is a competent journalist. I agree with his last statment "If it was up to me, we'd all be using MiniDisc and to hell with the iPod. Here's to the MiniDisc revival".

So according to Mr. Ayres (the brain dead one from Times) I should go buy yet another disappointing mp3 player that would be light years ahead of my RH1? [sarcasm]I would surely get much better SQ through highly compressed lossy files being pushed out of those highly expensive $2 earbuds (which they have thought of including)... since mp3 players are superior to my MD. Listening to a mp3 player would surely sound better because of their lack of a HD Digital amp which unfortunately my MD unit includes. I also wouldn't have to suffer the gapless playback that my MD unit offers because mp3 players can't support gapless. And through speakers mp3 players have blessed me with the simplicity of only headphone out and no line-out because they thought I wouldn't need it. And to record with my newly bought mp3 player all I need to do is conveniently add on a clunky attachment, where as my troublesome RH1 already has recording capabilities built-in. To save the trouble of swapping MD discs mp3 players have once again blessed me by doing away with removable media and have strapped me to the limited memory that it offers. And being made out of plastic they have saved me weight, where my all metal RH1 is going to weigh me down.[/sarcasm]

Maybe that was unnecessary, but I couldn't resist to flame an idiotic journalist who has no freakin' idea what he is talking about. I hope his paper weight iPod dies on him.

Edited January 25, 2007 by Sparda

[whatsleftofj]

Well here's another article that you guys might like

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/digitalmusic/0,390...49259042,00.htm

From March 06 but I thought it would make you smile. I especially liked his final thoughts.

that article made me smile

[The Low Volta]

So according to Mr. Ayres (the brain dead one from Times) I should go buy yet another disappointing mp3 player that would be light years ahead of my RH1?

while I haven't read the articles yet and I personally do not own a standalone MP3-player (I do own a S-E 810i walkman phone and could have gotten a 30gb ipod video last year from work, but didn't need it and I wasn't allowed to sell it on ) I have a couple of remarks... while I understand your pov Sparda (you've invested all your money in the RH1 and therefore you'll defend it with all arguments even though they might be a bit off) there are a couple of things that need to be put into perspective (BTW: all quotes following were put inbetween [sarcasm][/sarcasm] quotes and need to be interpreted that way...but it was too much hassle to reproduce that in every quote):

I would surely get much better SQ through highly compressed lossy files being pushed out of those highly expensive $2 earbuds (which they have thought of including)

granted, the RH1's buds were slightly (really not much at all) better than the average stockbuds, but:

- allmost all of the other MD/HiMD models I have ever seen come with horrible stockbuds as well

- if you take music serious (your subsequent posts about SQ suggest so) you will not be using the stockbuds from any player... ever!

both things lead me to conclude that HiMD is not any different in this respect than any other DAP (including the ipod)

Listening to a mp3 player would surely sound better because of their lack of a HD Digital amp which unfortunately my MD unit includes.

again a very big generalisation as not all (Hi)MD models do include the HD digital amp... and not all MP3-players sound like rubbish (heck, even my mobile sounds quite acceptable...when I replace the rubbish stock in-ear buds with my decent portable phones). I understand you love MD and hate MP3...still this doesn't make this 'true' all of a sudden

I also wouldn't have to suffer the gapless playback that my MD unit offers because mp3 players can't support gapless.

a whole bunch of MP3 players offer gapless MP3-playback when rockboxed and I believe the latest ipod even offers something like it standard (note completely sure about that though)... further most MP3-players are actually multi codec DAP, some of which (rockboxed or not) can play gapless codecs as well (like flac etc...)

oh, did I mention Flac-lossless? Yeah, a number of MP3-players (well DAP's) can play lossless formats; from ipods + apples AAC-lossless to rockboxed players and cowons that play the opensource Flac... and of course PCM (non-compressed and therefore practically useless) on HiMD... but that feature didn't really seem worthy of a mention I guess

And through speakers mp3 players have blessed me with the simplicity of only headphone out and no line-out because they thought I wouldn't need it.

