Stationary ATRAC vs. portable ATRAC - differences?

[Sony_Fan]

What about using a portable Hi-MD recorder in ATRAC SP mode? would that sound better than using a regular Type-R portable recorder? I remember the MZ-RH1 making some really good ATRAC SP recordings.

[MDietrich]

What about using a portable Hi-MD recorder in ATRAC SP mode? would that sound better than using a regular Type-R portable recorder? I remember the MZ-RH1 making some really good ATRAC SP recordings.

No difference. Haven´t tested it myself but I´ve seen several measurements elsewhere. Apparently the ATRAC version in Hi-MD units is the same as used in other portable, non-Hi-MD units.

[Sony_Fan]

No difference. Haven´t tested it myself but I´ve seen several measurements elsewhere. Apparently the ATRAC version in Hi-MD units is the same as used in other portable, non-Hi-MD units.

Ok. but it is safe to say that portable ATRAC Type-S/Type-R units will record better than stationary ATRAC (non Type-S/Type-R) decks?

[MDietrich]

Ok. but it is safe to say that portable ATRAC Type-S/Type-R units will record better than stationary ATRAC (non Type-S/Type-R) decks?

Good question. I would assume that stationary ATRAC 4.5 is as good as portable ATRAC DSP Type-R/S. Just my two cents though.

[Sony_Fan]

Good question. I would assume that stationary ATRAC 4.5 is as good as portable ATRAC DSP Type-R/S. Just my two cents though.

Interesting. Now, what about those CD/MD combo units (like the MXD-D3)? The CD signal is instantly transferred to the MD side through the circuitry. Would that produce better sound quality than using a CD player->optical cable->MD deck?

[punkrockaddict]

I can´t imagine that would upgrade the sound.isn´t the optical or digital bit by bit the best transfer ? Its nothing else on the combo decks i would assume

[Sony_Fan]

I can´t imagine that would upgrade the sound.isn´t the optical or digital bit by bit the best transfer ? Its nothing else on the combo decks i would assume

That depends on how the signal is transferred from the CD side to the MD side. I'm assuming it's done through the circuits. In fact, some of these combo units can record in 4x the speed. I don't know if that can be done if it's using optical cables inside.

[MDietrich]

I can´t imagine that would upgrade the sound.isn´t the optical or digital bit by bit the best transfer ? Its nothing else on the combo decks i would assume

From a data stand point they would be (should be) the same. The only service manual I´ve seen so far for those combo units didn´t state anything else. So the transfer is the same, it doesn´t matter if it´s done via optical cable or through some conductive copper threads etched into the mainboard.

[PhilippeC]

But is there any risk of losing some information IF the speed copy is more than real time, typically with CD/MD combo and bookshelves ?

[Sony_Fan]

But is there any risk of losing some information IF the speed copy is more than real time, typically with CD/MD combo and bookshelves ?

Good question! Some CD/MD combo units can let you record at 4x the speed. Now there's a question of how accurately the CD is being read at 4x the speed. I would only do real time recording for ATRAC SP copies.

[sfbp]

The ones that do appear (I think!) to have quad circuitry for the clock. So should be no problem.

[Sony_Fan]

What about these overpriced $800 Tascam MiniDisc recorder decks compared to a $75 Sony MD deck (Type-R)? What exactly is the difference or justification for the high price?

[MDietrich]

The ones that do appear (I think!) to have quad circuitry for the clock. So should be no problem.

I remember an article in a german audio magazine where the MXD-D3 was reviewed. To rate devices, they use a system of points. The maximum a device can reach is 100 points. The MXD-D3 got 85 points for MD and CD playback but only 80 when using the 4x dubbing.

I could confirm this myself, because my best mate owned this machine and he and I made some quick tests. The fast copy always sounded a bit less differentiated, less crisp, a bit blown up.

[Sony_Fan]

I remember an article in a german audio magazine where the MXD-D3 was reviewed. To rate devices, they use a system of points. The maximum a device can reach is 100 points. The MXD-D3 got 85 points for MD and CD playback but only 80 when using the 4x dubbing.

