Krull Posted February 21, 2007 Report Share Posted February 21, 2007 I just picked up the NH600D to join its 2nd and 3rd generation bethren in my collection, which spans back to a MZ-B3 and MZ-N510.I'm thinking about using it as my workhorse recorder and possibly my beater player, but want to avoid any downsides.Is there any difference in the net recording capabilities of a MZ-RH1, MZ-DH10P, and a MZ-NH600D? For instance, do they have the same rate of transfer from PC->MD?How about the playback? Do the two higher end models have noticeably better playback sound than the NH600D?I haven't started the bulk of my recording in HiMD. I'd appreciate any tips users have as to formats to use for everyday use of reasonably good listening quality. I know, that's another subject, but haven't quite figured out whether the trade-off between recording time and SQ favors the 64Kbps or 256Kbps (or something in between).Something I'm not clear about, if I transfer a CD to SonicStage library at 192, can it be transferred at that rate to MD? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karmageddon Posted February 21, 2007 Report Share Posted February 21, 2007 I can tell you that the sound quality of the MZ-RH1 for playback AND recording is the best you will ever hear from MD.The HD Amp in it really raises the bar. I also own a 600D and use it primarily as my portable player, but I do find th ebass to be a bit muddy and the highs aren't as clearly defined as the RH1. Hell I'd even say that even at 192kbps it sound sjust as good as my old discman playing CDs.Yup..I said that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaywardTraveller Posted February 21, 2007 Report Share Posted February 21, 2007 (edited) I just picked up the NH600D to join its 2nd and 3rd generation bethren in my collection, which spans back to a MZ-B3 and MZ-N510.I'm thinking about using it as my workhorse recorder and possibly my beater player, but want to avoid any downsides.Is there any difference in the net recording capabilities of a MZ-RH1, MZ-DH10P, and a MZ-NH600D? For instance, do they have the same rate of transfer from PC->MD?Hey Krull...congrats on picking up a sweet little player. As far as I know, the more recent units like the RH1 have a faster transfer speed than the 1st-gens. I'll hazard a guess, though, and suggest that you probably won't be too put out by any differences between USB transfers.How about the playback? Do the two higher end models have noticeably better playback sound than the NH600D?Noticeably different? Absolutely. "Better" depends on who you talk to. The RH1 has a HD digital amp which is supposed to have improvements even over the amp in the NH1/NH900, whereas the 600D has no digital amp at all. Many people love the digital amp, but others say the non-digital amp units like the 600 give your music a "warmer" and "fuller" feel where the digital amp comes off cold (but detailed). Ideally, as with all such things the best thing is to get your hands on both of them if possible and compare.I haven't started the bulk of my recording in HiMD. I'd appreciate any tips users have as to formats to use for everyday use of reasonably good listening quality. I know, that's another subject, but haven't quite figured out whether the trade-off between recording time and SQ favors the 64Kbps or 256Kbps (or something in between).Another $60,000 MD issue! Yeah, you'll get loads of different opinions on this; but if you ask me 48kbps is perfectly fine for any spoken-word applications (unless the source is well and truly shite). Others use 64kbps (66kbps is oldschool LP4 IIRC) without problems.With music it's all going to depend on you. Many people use ATRAC 132kbps for an ideal balance between space and sound quality (although 192kbps is an even better midway point if you ask me) - others refuse to rip below 256kbps. Personally, I won't rip any non-spokenword less than 192 anymore (unless I'm travelling for a while and wanna cram as much as possible on to each disc, in which case I go 132). Stuff I really like/love and/or experimental music with lots of detail that rewards concentrated listening usually gets 256/352kb. My quality varies from 192-352, but it's important to remember that your headphones CAN completely transform what you're listening to! A good set of phones will make 132 sound much, much nicer!Something I'm not clear about, if I transfer a CD to SonicStage library at 192, can it be transferred at that rate to MD?Yes (I'm assuming you mean ATRAC). The following SS bitrates can be used with Hi-MD: 48,64/66,132,192,256,352,PCM. All the other bitrates you see can be played on your computer and/or transferred to some other audio device (but not Hi-MD).Hope this helps.peaceWaywardTraveller Edited February 21, 2007 by WaywardTraveller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Low Volta Posted February 21, 2007 Report Share Posted February 21, 2007 but it's important to remember that your headphones CAN completely transform what you're listening to! A good set of phones will make 132 sound much, much nicer!eh... don't you mean that getting a good set of headphones will make 132kbps sound terrible?We could discuss what 'good' means here, but let's assume you are talking about a headphone that has better alround technical specs and sounds better when listening to uncompressed sources (even though I do understand that this is still vey vague and questionable)...that would mean that those headphones would be more revealing towards the faults of lower bitrate files like 132kbps. Traditionally lower bitrate files cut/roll-off high frequencies, so that would mean that with a worse headphone with a drop-off in higher frequencies the lossy and lossless files would sound more alike and thus the lossy file would fare better in a comparison with the lossless sourcea more revealing phone would not only make you feel you're missing something (the higher freqs) but will also make you hear artifacts etc better and the lossy file would be more easily distinguished in a comparison.I have several headphones and I must say that with the better ones I love 'unmasking' lossy files (I finally get significant results in ABX-tests) but I can't enjoy lower bitrate music anymore. I used Lame VBR-New V5 on my RH1 and since I upgraded my headphone from the stockbuds to the PX100 to the grado SR60 I've increased SQ to V3 so I wouldn't be focussing on 'what isn't there' or 'what sounds unnatural' anymore... