Audiophile MD users?

[8]

I'm just wondering if there are people into high-end equipment (e.g., Arcam, McIntosh, Rotel, B&W, etc.) who support MiniDisc. I get so fed up w/ audiophiles putting down the format because it's lossy. Yeah, it is, but feeding my pro deck through my Rotel receiver & B&W DM602 S3 speakers for the first time blew me away by how good MD sounded through good equipment. I kept expecting to hear the limitations really stand out, but the fact of the matter is that MiniDiscs still sounded damn good (and amazing through B&W's!). It has actually renewed my interest in the format.

I have decided to make MD my recording format of choice in my ever-building, ever-upgrading hi-fi audio chain. I'm excited about turning back the clock to the old school days of NOT using a computer to record. Vinyl (cleaned up properly from my record cleaner) recorded straight to the deck from the Rotel receiver produces astonishing results. When I borrow a CD and want to make a copy I am more than happy w/ a hookup via Tos-Link from my Yamaha deck to the MD deck. Yes, doing A/B testing does prove the original CD sounds slightly better (certain sounds and instruments that are only faintly heard on the MD are brought to life)....BUT, these are COPIES I'm making, so I feel that it's fair---since I don't own the original---to have a copy not quite as good...but still very good...

Also, MiniDisc recordings produce a unique "sound image" that people talk about---which, while not better than the original, is very nice to listen to.

I truly believe that MANY anti-MD audiophiles NEVER REALLY LISTENED to an MD played on a high-end deck (like my MDS-E10) that was recorded PROPERLY through good connections and equipment. They just form their opinion around the fact that "MD uses a 5:1 lossy compression scheme"---so without REALLY listening properly, the facts say it takes things away, so it obviously is way too inferior. Stubborn, stubborn, stubborn. I'm glad I form MY OWN opinions from FIRST HAND experience, or else I would never realize how good MD can STILL sound---even through high-end equipment.

Any other audiophiles out there who DO use a good MD deck for all their recordings?

[TommyTunes]

I have been an audiophile longer than I care to remember (Audio Research, Martin Logan, MSB, VPI). I was also an early adopter of the mini disc format with the release of the first Sony MD unit. However around 97 I disposed of all my MD equipment and discs (about 50 prerecorded included), when the first home CD recorders started appearing. However this January I bought myself a N10 because I was going to be traveling a lot on business and I wanted something truely small & portable. I don't like the idea of MP3 players because I like to have a library of discs to pull from just before I leave. After listening to it hooked up to my stereo, I realize that although not up to the level of great CD playback let alone SACD it really does sound excellent. I now have a MXD-D400 on its way to me. I want to be able to run the MD signal into my MSB Platinum plus DAC for upsampling. I choose the 400 unit because I like the idea of 4x cd transfer although I do see a MDS-E12 in my future because I like the idea of being able to record analogue through the balanced inputs.

[KJ_Palmer]

While my home separates setup is by no means at the high-end of the audiophile spectrum, I do all of my recording via decks, in real time without going anywhere near a computer. I started minidisc with the JE640 deck and am now onto the JB980, and in the meantime got myself a Pioneer CD recorder.

I certainly prefer MD as a recording medium and for portable use over CD, and at least on my budgety-end home equipment the differences in sound quality are minimal - unnoticeable really. The plus points of MD in this setup are editablity (no such thing as an MD 'coaster') and rewritability (CD-RW is not worth the effort in my book), and flexibility (MDLP can be quite handy sometimes).

The HiMD format will sort out the 'lossy' issue, hopefully there'll be some good high-end decks available soon. Even without that I would still have used MD as it is for a long while to come, perhaps with a high end deck like the JA333ES.

Cheers

[Guest NRen2k5]

around 97 I disposed of all my MD equipment and discs (about 50 prerecorded included), when the first home CD recorders started appearing.  However this January I bought myself a N10 because I was going to be traveling a lot on business and I wanted something truely small & portable. I don't like the idea of MP3 players because I like to have a library of discs to pull from just before I leave.

There are always 80mm MP3/CD players.

[anont]

To be honest, while I like MD for certain purposes, there's no reason for an audiophile to accept the format. The notion just doesn't make sense. After all, you don't buy original MDs, they're recorded from other formats such as CD. Even if you think the sound quality degradation is very very slight, an audiophile would do just as well to use the original, or a perfect CD-R copy, why even bother with an MD? Or, for concert recordings, DAT (or exotic electronic recording schemes) undeniably capture sound better than MD.

I don't think "audiophile" and "mix tape" are concepts have much to do with each other, but regardless, CD-Rs are somewhere between cheap & free, are easy to make, and will sound better (or possible about the same as) an MD mix. Some people maybe have a fetish for keeping music away from their computers, but the fact is that CD players are just a specialized form of computer.

Genuine audiophiles into non-CD formats are going to be more concerned with SACD, DVD Audio, LPs, and DAT.

[alieninhead]

To be honest, while I like MD for certain purposes, there's no reason for an audiophile to accept the format.  The notion just doesn't make sense.  After all, you don't buy original MDs, they're recorded from other formats such as CD.  Even if you think the sound quality degradation is very very slight, an audiophile would do just as well to use the original, or a perfect CD-R copy, why even bother with an MD?  Or, for concert recordings, DAT (or exotic electronic recording schemes) undeniably capture sound better than MD.

I don't think "audiophile" and "mix tape" are concepts have much to do with each other, but regardless, CD-Rs are somewhere between cheap & free, are easy to make, and will sound better (or possible about the same as) an MD mix.  Some people maybe have a fetish for keeping music away from their computers, but the fact is that CD players are just a specialized form of computer.

Genuine audiophiles into non-CD formats are going to be more concerned with SACD, DVD Audio, LPs, and DAT.

DAT? Heh. Anyway, I love music. I can see a lot of differnce between 105KPS ATRAC and a CD, but I'm willing to live with it because it still sounds derned good.

The problem with CDs are they were designed like the SACD and DVDs--to be played. Not to be recorded, not to be used as storage devices. Those trickled down over time as a technology came to light to do this.

MDs were designed to be recorded, used, abused. They're very high quality, if you have the right equipment to record and to listen to them. Being an audiophile can (and probably many times is) all in the head. The concept behind ATRAC is very sound: take what the human ear actually hears and only record that.

They did a pretty dern good job.

Beyond that, SACDs and all the DVD crap was made just so you could lose your rights to digitally copy and rip your music as you see fit.

~a.i.h.