MZ-RH1 - How good SQ

[Hudson]

Just exactly how good is this model, would the recordings made on it sound as good as ones made on say a full sized deck the likes of the QS940 ? And i am a little baffled by the PCM side of things, if i recorded a CD on a 1GB disc as this PCM rate would i only get one album on the whole disk ? Also is there any difference in the recording quality and playback quality of this unit over and above say a 909 portable recorder if recording at the normal SP rate.

Thanks for any help, i did have a 920 a few years back and have '' re-discovered'' my portable MD player and just how damm good the sound quality is compared to MP3.

[sfbp]

Even LP2 beats (or at worst equals) most MP3 of bit rate up to 256K (or perhaps higher).

Using PCM as a way of getting higher quality sound for portable listening is a non-starter in my view. You can get 15+ hours of LP2 onto a HiMD 1GB disk.

However, don't use RH1 as a playback unit, no matter what anyone tells you. It's way too valuable as the only MD to allow upload of SP and MDLP. Buy a portable such as the EH70, or at least one of the "lesser" HiMD units second hand (the UK has lots of NH700 which seems to be particularly reliable and runs on AA batteries).

[Hudson]

Thanks for that, i have a 909 due to arrive soon in the post, i had thought of buying one (they seem to come up quiet often in the uk) just for the recording side of things, because if i don't then it's a full sized unit the likes of the 930/940, but i just want the very very best sound SQ to go onto my ES white discs and then hopefully my playback will be at the best quality i could have mustered.

[sfbp]

I think there are extra smarts on the A->D side of things on the decks. Wave shapers, filters etc. For microphone recording, a portable is probably great, though.

[Hudson]

I thought that should be the case given the physical size of a portable recorder (how ever smart) and a standard sized unit, i will not use microphone or the net. I simply want to transfer my CD collection via the optical lead to my MD's in either SP or PCM (Dependent upon size limits). The needs of most people to get as much music on a disc or flash memory (aka MP3) as possible is not my top priority. ........ Sound Quality is my first and second consideration, nothing else comes close. I don''t take my MD players outside but use them to listen to my fav albums either in bed or whilst reading a magazine etc, so again, portability is not an issue.

Thanks for all the quick responses to my posts, i am really impressed. I have seen new RH-1's for sale at the sort of price i would pay for a QS930/940, so it's decision time really.

[sfbp]

Just to follow this discussion to its logical conclusion....

The biggest problem with ripping CD's is, well, ripping CD's. Sony's and probably many other rippers do only just a good enough job to support decent quality at the bit rates most people will want. So the route of CDrip->WAV file, WAV file->netMD doesn't work well and gives an exaggeratedly bad impression of what MDLP is actually like. Many people tumbled to the idea that skipping the computer is "the solution". In fact it isn't - the damage to SQ is already done when the CD is ripped to a WAV file (at least with Sonic Stage). But the damage is not noticed until trans-coding (conversion) from 1411 to 132 kbps is done.

This problem simply doesn't happen when ripping directly to LP2, either via Sonic Stage, or using so-called Simple Burner (as with many allegedly simple products, SB is actually more complicated in its implementation than SS, and more tied to the architecture for which it was written. Hence SB cannot run under W7, where SS actually has no trouble. End of digression). If it did, no one would have bought MD at all, in my opinion. They made sure that what most people would try actually worked beautifully, and it (still) does.

The problem also doesn't occur when Sonic Stage rips to Atrac Advanced Lossless (with subsequent conversion to LP2 or whatever). Or with EAC ripper, a very nice piece of Open Software that deals with all the issues and makes sure you get the best possible file in the 'puter. With the optical route you are once again dependent on the manufacturer of the CD player to do a beautiful job. If you are lucky enough that this happens, be happy. But in my (limited?) world view, getting this right is no longer the job of expensive components in the CD player but the job of the software one uses.

Like you I put sound quality ahead of everything. Yet I can, have and continue to record 5 hour programs off (internet) radio at LP4. I've even posted some examples for short periods, though nothing permanent because of nervousness about copyright.

