Interesting review

[doomlordis]

http://www.eqmag.com/story.asp?sectioncode...storycode=12031

Hi-MD wins again.

[A440]

http://www.eqmag.com/story.asp?sectioncode...storycode=12031

Hi-MD wins again.

But both are old models, and he's basically comparing feature sets. (He also minimizes the limitations of the Mac Transfer software.)

I would really love to see a serious audiophile comparison among the Edirol R09, the Zoom H4 and the MZ-RH1. If anyone has seen one, please post a link.

[MDX-400]

^Not to mention Hi-MD, in general, is slow as hell. I'm sure with modern units people would be more likely to favour flash-based recorders over Hi-MD. Not trying to be "mean" to Hi-MD but I'm sure everyone will admit that it is slowwwwww when talking about computer transfers.

[tekdroid]

I'm sure with modern units people would be more likely to favour flash-based recorders over Hi-MD.

Confucius say:

Flash recorder sucky. Why no-one stock Hi-MD?

Slow, wise Hi-MD.

[ratbagradio]

Confucius say:

Flash recorder sucky.

Thats' the point -- the Hi MD a great recorder but as a listening device from downloaded shared mp3 format the transfer rate is slow compared to flash players. I'm seeing what its like to use it to listen to the podcasts I subscribe by downloading a fill up and using the MD the same way as I use the iRiver T30. Since I would be using it for listening to mp3 files which are already quite squished -- is there a optimum setting on my Sony MZN-H700 which I can employ to facilitate a faster transfer and increase my storage capacity on the disc when quality is not an issue? How low can I go and how do I set that?

OR is transfer rate a product of other factors? Even with adjustments is the time reduction involved worth the effort

Essentially --as with podcasts and I guess mp3 format generally, it's throwaway audio in the same way that radio is and I guess the MD format, while offering so much better audio quality is something else, more archival. I cannot imagine creating a record collection by say, only relying on iTunes music store downloads -- but while thats' cheap, what about the sound quality?

dave riley

[King Ghidora]

Transfers are faster at the lower quality settings on HIMD Dave with 48kbps being the fastest. Also the 1 gb discs are considerably faster than than the original MD discs formatted to HIMD. So the 48kbps setting, which will give you the most record time too, is definitely the setting to record when quality isn't an issue. The higher the encoding mode the better the quality and the slower the record speed so you just need to determine what works best for your needs.

I've seen lots of people who are serious about audio talk about the differences in quality between HIMD and the Edirol R-09 and the Zoom H4. Essentially all HIMD sounds pretty much the same but the new flash based recorders have the ability to record in 24 bit audio. And 24 bit audio is definitely better than 16 bit audio. Of course if you're transferring from CD you're already down to using 16 bit audio so the 24 bit advantage is mainly for stuff you record yourself. If you could find a source of 24 bit recorded material it would definitely sound better than anything a HIMD can do.

That's not to say that HIMD isn't really good quality. It is. But there are better things out there today. Unless Sony steps up and makes big improvements to the MD format the war is already lost. I can't see them doing that though since there are big advantages to recording to flash media. The price of a 1 gb SD card is already down to under $20 and it's dropping fast.

I've used MD for several years now and I've enjoyed it a lot. I still do. But the future is in flash memory. Serious mobile recording people are selling their MD's and buying flash based units. When my current equipment wears out I'll expect to buy something better. My thing is to buy up used HIMD units right now because they do sound very good. And they are pretty cheap compared to the Edirol's and the Zoom's. They are destined to be bargain basement stuff but the demand for them among people who still have money tied up into discs will likely make the price higher as it becomes obvious that the format is going to be gone soon.

I really think we've seen the last generation of HIMD. It was a great run while it lasted and it was only killed by better quality equipment. It will still be good for years to come for me unless I win the lottery or my video business really takes off. In fact I'll still be looking to buy HIMD at good prices for a while. I'll stick with HIMD because I'm on a budget and it's the best bang for the buck on the market. Yes it's slower and it has it's nagging problems (the software for example) but it still sounds very good.

[greenmachine]

I've seen lots of people who are serious about audio talk about the differences in quality between HIMD and the Edirol R-09 and the Zoom H4. Essentially all HIMD sounds pretty much the same but the new flash based recorders have the ability to record in 24 bit audio. And 24 bit audio is definitely better than 16 bit audio. Of course if you're transferring from CD you're already down to using 16 bit audio so the 24 bit advantage is mainly for stuff you record yourself. If you could find a source of 24 bit recorded material it would definitely sound better than anything a HIMD can do.

When recording from an analog source, you will only benefit from a higher resolution if the analog-to-digital-converter section is up to the job. For portable listening, you will only benefit from a higher resolution if the digital-to-analog-converter section is up to the job. In portables, i doubt it generally is. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[e1ghtyf1ve]

When recording from an analog source, you will only benefit from a higher resolution if the analog-to-digital-converter section is up to the job. For portable listening, you will only benefit from a higher resolution if the digital-to-analog-converter section is up to the job. In portables, i doubt it generally is. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Exactly. But many consumers out there don't seem to care about how the machines actually sound, only gee-whiz-bang specs, high capacities, and appearances. That's what sells.

