baturjan Posted February 5, 2007 Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 I've been using my first MD, the MZ-R55, since 1998 purely for field recording, and it still works fine as long as I use the external battery. I later bought an MZ-5RST for the sole purpose of optically uploading my R55 recordings to my computer (it has optical out ports). All this time I was also keeping tabs on the MD development, but never upgrated due to the fact that my R55 was fine and very durable. Furthermore, I'm a Mac user and until a year or so ago, MD has not been compatible. A few days ago my new MZ-M200 arrived. This has to be the sweetest upgrade I have ever made. What a jump in sound quality to PCM! I was stunned. The other great feature as a Mac user is that I can finally upload my recordings to my Mac via USB. Optically uploading them before with the MZ-5RST was fine, except that it was in real time, and I lost all the track marks, but at least the quality was the "same". I researched long and hard since the MZ-M200 was released of weather or not to get the M200 or a solid state recorder. The sound quality/$ convinced me that the M200 was the one to get. I'm so glad I did. Of course, my personal appreciation for MD biased my decision as well. Many of the reasons why the RH1 or M200 is so great has been fully discussed in this forum already, and I concure with just about all of it. However, there are a few things that I assumed would have improved over 8 years since the R55 that didn't. One was the overall speed. I was expecting my experience with the unit to be faster. The menus seem slow. Having a separate button for entering the settings (when pressing the menu button for one second), would have been nice. I don't like having to press and hold...wait for the menu (chalk this up to computers and the internet for influencing me on this one). I'm sure my familiarity with menus over time will change my opinion on this. Another suprise was the writting speed. I hate to say this because I love MD and this M200, but the writting speed after recording is painfully slow to what I was expeting. I guess that's part'n pacel of the MD technology that can't be improved. Lastly, my R55 feels like it was made mostly of metal parts and not plastic due to it's weight, while the M200 feels flimsy-cheap-plastic-light in comparison (though the M200 is much nicer looking). I hope that the going lighter is intentional for convenience in usage and not at a sacrifice in quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky191 Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 I think I'd agree with your disappointments too, for all HiMD/MD not specifically the MZ-M200.1) GUI and ergonomics could be better 2) Speed of transfer3) Build qulaity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.