I could confirm this myself, because my best mate owned this machine and he and I made some quick tests. The fast copy always sounded a bit less differentiated, less crisp, a bit blown up.

This settles it. Real time ATRAC SP recordings are better.

[bluecrab]

Someone may have mentioned this already (it's a long thread and I could have missed it), but I believe that none of the Sony CD>MD decks copy at high speed using Type R/S. It is believed that 4.5 is used for the 2x/4x copies, but I'm not sure I've ever seen proof of that.

Does it matter? I think so. I think that 1x CD>MD recordings made on the MXD-D40/400 are superior to the high-speed copies. Not that the high-speed copies are bad, just that the realtime ones are better. My two cents.

[sfbp]

I remember an article in a german audio magazine where the MXD-D3 was reviewed. To rate devices, they use a system of points. The maximum a device can reach is 100 points. The MXD-D3 got 85 points for MD and CD playback but only 80 when using the 4x dubbing.

I could confirm this myself, because my best mate owned this machine and he and I made some quick tests. The fast copy always sounded a bit less differentiated, less crisp, a bit blown up.

I tested the D400 (I don't have the D3, nor have I tested the D5C nor D40 both of which I own) in about the same manner as you describe. I came to the conclusion there was no difference between x1 and x4. It is my recollection that the D400 and W1 both had the same clock-quadrupling circuit, but some real electronics expert needs to take a look at the diagram. W1 owners have always said that the copy by that unit is bit perfect (philippeb is the expert, and he will doubtless join in now the issue is raised).

Stephen

[MDietrich]

I tested the D400 (I don't have the D3, nor have I tested the D5C nor D40 both of which I own) in about the same manner as you describe. I came to the conclusion there was no difference between x1 and x4. It is my recollection that the D400 and W1 both had the same clock-quadrupling circuit, but some real electronics expert needs to take a look at the diagram.

It´s perfectly possible that the D400 makes superior high-speed copies. For all I know, it contains a different ATRAC IC which might explain advantages. All other combo machines had ATRAC 4.5, whether they were using realtime or high-speed dubbing.

W1 owners have always said that the copy by that unit is bit perfect (philippeb is the expert, and he will doubtless join in now the issue is raised).

I hate to disagree, but the copy can´t be bit perfect as it involves a lossy compression scheme. An MD recorder is by principle never bit perfect.

[philippeb]

I hate to disagree, but the copy can´t be bit perfect as it involves a lossy compression scheme. An MD recorder is by principle never bit perfect.

Marlene, you are right, ATRAC is lossy, and each recording implies a degradation of the signal. But the W1 'TRACK MOVE' function is special, as it does not record. It copies ATRAC compressed data as-is, from one minidisc to another, without decoding/reencoding.

I have verified this with the help of a RH1 and a Linux box. I have uploaded an original track and a W1-made copy, and compared them bit to bit. The copy is bit perfect, except for the last frame of 1/86s (and that bug can easily be worked around by the purist).

[bluecrab]

The MXD-D40 has the CXD-2662R chip (IC151), which is Type R. Does it use the Type R for 1x copying? I always thought so.

minidisc.org equipment browser says of the D40:

"MDLP compatible. Sony ATRAC Type-R (ATRAC Type-R is used only during realtime SP mode dubbing, not for MDLP or high-speed SP mode dubbing)."

Although I beiieve this to be true also of the D400, it's not the kind of information Sony likes to make obvious.

In any case, for MDs that I expect to hang on to for a while, I use 1x on a D400 or may even use [external source] > MD if I want to strip SCMS. For MDs I listen to very casually or ones that are short-term temporary, I use either the D40 or D400 high-speed copying.

[Sony_Fan]

The MXD-D40 has the CXD-2662R chip (IC151), which is Type R. Does it use the Type R for 1x copying? I always thought so.

minidisc.org equipment browser says of the D40:

"MDLP compatible. Sony ATRAC Type-R (ATRAC Type-R is used only during realtime SP mode dubbing, not for MDLP or high-speed SP mode dubbing)."