From my personal experience, on modern Core 2 Duo Mac laptops, our RH1s upload PCM almost as fast as USB 2.0 card readers and faster than our MT2496 flash recorder^*. For under $1000, in terms of sheer convenience, economy, and overall sound quality there is currrently nothing better out there than the RH1.

Cheers

^* We keep that POS as a testament to our temporary stupidity.

[King Ghidora]

I know HIMD sounds good so I'm not anxious to run out and spend a bunch of money based on the word of anyone. Even when a person does a live audition of equipment they sometimes fail to notice problems in the audio. It doesn't get noticed until they have lived with it for a while. Audio is a very tricky thing to master. Experience is the only true teacher and like I say I don't have any personally with anything except MD equipment. I do know it works very well. Actually I guess I have experience with MP3 devices and I've found them all to fall short of MD.

I don't own any of the 24 bit recorders on the market. I'm not going to speculate about whether their a/d converters are up to the job. I was reporting what is happening with people who have access to both. I've seen testimony from people who might well be all about the gee whiz factor but I've also seen comments from people I have come to know and respect as the true professionals that they are. Both groups have said essentially the same thing. They say that 24 bit is much better than 16 bit. If you have a bone to pick with that assertion I can try to direct you to the people who said it. I'll skip the gee whiz crowd and direct you to the known professionals so you won't have to sort through the questionable comments. You can concentrate on making your claim to people who do professional recording but I have to say that it looks to me like you're making assumptions instead of relying on evidence.

You can start with this professional recording engineer's post on this web site. I'll go ahead and quote him saying:

"...it's much better to record at 24 bit sampling rather than 16 bit and then use your audio editor to normalize the level (increase it to the maximum non-distored level) and then output to a 48kHz/16 bit version of the audio. Mastering at 24 bit gives you more freedom with setting the recording level."

His choice for mobile recording devices include a MicroTrack model of which he says:

"For small size with superb sound, you can't beat the M-Audio MicroTrack 2496. It records stereo at up to 96kHz/24 bit sampling..."

He also says that Edirol makes a recorder that sounds almost as good as the M-Audio.

I've seen several professionals say similar things about 24 bit devices like the Edirols and the Zoom H4 and also a RockBoxed iRiver H120. I can find more such examples if you like but I think it might be a good idea to ask this person I already quoted about his experiences. His web site is linked in the post I linked.

I just think it's better to take the word of a known pro than to just speculate about something with what seems to be a good bit of loyalty to a particular technology involved. I really like my HIMD and I still really like my regular MD. These devices have served me very well. But progress happens and I don't think we should hold on to the past out of nostalgia or any other reason. I've trumpted the value of MD for many years. I have been a member of this board for quite a few years. But I can't accept that it's going to be the case that all of the new devices on the market are going to have low quality A/D converters just based on speculation. Some of them might well lack the quality that HIMD has. But I just can't assume that all of them do in light of the testimonials I've seen by pros and dedicated hobbyists alike.

I'm not saying I know for sure that these recorders exceed the quality of 16 bit HIMD. It's always very hard to judge by what others say. I see some pages that claim that the current set of devices only claim to have 24 bit audio but in reality are limited to 16 bit in certain bottleneck areas. I really just couldn't say for sure without testing these devices for myself what the real truth is. I just know what is being said about them and I know the reputation of some of the people making the claims. But people can be wrong even with the best of intentions. People can expect to hear better quality and end up claiming it's there even when it isn't and that includes pros. I do think it's better to take the word of a pro than it is to speculate but I think the real proof is in the pudding. I wouldn't claim to know the bottom line on any of these devices without hearing them myself. I've seen too many audio technologies be hyped to no end only to end up not sounding good at all.

[greenmachine]

I was referring to the mictrotrack's rather poor noise performance when recording from the mic input, for example.

http://forums.minidisc.org/index.php?showtopic=13562

http://www.transom.org/tools/recording_int...microtrack.html

I'm not a zealot when it comes to a format or brand name, but it seems Sony's experience with portable recording is an advantage here. If they only would build an affordable flash recorder with mic input...

[e1ghtyf1ve]

I was referring to the mictrotrack's rather poor noise performance when recording from the mic input, for example.

http://forums.minidisc.org/index.php?showtopic=13562

http://www.transom.org/tools/recording_int...microtrack.html

I'm not a zealot when it comes to a format or brand name, but it seems Sony's experience with portable recording is an advantage here. If they only would build an affordable flash recorder with mic input...

I'm not a zealot either (although some of my posts can sound that way sometimes) - and I simply can't afford to hold on to the past simply out of nostalgia. Just a couple of months ago our MT2496 crashed yet again during a field recording session. It was embarassing for sure (we went through several of these trying to find one that works reliably) but luckily we had hard drive, HiMD, and DAT backup recorders.

We let our customers listen to various machines in our arsenal. Even though they profess to prefer "modern"* flash recorders, in a blind test they almost invariably prefer the sound of the DATs (!) and HiMD. I suspect that Sony's patented analog stages make the difference here.

I somehow doubt that this situation will change in the near future, i.e. several years. While under $1000 MP3/flash recorders generally outperform MD/HiMD for radio broadcasting/voice and podcasting, they continue to lag behind when it comes to instrumental music capture. The voice recording market is much bigger and more lucrative than the music recording market, for various reasons i.e. copyright issues with the cartels.

Cheers

* Flash technology predates MO (e.g. MD/HiMD) by many years...