Identifying the sonic benefits of Type-S DSP

[warpgeek]

Hi folks,

Been lurking on the forums for too long. I'm a long-time MiniDisc fan with a JA20ES, 2 x MZ-N1, MZ-N710 and MZ-RH1 to play with. I'm not intending to buy any more in the short term!

Anyway, I am interested in people's perceptions of Type-S DSP improvements to LP recordings. I have a number of dance music discs recorded in LP, some of which do seem to benefit from the Type-S chippery in the RH1. Cymbal sibilance and "splashiness" seem to reduce a noticeable amount, which is great. But it doesn't seem universal - some LP discs still have an abbrasive treble quality on any player, while others are definitely improved.

I was wondering what other people's aural perceptions are in this regard? Is there a piece of music (recorded in LP) which is genuinely improved for you by Type-S?

wg

[PhilippeC]

By the way, for what I know, type S is an improvement for LP listening. Type S include type R which is an improvement for SP recording ! I don't know if the type R improve the LP recording. As you do, you can compare the LP listening after between MDPL units type S vs non type S.

The high-end Sony JA333ES MDLP deck is... type R. So if somebody can tell me if for example a JB980 type S deck like mine sound better than the JA333ES with LP Mds, I will be rather asthonished. I think that the musical quality itself of the unit as a huge importance.

[warpgeek]

It may be that some of the discs I have in my collection were recorded on pre-Type-R equipment, which might explain the splashiness of treble sounds.

I came by a few discs from a friend, but don't know what he used to record them with.

[sfbp]

It's even possible that not all Type-R's were created equal. The one right before Type-S seems to have come along when added to MDLP (originally there was MDLP with no Type-R), and the number of the chip revision is CXD-2662. I have had good luck with every one of the 5 devices I have which use this. The 333ES uses CXD-2656 which prior to then was only in SP decks. If I had to guess, I would think perhaps some of the improvements to make the CXD-2656 work with LP (and external to the chip) were added to the 2662 which reduces chip count and therefore production cost.

I just looked at the SM and the 333ES also uses the CXD-2662.

For reference the first Type-S is CXD-2664.

I'm assuming also that the software LP encoders such as found in Sound Forge incorporate any Type-R improvements. Certainly I've never gotten worse results with SF than with hardware. Sonic Stage ought to be the same, but there were so many weirdnesses (about what was allowed and what not) and options that it's not always clear. The only way, as often written here, to choose a good conversion path, is to try running your music through it very carefully, a couple of different ways - to check that the order of steps doesn't make a difference. Sometimes this sort of thing can be critical to success.

Oh yes, the other thing - it may be that some of the Type-S stuff is on the analog side (I have not followed the signal path on decks but I know that on portables with Type-S there's a direct output so you can't even catch the digital signal coming out the chip). (I have found that) If you play back a CXD-2662 device via optical out, the result is pretty well perfect always.

[netmduser]

Previously the IC handling type-r and mdlp were separate. Type-S just combines them into one IC and results in lower noise.This is what you are hearing for lp2/4. This is more apparant on portables where the circuitry is cost reduced for portability. On home decks it sounds like this did not occur.

Remember this costs less to manufacture so I wouldnt say having them seprate is inferior especially in a home deck with type-r only or a portable.

[sfbp]

Previously the IC handling type-r and mdlp were separate. Type-S just combines them into one IC and results in lower noise.This is what you are hearing for lp2/4. This is more apparant on portables where the circuitry is cost reduced for portability. On home decks it sounds like this did not occur.

Remember this costs less to manufacture so I wouldnt say having them seprate is inferior especially in a home deck with type-r only or a portable.

Are you certain this hadn't actually happened BEFORE Type-S? I got the feeling there was some other improvement as well for the resulting "final" DSP Sony used.

[netmduser]

I'm looking towards you as the expert. Did the mdlp version change?

[sfbp]

I guess I will start to look through and find what I can - not being exactly an electronics mastermind (I can tinker a bit) I may need to ask some questions of a buddy (or two) of mine.

I do think that Sony kept on rolling in all DSP improvements with each passing year. So no matter how lowly, the latest devices had the best DSP. The support chips and all the other stuff may matter. But in the JE640 which uses CXD-2662, the line goes absolutely unimpeded from the output of the DSP to the optical transmitter. I know that this optical output sounds good, even with LP2 and LP4. The analogue output from that machine is less good (I hear artifacts easily) when using LP2 and LP4, compared to the analogue output from SP.

So the question of whether, in Type-S, the MDLP section changed or some (better) noise elimination in the D->A, remains.

I'm not sure where the more fancy machines allowing 20 and/or 24-bit output get tweaked as to the bit length. That I'll try to research.

Stephen

[PhilippeC]

some facts : "Sony's current MD decks (ca. 2001) are using ATRAC1 version 4.5 and ATRAC1 Type R. MDLP uses a new and incompatible encoding called ATRAC3 version 1.0, which we shorten to just ATRAC3 (note again the lack of a space between ATRAC and the 3)."

Atrac1 -------> Atrac1 4.5 + Atrac1 Type R are improvements of SP recording

Atrac3 = Atrac3 1.0, is the recording codec for LP, Type S is an improvement of LP listening

Atrac3plus is the recording codec for Hi-MD

see more details on minidisc.org FAQs

[warpgeek]

Oh yes, the other thing - it may be that some of the Type-S stuff is on the analog side (I have not followed the signal path on decks but I know that on portables with Type-S there's a direct output so you can't even catch the digital signal coming out the chip). (I have found that) If you play back a CXD-2662 device via optical out, the result is pretty well perfect always.

From a purely listening standpoint, I'd be inclined to agree with this. The analog stage output of my N710 is more spatial in stereo imaging; vocals seem to me more precisely located in the soundstage than they do from my N1.

I like the N1 very much, it's a solid little workhorse, but the N710's analogue audio improvements actually caught me off-guard; I wasn't expecting much difference. But the test material, recorded in SP on a type-R deck, simply sounds more atmospheric on the 710. Therefore, I'd feel inclined to argue that it has an improved analogue stage, over the N1 at least.