🚀 go-pugleaf

Hello

You might also want to consider looking at a portable DAT player like
the Sony TCD D8.  Not quite as small as the minidisk but better sound
quality.  With the low world wide sales of minidisk there is a danger
that the format will be dropped at some time.  With the TCD D8 if you
use 90 metre computer grade tapes (not recommended by Sony) you can
record 3 hours of music. If you used the LP mode which drops the
response to 15khz but would probably still probably be on par with MD
quality, you can get 6 hours on such a tape.

Giles

On Fri, 10 Jan 1997 15:19:22 +0000, Hosuni <hsh2@coventry.ac.uk>
wrote:

-Hi,
- 
-I would be grateful for any replies which may help me.
- 
-I am considering buying a portable minidisc player, which must be
compact
-and recordable. I would like to know which is the best, smallest,
recordable
-and has many functions. The best recordable one I've seen is the Awia
AM-F3.
-But I would like to know if there are any better ones or ones which
maybe
-due out soon.
- 
-Are MD portable recordables likely to get any smaller?
- 
-I would be grateful for any information.
- 
-Thanks again.
- 
-Hosuni.
-
-hsh2@coventry.ac.uk
-
- 
-                \=/,         _-===-_-====-_-===-_-==========-_-====-_
-                |  @___oo   (
)
-      /\  /\   / (___,,,}_--=      'Opinions are purely my own!'
)
-     ) /^\) ^\/ _)        =__
)
-     )   /^\/   _)          (_          hsh2@coventry.ac.uk
)
-     )   _ /  / _)            (
)
- /\  )/\/ ||  | )_)            (_  BSc Computer Science & Economics.
)
-<  >      |(,,) )__)             (
)
- ||      /    \)___)\             (_                         Hosuni.
)
- | \____(      )___) )___           -==-_____-=====-_____-=====-___==
-  \______(_______;;; __;;;
- 

On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 01:20:02 GMT, cnocbui@cygnus.uwa.edu.au (Giles)
wrote:

>
>Hello
>
>You might also want to consider looking at a portable DAT player like
>the Sony TCD D8.  Not quite as small as the minidisk but better sound
>quality.  With the low world wide sales of minidisk there is a danger
>that the format will be dropped at some time. 

Not likely japan is buying up MDs faster than they can stock them.
Also the point of MD is it is a disc format someone looking into md
for that would not want a dat. Just the supply in japan is enough for
sony to keep making them for a while. And also just about every major
electornic company now makes at least one type of md unit and djs use
them now instead of those old carts they had.

 With the TCD D8 if you
>use 90 metre computer grade tapes (not recommended by Sony) you can
>record 3 hours of music. If you used the LP mode which drops the
>response to 15khz but would probably still probably be on par with MD
>quality, you can get 6 hours on such a tape.

I would actully prefer dats for live recording show and stuff but
their is causes where md is better for home listening. For the fact it
acts like a cd on does not have the tape wear or head contact of dats.
Als th life span is much longer and cna be played much longer without
nioticable wear.

>
>Giles
>
>On Fri, 10 Jan 1997 15:19:22 +0000, Hosuni <hsh2@coventry.ac.uk>
>wrote:
>
>-Hi,
>- 
>-I would be grateful for any replies which may help me.
>- 
>-I am considering buying a portable minidisc player, which must be
>compact
>-and recordable. I would like to know which is the best, smallest,
>recordable
>-and has many functions. The best recordable one I've seen is the Awia
>AM-F3.
>-But I would like to know if there are any better ones or ones which
>maybe
>-due out soon.
>- 
>-Are MD portable recordables likely to get any smaller?
>- 
>-I would be grateful for any information.
>- 
>-Thanks again.
>- 
>-Hosuni.
>-
>-hsh2@coventry.ac.uk
>-
>- 
>-                \=/,         _-===-_-====-_-===-_-==========-_-====-_
>-                |  @___oo   (
>)
>-      /\  /\   / (___,,,}_--=      'Opinions are purely my own!'
>)
>-     ) /^\) ^\/ _)        =__
>)
>-     )   /^\/   _)          (_          hsh2@coventry.ac.uk
>)
>-     )   _ /  / _)            (
>)
>- /\  )/\/ ||  | )_)            (_  BSc Computer Science & Economics.
>)
>-<  >      |(,,) )__)             (
>)
>- ||      /    \)___)\             (_                         Hosuni.
>)
>- | \____(      )___) )___           -==-_____-=====-_____-=====-___==
>-  \______(_______;;; __;;;
>- 
>

Giles wrote:
> 
> Hello
> 
> You might also want to consider looking at a portable DAT player like
> the Sony TCD D8.  Not quite as small as the minidisk but better sound
> quality.  With the low world wide sales of minidisk there is a danger
> that the format will be dropped at some time. 

if this was true then why is sony sponsoring 3 day music festivals in
the states
secondly why has there been a 10 fold increase in the sale of MD's in
japan
over the last year. MD's are being taken up everywhere and by every
manufacturer

 With the TCD D8 if you
> use 90 metre computer grade tapes (not recommended by Sony) you can
> record 3 hours of music. If you used the LP mode which drops the
> response to 15khz but would probably still probably be on par with MD
> quality, you can get 6 hours on such a tape.
> 
> Giles

get real MD is sampled at 44.1 khz and not 15 Khz as you believe. the 
current generation MD's are using 20 bits and if you read the article
in electronics australia (Oct 96?) regarding the review of the JA3es
then the guy doing the review put MD ahead of DAT after reviewing the
 MD recorder in question

Then you have the wear and tear on DAT tapes and you do not have instant
random
access on DAT's. 

