Hi-md deck at 352 kbps or Sony ES-serie at 292 kpbs?

[Thorgal]

Hi,

I am at the point of buying myself another home-deck and I was wondering which one to buy to get the best sound as possible.

The choices are:

An Onkyo Hi-md deck (MD-105 or MD-133), new of course or an older Sony ES-serie deck like the JA333ES, JA50ES, JA30ES etc. Not new of course but some new-like decks are available.

Sound quality is most important to me. I dont want to use Hi-md discs so on Hi-md 352 kbps is the highest rate possible.

On the Sony MD decks SP is the best possible. SP is only possible if recorded via line in. Via Sonicstage the real bitrate on the disc is LP2 even when SP is chosen. This is a known fact. So for the best quality recording must be done via line in. So more time consuming.

An Onkyo deck must be imported from Japan. When it gest broken it not easy to get it fixed.

Question: what do you think offers the best sound quality?

And any things I have forgotten to think about when chosing between the 2 decks?

[Syrius]

First: Are you recording or just playing back with the deck? (Or a better question is: Where is your music coming from onto the discs?)

Second: Do you need to upload recordings to the computer?

What is your budget?

Finally, unless you want to play Hi-MDs you have made from the computer into your Hi-MD portable (No Hi-MD deck can connect to the computer to move songs back and forth) I would stick with the old-style SP decks out of price and availability. An MD deck can be obtained for cheap easily now. A HI-MD one will be a bigger investment.

You don't want to use Hi-MD discs but are interested in the 352 KBPS bitrate? Also, Hi-MD will handle PCM/Wav, which is the same as CD.

[Thorgal]

Budget is no limitation.

I want to stay with MD, because I like the format.

Material used for recording are CD's or lossless downloads.

I already own a RH1 so I can record to any format I want.

The main question just is: what sounds better: Himd at 352 kbps on an Onkyo Hi-md deck (analoge connection) or SP on an Sony ES-serie (digital or analoge connection to receiver)?

[kino170878]

It's actually a very difficult question you are asking. There are different uses for both bit rates. You therefore have to make a decision on what you want to use minidiscs for.

From just a sound quality perspective I think 352kps may be marginally better, but SP has full stereo so it may depend in the end on the tracks themselves.

I think, however, that the key to solving this is your *other* deck. Is it also a Sony SP deck? In that case having a number of decks in the same format would make more sense than getting an Onkyo Hi-MD deck. But your setup may allow both formats to exist side by side, so I can't say for sure.

Basically it's this: if you want to invest in decks I would go the SP route; if you want to invest in portables go Hi-MD. If you want the best sound quality possible without the advantages of the minidisc format go PCM (uncompressed WAV).

[Giant_Rick]

I read on this forum that with SP mode the stereo is TRUE, unlikely the Hi-MD format.. I'd go for an SP deck.

But this means that transferring CDs to MDs is painfull 'cause you have to record via Line In (I didn't know that an SP file on a MD transferred from a PC will sound like an LP2!).. on the other hand, with one Hi-MD you have more 'flexibility' and you can even playback files in perfect lossless quality.

Why don't you use your RH1 connected to your Hi-Fi system and you playback two MDs with the same song, one formatted in SP mode and the other in Hi-MD format (352 kbps)? You'll notice what is better from you, sound quality talking.

[sfbp]

The big advantage of HiMD is that you can put many hours of LP2 music on a HiMD disk (this makes sense if you record internet broadcasts which are rarely at a higher data rate than 128K anyway because now you get 16.5 hours of LP2 on 1GB). Or many hours of 256K onto an ATRAC CD for your car.

The big advantage of SP is that you can essentially manage without CD quality. The original reviewers pointed out that SP essentially recreates a CD. ATRAC is a very good codec, subject to the restrictions (because it is so good??) that Sony placed on it. I used SP from the very beginning as a means of making CD's and I have never yet been disappointed. The 9xx series of decks all have current-pulse DAC's, I will be getting my first one shortly to see what difference that makes.

