Hudson Posted June 26, 2011 Report Share Posted June 26, 2011 I am talking the like of the 940 compared to say a standard 909 portable unit, not the playback via a full sized unit but the recording of a cd, can the internals of the portable produce as good a recording as all that '' stuff '' in the full sized unit ?Also what about a full sized unit (say a cheaper 540) compared to the last of the QS 940's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soundbox Posted June 28, 2011 Report Share Posted June 28, 2011 Sadly the MD forum is not as active as it was so I will try to answer your question. The portable units using optical input (to me) sound exactly the same as using a full size recorder. When using line in it gets a little tricky. When using portables you have: Less accurate and responsive level meters Less filtering on the analogue inputs Lower powered (and easier to overload) circuits (To my ears) less deep bass response. But if you are used to your unit and how it responds then you can get very good recordings that can be listened to with critical ears. Use an ATRAC-R recorder and it gets better still. Now, comparing the decks I cannot be so sure but I can hear a difference (an improvement) when going from a 1997 mid range deck to a 2004 mid range deck so I feel fairly sure that the same could be true with decks in the same range. This is due to handling of the analogue signal (filters and better build). Hope I helped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hudson Posted July 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2011 You did indeed, well my current two portable are the 909 and an MZ1, I think the MZ1 is Type R, but i will be only recording in SP so does the Type R really matter ? I thought that was only for the LP recordings etc. I will be connecting it to my CD player via the optical lead and just recording my already bought CD collection, no downloads, tapes converted, mic recordings blah, blah and Etc ! Thanks again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfbp Posted July 3, 2011 Report Share Posted July 3, 2011 MZ1 is most definitely not Type-R. Perhaps you mean MZ-N1? The Type-R applies to all recordings made ON THE UNIT (not transfers, or playback). R = "bit reallocation" and is a better way of utilizing the available bits in a recording of a musical source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azureal Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 Nice catch Stephen, I read MZ1 and my brain converted it to MZ-N1 ... The MZ1 was the first unit ever available and had ATRAC 1.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim.hoggarth Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 but i will be only recording in SP so does the Type R really matter Please correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Type-R the last incarnation of ATRAC1 anyway, in other words it only applies to SP recordings? LP2/LP4 are ATRAC3, and Type-R is not part of the encoder algorithm? Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfbp Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 I think the bit rearrangement definitely takes place on the ATRAC3 as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim.hoggarth Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 I think the bit rearrangement definitely takes place on the ATRAC3 as well. I have to disagree with you Stephen. I am absolutely sure having reread the available documents on-line, that Type-R is the final release of bit allocation algorithm for the ATRAC (or 'ATRAC-1') encoder. It has nothing to do with ATRAC3. On the other hand, Type-S is an improvement on the ATRAC3 decoder, which of course is solely concerned with MDLP encoded data streams. The two standards are implemented totally separately in the encoders and decoders, although I am not sure to what extent the modules such Digital Filters and MDCTs are shared by the two standards or whether two complete, separate DSP channels are used. Possibly the latter, as speed is very important, of course. For example, this page has an extract that is quoted from a Sony press release which seems to back me up: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/9899/more-atrac-type-s-info Jim PS - if I get time I will email you, see how you are. Had a bad last couple of weeks - days behind with repairs. Again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfbp Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 Type-S includes Type-R..... I am certain that the good results with the MDLP decks have to do with efficient use of bandwidth (bit reallocation). Otherwise there would be all kinds of MP3-like crappy behaviour on a variety of signals. In practice LP2 (and even LP4) cope really well with many if not all types of music. Now, here's the defining question: was there such a thing as MDLP without Type-R? Here's the reference about what bit reallocation is really about: http://www.minidisc.org/type_r_atrac.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim.hoggarth Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Ok, I am now almost convinced. but I had the impression ATRAC1 was developed independently from ATRAC3 once the latter was released. As an interesting aside, I am currently working on an MZ-E909, which is a playback only machine. On the box and the sticky label is proudly declared " Type-R ATRAC DSP". Bit naughty really. The bit reallocation applies only to encoding as we know, so declaring a decoder as Type-R is a tad misleading. Obviously the marketing boys had a hand in this one. Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfbp Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 To answer my own question, it looks like the first gen (R500,R700,R900,G750) may have NOT had Type-R. Seems once Sony invented a feature they rarely took it out (at least as far as main chip went). I guess your comment about "record only" begs the question: at what point if ever did playback become non-backwards compatible? We know that the MZ-1 for example has trouble with new disks, generally; and maybe even its own disks, recorded, give trouble on new machines. Not sure if this is alignment, or a fundamental incompatibility though. Looks like the JB920/JE520/W1 are all Atrac4.5, the last version before Type-R. So I still don't know whether there's any playback aspect to Type-R. 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.