> 
> On Fri, 10 Jan 1997 15:19:22 +0000, Hosuni <hsh2@coventry.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> 
>
MINIDISC WORLD(formerly Dragon Electronics)   Ph   (03) 9532 5117
                       Mobile 015 335 191     Fax  (03) 9532 5112
Specialist in MiniDisc Equipment and accessories
http://www.angelfire.com/md/Minidisc/index.html

On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 06:41:00 GMT, Swanlee@ix.netcom.com (Swanlee)
wrote:
>
>Not likely japan is buying up MDs faster than they can stock them.
>Also the point of MD is it is a disc format someone looking into md
>for that would not want a dat. Just the supply in japan is enough for
>sony to keep making them for a while. And also just about every major
>electornic company now makes at least one type of md unit and djs use
>them now instead of those old carts they had.
>
They might be buying up MDs fast in Japan but sales are stagnant or
falling elsewhere .  I have seen posts from people in the US who want
to know where they can obtain blank disks because stores are not
stocking them anymore due to low sales of the players and disks.

> With the TCD D8 if you
>>use 90 metre computer grade tapes (not recommended by Sony) you can
>>record 3 hours of music. If you used the LP mode which drops the
>>response to 15khz but would probably still probably be on par with MD
>>quality, you can get 6 hours on such a tape.
>
>I would actully prefer dats for live recording show and stuff but
>their is causes where md is better for home listening. For the fact it
>acts like a cd on does not have the tape wear or head contact of dats.
>Als th life span is much longer and cna be played much longer without
>nioticable wear.
>
Why is MD better for home listening?  The format uses  compression
that discards a large part of the original information that one
supposedly can't hear.  Using Low-Fi headphones or speakers maybe but
using good headphones I certainly can hear the difference.  The sound
quality of MD is inferior to that of DAT.  DAT is used in the
recording industry quite a bit - you can cut a CD from a good DAT
recording - you would need your head examined if you did that with MD.

I will grant you that DAT is theoretically prone to tape/head wear but
it has not been noticeable to me as yet.  I think I would grow tired
of the music before a tape had audible wear.  I saw a post by someone
who played the same DAT tape every night to go to sleep to and had
played it several thousand times with no audible degradation in sound
quality.  If this is typical I don't think tape wear is a real issue.

If MD was really like a CD - with no lossy compression - then I would
agree with you but it isn't.  If they apply the new DVD technology to
MD and get rid of the compression then it might be a Hi-Fi medium but
as it is now I will stick with DAT because it sounds better.


Giles

<snip>

Anthony Curran wrote:
>                                                                  the
> current generation MD's are using 20 bits and if you read the article
> in electronics australia (Oct 96?) regarding the review of the JA3es
> then the guy doing the review put MD ahead of DAT after reviewing the
>  MD recorder in question

 I think MD is nice equipment for easy use. This is good system "Walkman" 
listners. 

 And I know new ATRAC IC has "20bit".
 But this "20bit" means "interface bit-bus has 20bit"
 The ATRAC algorithm has time-domain areas coding and floating point 
quantization system. So it is not same liner 20bit PCM resorution. 
 Please record 2 or 3 multi-tones at same time, bitween near frequency.

 By the way, some professional recording engineer said "24bit recording".
 They are using "the 24bit interface A/D converter", so this recording 
means 24bit recording. If it is correct, please using 64bit-bus DSP. 
Please use 64bit output decimation filtering circuit.
 Some people says "Oh!! 64bit recording it is great!" (^o^)/

 But if you round-off 64bit data to CD's 16bit with no dither, you can hear 
great sound.(@_@)?  Please don't use High bit A/Dconverter with no dither.
I do not like q-noise. 
                                                             Tetsuya Nagae
                                                      Audio tech-resercher
 p.s   I am sorry to write wrong spelling.

On Tue, 14 Jan 1997 14:42:52 +1100, Anthony Curran
<epaacn@epa.ericsson.se> wrote:

>Giles wrote:
>> 
>> Hello
>> 
>> You might also want to consider looking at a portable DAT player like
>> the Sony TCD D8.  Not quite as small as the minidisk but better sound
>> quality.  With the low world wide sales of minidisk there is a danger
>> that the format will be dropped at some time. 
>
>if this was true then why is sony sponsoring 3 day music festivals in
>the states
>secondly why has there been a 10 fold increase in the sale of MD's in
>japan
>over the last year. MD's are being taken up everywhere and by every
>manufacturer

1)  What has the sponsorship of a music festival got to do with
anything - be more specific - is the idea to promote MD sales in the
States by any chance? (they could do with it)

2)  Everyone keeps talking about sales in Japan - this is next to
irrelevant - sales in the US and Europe are what is important - you
seem to be in the business - what are the sales figures for the US and
Europe?

>
> With the TCD D8 if you
>> use 90 metre computer grade tapes (not recommended by Sony) you can
>> record 3 hours of music. If you used the LP mode which drops the
>> response to 15khz but would probably still probably be on par with MD
>> quality, you can get 6 hours on such a tape.
>> 
>> Giles
>
>get real MD is sampled at 44.1 khz and not 15 Khz as you believe. the 
>current generation MD's are using 20 bits and if you read the article
>in electronics australia (Oct 96?) regarding the review of the JA3es
>then the guy doing the review put MD ahead of DAT after reviewing the
> MD recorder in question

I suggest you read a bit more carefully.  What  I said was that the
TCD D8 - a DAT player - has a frequency RESPONSE - of 15khz in LP
mode.  I was not referring to a MD player and I did not mention
sampling rates in the paragraph you quote at all.  I said that a DAT
recording made in the LP mode was probably on par with a recording
made on a MD player.  I am well aware that the sampling rate of MD is
44.1 khz.

The 20 bits thing is misleading.  The main effect of using 20 bits
rather than 16 is it increases the dynamic range that the medium can
handle - that is the difference between the quietest sound and the
loudest.  It largly lowers the noise floor allowing you to record
quieter sounds.  It lowers it so much in fact that there are not many
recording studios that have low enough background noise to make it
possible to record such quiet sounds.  There are even fewer living
rooms with low enough backround noise to enable one to play back and
hear such sounds.

