My first MiniDisc home deck recorder: Sony MDS-JE470

[Sony_Fan]

Hello everyone. I just got an MDS-JE470 MiniDisc recorder from ebay for less than $41 (including shipping). It was a great deal! Unfortunately, it does not come with a remote and I'm still learning how to use it. It is an ATRAC DSP Type-R model. I would like to compare the recording quality of my JE470 to that of an ES or JB model. Maybe MDietrich could do the analysis for us to see if the recording quality is the same or not. But anyway, it's great to finally be able to use ATRAC DSP Type-R with no compromises.

[MDietrich]

Recently I bought an MDS-JE 530. I already owned that model 15 years ago but sold it some years later. Now I own it again and it has the same encoding quality as a MDS-JB 930 QS.

The only difference is the bit-depth: the 530 encodes and decodes with 18 bit precision, the 930 with 24. Curiously enough, it doesn´t have any effect on the sound quality. The bit depth may be different, the quality of the encoding is not. Meaning: both are way superior to portable machines when it comes to encoding quality.

I very much assume that it´s the same case with your MDS-JE 470. So, if you´re recording a simple CD digitally with your 470, the quality will be the same as if you´d be using a 930 QS model. I cannot speak for ES models though... but I think that they aren´t superior encoding-quality-wise.

[sfbp]

Just an off-the-cuff comment from me (with no real scientific basis): I have a hunch that the major difference between the high end models and the less expensive ones is in the quality of the DAC. Once you use optical out that becomes irrelevant. The ES models were made at a date when almost nobody had an amplifier that accepted optical input.

However it's still possible that the ATRAC data reading circuit works better on the high end models. Can your methodology rule that out?

[Sony_Fan]

Just an off-the-cuff comment from me (with no real scientific basis): I have a hunch that the major difference between the high end models and the less expensive ones is in the quality of the DAC. Once you use optical out that becomes irrelevant. The ES models were made at a date when almost nobody had an amplifier that accepted optical input.

However it's still possible that the ATRAC data reading circuit works better on the high end models. Can your methodology rule that out?

I would like to know myself and I'm willing to challenge any ES ATRAC type-R home deck owners. I'm pretty sure that my $40 JE470 will produce the same recording quality as an ES model. My home deck is from 2002 which is newer than the ES models. So there's a chance that the ATRAC Type-R codec may have been slightly improved since the ES models were released.

Recently I bought an MDS-JE 530. I already owned that model 15 years ago but sold it some years later. Now I own it again and it has the same encoding quality as a MDS-JB 930 QS.

The only difference is the bit-depth: the 530 encodes and decodes with 18 bit precision, the 930 with 24. Curiously enough, it doesn´t have any effect on the sound quality. The bit depth may be different, the quality of the encoding is not. Meaning: both are way superior to portable machines when it comes to encoding quality.

I very much assume that it´s the same case with your MDS-JE 470. So, if you´re recording a simple CD digitally with your 470, the quality will be the same as if you´d be using a 930 QS model. I cannot speak for ES models though... but I think that they aren´t superior encoding-quality-wise.

On another note, I'm considering getting an ATRAC 4.5 home deck model as well. I think you said that before ATRAC Type-R, there was a frequency cutoff of 15.5khz or so. I like the sound of the pre-recorded MD albums, and my understanding is that Sony never used Type-R to produce MD albums. It was always ATRAC 4.5 or earlier. So if my CD->MD digital copies using ATRAC 4.5 home deck can sound almost the same or exactly the same as the pre-recorded MD albums, then that's good enough for me. I like the frequency cutoff, because it actually makes the BASS more enhanced. Too much treble or highs seems to make the BASS sound weaker.

[sfbp]

There's no 15.5kHz cutoff in normal ATRAC (SP), surely? That only came with LP2 (ATRAC3). I have no idea what you're talking about, Chris. Have you ever looked at the specs for a pre-Type-R deck?

[Sony_Fan]

There's no 15.5kHz cutoff in normal ATRAC (SP), surely? That only came with LP2 (ATRAC3). I have no idea what you're talking about, Chris. Have you ever looked at the specs for a pre-Type-R deck?