Although I beiieve this to be true also of the D400, it's not the kind of information Sony likes to make obvious.

In any case, for MDs that I expect to hang on to for a while, I use 1x on a D400 or may even use [external source] > MD if I want to strip SCMS. For MDs I listen to very casually or ones that are short-term temporary, I use either the D40 or D400 high-speed copying.

So the best ATRAC Type-R recordings are done in real time? This would make sense. I've done real time ATRAC3 recordings and compared them to the fast rip in SonicStage in ATRAC3. The real time recordings sounded "crisper" and closer to the CD source.

[Arr-Nine-Hundred]

So the best ATRAC Type-R recordings are done in real time? This would make sense. I've done real time ATRAC3 recordings and compared them to the fast rip in SonicStage in ATRAC3. The real time recordings sounded "crisper" and closer to the CD source.

Yes and that would tally with: http://opticalgarbage.com/minidisc/type-sr.html

There is no better MD recording than Type-R using SP mode. Type-R will improve recordings of SP, LP2 and LP4.

(side note: Type-S improves playback of LP2 and LP4).

[MDietrich]

But the W1 'TRACK MOVE' function is special, as it does not record. It copies ATRAC compressed data as-is, from one minidisc to another, without decoding/reencoding.

Aye, you´re right. I always forget that their was one mainstream MD recorder that´s able to copy from MD to MD unaltered.

So the best ATRAC Type-R recordings are done in real time? This would make sense. I've done real time ATRAC3 recordings and compared them to the fast rip in SonicStage in ATRAC3. The real time recordings sounded "crisper" and closer to the CD source.

ATRAC3Plus can have an even better quality, it can be configured in the configuration panel of SonicStage. It doesn´t apply to ATRAC3 though.

[Sony_Fan]

Aye, you´re right. I always forget that their was one mainstream MD recorder that´s able to copy from MD to MD unaltered.

ATRAC3Plus can have an even better quality, it can be configured in the configuration panel of SonicStage. It doesn´t apply to ATRAC3 though.

I know there is a setting in SonicStage that's for recording quality at either normal or high. The high settings seems to increase "treble" sounds but the bass sounds lacking. I think optical CD->MD real time recording in Hi-SP would sound better?

[MDietrich]

I know there is a setting in SonicStage that's for recording quality at either normal or high. The high settings seems to increase "treble" sounds but the bass sounds lacking. I think optical CD->MD real time recording in Hi-SP would sound better?

I haven´t a Hi-MD recorder so I can´t say. But I doubt it. The main thing improved using the high quality setting is the phase response. Normal quality yields a severe phase error with high frequencies, high quality does not. In my experience, ATRAC3Plus at a bitrate of 256 kBit/s and the high quality setting sounds extremely close to the lossless original it came from.

[Sony_Fan]

Yes and that would tally with: http://opticalgarbage.com/minidisc/type-sr.html

There is no better MD recording than Type-R using SP mode. Type-R will improve recordings of SP, LP2 and LP4.

(side note: Type-S improves playback of LP2 and LP4).

So to be sure, a Type-R home deck will record better than a Type-R portable recorder? Or are they the same?

[MDietrich]

So to be sure, a Type-R home deck will record better than a Type-R portable recorder? Or are they the same?

Judging from the experience we have collected so far, yes, a home deck will record with superior quality.

[Sony_Fan]

Judging from the experience we have collected so far, yes, a home deck will record with superior quality.

And I'm also assuming that a Type-S home deck will record better than a Type-S portable recorder.

[bluecrab]

If so, it isn't necessarily because of the Type S, which is said to affect playback only. I think in general the opinion is that decks record better than do portables, regardless of ATRAC version.

[Sony_Fan]

If so, it isn't necessarily because of the Type S, which is said to affect playback only. I think in general the opinion is that decks record better than do portables, regardless of ATRAC version.