I will try and obtain the review you mention.  If the reviewer states
that an MD player produces a higher quality sound recording and
reproduction than is possible with DAT then I will be surprised, as
the MD medium is technicly inferior to DAT.  The reviewers opinion
would also run counter to that of every comparison between the media
that I have read.  You only said the reviewer 'put it ahead' so maybe
the reviwer had criteria other than sound quality - I shall have to
read it and find out.
>
>Then you have the wear and tear on DAT tapes and you do not have instant
>random
>access on DAT's. 
>
I have allready dealt with the wear issue in another post but to
summarise - you will probably grow tired of the recording long bewore
the tape audibly wears out.

Giles
>> 
>> On Fri, 10 Jan 1997 15:19:22 +0000, Hosuni <hsh2@coventry.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>
>MINIDISC WORLD(formerly Dragon Electronics)   Ph   (03) 9532 5117
>                       Mobile 015 335 191     Fax  (03) 9532 5112
>Specialist in MiniDisc Equipment and accessories
>http://www.angelfire.com/md/Minidisc/index.html

To reply to me via Email, remove the asterisk from the end
of my Email address - sorry for the inconvenience.

Anthony Curran wrote:

> > record 3 hours of music. If you used the LP mode which drops the
> > response to 15khz but would probably still probably be on par with MD
> > quality, you can get 6 hours on such a tape.
> >
> > Giles
> 
> get real MD is sampled at 44.1 khz and not 15 Khz as you believe. the
> current generation MD's are using 20 bits and if you read the article
> in electronics australia (Oct 96?) regarding the review of the JA3es
> then the guy doing the review put MD ahead of DAT after reviewing the
>  MD recorder in question..


Ummmmm.... Anthony....

I believe the previous poster was referring to a lowering of the top end
of the frequency response, down to 15 kHz from the standard 20 kHz,
CAUSED by a lowering of sampling rate, RESULTING in increased time
capacity and decreased frequency response, and NOT the sampling
frequency of 44.1 (twice the upper limit of most CDs, plus a little
headroom).  If you're going to jump all over someone, at least give them
the benefit of the doubt and read what they have written.

Secondly ... you have a review written by a knowledgeable audiophile who
puts the sound of a MD recorder, compression algorithm and all, above a
DAT?!?!?  Hmmmmm... does he work for JOLY, by any chance?

Peace.

Barry


-- 
Barry Blumenthal
Jazz Pianist, Outdoor Thrill-Seeker
http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/1831

Anthony Curran wrote:
> 
> Giles wrote:
> >
> > Hello
> >
> > You might also want to consider looking at a portable DAT player like
> > the Sony TCD D8.  Not quite as small as the minidisk but better sound
> > quality.  With the low world wide sales of minidisk there is a danger
> > that the format will be dropped at some time.
> 
> if this was true then why is sony sponsoring 3 day music festivals in
> the states
> secondly why has there been a 10 fold increase in the sale of MD's in
> japan
> over the last year. MD's are being taken up everywhere and by every
> manufacturer
> 
>  With the TCD D8 if you
> > use 90 metre computer grade tapes (not recommended by Sony) you can
> > record 3 hours of music. If you used the LP mode which drops the
> > response to 15khz but would probably still probably be on par with MD
> > quality, you can get 6 hours on such a tape.
> >
> > Giles
> 
> get real MD is sampled at 44.1 khz and not 15 Khz as you believe. the
> current generation MD's are using 20 bits and if you read the article
> in electronics australia (Oct 96?) regarding the review of the JA3es
> then the guy doing the review put MD ahead of DAT after reviewing the
>  MD recorder in question
> 
> Then you have the wear and tear on DAT tapes and you do not have instant
> random
> access on DAT's.
> 
> >
> > On Fri, 10 Jan 1997 15:19:22 +0000, Hosuni <hsh2@coventry.ac.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> MINIDISC WORLD(formerly Dragon Electronics)   Ph   (03) 9532 5117
>                        Mobile 015 335 191     Fax  (03) 9532 5112
> Specialist in MiniDisc Equipment and accessories
> http://www.angelfire.com/md/Minidisc/index.html

If minidisk really matched the music reproduction quality of DAT, why
then does sony use DAT to backup heaps of analog recordings from
Columbia Records but not minidisks, clearly there is a difference in
sound quality between the two formats, I have heard both DAT and
Minidisk, I must say in term of sound quality DAT is way ahead of
minidisc, in term of of frequency response of a DAT is 2-20khz using
44.1KHz sampling rates, and 2-22KHz using 48KHz sampling rates. Sony the
inventor of MD has also put a lot more of the latest technology into DAT
rather than MD, because as a linear format(Format without data
compression) is easier to implement some of the latest digital recording
technology available. The current recording technology with DAT is so
advance that it will take some years for S0NY to implement them on an
equvilent MD machine, 20 bit recording were available on DAT around 3-4
years ago and now we have Pioneer DAT that can record with 96Khz
oversampling rate and 44khz frequency response. The other advantage with
DAT is that in long player mode it can record stereo program for 6
hours, which no other MD machine at this stage is capable of ( MD from
my knowledge can only record in mono in long play mode). So what
advantage does MD has over DAT, as far as I can see there are probably
just a few points

1. convinience, feature
2. easy editing
3. disc format.

So I really believe if you do want the best sound for dubbing you CD and
life recording, DAT is the one to go for, while MD may give you the
convinience of direct track access, quick editing but it can not match
DAT for sound quality which is the most important criteria when judge a
piece of audio equipment

JL

On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 06:41:00 GMT, Swanlee@ix.netcom.com (Swanlee)
wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 01:20:02 GMT, cnocbui@cygnus.uwa.edu.au (Giles)
>wrote:
>>
>Not likely japan is buying up MDs faster than they can stock them.
>Also the point of MD is it is a disc format someone looking into md
>for that would not want a dat. Just the supply in japan is enough for
>sony to keep making them for a while. And also just about every major
>electornic company now makes at least one type of md unit and djs use
>them now instead of those old carts they had.