My only disclaimer is that I listen only to classical (and some jazz). Others make claims that some forms of music are simply not susceptible to any form of compression, but I cannot confirm (or deny) those claims. What I will say is this: even the lowest bit rates (66kbps LP4 or 64kbps Hi-LP) you are likely to try will trump most analogue stuff. Take a look at the specs of the average cassette deck from just before CD's became the only game in town. LP4 is as good as that. MP3 at same, or even three times the same, data rate, is not.

PS. if you only need to send music TO minidisk, consider comparing the results with an MDS-JE640 (same chip and most of the electronics as the much more expensive JB940), to the results using your portable. I'm guessing the deck will do a better job.

[trott3r]

Hmm not sure about LP minidisc beating analogue cassette.

Something like the Sony 611 with dolby S costing

[Hudson]

Wow guys..... my brain is in overload, i must confess to a rather lower level of knowledge than most of you on the forum. I had thought (incorrectly it seems) that when i simply plug my digital cable into the back of my '' digital out '' on my Sony 725 DVD player and the other end into my '' digital in '' on the MD deck.... thats it. No conversion at all, just nice and simple transfer of the CD onto the MD (with a bit of compression via ATRAC).

It appears i have been labouring under false information for years.

I do fancy going for the RH-1 simply for the PCM, but then all my standard MD recording would seem '' less '', like the jump from standerd def tv to high def.... after that can you really go back to watching Lord of the Rings in anything else !!!

[sfbp]

Wiz is in a tiny minority with his claim about PCM. Honest. Not that I don't believe him, just I know that it doesn't apply to me.

I will say this once (in this thread) only: MOST (OF MD'S AND OTHER MEDIA) BANDWIDTH RECORDS NOISE. Digital sources with almost no noise don't need most of the bandwidth. That's basically the trick of MD reproduction.

I will post a nice trumpet sample at 66kbps when I get back from an outing this morning.

Regards

Stephen

[sfbp]

Here's my sample (picked mostly at random but because it has a perfectly prominent trumpet part)

It should play on any computer that has a Sonic Stage install, just by double clicking it, or opening with Windows Media Player.

test.oma

[sfbp]

A trumpet can go beyond 23kHz, and a grand piano resonates below 10Hz.

Where is the basis for this assertion (and the related one that the human ear can hear both these sounds)? I don't believe either.

Most if not all real life venues for music have sounds that cannot be eliminated from the room that would totally swamp those high frequencies.

The low end is dangerous enough to the human body not to mention recording equipment that I seriously doubt that you even want to capture anything below 20Hz. Most environments in the city have got contributions from electrical hum, low-frequency rumble of traffic/trains, that are nearly always cut (filtered) from commercial recordings.

All in all, I think these extreme ranges are a matter of scientific curiosity, and much of the time (if we observe them at all) are likely artifacts of the measurement setup.

How many rooms do you enter during the course of a week that have not a single electric-driven fan in them?

[sfbp]

What is the cheapest HiMD portable with a line out?

Why do you need one?

Anything on HiMD can be uploaded to the computer and played back there via optical or coax without any problems arising from being amplified in the analogue stages of a small portable recorder.

You're right about Cassette decks, at least in theory. However I'm sure that you know (from experience) that the biggest component of most analogue cassettes is the very noticeable tape hiss, which has to be removed if one is saving a digital version of what was on that tape. I'm not sure of the spectral distribution of that hiss, but I'm sure it swamps any of the claimed high-frequency sounds we're discussing here.

Just came back from a trip in the car, and wanted to add that the outstanding feature offered by MD is that digital sound "never" gets distorted between the recorded disk and the speakers, provided you don't feed it through more stages than necessary. Many of the beauties of high-end analog gear pale (IMO) into insignificance beside the killer "quality" and "balance" of the sound. It's not about raw frequency response so much as about the absence of false (distorting) harmonics. For example listening to a clarinet quintet, as I just was, where the clarinet sounds real. It doesn't take much analogue amplification for the simplest things (eg the Clarinet or the trumpet in my sample) to get distorted. For me, THAT's why I like MD and digital sound so much.