- should I still be pointing out that again you are very comfortably generalising any which way suits you? Only three HiMD models offer line out. It still is a software setting (and not a dedicated line-out) and I bet (don't know this really) a number of MP3 players can do this as well. Adding a small extra part to an ipod offers a real line-out as well and those irritating little machines come with an entire range of specially designed (and overpiced?) hifi's/speakersets/...

- the RH1 may have a line out...but it only works when no remote is connected...and it only shows tracknames etc on its remote and most special (and not so special) navigation functions are remote-only as well... but this small design-mistake didn't make your post

To save the trouble of swapping MD discs mp3 players have once again blessed me by doing away with removable media and have strapped me to the limited memory that it offers.

honestly, only since the coming of HiMD has MD been able to offer serious amounts of storage (300MB and up/disc) and besides, what you prefer (removable or fixed 'memory') is more a thing of personal taste than anything else IMHO:

- HDD-based players (like some ipods etc) offer up to 80 gb... do you really carry 80 1gb discs with you? (whether you need to is another question, but that relates to the personal taste part) -> so I don't think you can say you are overly 'bound by limited memory' on MP3 players

- flash based players offer up to 4gb nowadays (IIRC) so that still means 4 discs worth of music without swapping and without moving parts

- there are a lot of MP3-players with very limited space (like the creative one you have), but 1) this is a choice you made when buying; 2) lots of ppl are happy with that space (they do not need to carry lots of music and the drag-n-drop lets them quickly change the contents when needed) so again this is all personal taste and you shouldn't use it as an argument for saying one is better than the other

And being made out of plastic they have saved me weight, where my all metal RH1 is going to weigh me down.

again:

- overgeneralising... the NH1 and RH1 are the only fully metal HiMDs (except for some semi-obscure player-only perhaps)

- I really don't know enough about MP3-players to be sure there is none that uses metal

- the plastic nowadays can be pretty strong/light etc. but the ways it is used/treated can differ greatly (like the flacking paint with the NH600/700/800/900 or the easily scratched RH10...ow wait, those are HiMD's)

but lo and behold... you actually do make half a decent point as well:

And to record with my newly bought mp3 player all I need to do is conveniently add on a clunky attachment, where as my troublesome RH1 already has recording capabilities built-in.

this, my friend, is actually the one and only reason to really choose MD blindly over other DAP's... but then again there are a few remarks:

- HiMD is a good recording device, the RH1 is the best of those... but legacy MD really is surpassed already IMHO

- flash based recording devices are getting better every day and (soon?) there will be one that offers all HiMD offered and more for a comparable price and then you'll see MD fanboys sticking to the format and defending it but recording-fans will migrate to 'the best recording solution of the moment' ... which is completely ok, but it will negate this rec-argument

so if I reread your post again, this is what it says for me: I have bought the best value-for-money recording device for the moment and I paid a lot for the top-model as well. But as I don't really use it as a recording device and I do have to legitimate the spending to myself and ppl around me, I'll defend it as the top player as well, even though I have to generalize, forget flaws and clearly do not know enough about the alternatives...

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh and I do appreciate a thread aimed to show that technological journalists often do not have a clue what they are writing about... but blindly showing off how little you yourself know in an attempt to settle the ipod><(Hi)MD (but actually only RH1) fight once and for all is ludicrous as well...

I do not have a general opinion as to which one is better (I do have an opinion which one suits my personal needs best)...and I do not think anyone has/can really have... they are different machines/technology meant to do different things while they share some features as well. Let us (as expert users of the HiMD/MD format) just inform ppl honestly about what the format does AND what it doesn't do (as well as other technologies). If you on the other hand do believe that the RH1 (and HiMD) is the ultimate technology on all levels; good on you! You have now found complete happiness and shouldn't even care about the things others say...