For playback it is quite hard to improve on Type-S LP2. The problems are:

1. Very few decks have Type-S (the 480,780,980 and combo MXD-D400 are the only ones AFAIK). You absolutely need this to play back LP modes on a HiFi system. However you can record (Type-R) on another, less exclusive, deck and this will be a very good recording.

2. Sonic Stage has a quirk (again possibly deliberate) where ripping directly to LP2 or via AAL works great but ripping VIA 1411 kHz pcm or wav gives garbage when subsequently transcoding to LP2.

I know not everyone here believes me. I abandoned LP2 initially because of the rip problem. Once I got a deck that does the copy from CD directly, I changed my mind. Subsequently realising that SonicStage does just as well under the right conditions.

Finally about HiMD decks, there are some models other than the 105 and 133, but you have to also get them direct from Japan. Joint stereo could be a problem, but I assure you the Atrac CD player in my car is as good or better than a real CD. Of course the car is a noisy place to begin with.

Hope this helps.

Oh yes, one more thing. The JA333ES (although the highest specified LP deck ever made - well maybe MDS-E10/12?) doesn't have Type-S playback. For SP only you don't need this deck, there are lots of others that are as good, in the ES series.

[Thorgal]

Thanx for all the thinking. I am reading some new considarations here.

It's the combination of equipment and codecs which makes a choice difficult.

Codecs is one, the equipment is two.

I can indeed compare codecs.

But I was also wondering if Sony ES equipment is much better than an Onkyo Deck or another normal Sony deck. Can I expect a Sony deck to produce much better sound? Can I expect the Sony deck to last longer and if it gets broken in lets say 15 years, can I find someone to repair it? If my Onkyo deck fails can I find someone in europe to repair it? All these considerations must lead to one definite choice.

Edited August 26, 2009 by Thorgal

[sfbp]

The service manuals from Sony are excellent, and most of them are available here. If you are serious about that, suggest that getting a couple of similarly-built decks (not necessarily the most expensive) would allow you to swap BD boards (the guts that plays the MD) easily. What you do NOT want to repair is the MD transport itself - the road to madness lies there, probably.

One consideration on the ES series is that you better not be moving very often. They weigh approximately double what the other decks do.

[Thorgal]

The service manuals from Sony are excellent, and most of them are available here. If you are serious about that, suggest that getting a couple of similarly-built decks (not necessarily the most expensive) would allow you to swap BD boards (the guts that plays the MD) easily. What you do NOT want to repair is the MD transport itself - the road to madness lies there, probably.

One consideration on the ES series is that you better not be moving very often. They weigh approximately double what the other decks do.

Thanks for the advice. Especially for the JA333ES. I was also considering bying that one. But with type R for my older LP2 recordings thats no option anymore.

A friend of mine owns a JA30ES. But that one has problems with discs created with Sonicstage. He told me that that deck is not compatible with teh newer type R codec.

Can you please mention some other Hi-md decks besides the 105 and 133 from Onkyo?

[sfbp]

Type-R is a ****recording**** codec, and works for SP (as well as LP). Type-S is for playback (whether of Type-R or not) of LP2. Type-S includes Type-R, according to Sony. Only when you play LP2/4 is Type-S used at all.

Most references seem to indicate that Type-R doesn't operate for any kind of high-speed coding or transcoding (eg CD-MD at 4x speed). However if "good" LP2 is captured by SonicStage (transferred :as is: from RH1), it downloads to other places (and plays back) perfectly.

This may be at the back of why direct-to-optical sounds good on almost any unit (portable or deck) built since they got as far as Type-R. Even portables at lower data rates than SP????

Your friend's observation might conceivably be related to my other one about bad ripping by SonicStage, instead of a problem with playback.

Take a look in the equipment browser. I have seen an X-B8 and it looks very nice.

[THIS SUCKS]

if your main concern is sound quality then i would not even be thinking about lp2 it is not hi quality! for the best quality i recommend getting a deck that records sp in type-r and hook the digital out directly to your reciever. this will produce the best sound. thats how i have mine hooked up at home. you will be impressed. you can then also make sp recordings from the digital in from your regular cd players digital out which will also automaticly mark the tracks for you. sp type-r is awesome!