No I havent. I just went by what has been said on this forum (MDietrich). She said 15.5 khz cutoff for Atrac 4.5 and earlier.

[sfbp]

Nonsense.

[Sony_Fan]

Nonsense.

MDietrich, can you respond? Did I misunderstand?

[bluecrab]

Just an off-the-cuff comment from me (with no real scientific basis): I have a hunch that the major difference between the high end models and the less expensive ones is in the quality of the DAC. Once you use optical out that becomes irrelevant. The ES models were made at a date when almost nobody had an amplifier that accepted optical input.

However it's still possible that the ATRAC data reading circuit works better on the high end models. Can your methodology rule that out?

DAC quality is, IMO, of considerable importance. I most often record on an MXD-D400, using internal hi-speed, internal norm speed, or from an external source via digital in. When any of these MDs are played back on a JB930, XA20ES, or JB940, the 930/20ES produce, for me, audibly superior results. Note that b/c those decks are non-LP, this applies to SP recordings only. It could be coincidental that the 930 and 20ES both have current pulse DACs, while the 940's DAC is hybrid pulse, but it seems like a reasonable chance that is it isn't coincidence. This has nothing to do with RQ, of course, but it's something to consider when evaluating the SQ you'll ultimately get.

[Sony_Fan]

I also just purchased an MDS-JE520 which has ATRAC 4.5. It will be interesting to compare the sound quality of both decks. Maybe someone can do analysis between ATRAC 4.5 recorder deck and portable Type-R.

[MDietrich]

MDietrich, can you respond? Did I misunderstand?

Yeah, you did

The first two ATRAC versions indeed had a cutoff at 15,5 kHz. But since ATRAC 3 the encoder tries to keep frequencies above 15,5 kHz. The frequency band from 15,5 to 22,05 kHz is just the last frequency band ATRAC tries to encode. The first ATRAC versions couldn´t handle it (not even on pre-recorded MDs) and therefore erased it entirely.

But ATRAC 3, 4, 4.5 and Type-R/S try to keep as much as possible without hurting the rest.

[MDietrich]

On another note, I'm considering getting an ATRAC 4.5 home deck model as well. I think you said that before ATRAC Type-R, there was a frequency cutoff of 15.5khz or so. I like the sound of the pre-recorded MD albums, and my understanding is that Sony never used Type-R to produce MD albums. It was always ATRAC 4.5 or earlier. So if my CD->MD digital copies using ATRAC 4.5 home deck can sound almost the same or exactly the same as the pre-recorded MD albums, then that's good enough for me. I like the frequency cutoff, because it actually makes the BASS more enhanced. Too much treble or highs seems to make the BASS sound weaker.

1. The frequency cutoff doesn´t enhance the bass. For us humans it´s close to impossible to hear frequencies beyond 15,5 kHz and once you reach a certain age you cannot even hear beyond, for example, 12 kHz. This cutoff is very unlike an EQ where you mute treble which in turn 'amplifies' (that´s how you perceive it) those frequencies that are left.

2. The encodings for pre-recorded albums are completely different to those produced by portable or home decks. With encodings done on portable or stationary decks, the cutoff depends very much on the frequency content. If the level of anything above 15,5 kHz is very loud, ATRAC will try to keep it. Once it falls below a certain level, it might be erased completely. If the ATRAC encoder doesn´t reserve datarate for those frequencies it can be used for frequencies from 0 to 15,5 kHz.

On pre-recorded MDs since, I don´t know, 1996 or so, the frequency fluctuates between 17,5 & 18,5 kHz. On pre-recorded MDs released at a later date, the cutoff is at roughly 19 kHz and doesn´t fluctuate. But apart from the very first MDs I´ve never seen a 15,5 kHz cutoff.

[Sony_Fan]

1. The frequency cutoff doesn´t enhance the bass. For us humans it´s close to impossible to hear frequencies beyond 15,5 kHz and once you reach a certain age you cannot even hear beyond, for example, 12 kHz. This cutoff is very unlike an EQ where you mute treble which in turn 'amplifies' (that´s how you perceive it) those frequencies that are left.