And what a pain in the neck they were - those old carts.

Yep! MD gets my vote from an ex-broadcaster's viewpoint. The DENON
machines seems to be quite popular in the cons these days. Good for
playing out ads/jingles/idents.

Wish there'd been MD in my day.

My impression is that DAT was originally a domestic format. Am I
correct?

Meanwhile my little Sony MZ-R2 sounds great. And no rewinding or fast
forwarding to hear that favourite track again.

Also - there's a new home MD deck from Sony called the JES-550 (or
something). Sells for about 299 UKP. I hear it is rather good value.
Worth checking out perhaps?

I would certainly buy MD again.

Alister

Giles wrote:

 ....
> They might be buying up MDs fast in Japan but sales are stagnant or
> falling elsewhere .  I have seen posts from people in the US who want
> to know where they can obtain blank disks because stores are not
> stocking them anymore due to low sales of the players and disks.

 ....
> Why is MD better for home listening?  The format uses  compression
> that discards a large part of the original information that one
> supposedly can't hear.  Using Low-Fi headphones or speakers maybe but
> using good headphones I certainly can hear the difference.  The sound
> quality of MD is inferior to that of DAT.

...
 
How did you do your test ? What are the differences you perceived ?
I did tests on a DCC (which uses the highest quality MPEG I compression)
and I could never be sure that there was really a difference. If there
is a difference it is really minor. 

> I will grant you that DAT is theoretically prone to tape/head wear but
> it has not been noticeable to me as yet.  I think I would grow tired
> of the music before a tape had audible wear.  I saw a post by someone
> who played the same DAT tape every night to go to sleep to and had
> played it several thousand times with no audible degradation in sound
> quality.  If this is typical I don't think tape wear is a real issue.

Are there any hard numbers on tape-wear somewhere ?

 
greetings
Johan

Giles wrote:
> They might be buying up MDs fast in Japan but sales are stagnant or
> falling elsewhere .  I have seen posts from people in the US who want
> to know where they can obtain blank disks because stores are not
> stocking them anymore due to low sales of the players and disks.

I've seen those stories, too, but elsewhere, I've been seeing
reports that MD sales are on the rise, in spite of the possibly
short-sighted policies of some retailers. Where did you see recent
market data saying that sales were stagnant or falling?

> Why is MD better for home listening?  The format uses  compression
> that discards a large part of the original information that one
> supposedly can't hear.  Using Low-Fi headphones or speakers maybe but
> using good headphones I certainly can hear the difference.

You seem to have formed an opinion based on early-generation machines
which, (and which you can confirm, if you're interested)
did not implement ATRAC very well. Are you willing to give MD another
chance, or is your mind closed on the subject?

Mike Glantz wrote:
> 
> Giles wrote:
> > They might be buying up MDs fast in Japan but sales are stagnant or
> > falling elsewhere .  I have seen posts from people in the US who want
> > to know where they can obtain blank disks because stores are not
> > stocking them anymore due to low sales of the players and disks.
> 
> I've seen those stories, too, but elsewhere, I've been seeing
> reports that MD sales are on the rise, in spite of the possibly
> short-sighted policies of some retailers. Where did you see recent
> market data saying that sales were stagnant or falling?
> 
> > Why is MD better for home listening?  The format uses  compression
> > that discards a large part of the original information that one
> > supposedly can't hear.  Using Low-Fi headphones or speakers maybe but
> > using good headphones I certainly can hear the difference.
> 
> You seem to have formed an opinion based on early-generation machines
> which, (and which you can confirm, if you're interested)
> did not implement ATRAC very well. Are you willing to give MD another
> chance, or is your mind closed on the subject?

test

lucifersam wrote:
> Oh wait you did misunderstand me by 5 or 6 generation I meant of the
> atrac chip not the MD recording itself. As in the current atrac chip
> is atrac 4, by 5 or 6 it will sound better than cds and dats
> considering the improvments made on each generation of the chip.

Ah, ok, now I see what you meant. Sorry.

OK, for the record, "ATRAC generation" is Sony's nomenclature
for different generations of its chip sets, which implement
the compression algorithm differently (and, presumably, still
less than fully). There isn't any "official" generation where
there are changes or improvements to the ATRAC algorithm itself.

That being said, it is still true that it will never be possible
for an ATRAC-compressed program to be more faithful than CD or
DAT to the original. It may sound identical. It may, to some
ears, sound better, if those ears can detect and happen to
prefer the difference, but the MD will be unfaithful to the
original, by definition.

On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 16:41:12 +0100, Mike Glantz
<mike.glantz@grenoble.rxrc.xerox.com> wrote:

>Giles wrote:
>> They might be buying up MDs fast in Japan but sales are stagnant or
>> falling elsewhere .  I have seen posts from people in the US who want
>> to know where they can obtain blank disks because stores are not
>> stocking them anymore due to low sales of the players and disks.
>
>I've seen those stories, too, but elsewhere, I've been seeing
>reports that MD sales are on the rise, in spite of the possibly
>short-sighted policies of some retailers. Where did you see recent
>market data saying that sales were stagnant or falling?

I have not seen any hard market sales stats for MD.  It is hearsay
I have read in the Datheads mailing list and seen in the press.  I
will admit the statement may have been a bit rash in that the
situation may be changing - Mea Culpa.

It is most likely that no one will ever be able to quote you hard
stats on MD sales as I doubt whether government statistical gatherers
outside of Australia collect the information.  The manufacturers can
not be trusted to be truthfull as they are not going to say that sales
are falling as this would be the kiss of death for the format.