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cochra1 Posted February 21, 2007 Report Share Posted February 21, 2007 (edited) I'm one of those people that won't dip below 256 mbps! In fact, if I'm using SonicStage I tend to go up to 352.The higher bitrates just sound smoother, more transparant, and give less ear fatigue. You can get so much stuff on a 1Gig disc, even at those rates, and if you need more tunes, well, just pop another disc in your pocket, simple as that.As for differences in actual recording quality between an NH600 and an RH1, I may be off beam here, but would there really be any difference at all (if recorded from a digital source/uploaded from SS)? The difference would really be in the playback only, due to the different analogue stages (and the addition of a digital amp in the RH1). I can't imagine the data recorded to the disc would be any different in either machine.Of course, recording from an analogue source would produce differences in quality between the two machines, and I'd be very surprised if the RH1 didn't come out on top (by a long way). But I've never compared them. Edited February 21, 2007 by KanakoAndTheNumbSkulls Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krull Posted February 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2007 Of course, recording from an analogue source would produce differences in quality between the two machines, and I'd be very surprised if the RH1 didn't come out on top (by a long way). But I've never compared them.The NH600D and the DH10P don't have any line inputs...just the RH1. As for speed of transfer, I'll try to test and post results.The NH600D seems to work fine as a recorder. I can even use it with SonicStage to link album art and produce MDs capable of displaying it on the DH10P. Perhaps I won't use it for playing since it lacks the digital amp. But don't both the RH1 and the DH10P have the high definition digital amp? Shouldn't they produce similar results to the ear?Headphones...maybe I'll start another topic but I'm in the market for those, too. Right now all I have are Koss Porta Pro. Wow! Thanks, all, for comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaywardTraveller Posted February 25, 2007 Report Share Posted February 25, 2007 (edited) eh... don't you mean that getting a good set of headphones will make 132kbps sound terrible?Actually, TLV, I've found that good headphones can make 132kbps sound much better than I thought possible! But be that as it may, I'm getting progressively spoiled by 256/352 and use 192 almost exclusively as my floor.Is this where I make people cringe by talking about transcoding MP3-128 - > A3-132 in a pinch? As for differences in actual recording quality between an NH600 and an RH1, I may be off beam here, but would there really be any difference at all (if recorded from a digital source/uploaded from SS)? The difference would really be in the playback only, due to the different analogue stages (and the addition of a digital amp in the RH1). I can't imagine the data recorded to the disc would be any different in either machine.As far as I am aware, recording is exactly the same across all Hi-MD units (hence their compatibility). The only differences you'll find are in recording modes (some units can record in MD mode, others only Hi-MD) and things surrounding the recording process like battery life, MIC-IN availability, etc.Of course, recording from an analogue source would produce differences in quality between the two machines, and I'd be very surprised if the RH1 didn't come out on top (by a long way). But I've never compared them.How do you reckon? Unless I'm missing something (or don't get what you're saying), irrespective of source the data would be recorded with the same codecs. This is why many people here own, say, an RH1/NH1, but also an NH600/700 beater for field recording, concerts, etc.peaceWaywardTraveller Edited February 25, 2007 by WaywardTraveller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazer78 Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 Actually, TLV, I've found that good headphones can make 132kbps sound much better than I thought possible! But be that as it may, I'm getting progressively spoiled by 256/352 and use 192 almost exclusively as my floor.Is this where I make people cringe by talking about transcoding MP3-128 - > A3-132 in a pinch? Well, a good set of headphones will make a 132kbps sound "better" (You may find more bass, crisper treble etc) but you'll also introduce artifacting and other details you didn't know was there (particularly dominant in lower bitrates). And in most cases, you'll find that the artifacting and other bad defects make the song sound worse. Again, it really depends on how you like your music. =P I myself really couldn't stand anything below 192, but 256kbps is my set standard for atrac3plus.Speaking of bitrates, does anyone know if Sonicstage can write linearPCM to the Hi-MD? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaywardTraveller Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 Well, a good set of headphones will make a 132kbps sound "better" (You may find more bass, crisper treble etc) but you'll also introduce artifacting and other details you didn't know was there (particularly dominant in lower bitrates). And in most cases, you'll find that the artifacting and other bad defects make the song sound worse. Again, it really depends on how you like your music. =P I myself really couldn't stand anything below 192, but 256kbps is my set standard for atrac3plus.Speaking of bitrates, does anyone know if Sonicstage can write linearPCM to the Hi-MD?Very true. I think it also depends on the source: I have some CDs that rip crystal clear at 132, but you're also right about the artifacts.And to write PCM to Hi-MD in SOnicStage, just import the WAV file into SS and, when you transfer it, select "Transfer file 'as-is' (no conversion)".peaceWaywardTraveller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazer78 Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 And to write PCM to Hi-MD in SOnicStage, just import the WAV file into SS and, when you transfer it, select "Transfer file 'as-is' (no conversion)".peaceWaywardTravellerAhh... finally! Thanks a bunch for that, time to chew some of my Hi-MDs up! >=] 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.