[sfbp]

Agree 100%.

However original poster already has a bunch of LP2 recordings (as do we all).

[THIS SUCKS]

i had lots of lp2. i couldnt take it anymore and deleted them all and re-recorded them all in sp. happy ears!

[philippeb]

I use SP and MONO exclusively. Those legacy ATRAC codecs sound much better to my ears (educated with high-end cassettes and tapes) than any ATRAC3 ones.

Another significant advantage is that tracks recorded in SP and MONO can be defragmented and infinitely duplicated without loss or restriction on a MDS-W1 deck.

[Avrin]

Type-R is a ****recording**** codec, and works for SP (as well as LP). Type-S is for playback (whether of Type-R or not) of LP2.

Type-R is a recording AND playback codec for SP only (including MONO). Type-S is a playback-only codec for all MDLP modes.

Type-S came a bit later, so all Type-S chips also have Type-R.

I use SP and MONO exclusively. Those legacy ATRAC codecs sound much better to my ears (educated with high-end cassettes and tapes) than any ATRAC3 ones.

Surely they do. They have more than double the bitrate of LP2 (the best of ATRAC3). But ATRAC3plus may easily beat any SP or MONO recording.

Another significant advantage is that tracks recorded in SP and MONO can be defragmented and infinitely duplicated without loss or restriction on a MDS-W1 deck.

Hi-MD recordings can be manipulated in any way you want, using a computer. Much faster than realtime. And only Hi-MD offers the capability to record in true lossless (not CD-like, but actual CD quality). Better done on a computer though, than via optical.

Edited August 26, 2009 by Avrin

[sfbp]

Type-R is a recording AND playback codec for SP only (including MONO).

Are you seriously suggesting that machines without Type-R (eg Atrac 4.5) will not play it back properly?

[Avrin]

Any SP machine plays all SP codecs (they have to be kept compatible according to the minidisc specification). An ATRAC 1.0 machine will play Type-R, and it will sound better than ATRAC 1.0 on the same machine. And a Type-R machine will play ATRAC 1.0 better than an ATRAC 1.0 one.

Codec compatibility problems may only arise in some cases when playing back discs recorded on a machine from a different manufacturer. Some Panasonic SP recordings are known to sound strange on SONY equipment. But they do play.

[sfbp]

Any SP machine plays all SP codecs (they have to be kept compatible according to the minidisc specification). An ATRAC 1.0 machine will play Type-R, and it will sound better than ATRAC 1.0 on the same machine. And a Type-R machine will play ATRAC 1.0 better than an ATRAC 1.0 one.

Codec compatibility problems may only arise in some cases when playing back discs recorded on a machine from a different manufacturer. Some Panasonic SP recordings are known to sound strange on SONY equipment. But they do play.

I suppose that's why I dubbed it a "recording" codec.

What I really meant is that stuff recorded on a Type-R machine will still sound good with Type-S playback (better than on the Type-R-only machine), since there is no improvement in the recording on a Type-S machine over that on a Type-R machine. And this includes LP2 recorded on Type-R machine, which I have been doing a lot of lately. Clear as mud?

[Avrin]

LP2 recorded on any machine is the same, Type-R or not. And it will sound better on a Type-S machine.

[Syrius]

What's that thing about SP having true stereo? AFAIK, only ATRAC 3+ had joint-stereo (Cannabis reference? LOL) when using Hi-LP. Or is it that, 192, 256 and 352 use "fake" stereo? Anyone care to clarify?

[sfbp]

I think that LP4 is also joint stereo. However LP2 is same scheme as SP, IIRC. Not sure about the higher AC3+ rates.