Another souce of information - a bit more reliable - is that I
personally have never seen or encountered anyone with an MD player be
it walking down the street, on a bus or anywhere else.  Neither have I
seen anyone else with a DAT deck for that matter but given the
Australian price of these I am not surprised.

How did I form my opinion?   I went to a couple of shops in Tottenham
court Rd in London three years ago and I used a pair of Sony MDR D77
headphones to listen to the two media.  I am not into much loud heavy
rock so I listened to quieter types of music that the stores had.  The
MD was better than conventional cassete tape but to my ears was not as
clean sounding as the DAT.  Because of the way the compression works I
gather it has a harder time with quiter music as there is less you can
discard without it being noticeable.

I have not heard any of the latest generation machines - why would I
having already bought the DAT player?  I am willing to give MD another
go but to what point?  I am not going to buy one as I already have my
DAT.  This is not because I have a closed mind it is just the
financial practicalities of it all.   Technicly DAT will always be
superior to MD unless, as I said previously, they use DVD technology,
without compression or switch to using lossless compression.  You can
have as open mind as you like but how are you going to record 6-8
hours off FM radio onto  MD?

Giles


>> Why is MD better for home listening?  The format uses  compression
>> that discards a large part of the original information that one
>> supposedly can't hear.  Using Low-Fi headphones or speakers maybe but
>> using good headphones I certainly can hear the difference.
>
>You seem to have formed an opinion based on early-generation machines
>which, (and which you can confirm, if you're interested)
>did not implement ATRAC very well. Are you willing to give MD another
>chance, or is your mind closed on the subject?

To reply to me via Email, remove the asterisk from the end
of my Email address - sorry for the inconvenience.

On Thu, 16 Jan 1997 01:18:56 GMT, cnocbui@cygnus.uwa.edu.au* (Giles)
wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 16:41:12 +0100, Mike Glantz
><mike.glantz@grenoble.rxrc.xerox.com> wrote:
>
>>Giles wrote:
>>> They might be buying up MDs fast in Japan but sales are stagnant or
>>> falling elsewhere .  I have seen posts from people in the US who want
>>> to know where they can obtain blank disks because stores are not
>>> stocking them anymore due to low sales of the players and disks.
>>
>>I've seen those stories, too, but elsewhere, I've been seeing
>>reports that MD sales are on the rise, in spite of the possibly
>>short-sighted policies of some retailers. Where did you see recent
>>market data saying that sales were stagnant or falling?
>
>I have not seen any hard market sales stats for MD.  It is hearsay
>I have read in the Datheads mailing list and seen in the press.  I
>will admit the statement may have been a bit rash in that the
>situation may be changing - Mea Culpa.

Oh yea datheads is an unbias forum to hear Md info.Well let Me just
say that in a 2 block radius I can find md units and blanks at the
following stores---circuit city,best-buy,hi fi buys,service
merchandise,media play. Only one of these, hi fi buys, carries any dat
blanks and none have dat players. 

>
>It is most likely that no one will ever be able to quote you hard
>stats on MD sales as I doubt whether government statistical gatherers
>outside of Australia collect the information.  The manufacturers can
>not be trusted to be truthfull as they are not going to say that sales
>are falling as this would be the kiss of death for the format.

Well they certianly aren't going to keep putting money in a formtat
they know is dead look at dcc.

>Another souce of information - a bit more reliable - is that I
>personally have never seen or encountered anyone with an MD player be
>it walking down the street, on a bus or anywhere else.  Neither have I
>seen anyone else with a DAT deck for that matter but given the
>Australian price of these I am not surprised.

Well what you have just said he contradicts yourself and is a
worthless statement. 

>
>How did I form my opinion?   I went to a couple of shops in Tottenham
>court Rd in London three years ago and I used a pair of Sony MDR D77
>headphones to listen to the two media.  I am not into much loud heavy
>rock so I listened to quieter types of music that the stores had.  The
>MD was better than conventional cassete tape but to my ears was not as
>clean sounding as the DAT.  Because of the way the compression works I
>gather it has a harder time with quiter music as there is less you can
>discard without it being noticeable.

Well seeing it was 3 years ago and MD has jumped at least 2 gens.
since then I would say you are not qaulified to give an opinion on the
sound quality of current Md players.

>
>I have not heard any of the latest generation machines - why would I
>having already bought the DAT player? 

Um because you just might find you may like the Md better or enough to
justify buying it. You seem to have a closed mind on the matter to bad
for you.

 I am willing to give MD another
>go but to what point?  I am not going to buy one as I already have my
>DAT.  This is not because I have a closed mind it is just the
>financial practicalities of it all.   Technicly DAT will always be
>superior to MD unless, as I said previously, they use DVD technology,
>without compression or switch to using lossless compression.  

Wrong again by the 5 or 6 gen of md it will easily surpass both cd and
dat because of drastically improved techniques in the atrac chip
possibly implamenting mpeg II or mpeg III. MD started at about 85-90%
of cds sound quality and now by in the 4th gen most reviewers say it
is equal to cds.
 MD is one of the only formats that is so upgradeable without software
change.Like most who diss MD you are an unimformed participant in this
debate which nulifies any credibility you thought you had.

You can
>have as open mind as you like but how are you going to record 6-8
>hours off FM radio onto  MD?