Stephen

[trott3r]

Why do you need one?

Anything on HiMD can be uploaded to the computer and played back there via optical or coax without any problems arising from being amplified in the analogue stages of a small portable recorder.

You're right about Cassette decks, at least in theory. However I'm sure that you know (from experience) that the biggest component of most analogue cassettes is the very noticeable tape hiss, which has to be removed if one is saving a digital version of what was on that tape. I'm not sure of the spectral distribution of that hiss, but I'm sure it swamps any of the claimed high-frequency sounds we're discussing here.

Just came back from a trip in the car, and wanted to add that the outstanding feature offered by MD is that digital sound "never" gets distorted between the recorded disk and the speakers, provided you don't feed it through more stages than necessary. Many of the beauties of high-end analog gear pale (IMO) into insignificance beside the killer "quality" and "balance" of the sound. It's not about raw frequency response so much as about the absence of false (distorting) harmonics. For example listening to a clarinet quintet, as I just was, where the clarinet sounds real. It doesn't take much analogue amplification for the simplest things (eg the Clarinet or the trumpet in my sample) to get distorted. For me, THAT's why I like MD and digital sound so much.

Stephen

Because computers are noisy and i dont want to buy a quiet one just for music.

As too tape, media which can cope with higher recording levels like tdk ma tapes

reduce hiss significantly. Dolby S also does a good job but anyhow tape is more

rare to find than MD so its more relevant to people who already own a good tape

deck.

Martin

[sfbp]

Your only choices for line out in HiMD are RH1 (M200) and NH900.

But HiMD has inherent reliability problems, which is why I ended up opting for the PC playback route.

[sfbp]

You won't get above 22.05 kHz no matter what you do unless the entire system operates using a sampling frequency of greater than 44.kHz (the standard for all MD and CD equipment, though DVD sound is 48kHz, so divide by 2 for 24 limit).

In terms of natural experiences I have enjoyed many live concerts (of classical music!) where certain sounds I heard might, if put on record, lead me to believe that there is distortion in the sound equipment. In fact not, just some passing unpleasant harmonics that happen to pop out of the playing. Particularly on string quartets. So I think that the goal of "natural experience" by increased fidelity is not necessarily a real or achievable one.

Your Mileage May Vary

Stephen

[THIS SUCKS]

Just hang around Head-Fi, and you will be the minority, Stephen.

1. A live performance has to be well recorded, & then well mastered. At that stage, there is already an arbitrary choice of what is kept of the raw data with 1411kbps 16bit/44kHz, and 20-20kHz. More and more recordings are done in 24bit/96kHz.

2. Decent playback equipment:

* as much jitter reduction from source reading, be it CD / Hi-MD / DVDA / SACD / HDTrack on SSD or HDD

* good DAC

* good capacitors

* decent circuitry, OFC, wire gauge, EMF shielding, etc

* efficient & neutral amp (not cold or lifeless, just as true to the original as possible)

* high resolution speakers / IEM's or headphones, also neutral.

3. The human body perceives sound not only by hearing it, but also feeling it, and the richer the sound reproduction with the most audio data, the better the brain interprets it as closer to reality, making for a better audio experience.

Some people hear beyond the 20-20kHz threshold, some hear notably less frequencies, usually the higher ones. A trumpet can go beyond 23kHz, and a grand piano resonates below 10Hz.

If you have source material that holds data between & beyond the 20-20kHz threshold, the rest of the equipment must also be able to deal with it, from the amp to the speakers / headphones, or you won't hear all the frequencies recorded, even if you could discern them.

MDLP in the LP4 flavour reduces bandwidth from 20 to 17kHz IIRC, and the low bit-rate won't help achieving the three dimensional imaging of the music. Reducing bandwidth at the higher end is also a way of trying to hide too blatantly audible artefacts. But there will still be some left for the discerning ear.

