Sony MZ-R35

[markwalsham]

Having recently got back into MD after a long pause, I wanted to go old school, and rather than have thousands of songs on my iPhone, wanted to take a minidisc player with me, and a few select discs! Talk about reliving the late 90's!

Anyway - I picked up a cheap, and mint condition RZ-35 a week or so ago, in full working order and have been putting it through it's paces this week, and I am pleased to say it is rock solid thus far.  The only issue I have, and the basis of this post and question is sound quality.

I recorded the minidisc from CD via optical to my home MD deck (Sony MDS-JE530) and when I play it back through my main hifi, I am pushed to hear much difference between the original and the recording - everything is sharp, well focused and decent tight bass.

When I flip the same disc over to the MZ-R35 - via headphones, I hear:-

• Really scooped mid-range - as if the mids have been sucked out of the recording
• Unfocused treble - cymbals sound not muffled, but not clean and sharp either - just a bit mushy
• Bass is there, but is weak and flabby
• Overall - I would say that the sound has a somewhat clinical sound to it, with the mid-high range sounding squishy

So the question is this - is this an artefact of the MZ-R35 being one of the older generation devices, and as such the ATRAC built in is just not as adept as later players in providing a better sound, and should I go for a much later device and upgrade my home deck to one that supports ATRAC-S?

I really want to go back to MD for portable music, but unless I can get it sounding sharp, focused and precise, there won't be much point!

As always, thanks for any help and guidance.

Mark.

[BearBoy]

Hi Mark.

ATRAC Type S adds better playback of MDLP recordings but is otherwise the same as Type R, which your MDS-JE530 has.

If the recordings sound fine on your deck then I suspect the MZ-R35 is the issue. I'm not familiar with the device but does it have any EQ that the previous owner may have messed around with?

What headphones are you using? Maybe a different pair might produce better results?

[sfbp]

R35 has the one-button "megabass" which one unlamented departee from these walls(!) used to chunter on about. Experiment, YMMV.

Also I would definitely turn OFF the AVLS (microswitch slider on the bottom).

What headphones are you using? Anything without gold connectors on the 3.5 mm jack will give terrible results. And you cannot expect the R35 or most of the portables to drive anything over-the-ear, IMO. You'd be better with Sony's originals. Either that or a headphone box which kinda defeats the portable aspect. I think it might be a case of impedance mismatch, rather like plugging microphone into a line in socket (hence the battery box suggestion).

Also the R50 has the rep of being the top of the line aurally and mechanically. Before they went to the later more compressed codecs. A really cool piece of gear is the MZ-R5ST (sorry, that one is grossly overpriced, like 10x too much) which is a specially modified R50 with a docking station and (tada!) optical OUT, the only portable to manage this particular feat.

I'm doubtful it's the codec version # - but anything is possible. Cymbals are notorious.

[markwalsham]

Thanks for the replies!

I have a fairly decent pair of Sennheiser over the head cans, and a pair of Bose cans too. Both sounded as I described in the original post, but much clearer and sharper when coming directly from the HiFi or from the headphone socket of the MDS-JE530 directly.

This got me to thinking - what if I EQ the output to the MZ-R35 and record directly to the device itself, through a line in.  So, I have done this, making sure AVLS was turned off, put the device into manual record mode, and then into Record/Pause mode, so that I could monitor the output from the MZ-R35 itself.  Did a lot of playing with the EQ from the source (Mac computer with WAV files as source) and got a balance of what I like (subjective yes).

I test recorded an album (Queen's Hot Space from 1983) and listened back - and this has improved the overall presentation of the sound. Bass (without Mega Bass on) is now much better defined, mids are boosted to remove that thin and clinical sound, and treble is better. Is the treble perfect - no, it still has that slightly mushy compressed sound associated with compression, but it is better.

Is it listenable - well that will remain to be seen, as listening to small snippets isn't good enough, and I will go for a long walk with a couple of disks and see what happens.  I can usually tell within 20-30mins if something sounds OK as if not, I want to turn the music off, if OK, then I don't even think about it and just enjoy the music.

The only small issue now is that I may have to tweak the EQ per recording - and sometimes the source does not have a 2 second pause between songs and the track recognition gets messed up! I never have got my head around the Divide Rehearsal function on the main deck!

BTW - The disc recorded in the above way, sounded fine on the HiFi deck, just a little more boosted, but I can live with that.

Thanks for the help guys.

Mark.

[sfbp]

You might be surprised how good the original (free) Sony earbuds sound. They don't use up nearly as much energy and I suspect this may have a slight effect on the output amp in the recorder. However Sony's later NC headphones (such as the XBA-H3) may do quite well indeed. I have a pair of those.

This is the first example I've run into where playing back with a different codec from that used to make the recording make a difference.

Some expert will probably contradict me but assuming the items in the list at minidisc.org are in historical (reverse) order, then the MZ-R909 may have been the first Type-R portable. Like most software programs, backward compatible but not forward compatible (how could it be?). So trying to play something recorded using the later Codec may never equal recording using the matching codec. Thank you for this observation. You will notice you can track the ATRAC changes by the CXD26nn chip type.