(joint stereo *is* the fake version)

[Avrin]

Joint stereo is not fake in any way. It is just an encoding algorithm, designed for improving quality by more efficient bit utilization. It is based on the fact that most stereo material, when recorded and digitized properly, contains a lot of identical information in both channels. So, in joint stereo, one channel is used to encode this identical information, while the other is used to encode the difference. The end result depends on the material. At lower bitrates, most music sounds better in joint stereo than in pure stereo at the same bitrate. But it won't work for material with significantly different channels, e.g., containing inter-channel phase differences (there will be not enough bitrate in the difference channel, while the "identical" channel will be almost empty). Such differences mostly come from improperly aligned analog playback heads (a good example is the first King Crimson album, which was digitized from a third generation copy, before the original master was rediscovered in 2003), or are deliberately introduced for creating special effects in electronic music. You will want to avoid using joint stereo for such material. And for Beatles and Pink Floyd.

On minidiscs, SP, LP2, and ATRAC3plus @ 352, 256, and 192 kbps are pure stereo, while LP4 and ATRAC3plus @ 48 and 64 kbps are joint stereo.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Avrin

[Giant_Rick]

On minidiscs, SP, LP2, and ATRAC3plus @ 352, 256, and 192 kbps are pure stereo, while LP4 and ATRAC3plus @ 48 and 64 kbps are joint stereo.

Atrac3+ 256kbps in pure stereo is awesome for recording. I might start to use it for live recording instead of PCM.. and Atrac3+ @ 64 kbps is good too.

I have a lot of albums by Springsteen on an 80 min MD and they sound really good. I use a custom EQ on my NH900 and I'm fully satisfied.

[Thorgal]

The big advantage of HiMD is that you can put many hours of LP2 music on a HiMD disk (this makes sense if you record internet broadcasts which are rarely at a higher data rate than 128K anyway because now you get 16.5 hours of LP2 on 1GB). Or many hours of 256K onto an ATRAC CD for your car.

The big advantage of SP is that you can essentially manage without CD quality. The original reviewers pointed out that SP essentially recreates a CD. ATRAC is a very good codec, subject to the restrictions (because it is so good??) that Sony placed on it. I used SP from the very beginning as a means of making CD's and I have never yet been disappointed. The 9xx series of decks all have current-pulse DAC's, I will be getting my first one shortly to see what difference that makes.

For playback it is quite hard to improve on Type-S LP2. The problems are:

1. Very few decks have Type-S (the 480,780,980 and combo MXD-D400 are the only ones AFAIK). You absolutely need this to play back LP modes on a HiFi system. However you can record (Type-R) on another, less exclusive, deck and this will be a very good recording.

2. Sonic Stage has a quirk (again possibly deliberate) where ripping directly to LP2 or via AAL works great but ripping VIA 1411 kHz pcm or wav gives garbage when subsequently transcoding to LP2.

I know not everyone here believes me. I abandoned LP2 initially because of the rip problem. Once I got a deck that does the copy from CD directly, I changed my mind. Subsequently realising that SonicStage does just as well under the right conditions.

Finally about HiMD decks, there are some models other than the 105 and 133, but you have to also get them direct from Japan. Joint stereo could be a problem, but I assure you the Atrac CD player in my car is as good or better than a real CD. Of course the car is a noisy place to begin with.

Hope this helps.

Oh yes, one more thing. The JA333ES (although the highest specified LP deck ever made - well maybe MDS-E10/12?) doesn't have Type-S playback. For SP only you don't need this deck, there are lots of others that are as good, in the ES series.

Hi,

off-topic here, but interesting are your earlier posts regarding PCM-ripping by Sonicstage. I've done some testing and the results are remarkable. When ripped with EAC and transcoded with Sonicstage at a bitrate of 64kbps the result is accaptable. Not that I will use this bitrate for daily use, but it is accaptable. I can remember Sony's claim that atrac+64kbps equals LP2, equals SP first genaration. This claim was argued a lot. But now I must conclude the claim is right after all.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Thorgal

[Avrin]

Ripping to WAV (or PCM, if you enabled this via the registry) in SonicStage is perfectly normal. When using a non-scratched disc, it gives same results as EAC, only without any offset correction (which doesn't affect quality at all).