Well, that's assuming that both the portable and deck recorders have the same ATRAC version. A Type-R portable from 2003 will record far better than a non Type-R deck from the 90s.

[bluecrab]

I may at some point, Sony_Fan, have a chance to test that very case. I could create recordings on both the MZ-DN430 (Type R at least, maybe Type S) and the Kenwood MD-2070 (aka DMF-7020), which is assuredly 4.5. Then I'll play the result and see what the difference is. It will take me a while to do this, though...but seems a worthwhile endeavor in the context of this discussion. (The hardest part will be remembering to do it!)

I have become a little infatuated with a 4.0 deck as well: the Sony MDS-JE700. Don't have one and don't know if I ever will - but I do have 4.0 in my car (Sony MDX-C7970). It's not too bad! Of course, you can't record on it, though.

[Sony_Fan]

I may at some point, Sony_Fan, have a chance to test that very case. I could create recordings on both the MZ-DN430 (Type R at least, maybe Type S) and the Kenwood MD-2070 (aka DMF-7020), which is assuredly 4.5. Then I'll play the result and see what the difference is. It will take me a while to do this, though...but seems a worthwhile endeavor in the context of this discussion. (The hardest part will be remembering to do it!)

I have become a little infatuated with a 4.0 deck as well: the Sony MDS-JE700. Don't have one and don't know if I ever will - but I do have 4.0 in my car (Sony MDX-C7970). It's not too bad! Of course, you can't record on it, though.

The MZ-DN430 is a download unit only. You would need a Type-R portable with optical input and compare to a non Type-R home deck.

[punkrockaddict]

Why don´t you just read the topic from first post on ?

Nothing has to be tested anymore to clarify that a Deck does better records as a portable.

I assume this has nothing to do with the Atrac codec rather than with the technic of being portable with less power and a stationary Deck with Power.

[bluecrab]

It is more or less a given, at this point, that decks > portables when they have the same ATRAC version.

But that is not what Sony_Fan and I were discussing:

"A Type-R portable from 2003 will record far better than a non Type-R deck from the 90s."

However, as Sony_Fan pointed out, my MZ-DN430 is download only, so the issue is now moot for me. BTW, I have indeed read the entire thread, although not all at once.

Nevertheless, due to the subjectivity of perceived SQ, the comparison when there are different ATRAC versions, where the portable's version is newer than the deck's, might still have had some relevance. (Unless that subject was already covered and I missed it.)

[Azureal]

hey bluecrab, I recall reading an awesome article explaining the amazing engineering feat on Sony's part as it related to forward compatibility when playing newer versions of ATRAC on older decoders.

I think the article may have been on minidisc.org. If I can remember (I suffer that same malady!) I'll try to find it. It was very interesting.

[MDietrich]

If so, it isn't necessarily because of the Type S, which is said to affect playback only. I think in general the opinion is that decks record better than do portables, regardless of ATRAC version.

Not completely true. The portable/stationary ATRAC versions seem to have been introduced with ATRAC 4.5. ATRAC 4.0 equipped recorders (doesn´t matter if their portable or not) do not differ regarding encoding quality.

Everyone can test this themselves with a Sony MZ-R 90/91. That one is ATRAC 4.5 equipped, yet recordings made on it sound hideous compared to stationary 4.5 or stationary/portable 4.0 recordings. From what I know, the MZ-R 90/91 is the first MD recorder with an ATRAC version that has been compromised for portable purposes.

[Sony_Fan]

Not completely true. The portable/stationary ATRAC versions seem to have been introduced with ATRAC 4.5. ATRAC 4.0 equipped recorders (doesn´t matter if their portable or not) do not differ regarding encoding quality.

Everyone can test this themselves with a Sony MZ-R 90/91. That one is ATRAC 4.5 equipped, yet recordings made on it sound hideous compared to stationary 4.5 or stationary/portable 4.0 recordings. From what I know, the MZ-R 90/91 is the first MD recorder with an ATRAC version that has been compromised for portable purposes.