Hell i use video tapes for that and am happy with it but im not going
to spout off how I know video sound is surperior to dat if I have not
heard any of the newest dat players and Im not saying it is this is
just an example. Hell i can take up to 8hrs on a vid tape use my
little little camcorder with heaphone jack as a portable unit and
while Im at it video tape something. This is an odd use of the
equipment but I found it out by trial and error and it works fine for
my purposes. 
Check out this web page for more info on MD-------
http://www.connact.com/~eaw/minidisc.html 

>
>Giles
>
>
>>> Why is MD better for home listening?  The format uses  compression
>>> that discards a large part of the original information that one
>>> supposedly can't hear.  Using Low-Fi headphones or speakers maybe but
>>> using good headphones I certainly can hear the difference.
>>
>>You seem to have formed an opinion based on early-generation machines
>>which, (and which you can confirm, if you're interested)
>>did not implement ATRAC very well. Are you willing to give MD another
>>chance, or is your mind closed on the subject?
>
>To reply to me via Email, remove the asterisk from the end
>of my Email address - sorry for the inconvenience.

lucifersam wrote:
> Wrong again by the 5 or 6 gen of md it will easily surpass both cd and
> dat because of drastically improved techniques in the atrac chip
> possibly implamenting mpeg II or mpeg III.

Um, I happen to be a MD fan, but let's keep the facts straight. ATRAC
is still a lossy, perceptual coding algorithm with audible generation
losses. At what point they become audible depends on the person and
the material. Tests have been reported that *nobody* can hear
differences
on the 2rd generation on *any* material. Beyond that, I would make no
claims, and I would certainly not advocate MD where multi-generation
lossless processing is a requirement (which is the case in much
recording work, but not all). After several generations, CD and DAT
are simply going to win, by definition.

On the technical side, while some of the mpeg audio compression
algorithms are quite similar to ATRAC (and PASC used in DCC), they
aren't identical. ATRAC is a Sony original, and not compatible
with any of the mpeg algorithms.

> Check out this web page for more info on MD-------
> http://www.connact.com/~eaw/minidisc.html

Indeed the minidisc page maintained by Eric Woudenberg and
others is an excellent source of MD info, particularly if one
is looking for facts and has an open mind.

On Thu, 16 Jan 1997 11:01:56 +0100, Mike Glantz
<mike.glantz@grenoble.rxrc.xerox.com> wrote:

>lucifersam wrote:
>> Wrong again by the 5 or 6 gen of md it will easily surpass both cd and
>> dat because of drastically improved techniques in the atrac chip
>> possibly implamenting mpeg II or mpeg III.
>
>Um, I happen to be a MD fan, but let's keep the facts straight. ATRAC
>is still a lossy, perceptual coding algorithm with audible generation
>losses. At what point they become audible depends on the person and
>the material. Tests have been reported that *nobody* can hear
>differences
>on the 2rd generation on *any* material. Beyond that, I would make no
>claims, and I would certainly not advocate MD where multi-generation
>lossless processing is a requirement (which is the case in much
>recording work, but not all). After several generations, CD and DAT
>are simply going to win, by definition.
>
>On the technical side, while some of the mpeg audio compression
>algorithms are quite similar to ATRAC (and PASC used in DCC), they
>aren't identical. ATRAC is a Sony original, and not compatible
>with any of the mpeg algorithms.

Generational loss was not at the issue here. Yes it does get bad after
awhile but it is still better than audio cassettes and like you said
is up to judgement on how bad it gets within a reasonable amount of
gens.It is not likely that their will be many gens of an Md after 10
or so in regular use. But at original recording Mds do have the
potential to surpass cds and dat considering how upgradable the atrac
chip is without software changes. And mpeg II and III are being looked
into to be implemanted into MD future genrations using the same
software.

>> Check out this web page for more info on MD-------
>> http://www.connact.com/~eaw/minidisc.html
>
>Indeed the minidisc page maintained by Eric Woudenberg and
>others is an excellent source of MD info, particularly if one
>is looking for facts and has an open mind.

This is where this info came from

On Thu, 16 Jan 1997 11:01:56 +0100, Mike Glantz
<mike.glantz@grenoble.rxrc.xerox.com> wrote:

>lucifersam wrote:
>> Wrong again by the 5 or 6 gen of md it will easily surpass both cd and
>> dat because of drastically improved techniques in the atrac chip
>> possibly implamenting mpeg II or mpeg III.
>
>Um, I happen to be a MD fan, but let's keep the facts straight. ATRAC
>is still a lossy, perceptual coding algorithm with audible generation
>losses. At what point they become audible depends on the person and
>the material. Tests have been reported that *nobody* can hear
>differences
>on the 2rd generation on *any* material. Beyond that, I would make no
>claims, and I would certainly not advocate MD where multi-generation
>lossless processing is a requirement (which is the case in much
>recording work, but not all). After several generations, CD and DAT
>are simply going to win, by definition.

Oh wait you did misunderstand me by 5 or 6 generation I meant of the
atrac chip not the MD recording itself. As in the current atrac chip
is atrac 4, by 5 or 6 it will sound better than cds and dats
considering the improvments made on each generation of the chip. 

Giles wrote:
> It is most likely that no one will ever be able to quote you hard
> stats on MD sales as I doubt whether government statistical gatherers
> outside of Australia collect the information.  The manufacturers can
> not be trusted to be truthfull as they are not going to say that sales
> are falling as this would be the kiss of death for the format.

Actually, it's very common for independent industry analysts to
monitor stuff like this. They tend to want to get paid for their
work, so we might not see it for free on the web, but the market
data certainly are collected by reliable folks.

On Thu, 16 Jan 1997 12:50:58 +0100, Mike Glantz
<mike.glantz@grenoble.rxrc.xerox.com> wrote:

>lucifersam wrote:
>> Oh wait you did misunderstand me by 5 or 6 generation I meant of the
>> atrac chip not the MD recording itself. As in the current atrac chip
>> is atrac 4, by 5 or 6 it will sound better than cds and dats
>> considering the improvments made on each generation of the chip.
>
>Ah, ok, now I see what you meant. Sorry.
>
>OK, for the record, "ATRAC generation" is Sony's nomenclature
>for different generations of its chip sets, which implement
>the compression algorithm differently (and, presumably, still
>less than fully). There isn't any "official" generation where
>there are changes or improvements to the ATRAC algorithm itself.
>
>That being said, it is still true that it will never be possible
>for an ATRAC-compressed program to be more faithful than CD or
>DAT to the original. It may sound identical. It may, to some
>ears, sound better, if those ears can detect and happen to
>prefer the difference, but the MD will be unfaithful to the
>original, by definition.