Edited August 27, 2009 by Avrin

[sfbp]

Hi,

off-topic here, but interesting are your earlier posts regarding PCM-ripping by Sonicstage. I've done some testing and the results are remarkable. When ripped with EAC and transcoded with Sonicstage at a bitrate of 64kbps the result is accaptable. Not that I will use this bitrate for daily use, but it is accaptable. I can remember Sony's claim that atrac+64kbps equals LP2, equals SP first genaration. This claim was argued a lot. But now I must conclude the claim is right after all.

I believe that what happened was Sony optimized for Hi-LP (64kbps) for advertising purposes. They wanted to be able to say that they could rip a CD in 45 seconds.

Evidence for this comes from the fact that the initial configuration of SS is set to 64kbps import.

There are other, less charitable, interpretations of Sony's actions here, for the moment I will say that I don't buy them... yet. Never attribute to conspiracy what may be simple error.

Hoping to see if you can confirm my results. I disagree almost 100% with Avrin (on this issue). The initial ripping to PCM quality (1411kbps) was enough to put me off using SS for a whole year, when combined with:

a. lousy LP2 after transcoding

b. incredibly slow UPload (ie RH1->computer) that made me decide not to wear out the RH1 using such a task when I got as good results using optical transfer (albeit at playback speeds).

To give Avrin (and his chums in the Russian MD forum) credit, they did solve b. (mostly - I still see the wrong drivers install but it only takes me 30 seconds to get rid of them).

I'd also be interested to see if you agree with me on the usefulness of the AAL format. There's a couple of things it will not do - I noted yesterday that one cannot Divide or Combine (within SS) tracks, but for me this is rare anyhow - but on the whole this seems to be the safest container for anything you want to transcode later.

Best of all is to avoid transcoding. Until the #linux-minidisc group has got a proper upload and download of SP working (they know they can do it in principle), at least make sure that SP is always uploaded to PCM on anything you really care about, preferably straight to WAV. Now *that* is reliable

And RH1 upload of LP2 and LP4 leaves it alone quite nicely. Just (IMHO) don't try to change the format of either of these LP modes "after the fact".

[garcou]

My hearing experience in term of audio quality is : PCM ~ atrac3+ 352kbps ripped with sonicstage in high quality (slow encoding) > optical atrac3+ 256kbps ~ atrac3+ 352kbps ripped with sonicstage in low quality (rapid encoding) > atrac3+ 256kbps ripped with sonicstage in high quality (slow encoding) > atrac3+ 256kbps ripped with sonicstage in low quality (rapid encoding) ~ optical atrac SP 292kbps

I have two onkyo HIMD deck MD-105FX and MD-133

I have two sony ES MD decks:

MDS- JA 3ES (atrac SP 3.5) very good sounding with 2 microphone (L/R) input!

MDS-JA20ES (atracSP 4.5 typeR) great great sound

Listenning legacy md (like prerecorded) Onkyo doesn't totally reach JA20ES quality, but is quite close and far better than JB980 that I have eared.

Listenning HIMD (PCM or hisp) versions of the same recordings, Onkyo sounds better (no more horrible artifacts that can be heard in SP (292kbps) mode recordings ( including with ja20ES deck, saddly) of harmonica or trumpet like Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue"

The ideal deck : Himd version of the 20 ES with microphones input! (and i will sell all the 3!)

Extracted from previous of my posts:

Would somebody on this forum able to transform an old Sony mds ja ES into a himd unit (just changing the necessary parts)?

because Sony seems uncapable to do this....

Honestly, their is little difference between md-133 an Md 105FX sound. (Comparison made with Sony MDR-CD3000 headphones through Sony DA50ES Amplifier)

With some musics, MD-133 has a little larger stereo separation, and generaly slight higher frequency response, but can sometime sound a little tirering compared to 105FX !

MD-105FX is very well balanced and finally nearer of sony decks sound than MD-133. (saddly There is still no himd version of the fantastic sony MDS-JA20ES high-end deck ).