So is it possible that my portable Type-R/Type-S recorder will record better than a stationary ATRAC 4.5 deck?

Also, I've done a CD->MD copy of Billy Joel: River of Dreams using portable ATRAC Type-R and compared it with the original pre-recorded MD album and I honestly don't think I hear a difference.

[MDietrich]

So is it possible that my portable Type-R/Type-S recorder will record better than a stationary ATRAC 4.5 deck?

Also, I've done a CD->MD copy of Billy Joel: River of Dreams using portable ATRAC Type-R and compared it with the original pre-recorded MD album and I honestly don't think I hear a difference.

Judging from the way superior encoding quality of a recently acquired MDS-JE 530, I think that the stationary 4.5 deck will encode with higher quality. I can´t be sure of course, it has been more than a decade since I´ve heard a 4.5 deck.

River of Dreams was released in 1993, the master for such a pre-recorded MD produced around that time would have been encoded with ATRAC 1 or 2. However, the quality of this particular encoding cannot be compared to an encoding made with a stationary deck equipped with the same ATRAC version. I own several 1992-1994 pre-recorded MDs and all of them sound well enough without showing any compression artifacts. Common to all of them however is a permanent 15,5 kHz cutoff which you won´t have with a portable Type-R recorder.

[alxwz]

Very interesting thread (that I happened to find rather late )

No difference. Haven´t tested it myself but I´ve seen several measurements elsewhere. Apparently the ATRAC version in Hi-MD units is the same as used in other portable, non-Hi-MD units.

MDietrich, can you give pointers to such measurements?

I wasn't able to find much, esp. about the phase error.

[MDietrich]

MDietrich, can you give pointers to such measurements?

I wasn't able to find much, esp. about the phase error.

Nope, sadly I can´t.

I´d wonder if you actually found something as no one ever bothered to measure the ATRAC encoding (doesn´t make too much sense anyway since it´s a psychoacoustic algorithm). The main resarch regarding ATRAC happened before the net took hold; secondly, the guys that were doing all the measurements were audio magazines.

But they weren´t measuring everything. I didn´t even know that the phase error existed before I measured it myself. Furthermore, not every unit is perfect when it comes to playback. My recently acquired MDS-JE 530 for instance produces a phase error on the optical output (but not on the analogue output) regardless of the used ATRAC version. On the other hand, recordings made with the 530 are perfect and measure superior to recordings made on a portable recorder. So the 530 is a well performing recorder but a bad playback device when used digitally. And our Kenwood DM-5090 is a mediocre recorder (thanks to its ATRAC 4.0) but a superior player (digitally). Optical output = perfect, analogue output = bad (due to a frequency error).

Regarding your question (finally): I would think that the ATRAC versions built into the HiMD recorders are the same as the ones used in pre-HiMD portable devices. Namely portable ATRAC DSP Type-S. But I won´t really find out until I buy a HiMD device. That won´t happen because the prices are way too much inflated right now and because I´m not interested in them.

Sorry for writing this much!

[Sony_Fan]

Judging from the way superior encoding quality of a recently acquired MDS-JE 530, I think that the stationary 4.5 deck will encode with higher quality. I can´t be sure of course, it has been more than a decade since I´ve heard a 4.5 deck.

River of Dreams was released in 1993, the master for such a pre-recorded MD produced around that time would have been encoded with ATRAC 1 or 2. However, the quality of this particular encoding cannot be compared to an encoding made with a stationary deck equipped with the same ATRAC version. I own several 1992-1994 pre-recorded MDs and all of them sound well enough without showing any compression artifacts. Common to all of them however is a permanent 15,5 kHz cutoff which you won´t have with a portable Type-R recorder.

I've compared recordings from a portable Type-S/R recorder (MZ-NF610) vs MDS-JE520 (ATRAC 4.5.) and the portable Type-R recorder produced recordings more closely to that of the CD source. So I can honestly say that:

ATRAC Type-R home deck > ATRAC Type-R portable > ATRAC 4.5 home deck, in terms of recording quality.