Stephen

 

[sfbp]

PS you could record to optical in on the MZ

[markwalsham]

I would if I had the special coax / optical cable that is required, but alas I do not! So I can only do line in analogue on the MZ-R35. I can do analogue from the CD player to the MD deck, but didn’t see much difference between optical to optical copies.

[sfbp]

it's actually just a stoopid piece of plastic that converts the end of an OPTICAL cable into something shaped like a 3.5mm jack. All the MDs that record can do optical OR line in (no coax, ever). Worth about threepence.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/2pcs-Digital-3-5mm-Mini-TOSlink-Fiber-Optical-Digital-Audio-SPDIF-cable-Adapter/391739772419

[markwalsham]

Yeah, and when I looked into the manual for the part (cable) these can be bought still, but at £30 a pop, and I only paid £20 for the MZ-R35!!!

I took the R35 for a ride in the car and relistened to the recording I made earlier with adjusted EQ settings from the source, and it sounds pretty good to me. The acid test will be with the cans on.

has everyone found that direct digital copies (optical to optical) sound a bit soulless?

cheers, Mark.

[sfbp]

That one is $0.99 for 2 units.

[markwalsham]

Where?

[sfbp]

Three posts up?

[markwalsham]

Thanks - was having a bit of a bad day yesterday, so apologies. I shall buy one of those and see what happens!!

thanks again. Mark.

[markwalsham]

21 hours ago, sfbp said:

R35 has the one-button "megabass" which one unlamented departee from these walls(!) used to chunter on about. Experiment, YMMV.

Also I would definitely turn OFF the AVLS (microswitch slider on the bottom).

What headphones are you using? Anything without gold connectors on the 3.5 mm jack will give terrible results. And you cannot expect the R35 or most of the portables to drive anything over-the-ear, IMO. You'd be better with Sony's originals. Either that or a headphone box which kinda defeats the portable aspect. I think it might be a case of impedance mismatch, rather like plugging microphone into a line in socket (hence the battery box suggestion).

Also the R50 has the rep of being the top of the line aurally and mechanically. Before they went to the later more compressed codecs. A really cool piece of gear is the MZ-R5ST (sorry, that one is grossly overpriced, like 10x too much) which is a specially modified R50 with a docking station and (tada!) optical OUT, the only portable to manage this particular feat.

I'm doubtful it's the codec version # - but anything is possible. Cymbals are notorious.

This is a good shout, as I had discounted the use of the original headphones as they looked pretty standard plastic rubbish, but to my utter surprise they sounded pretty good, and the bonus being that I can use the inline remote too! Just wish they would have had a standard 3.5mm jack at the top of the remote instead of the proprietary connector!

So back around the loop again I go - I am going to record the same CD album (Queen's 1980 Album "The Game") to MD using my main deck and optical connections only, and then I will have a set of A-B comparisons available.  I shall try my existing headphones vs the Sony ones and see which works out best.

The only downside of the included headphones that I can see is one of comfort of fit, as never been a fan of in ear buds, but hey ho!

Thanks again for the help and guidance.

Mark.

[sfbp]

The remote is peculiar for two reasons:

1. It needs to communicate the control information (similar to Sony's microlink Bus in car installations) hence more pins

2. The flange also takes the strain off the 3.5mm jack. Just about every device that I've used extensively with a "raw" 3.5mm jack got busted. The Sony ones generally don't.

So IMNSHO it's just good engineering. And you can STILL put a regular jack into the MD unit if you really must.

[markwalsham]

So after some more testing yesterday, I have come to the conclusion that I don’t like optical copies of CD’s recorded to the JE530 home deck - but only for listening back on the R35.

I have the 3.5mm toslink adapter on order, so I will try and record optically direct to the R35 to see if that is any different.

In the mean time, I have found that using an outboard (inexpensive) DAC from my Mac pushed out to the line in on the R35 seems to yield much better results. I have found that boosting the EQ has allowed me to reduce the recording levels, and hence the time the volume of the output via headphones is also reduced too.

Alas, I cannot remember if my original Sony MZ-R909 that started my MD love affair had on board EQ, and I used to record via optical on that device from a low end Sony mini system and don’t remember the same issues. Wish I had kept that device now, it was rock solid.

Anyway, I shall also try and record via analogue input to the JE530 too, and see if that has any difference.

What is interesting is that I can discern the difference between a MD burned on the JE530 vs one burned on the R35, which is interesting given the usual rock solid compatibility of MD.

Thanks and will keep this thread updated with the next set of testing!!!

Cheers, Mark.

[markwalsham]

OK folks - next update!

Have today received a new optical cable, with the appropriate adapter to make it work directly with the MZ-R35, and I have just finished copying a CD to the R35 via the optical connection, and the results are...

Well - mixed.

So far, from the limited time I have had testing the recording, listening via the stock headphones and remote, I would say that there is a marked improvement. The upper ranges are much sharper and more defined, the mid-range is less scooped, and the bottom end is tighter. Overall, although it does have a touch of the clinical sound that seems to be evident when performing an optical to optical copy - it is better.