Martin, your comment has made me wonder about current Hi-MD decks availability, and it seems they are getting scarce on Japanese on-line sites, so those wanting one, also for backup, better start worrying! The days of MiniDisc are really over it seems.

lp4 cuts off at 13k and its joint stereo! it really is terrible you are confusing this poor guy. anything below 256k will sound noticibly worse than a cd. just use sp292k hi-sp256k or atrac 3 at 352k and you will be very happy with the sound. a simple optical cable copy will produce excellent copies.

[sfbp]

LP4 is not terrible. I have made the posts and uploads to prove it - maybe you missed them.

LP2 is Pretty Darned Good.

Hi-SP is excellent but it may not sound so good if transcoded from SP/LP2/LP4 (and vice-versa).

[trott3r]

Your only choices for line out in HiMD are RH1 (M200) and NH900.

But HiMD has inherent reliability problems, which is why I ended up opting for the PC playback route.

Ok so it would be the nh900 then.

Not had problem with the rh1 as yet.

Looking for a backup rh1 but it looks like prices second hand in ebay uk

are only

[sfbp]

Advise strongly against second-hand RH1. Unlike earlier units, it's fairly flimsy (at least the jog wheel).

[Hudson]

Cheers for the all the opinions, i am still unsure whether to get a new one for recording purposes only and then use the discs to playback on my 909, or just go for the full sized unit, although the size of the unit is an issue because my tv stand with my centre speaker and amp etc is a little bit full of kit.

Yes or no, if i record in standard SP on the RH-1, will it be as good as a recording on the 980 ?

[slugbahr]

Your only choices for line out in HiMD are RH1 (M200) and NH900.

The NH1 is an option as well.

Danny

[sfbp]

You just don't get it, Wiz. It's not about high frequencies. It's about (lack of) distortion caused by improperly generated high frequencies that overlay the sound and make it "not real".

Until CD's came along, you had to spend thousands on analogue equipment that could reproduce those high (and low) frequencies without distortion in all circumstances. The reality was (then) that almost nothing actually had been recorded that you or anyone could hear above 14 kHz, which is a better estimate of the LP4 cutoff. Sure you can hear better than I can (given your youth and my advanced age). But I can infer those higher frequencies just fine by how the still-audible-to-me ones sound.

Sure, LP4 sometimes lacks presence. But that's all (and we know why, it's the joint stereo compromise). I've done a wide range of recordings (including loud organ music, solo instruments, and vocal) all of which sound better at LP4 than their analogue counterparts. You never commented when I uploaded them previously, did you listen to them?

[Soundbox]

The sound quality of the RH1 is excellent. Despite the jog lever issues (which when you are aware of you can take care to prevent - by pressing it just enough to complete the action) I find it a top quality machine. The clear level meter, easy access menus for main functions and the good audio quality make it a great audio companion.

Concerning the line out sound, I have compared to my decks and I actually feel that the RH1 is as good a many full size machines but the lower voltage of the line out means you need to up the amplifier a bit more. This may be seen as 'lower quality' but it is just lower sound level due to the lower operating voltage inside the unit.

I have made SP recordings from analogue on my JB930 and JB980 decks and also the MZ-R35 and MZ-RH1. The main difference is the interface - where the decks give you a larger VU meter spread to make the most informed settings. The actual sound between units sounds almost the same to me.

The LP2 and LP4 sound quality is mainly down to what music you like and how you listen to it. Sometimes LP2 can have a harsh edge (with steel strung guitar music) but on music like piano or chillout it can sound great. If the music is fast, edgy electronica or sibilant folk, I use SP with no problems. I don't really understand Hi-MD so cannot comment on that.

[THIS SUCKS]

LP4 is not terrible. I have made the posts and uploads to prove it - maybe you missed them.

LP2 is Pretty Darned Good.

Hi-SP is excellent but it may not sound so good if transcoded from SP/LP2/LP4 (and vice-versa).

the entire hi end is cutoff. lp4 must sound good! lp2 sounds good as long as you dont mind all the background sounds in the music being gone...