2. The encodings for pre-recorded albums are completely different to those produced by portable or home decks. With encodings done on portable or stationary decks, the cutoff depends very much on the frequency content. If the level of anything above 15,5 kHz is very loud, ATRAC will try to keep it. Once it falls below a certain level, it might be erased completely. If the ATRAC encoder doesn´t reserve datarate for those frequencies it can be used for frequencies from 0 to 15,5 kHz.

On pre-recorded MDs since, I don´t know, 1996 or so, the frequency fluctuates between 17,5 & 18,5 kHz. On pre-recorded MDs released at a later date, the cutoff is at roughly 19 kHz and doesn´t fluctuate. But apart from the very first MDs I´ve never seen a 15,5 kHz cutoff.

Thanks for that info. I think I'm going to use the je470 for cd digital recordings from 2000 and forward. And I will use the je520 for cd recordings before year 2000. This will ensure that md copy will sound just like the prerecorded md versions. I have done cd to md digital copy of george michael greatest hits and I could not tell the difference between that and the prerecorded version. That md album was made in 1998. Did sony upgrade the atrac versions when making md albums? Or did it stop at 4.0 or 4.5?

[Sony_Fan]

I got my je520 (atrac 4.5) yesterday and hands down, the je470 makes better recordings. But atleast the CD to MD digital recordings on the je520 sound better than the pre-recorded versions of the early 90s.

So je520 would be good to make CD to MD digital recordings for albums made before 1998, since it appears that pre-recorded MD albums were made with Atrac 3.0 and earlier.

[MDietrich]

I got my je520 (atrac 4.5) yesterday and hands down, the je470 makes better recordings. But atleast the CD to MD digital recordings on the je520 sound better than the pre-recorded versions of the early 90s.

So je520 would be good to make CD to MD digital recordings for albums made before 1998, since it appears that pre-recorded MD albums were made with Atrac 3.0 and earlier.

Do you have any idea what we were talking about? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

[bluecrab]

Do you have any idea what we were talking about? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Hmmm...I think I may get what Sony_Fan is saying, as regards recording. The comparison begins with pre-recorded MDs and includes CD > MD digital recordings:

470 > 520 > pre-recorded MD.

IOW, the 520 would be useful for making MDs from CDs instead of the pre-recorded MD version? What -were- we talking about, anyway? ;-)

[Sony_Fan]

Hmmm...I think I may get what Sony_Fan is saying, as regards recording. The comparison begins with pre-recorded MDs and includes CD > MD digital recordings:

470 > 520 > pre-recorded MD.

IOW, the 520 would be useful for making MDs from CDs instead of the pre-recorded MD version? What -were- we talking about, anyway? ;-)

Yes. It is believed that recording studios never used an Atrac version higher than 3.0. Therefore when making CD to MD digital copies using Atrac 4.5, the copies would sound just as good or better than the pre-recorded MD albums.

[MDietrich]

Hmmm...I think I may get what Sony_Fan is saying, as regards recording. The comparison begins with pre-recorded MDs and includes CD > MD digital recordings:

470 > 520 > pre-recorded MD.

IOW, the 520 would be useful for making MDs from CDs instead of the pre-recorded MD version? What -were- we talking about, anyway? ;-)

Yes, I got it - but it doesn´t change the fact that it´s still stupid to think that one recorder would be better suited for copying than another.

Yes. It is believed that recording studios never used an Atrac version higher than 3.0. Therefore when making CD to MD digital copies using Atrac 4.5, the copies would sound just as good or better than the pre-recorded MD albums.

Do you have proof? You can´t take the sound as proof, it´s completely subjective. You need measurements and compare an ATRAC version of a professional pressing plant encoder to a home encoder.

And I highly doubt that Sony developed the home version while they left the pressing plant version at ATRAC 3.

For all of you who want to compare a home recording from CD to a pre-recorded MD: be careful. They sometimes sound different. Not because of ATRAC but because they were mastered differently. Just two examples: 'Dangerous' from Michael Jackson and 'Love Deluxe' from Sade. BTW, this is something I can measure.

[Sony_Fan]

Yes, I got it - but it doesn´t change the fact that it´s still stupid to think that one recorder would be better suited for copying than another.

Do you have proof? You can´t take the sound as proof, it´s completely subjective. You need measurements and compare an ATRAC version of a professional pressing plant encoder to a home encoder.