*edit* wow right after posting this I was wondering wether I had been a bit harsh... but then I reread the post I responded to and saw a line I hadn't quoted before:

Maybe that was unnecessary, but I couldn't resist to flame an idiotic journalist who has no freakin' idea what he is talking about. I hope his paper weight iPod dies on him.

so I just reckoned I'd add a similar disclaimer and all should be ok as well so here it goes (I'll try to stick as close to the original words as possible)...

Maybe that was unnecessary, but I couldn't resist to flame an idiotic poster who has no freakin' idea what he is talking about. I hope he matures quickly.

Edited January 26, 2007 by The Low Volta

[tekdroid]

this, my friend, is actually the one and only reason to really choose MD blindly over other DAP's...

some good points adding clarity to the discussion, but I'd add some pretty unique Hi-MD abilities for the sake of those coming across this thread and wondering what these Hi-MD fanatics are so passionate about:

1) optical input on most units (USB digital transfers aren't always possible, let alone away from the computer)

2) removable batteries (very few removable battery devices out there)

3) On-unit titling, tracking, grouping, etc...(i find it pretty blasted amazing considering the limitations of no computer - and make use of on-disc editing a fair bit these days).

4) of course Hi-MDs comprehensive recording controls (sensitivity adjustment, level display, AGC and manual levels, etc...)

5) remotes pretty much standard...

Back to the discussion, Rockbox gapless is out of the scope of the average Joe, I feel (most just buy stuff and expect it to be standard). So I dunno if that can be really argued convincingly. So while some of Hi-MDs things are possible here and there (Apple doing gapless now, apparently)...they're not really all there in the one unit.

The 'what's better, what's worse' argument will continue, but only 'cause it's subjective.

All these articles (and the responses to them) come down to is people favouring some thing(s) over another, generally-speaking.

Different devices for different needs

In other words, there are different uses for different devices appealing to different people. None is the best in all areas...so what's given importance is a subjective thing for sure. And yeh, there is no need to really sugar-coat Hi-MD appeal or announce an absolute better or worse product - at least not in all areas like some articles seems to imply. They each have their strengths and weaknesses.

...but saying that doesn't make for popular journalism. The public apparently likes winners and losers, not objective and well-reasoned argument or clarification of opinions

Limitations?

...and to be fair, there's probably no room for well-reasoned argument...the journalist probably is told to write x amount of words (in x time). And above all, the journalist(s) are just Average Joes...and many Average Joes see MiniDisc / Hi-MD (if they've heard of it) as exactly that way... dinosaurs... black/white judgements & perceptions. Recent technology (particularly popular tech) wins out again...so sometimes you just have to laugh things off and accept the fact that many in writing positions are no more clued in than Joe Shmoe on the street...(often less ) or at least understand why they have these perceptions and opinions. Just as we are clueless in many other areas enthusiasts in those areas would put us right with...hehe.

Context

While I feel most so-called journalists aren't worth the electrons they've manipulated, in context, it all makes sense when you think about it. There's a lowest-common-denominator out there, and it reveals itself in many articles and most of the readership would be in complete agreement considering they may have had experience with MiniDisc and it may have been limited or sub-par in some area, not really knowing the finer points (or making use of them), their strengths, not keeping up with latest advancements, not coming from a recording angle...whatever.

So in summary, I think idiotic-or-not journalists are par for the course. They are average Joe - and their opinions should be taken in that context. Very few journalists are authorities in the fields they write about. It's cheaper that way

[GQ Smooth]

Well here's another article that you guys might like

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/digitalmusic/0,390...49259042,00.htm

From March 06 but I thought it would make you smile. I especially liked his final thoughts.