[sfbp]

the entire hi end is cutoff. lp4 must sound good! lp2 sounds good as long as you dont mind all the background sounds in the music being gone...

Did you actually listen to any of the posts I made?

[sfbp]

OK, I'll ABX some material seriously soon again.

Just remember that transcoding a SonicStage file to a compressed LP4 doesn't work at all well. So setting up a test regime is going to be quite a challenge.

I look forward to hearing your observations.

[garcou]

I beg to differ, PCM support makes the RH1 worth while over any fancy MDLP deck, no matter how much superior some components inside may be. There is a lot of musical information missing when you don't use at least 1411kbps PCM. Plus, with certain instruments, like trumpet or cymbals, the artefacts present in compressed lossy audio, yes even Sony's ATRAC, become very apparent. Three dimensional imaging, presence is lacking with anything below PCM as well.

If sound quality is your main objective, don't try to use anything below PCM.

I used to use ATRAC3+ at 256 & 352kbps, but when I upgraded my speakers & earphones to higher resolution ones, there was no way back: I got rid of all my standard MiniDiscs, from my ES' to the many limited edition TDK's I had acquired to replace them by 1GB Hi-MD MiniDiscs, and recording PCM onto them only.

I suggest you use the Advanced Search function of this forum, & look for posts by fellow member garcou, & you'll come by interesting topics, like ABX test Hi-SP, Hi-SP vs SP, Audio difference between Hi-MD and regular MD, Hi-MD or Sony ES series deck?, or Have any Hi-MD users gone back to MDLP?.

The DAC/ADC in the RH1 is very good, but if you want even more performance and ease of use at home, you can look into Onkyo's Hi-MD decks & combo CD/Hi-MD bookshelf systems.

P.S. For ripping CD's, EAC is still the best tool. You can rip to FLAC for storage, and with virtualization software, you can create a CD image, and let SimpleBurner rip directly to the RH1 without cluttering your SonicStage library and consequently your HDD with tag-less PCM.

FLAC is compressed, but lossless. All the data present in PCM/WAV/the original CD is there, and it keeps the meta-data you enter yourself of fetch from your chosen on-line album database (Artist/Album/Trackname).

N.B. Optical dubbing is not bit-accurate, only SonicStage & Onkyo bookshelf combo systems are.

I record my favorit cds onto 1gb himd with pcm encoding too. But I can say that atrac3+ at 352kbps using slow(high quality - using sonicstage) is extremely close to pcm (I ve tested it using sony cd3000 high end headphones). Far better than SP encoding (no artifacts anymore including miles Davis trumpet for example).In fact, most of time - And I could say everytime - I cannot hear any difference with pcm...

PS: for accurate ripping I first use DBpoweramp (ultrasecure) or EAC. than I use VirtualCD software and sonicstage cd burner to burn a virtual CD of the accurate ripped wave files . Than I ripp again the virtual cd with sonicstage. That way I can obtain high quality (slow) 352kbps atrac3+ files.

[sfbp]

I've suddenly thought, I do have access to a Onkyo X-B7 bookshelf system, so I can use an original CD and do copies from there to the different recording qualities in the different modes.

That's great. As long as things get mastered properly (remember Avrin's discussion about how to CUT OFF the high frequencies to get a good result?). My LP4 recordings are typically only good when the source is already a. noise-free b. transmitted at 128kbps over the net. I have not experimented extensively, but I know that when I record much higher data rate stuff, it usually sounds dreadful. One of the English guys (I am ashamed I get them muddled and I cant remember which one is which) reproduced this business, that I had noticed, of getting tons of sibilants from the announcer, for example. Which is sort of odd, because people mostly have the opinion that LP4 is only good for speech.

I think that CD optical (or internally, if Onkyo does that) to LP4 in may be your best shot, certainly. It may be that (ironically) you have to transcode to something in between, first. I really have not ever tried to convert to LP4 purely to squeeze things on a MD (or if I did, it failed!!!!). I suppose it's worth a shot (by me) with the MXD-D400 since that does CD->LP4, too.