Conclusion: MD-105FX is a very good value

http://forums.minidisc.org/index.php?showt...mp;#entry105072

http://forums.minidisc.org/index.php?showt...mp;#entry105120

Edited August 28, 2009 by garcou

[sfbp]

Hi Garcou, very interesting post.

Couple of quick comments:

1. I recently found you CAN have HiMD in car, simply by making Atrac3+ CD and playing back on one of the car units that supports it. Equivalent to 4 or 5 80m MD's, or about 3/4 of a 1GB one.

2. Unfortunately there is no way to magically get HiMD on a pre-HiMD box. Two reasons:

a. there is no PRML which HiMD uses to compress the format quite a bit

b. there is no encryption. Lots of software (firmware) encryption on any HiMD unit, and this includes the car Atrac and the portable Atrac CD players. In a nutshell, there are encryption keys IN THE MACHINE (or I should say, there need to be).

As I am about to get my hands on a JB980 I was sad to hear your comments on this unit. The Type-S playing back from my MXD-D400 is truly awesome, and I was hoping the JB980 might be at least as good.

Cheers

[garcou]

JB 920 and JB 940 (HQ serie) had current pulse DAC converter and filters , just like ES serie (JA20ES; JA333ES, JA 50ES, JA 555ES) . JB980 has only hybrid pulse converters. I don't know if it's the reason why it sound (to my ears) very much harsher than the precedent Sony decks. I've never heard MDX-D400 but only D4 and D40 or W1 (double MD deck), which had good sound but clearly inferior to the JA 20 ES (which is exeptionnally good) . Playing SP recordings, Onkyo himd units are a downside compared to JA20ES, or even JB920, but better than JB980 and even MXD-D4 . Considering they can play PCM/352kbpsatrac3+ superior quality recordings, I think they are the best value compared to any passed or present MD deck.

[sfbp]

JB980 has only hybrid pulse converters.

I'm curious how you know this. I have looked at the manuals in vain, both JB940 and JB980 specs talk about S-TACT current pulse DAC's. Then there is this passage from AudioReview.com:

MDLP is not so good. You can feel the compression at high frequencies (very hars), and slightly punchless bass.

As far as I know that exact problem is solved relative to my JE640 (which is the cheaper brother of the 940) by adding Type-S playback for MDLP. I have already witnessed it by playing back MDLP recordings made on the JE640, in the MXD-D400. The difference between Type-S portables and regular, pre-Type-S portables is quite dramatic and known to many here.

So please, what is your evidence for the JB980 having not such a good DAC? I'm not doubting you, I am asking to show me the facts because so far I cannot find them (and/or don't know enough to be able to do so).

Best regards, Stephen

[garcou]

I have a jb980 to sell nextly, so I've no interest in denigrating it...

Understand me, it doesn't sound awful, but clearly not as good than JA20 Es and even Himd onkyo decks.

Concerning MDLP (atrac3) I've never used it nor with MDX-D40, because it's a great downside of SP atrac (LP2 lacks of deepness and sounds "plastic"; LP4 is awfull). At the opposite atrac3+ is agreat improvement of atrac codec.

You're write the manual doesn't mention DAC specifications. My source is Sonystyle:

[sfbp]

Yeah, I found something like that, too.

And I looked at circuit diagrams. I actually concluded that any circuit with the Type-S chip may not even need the enhancement provided by the previous generation's Current Pulse. The 940 definitely has the same S-TACT chip as the 980 but with the current pulse part as well shown on the diagram. Unfortunately I cannot prove this difference from the 980 as the 980 service manual is not freely available.

But to my ears, the Type-S (in my MXD-D400) more than compensates, by restoring the balance of the sound. We will wait until I see what my new unit sounds like.

How is the 980 as a downloader? Can it edit tracks from SonicStage? (I am guessing that it can NOT!)