Well yes but to me faithfull is not always better. Digital by
definition is not as faithfull as analog but alot prefer it. Noise
reduction isn't faithfull all time but on some things it does wonders
with lousy recordings. Noise reducing software used in remastering can
take some orginal bits of sound out but the over all effect is a
better sounding recording.  But I am not an audiophile in the purist
form. I do like things to not always sound faithfull but as good as
technology allows even if it is chaged from its original form. The
atrac chip is very upgradeable so we may very well see MDs in the
future even compressed that the average listener would say was better
than cds or dats.

Giles wrote:
> rock so I listened to quieter types of music that the stores had.  The
> MD was better than conventional cassete tape but to my ears was not as
> clean sounding as the DAT.  Because of the way the compression works I
> gather it has a harder time with quiter music as there is less you can
> discard without it being noticeable.

This is speculation. Based on my limited understanding of the perceptual
coding used, the overall loudness of the material won't affect the
compression. There must be some pathological cases, though (music
where you really can hear the fact that some info has been thrown
away). I'm curious to know what they would be (please, no anecdotes;
it should be easy enough to predict and detect if you know exactly
how the compression is working, and how perceptual masking in
humans operates).

But I suspect that the defects you heard, which were also reported
by many other listeners at that time, were due to "quick and dirty"
implementations of ATRAC. My MZ-R3's performance on low-level material
is stunning, and indistinguishable from the CD source (or from LP
source).

lucifersam wrote:
>
> ...<SNIP>
> 
> Wrong again by the 5 or 6 gen of md it will easily surpass both cd and
> dat because of drastically improved techniques in the atrac chip
> possibly implamenting mpeg II or mpeg III. MD started at about 85-90%
> of cds sound quality and now by in the 4th gen most reviewers say it
> is equal to cds.
>  MD is one of the only formats that is so upgradeable without software
> change.Like most who diss MD you are an unimformed participant in this
> debate which nulifies any credibility you thought you had.
> 

Three things:

- assuming the same raw data input rate, a lossy compression encoding
format is, by definition, inferior to a lossless format.  If the lossy
device is able to reproduce the original signal more accurately than the
lossless device, it'll still end up having to save more data on the
medium, however one cuts it.  Having written that, such arguments are
hollow as the lossy compression techniques are more about human
psychoacoustics than they are about signal accuracy.  Ever seen a
noise/frequency graph on a MD device?  From a technical spec.
standpoint, it's terrible.

- How on earth can one come up with a percentage number WRT to sound
quality?  What is the metric?

- I have edited most of your response for reasons of space.  However,
your unpleasantly aggresive stance does your credibility no good.  Did
the other gentleman insult you or call you names?  From what I read, he
was giving his opinion in a polite manner.

> ...<SNIP>

-- 
Cheers,

Chris. Broadbent ( KC5VQL )

NOTE: My email address in this post is modified to prevent spam.  Just
remove the '.nospam' from the end of it if you wish to email me.  It
sucks that I must do this, but the amount of unsolicited crap I'm
receiving now makes it necessary.

Giles <cnocbui@cygnus.uwa.edu.au*> wrote:
>
>I will try and obtain the review you mention.  If the reviewer states
>that an MD player produces a higher quality sound recording and
>reproduction than is possible with DAT then I will be surprised, as
>the MD medium is technicly inferior to DAT.  The reviewers opinion
>would also run counter to that of every comparison between the media
>that I have read.  You only said the reviewer 'put it ahead' so maybe
>the reviwer had criteria other than sound quality - I shall have to
>read it and find out.


  Of cource, the reviewer could have been comparing a first generation DAT
  deck to a latest generation Minidisc, in which case I'd expect the MD to
  sound better due to better DAC and (if recording analogue) ADC.

  Of course, if the same DAC and ADC were used for both tests, then the DAT
  would stomp all over the MD.

  My three portable devices are Sony D321 CD, Sony D7 DAT, and now Sony E40
  MD - I use the MD most.

  Traff
-- 
* Andy "Traff" Trafford           Work: traff@agency.com                 *
*   Web Guru.                           http://www.agency.com            *
*   Analogue Audio Fan.           Play: traff@interport.net              *
*   Photoshop dabbler.                  http://www.interport.net/~traff  *

;>This is speculation. Based on my limited understanding of the perceptual
;>coding used, the overall loudness of the material won't affect the
;>compression. There must be some pathological cases, though (music
;>where you really can hear the fact that some info has been thrown
;>away). I'm curious to know what they would be (please, no anecdotes;
;>it should be easy enough to predict and detect if you know exactly
;>how the compression is working, and how perceptual masking in
;>humans operates).
;>
;>But I suspect that the defects you heard, which were also reported
;>by many other listeners at that time, were due to "quick and dirty"
;>implementations of ATRAC. My MZ-R3's performance on low-level material
;>is stunning, and indistinguishable from the CD source (or from LP
;>source).