Stephen

added: it does seem that the MXD-D400 does a surprisingly good job on a couple of CD's I tried. I have moved most of my CD's for the moment so won't get them and the D400 in the same room for a week or three.

[Hudson]

Cheers for all the opinions guys, i will make some SP recordings on my Sony 909 and see how they compare to the recordings i already have which were made a few years ago on my Sony 920 full sized deck. I will also be upgrading my headphones (see separate post) to try and get the very best out of my portable MD listening.

[trott3r]

The NH1 is an option as well.

Danny

thanks for that i see its a joint line out along with headphone socket

and so must be switchable in settings.

I miss the days of my mzr 50 which had a separatae line out and headphone

socket

Martin

The sound quality of the RH1 is excellent. Despite the jog lever issues (which when you are aware of you can take care to prevent - by pressing it just enough to complete the action) I find it a top quality machine.

I havent heard of the jog lever issues.

This is the button/lever that does enter and play?

To take care of it do i need to press it gently or

is it a case of not moving it up/down to far?

Thanks for the info

Martin

[Soundbox]

As the jog lever (track select, audio scan) back and forwards takes a moment to respond to input - as do most portables due to the music being stored in a buffer - it is tempting to press harder one way or the other thinking that the machine has not sensed what you are requesting. Don't shove - just press gently and wait a moment for the players responce. It is not a flimsy button, but I know from experience that pressing harder to get a quicker responce is not good for the contacts.

[bluecrab]

LP4 is not terrible. I have made the posts and uploads to prove it - maybe you missed them.

LP2 is Pretty Darned Good.

Hi-SP is excellent but it may not sound so good if transcoded from SP/LP2/LP4 (and vice-versa).

This reply is also a test, as lately any replies I try to post just don't appear. I long ago gave up trying to determine that one bit rate or codec sounded better than another based on tech specs. I have the perfect decoder for all sound output - my ears. Last night, I was listening to a Joni Mitchell comp I made I-don't-even-know how long ago.

"Now that," I thought, "is a nice sounding CD," as Joni swung into Free Man In Paris.

Thing is, much to my astonishment, I'd forgotten that I'd slipped that old MD comp into my MDS-JA333ES and it was not a CD at all. If you must know, yeah, it was SP - but I have had similar events with LP2. There. I said it. Anyone want to argue with my ears? (They cannot speak for themselves, though.)

I hope this gets posted and this typing has not been a waste of time.

[trott3r]

As the jog lever (track select, audio scan) back and forwards takes a moment to respond to input - as do most portables due to the music being stored in a buffer - it is tempting to press harder one way or the other thinking that the machine has not sensed what you are requesting. Don't shove - just press gently and wait a moment for the players responce. It is not a flimsy button, but I know from experience that pressing harder to get a quicker responce is not good for the contacts.

Ok thanks for that I need to be gentle with the jog wheel no matter how

i use it.

Martin

[stargazer_tom1]

Hi Stephen,

Do you think the process of ripping CDs with dbpoweramp into wma lossless and then importing these files into sonic stage is a good process sound quality wise? I then transfer the songs to my n10 as lp2.

Thanks,

-Tom

[sfbp]

Sorry I have no experience with wma lossless for conversion. A while ago I learned "never take anything for granted". I along with a lot of people assumed that ripping to WAV using Sony tools and then converting to <whatever> format would be great.... not so.

My only successful experience so far has been ripping with EAC to Wav or with SS to Atrac Adv Lossless. That's far from saying your way doesn't work, just that I have not tried it.

FWIW I think I recall that EAC will do MP3's. But that doesn't help you for your N10. I would tend to rip to AAL and thence to LP2.

(I realised after I wrote that, it's an alphabet soup of abbreviations)

[stargazer_tom1]

haha,

not a problem.

I find wma lossless handles meta data way better than good old .wav. I just hope sonicstage is converting lossless to lossy lp2 and thats all.

Thanks