[garcou]

jb980 is a very good recorder using optical or analog input and SP mode. No difference with ja 20ES ( Two SP recordings of the same song ,one made with JA 20 ES, the other with jb980 , sound exactly the same when they are played on the same deck)

As net md, quality of dowloads are the same that other net Md Sony, including portable units : Only MDLP encoding is avalaible using Sonicstage - unfortunatly SP downloading is fake SP (reencoded LP2). I've never tried it , but as net Md it certainly can edit tracks with sonicstage...

Edited August 30, 2009 by garcou

[dural]

Hi,

I am at the point of buying myself another home-deck and I was wondering which one to buy to get the best sound as possible.

The choices are:

An Onkyo Hi-md deck (MD-105 or MD-133), new of course or an older Sony ES-serie deck like the JA333ES, JA50ES, JA30ES etc. Not new of course but some new-like decks are available.

Sound quality is most important to me. I dont want to use Hi-md discs so on Hi-md 352 kbps is the highest rate possible.

On the Sony MD decks SP is the best possible. SP is only possible if recorded via line in. Via Sonicstage the real bitrate on the disc is LP2 even when SP is chosen. This is a known fact. So for the best quality recording must be done via line in. So more time consuming.

An Onkyo deck must be imported from Japan. When it gest broken it not easy to get it fixed.

Question: what do you think offers the best sound quality?

And any things I have forgotten to think about when chosing between the 2 decks?

Hello there, I would like to add something to this conversation. I own 2 'QS' series Sony decks, and also once owned an Onkyo Hi-Md deck (the 105, which is the cheaper one of the 2 that are available).

I'm a bit of a stickler for sound quality, and have these plugged into a fairly decent Hi-Fi setup. The Sony decks do sound better than the Onkyo that's a fact (if we forget about formats and codecs for this). The Onkyo sounded a tiny bit 'brittle' to me, whereas the Sony QS decks just sound 'right' in my opinion. So if it's JUST sound quality you're interested in, then I would personally go for a Sony deck (particularly if you're looking at the ES decks) - but in saying that, the Onkyo deck was a lovely little thing, and obviously supported Hi-MD too, so it gave me a lot more flexibiilty, and sounded perfectly fine in isolation.

I hope that helps a bit!

[Thorgal]

Hello there, I would like to add something to this conversation. I own 2 'QS' series Sony decks, and also once owned an Onkyo Hi-Md deck (the 105, which is the cheaper one of the 2 that are available).

I'm a bit of a stickler for sound quality, and have these plugged into a fairly decent Hi-Fi setup. The Sony decks do sound better than the Onkyo that's a fact (if we forget about formats and codecs for this). The Onkyo sounded a tiny bit 'brittle' to me, whereas the Sony QS decks just sound 'right' in my opinion. So if it's JUST sound quality you're interested in, then I would personally go for a Sony deck (particularly if you're looking at the ES decks) - but in saying that, the Onkyo deck was a lovely little thing, and obviously supported Hi-MD too, so it gave me a lot more flexibiilty, and sounded perfectly fine in isolation.

I hope that helps a bit!

hi,

Its a great help, thanks! I was planning on bying me an Onkyo deck, but I am going to do some testing for myself so I have decided, so I will by an ES-deck as well.

What I dont like about MD is the SP codec, which Sonicstage isnt familiair with. The only way possible to get it on disc is real-time recording, while Sonicstage operates so much easier, and with the possibility of downloading at a 352 kbps bitrate. Its a pity Sony abandonned SP.....

[rlegro]

I realize the context here involves minidisc format but with respect to PCM, I would like to note that this minidisc owner also has a Sony Hi8 mm video deck, which features a PCM digital audio mode that lets you record about 24 hours on a standard 8mm cassette. However, it does only a basic form of track indexing. This is great for archiving or long-term recording of live or broadcast sources although not quite so handy when actually trying to locate a track, unless you invest some timein cataloging. Anyway, it's one hell of a two-fer. The only other drawback is that unless you can replicate a tape, you're putting an awful lot of material on one cassette, so it if it goes bad you're in trouble. Then again, I've found Hi8 cassettes to be pretty reliable -- more so than the hardware or firmware (had to replace the deck's logic board, once).