I own a MZ-R3 and i can't hear the difference copying from a CD using optical 
digital cabling. When using analogue cableing, i could distinctive hear a 
difference in the imaging qualities.

bigs

Mike Glantz wrote:
> 
> lucifersam wrote:
> > Wrong again by the 5 or 6 gen of md it will easily surpass both cd and
> > dat because of drastically improved techniques in the atrac chip
> > possibly implamenting mpeg II or mpeg III.
> 
> Um, I happen to be a MD fan, but let's keep the facts straight. ATRAC
> is still a lossy, perceptual coding algorithm with audible generation
> losses. At what point they become audible depends on the person and
> the material. Tests have been reported that *nobody* can hear
> differences
> on the 2rd generation on *any* material. Beyond that, I would make no
> claims, and I would certainly not advocate MD where multi-generation
> lossless processing is a requirement (which is the case in much
> recording work, but not all). After several generations, CD and DAT
> are simply going to win, by definition.
> 
> On the technical side, while some of the mpeg audio compression
> algorithms are quite similar to ATRAC (and PASC used in DCC), they
> aren't identical. ATRAC is a Sony original, and not compatible
> with any of the mpeg algorithms.
> 
> > Check out this web page for more info on MD-------
> > http://www.connact.com/~eaw/minidisc.html
> 
> Indeed the minidisc page maintained by Eric Woudenberg and
> others is an excellent source of MD info, particularly if one
> is looking for facts and has an open mind.
I Hope that; everyone who is complaining about the MD being a lossy
 compression technique are true to their beliefs and stick by the
LD player when DVD arrives as DVD uses compression techniques to fit the 
entire movie onto a CD

Bigley wrote:
> I own a MZ-R3 and i can't hear the difference copying from a CD using optical
> digital cabling. When using analogue cableing, i could distinctive hear a
> difference in the imaging qualities.

There are a variety of explanations possible. It's been reported
by quite a few people that the A/D-D/A machinery on a number of
portables is audibly less than perfect. However, I get excellent
results using the analog line inputs on my MZ-R3. It's possible
that the analog output of your CD player has characteristics
which interact differently with the analog inputs of the MZ-R3
than my system.

Clearly, digital transfer eliminates any such possibilities.

Vivian Collins wrote:

> I Hope that; everyone who is complaining about the MD being a lossy
>  compression technique are true to their beliefs and stick by the
> LD player when DVD arrives as DVD uses compression techniques to fit the
> entire movie onto a CD

I believe that the audio compression used on DVD is lossless compression. 
Its the same think as shorthand where a new symbol is used for a whole 
word (or multiple groups of the normal symbols). Since the new symbol is 
smaller than the whole word, the result is smaller than before. If you 
pick a bunch of new symbols, the compression ratio can be significant 
without losing a single bit of information. In other words, the input 
prior to encoding can be exactly the same as the output after encoding 
(at a digital level).

It's also similar to encryption in its replacement of symbols. But the 
replacement symbols have to be smaller than the original symbols for 
compression to result.

The ATRAC compression is a "perceptual encoding" in which, not only is 
the data compressed as described above, the some of the information is 
removed prior to encoding. The reason it is called "perceptual" is that 
someone decided what the limits of human hearing are and removed 
information that "cannot be heard." Many people contend that what was 
removed can actually be heard (or, really, can be missed. Since its not 
there you can't hear it, can you?)

The video compression on DVD is lossy compression, I think. Someone 
decided what cannot be seen (or doesn't bother you if you don't see it) 
and removed that part of the picture before encoding on the disc. The 
reader decodes and creates a complete picture from what is left. If you 
wish to see one example of the effect of a bad video compression 
algorithm, look at a basketball game coming from one of the 18" video 
sattelite systems. When they pan the crowd, there is too much information 
to fit in the transmitted signal (even after compression) and some 
information is removed. When you have all those people moving in the 
stands, they will twinkle on the screen because of the missing 
information.

I reiterate, the audio isn't lossily compressed on DVD.

-- Lee Meador

Vivian Collins <dragonentrprises@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<32E2B525.41C67EA6@hotmail.com>...
.> I Hope that; everyone who is complaining about the MD being a lossy
>  compression technique are true to their beliefs and stick by the
> LD player when DVD arrives as DVD uses compression techniques to fit the 
> entire movie onto a CD
>

Well I've never heard of a video-phile (pun?), but many people are
audio-philes, or hifi enthusiasts. I've been following the discussion
lucifer & co have been having about poor old MDs, and people get really
upset about audio quality, but I don't know as many people to get upset
about video quality.

Movie buffs don't review a movie and bitch about the video quality (unless
it's an incredibly awful tape from the local hire shop), they just watch
movies for the story, production, actors etc. Movie buffs just watch a
movie and don't expect perfect video reproduction. Hifi buffs on the other
hand are generally anal about the slightest colouring of the sound which
they hear - unless your're lucifer with pointy ears.

MDs are very good for what they are intended for - a consumer recordable
digital media. Even Sony haven't claimed that they see MDs replacing CDs,
just a complement. I've use MDs for taking to work or using in the car
(can't stand stuffing around with CDs in the car, and what's the point ?),
but at home I never use them. If you're using a quality amp / speaker / cd
/ phono combination, the MD can't match them at all. If you can't tell the
difference between your MD and your CD on the same system, then chuck out
your speakers & amp and get something decent. Remember to chuck out the MD
player as well. If you can't tell the difference between a cheap 'mass' CD
player and a good quality hifi job, then chuck out your amp / speakers and
the cheap CD player.

Cheers,
Trevor.

Trevor Nuridin wrote:

> If you can't tell the
> difference between your MD and your CD on the same system, then chuck out
> your speakers & amp and get something decent. Remember to chuck out the MD
> player as well. If you can't tell the difference between a cheap 'mass' CD
> player and a good quality hifi job, then chuck out your amp / speakers and
> the cheap CD player.

Um, what if I can't tell the difference between my MD and my cheap
'mass' CD player? What should I chuck out? Do I always have to chuck out
my speakers & amp, or just the MD?

Russell.
____________________________________________________
Russell Kerrison        |  rkerriso@pcug.org.au
Canberra Australia      |  http://www.pcug.org.au/~rkerriso
Short Message Service:  |  Ph: 0411 479 550
0411479550.kerrus@gsm.hutch.com.au  (max 120 characters)