The clear winner in my eyes so far is:

• Computer - DAC - 3.5mm > Line In > R35 - with the EQ boosted to how I like it. Downside of this method is that track markers not universally generated, due to the source not always having enough of a 2 second gap between each track.  Sound to me is best overall.
• Sony SACD-XE597 > Optical > Optical > R35 - straight normal digital copy from CD to MD. Although the sound is a little clinical, it is nearly on a par with my preferred method, and I shall do some more listening tests over the week to see if this sticks. Great outcome of this is track markers are 100% reliable!
• Sony SACD-XE597 > Optical > Optical > Sony MDS-JE530 - straight optical to optical copy. This is my least favourite as when this is played back through the MZ-R35 it sounds thin, midrange scooped and high end is both mushy and smeared.  Clearly the encoding through the MDS-JE530 must differ on some way.

So the other thing I observed is that for the original round of CD > MD via optical burning (using the MDS-JE530) - I was using a very old TOSLINK cable, which was inexpensive at the time, and this was the primary cable from the CD output to the MD input. Given the nature of optical cables, they should either work or not, so I cannot believe that there is any chance that the cable will influence the recording, but I have today now swapped this cable for another high quality TOSLINK.  I am re-recording the same album that I used to record optically and directly to the MZ-R35 so I can do an A-B listening test.

It will be interesting to see if this has any influence on the recording made by the MDS-JE530.

The crazy thing is, regardless of where the MD was recorded, it plays back fantastically via the MDS-JE530!!!

Anyway - once I have completed my listening tests - I will post another update.

The fun and games of trying to find audio utopia!

Cheers, Mark.

[markwalsham]

So - final update for those who are interested - I yesterday posed the question that could it be the cheap and nasty optical cable that I was using that was causing the poor recordings from CD to MD via my home Sony MDS-JE530. 

In short the answer seems to be - YES.

I swapped out the cheap TOSLINK cable yesterday, and swapped it for a new and much better quality one, and re-recorded to another MD the same album as I did directly to the MZ-R35 (via optical in).  In listening back to both - they now sound identical.

I am somewhat surprised by this, since I thought a TOSLINK cable was very much like a HDMI in concept, that as a digital cable, it would either work or it would not work.  So I shall be eliminating the crappy cable from the setup from now on.  Maybe keeping all those old cables is a false economy in the long run?

Anyway, I am now going to broaden the music catalogue and burn a number of MD's and see what the results are. Given that there is little or no difference between burning directly to the MZ-R35 and MDS-JE530, I am going to use the latter, as it's more convenient to kick off a copy and leave it, and titling on the JE530 is way easier than trying to do it on the R35.

Thanks for everyone's help and input - I got there in the end, but you help made it quicker.

Thank you!

Mark.

[PhilippeC]

5 hours ago, markwalsham said:

Given that there is little or no difference between burning directly to the MZ-R35 and MDS-JE530 

I believe there is a difference (if you have a good Hi-Fi system) : the JE530 has the ATRAC DSP Type R and the MZ-R35 has not, meaning that there is a difference during recording.

[markwalsham]

PhillipeC,

Yes, agreed, but my initial testing did not suggest this theory. So I am burning another MD again, direct to the RZ35 via optical to compare it to one done earlier on the JE530. This disc sounded less convincing than the last, which may be something to do with the source material, maybe not, so this test will be interesting.

I will update tomorrow on the next testing phase!

Phew - all this testing!!!

Mark.

[markwalsham]

OK, so I have managed to source a Sharp IH-DR400H and using this to listen to the discs burned in the R35 and JE530 - they sound fabulous!!!

So I have come to the conclusion that maybe the R35 just does not have a sound that is likeable to me!

The one thing that I have learned though, is do not discount the Sony supplied headphones, as they make the R35 sound pretty good!! 

Cheers everyone,

Mark.

[KJ_Palmer]

Quite possible, I always binned or gave away the stock Sony earphones, which was rather silly in hindsight. I was never really happy  the Sony portables signatiure sound (I only ever bought the recorders) until the first Hi-MDs came along with their digital DSPs and customisable EQ. The Sharps were always considered the best players, as countless professional and user reviews testified.

[philippeb]

On 4/1/2019 at 5:00 PM, markwalsham said:

Overall, although it does have a touch of the clinical sound that seems to be evident when performing an optical to optical copy - it is better.

The clear winner in my eyes so far is:

• Computer - DAC - 3.5mm > Line In > R35 - with the EQ boosted to how I like it. Downside of this method is that track markers not universally generated, due to the source not always having enough of a 2 second gap between each track.  Sound to me is best overall.

+1.

As far as my ears can tell, with Sony decks, digital -> analog -> digital copies always sound warmer (and better) than digital -> digital copies (unless performed lossless in the ATRAC domain, of course). So far, I could not find any use case for digital -> digital copies. I do not mind dividing/titling the tracks again.