I enjoyed reading this article. Reading some of the comments of this article, some truths were revealed. Mini disc WAS expensive for the average user like me (saying that a 30GB Ipod isn't cheap) but what I fail to understand is Sonic Stage. I don't think it's awful, but they could make alterations ( make play lists easier to use, make downloading tunes form the connect store competitive with Itunes 79p a track, to SS 99p) The biggest plus to me is being able to upload my vinyl collection that either isn't on CD, and can't be brought on Itunes. I too also miss not being able to swap discs with friends (even through i know you can do it on this lovely site)

[King Ghidora]

The first place a journalist goes looking for info (and often the only place) is the LexisNexis database where they find everything that's ever been written about a subject in the media. The problem is when the first article written on a subject like MD is wrong every lazy and deadline pressured journalist that comes along later writing about the same subject is going to print the same wrong info as the first journalist. Then there's a snowball effect so that soon there's so much bad copy to pick from there's no room for anyone to think for themselves and actually do a little leg work and cover the issue correctly. That's why we still see the same lame comments about software issues. Yes there were software issues even for HIMD at first. If you were trying to upload something you recorded with a mic and something went wrong you were out of luck. The copyright protection crap Sony stuck in the software prevented you from ever uploading your own stuff again. So now every story written about HIMD includes that bit of ancient history unless the journalist just happens to be personally familiar with the subject like in the second story.

Journalism is a business more than anything else so they take the easiest route to a story whether it's true or not. We get a lot of bad info on a lot of subjects because of the shortcuts taken by modern journalists. Heck most of those writers aren't getting paid that much these days so they don't want to spend the time to do it right. That's why we see NY Times reporters claiming to do reports from around the country when in fact they're down at the local bar regurgitating what they got off LexisNexis. They destroy people's lives reprinting lies about them. For example they could go on printing that the Duke lacrosse players raped that stripper because they didn't bother checking the rest of the story. That case is not a good example because there has been a lot of press proving the story the stripper gave was a bunch of BS but imagine if the only thing written about you was that you tried to rape a stripper and despite you're being cleared of the charges journalists kept reporting you were a rapist for decades to come because the part where the charges were dropped against you wasn't ever printed so it didn't make the news database. That's the kind of crap we see from journalists these days.

[Sparda]

Yikes. I wasn't being very serious in my previous post and that was how it was meant to be interpreted. With respect I was really only referring to the RH1 and other units with similar capabilities. And yes I do realize that the stock buds probably sound just as bad or worse then generic earbuds included with almost anything. That is why I threw them in the drawer after a few weeks. The new cans I've gotten are very enjoyable. And well I guess I really shouldn't have posted the previous post in the first place... I do now realize how idiotic my own previous post sounded. Hope I didn't offend anyone.

Edit:

P.S. read this article for laughs: 5 reasons not to use Linux

Edited January 27, 2007 by Sparda

[Sparky191]

....

All these articles (and the responses to them) come down to is people favouring some thing(s) over another, generally-speaking.

Different devices for different needs

In other words, there are different uses for different devices appealing to different people. None is the best in all areas...so what's given importance is a subjective thing for sure. And yeh, there is no need to really sugar-coat Hi-MD appeal or announce an absolute better or worse product - at least not in all areas like some articles seems to imply. They each have their strengths and weaknesses.

...but saying that doesn't make for popular journalism. The public apparently likes winners and losers, not objective and well-reasoned argument or clarification of opinions

..

I find most fan sites are guilty of the same failings that journalism is tbh. Personally I prefer well-reasoned argument or clarification of opinions. But most people get in a huff if you try to do that.

[rayzray]

i just can't take it anymore;; reading this thread.. i MUST rant..

it all goes down to this;; IMO.. of course..

the world is made up of followers and leaders;; losers and winners;; first place and last place;; things that are easy and things that are hard;; ppl that are willing to learn and do hard things;; and ppl that look for the EASY way out;; imaginative ppl and bumps on a log..

are you getting the trend??

with my 27 MD-Decks & two Hi-MD900's;; i feel like a leading winner;; in first place;; pressing my hard sequence of buttons;; and imagining i AM the "Bomb"..

these rants confirm it!!

Edited January 27, 2007 by rayzray

[Sparky191]

People are diverse?