And I highly doubt that Sony developed the home version while they left the pressing plant version at ATRAC 3.

For all of you who want to compare a home recording from CD to a pre-recorded MD: be careful. They sometimes sound different. Not because of ATRAC but because they were mastered differently. Just two examples: 'Dangerous' from Michael Jackson and 'Love Deluxe' from Sade. BTW, this is something I can measure.

So of the 2 albums you mentioned, which one sounds better? The md copy or the pre-recorded version? I'm sure that Sony would have advertised Atrac 4.0 and above on the pre-recorded album cases.

[MDietrich]

So of the 2 albums you mentioned, which one sounds better? The md copy or the pre-recorded version? I'm sure that Sony would have advertised Atrac 4.0 and above on the pre-recorded album cases.

No, they wouldn´t have advertised this. Almost no one I knew / still know cared for the ATRAC version on pre-recorded MDs.

When ATRAC 3.5 came out on the MDS-JA 3 ES, Sony produced a pre-recorded WideBitStream MD. It was only to show off the 20 bit capability of the WideBitStream feature and wasn´t available anywhere. There was only one publication that ever pictured it (German STEREO magazine).

To my knowledge, no other pre-recorded WideBitStream MD has ever been produced - though it´s very likely to say that Sony from 1995 on used ATRAC 3.5 for pre-recorded MDs and continued to implement newer ATRAC versions in the years to come.

And I refuse to judge the sound quality of those two MDs I mentioned as you will use that information only to sell your overpriced stuff.

[Sony_Fan]

No, they wouldn´t have advertised this. Almost no one I knew / still know cared for the ATRAC version on pre-recorded MDs.

When ATRAC 3.5 came out on the MDS-JA 3 ES, Sony produced a pre-recorded WideBitStream MD. It was only to show off the 20 bit capability of the WideBitStream feature and wasn´t available anywhere. There was only one publication that ever pictured it (German STEREO magazine).

To my knowledge, no other pre-recorded WideBitStream MD has ever been produced - though it´s very likely to say that Sony from 1995 on used ATRAC 3.5 for pre-recorded MDs and continued to implement newer ATRAC versions in the years to come.

And I refuse to judge the sound quality of those two MDs I mentioned as you will use that information only to sell your overpriced stuff.

I dont own an ES or JB home deck, so I dont know what over priced stuff you are talking about.

Why are you resorting to insults?

[jonathanpotato]

ES or JB decks has better AD / DA converters, some digital filters/oversampling on digital output and better assembling quality (PCB paths, shields, etc...) resulting in better SNR ratio, THD, dynamic and analog sound restitution overall. Same between cheap and high-end CD players sounding differences.

In digital recording I think that a JE520 record as the same a JB920 (compare with same ATRAC version, 4.5 both). As said a JE480 will record digital signal to same as JB980, but in analog not.

For the prerecorded MD's ATRAC version, i never seen a mention specified somewhere about the codec version used for mastering. But It's a non-sense if they don't used latest developed ATRAC versions at each time. Why newers only suitable for customers machines grade ? If you look at Sony MDS-B or MDS-E pro devices series it has been from ATRAC 1 to Type-R.

Like MDietrich said it can be simply a different mastering (from CD) arranged to "cheat" with some ATRAC sound alterations.

[sfbp]

Just because WE cannot digitally copy data onto any sort of disk (except Philippeb and the amazing MDS-W1) does not mean that Sony and manufacturers could not.

So the idea - encode with best encoding technology, copy digitally (bit for bit), play back with best decoding technology - should be the optimal sound reproduction of any music.

Going back to an old codec sounds to me like Chris winding up to sell his out of date consumer grade decks (or copies made thereon) with huge promotion about how they are actually better. I agree with MDietrich.

[Sony_Fan]

Just because WE cannot digitally copy data onto any sort of disk (except Philippeb and the amazing MDS-W1) does not mean that Sony and manufacturers could not.

So the idea - encode with best encoding technology, copy digitally (bit for bit), play back with best decoding technology - should be the optimal sound reproduction of any music.

Going back to an old codec sounds to me like Chris winding up to sell his out of date consumer grade decks (or copies made thereon) with huge promotion about how they are actually better. I agree with MDietrich.

I only sell genuine pre-recorded MD albums, not copies. I'm not selling my home decks. By the way, I just bought an MZ-NH1 with accessories from craigslist for $50 total. What should I do? Sell it on this forum for $75? Not going to happen. It will go on ebay soon...

[sfbp]

I'm pleased for you.

[MDietrich]

I only sell genuine pre-recorded MD albums, not copies. I'm not selling my home decks. By the way, I just bought an MZ-NH1 with accessories from craigslist for $50 total. What should I do? Sell it on this forum for $75? Not going to happen. It will go on ebay soon...

I offer another alternative: keep it. I have kept every - I repeat: every - little recorder I acquired on eBay, even the ones I used for spareparts. I do this because I love them and not because I want to trade them.

EDIT: I was lying. I threw away a broken Audiophase MDP-1 and a broken MZ-R 501, both completely beaten up.

I´d sell some of my portable CD players though. The ones I don´t like. Though I´d rather give them away for free. Which creates the situation that in the end they won´t turn up on eBay or anywhere else.

Just because WE cannot digitally copy data onto any sort of disk (except Philippeb and the amazing MDS-W1) does not mean that Sony and manufacturers could not.

So the idea - encode with best encoding technology, copy digitally (bit for bit), play back with best decoding technology - should be the optimal sound reproduction of any music.

Correct. 'Nuff said.

[Braikoff]

Hello everybody. I have Sony MDS-JE500. I used him for DAC to listen music from PC. 

I want to upgrade my system with bigger model with more quality of the sound. 

I looking for advice for that. My desire are ES series. 

Thanks for helping and best regards...

[sfbp]

My recommendation: spend the money on an amplifier (receiver) with digital optical input. You can get an MD upgrade later, but meantime your MDS-JE500 does have optical (TOSlink) output.

 

Suggestions:

Onkyo

Integra

Sony

 

Almost any will do, if you look for a model from 2006 to 2009 you should get a really good price. If you still are not sure, I can list some specific model numbers.

 

Kind regards

 

Stephen

[Braikoff]

Thanks for the replay. I have Sony TA-FA707ES for birthday from my wife and few friends and i don`t wont to change him. 

I`l be thankful about the one or two good series numbers for good DAC in the MD`s of Sony. 

 

P.p. I have and love only Sony`s products.

[PhilippeC]

Copyright jonathanpotato

 

 

http://www.jonathandupre.fr/articles/articles.php?id=55&cat=17#p4

 

1st, a good Atrac and 2nd a good DAC

search type-R or type-S in the minidisc.org browser

decks : JBQS and JBES are the best.

 

But if a good DAC is your only concern, a recent and cheap 24bit-192kHz DAC will be much better, or even a 16bit-48kHz professional sound card  

[Braikoff]

My sound card is Chaintech AV-710 and sounds very good. But in these systems she neaven't plase, that i think.  

Sony PS-LX2 / Sony TC-U2 / Chaintech AV-710 / Sony MDS-JE500 / Sony DVP-NC600 / Sony TA-F707ES / Sony SS-G5a

Sony STR-DG820 / Sony APM-12ES / Sony SS-CN10 & SS-U10

Regards...

[PhilippeC]

Braidkoff, you got all that Sony stuff ? I can understand why there is place ONLY for only Sony. Sony products can be very exclusive. I advise you to find a good Sony deck, even a basic* one but able to be used as a DAC. Preferably a 24bit-48kHz DAC unit but 20bit is good too. Holy Grall is QS920/930/940/980 and all the ES serie.

 

And for your MD disc & case design, please go here : 

 

(*) standard SP mode, type R : so if you get more Sony MD units, all your MD will be readable. 

[Braikoff]

...Holy Grall is QS920/930/940/980 and all the ES serie...

 

Ok, 10x.  

What about the JA3ES or other ES models? 

[PhilippeC]

ES are all heavily built and SP only, except JA333ES (MDLP)

[Braikoff]

10x again PhilippeC  and happy hollidays to all! 

[sfbp]

This thread is veering off into irrelevance I think. Sorry guys!