Which ATRAC version???

[DJ BIZZ-E]

Does anyone know which ATRAC version the SONY MDS-JE530 has???

For example: ATRAC 3.5

The box says ATRAC DSP TYPE-R, but that's not what I want to know...

Thanks a lot in advance,

DJ BIZZ-E
(c) this year.

PS: It's not in the users guide...

[Stan Williams]

I may be wrong, but i don't think every atrac version has a number. I think after 4.5 version, they just have a name, not a number. I have never seen a higher number than atrac 4.5, but they do have improved versions above 4.5.
Thats it !

[DJ BIZZ-E]

Thanks Stan...

That's just the info I needed...

See you around...

PEACE.

PS: I read somewhere that from version 3.5 on, the sound quality is "comparable" to DAT. And that it is still improving...I'm hoping it will defeat the DAT one time(because of the ease of use of the MD) but that's probably impossible. Mainly because the MD needs to compress the signal to get the music on the disc...DAMN!

I'm out.

DJ BIZZ-E
(c) this year.

[Stan Williams]

I also read where a lot of people who compared the compressed with noncompressed in test could hear the difference, but could not say which was which. If its that close i will use md for a long while. My present setup is a yamaha md8 using 3.5 atrac, and i'm completely satisfied.
thats it !

[Stan Williams]

ps. i think your atrac type R is the next step above 4.5.

[ranchfield]

To be sure, I've always noticed a sound difference between original source material and MD recorded material. However, the point raised by Stan W. is quite true.. while you can hear a difference, you can't neccessarily tell which sound is worse.. I love the MD format and it's so damn easy to use.. and, bucking the trend, I've used MD quite successfully to fully record and master a CD.. no one who's heard it has ever commented negatively about the recording sound.. usually, wuite the opposite. (If you want to listen for yourself, http://www.mp3.com/crowmusic).. it was recorded on a Sony MDM mk-II four track MD.

[bvaleria]

Originally posted by DJ BIZZ-E
...PS: I read somewhere that from version 3.5 on, the sound quality is "comparable" to DAT. And that it is still improving...I'm hoping it will defeat the DAT one time(because of the ease of use of the MD) but that's probably impossible....

Probably???

PEOPLE... MD has its place, but let's not kid ourselves -- say it with me: LOSSY COMPRESSION!!! You lose a part of the signal as you record it.... It can NEVER be equivalent to a format that records the entire signal without loss.

As I said, it is a useful alternative for portability - but please be real -- it's HARDLY a serious mix-down or mastering format...

Bruce Valeriani
Blue Bear Sound

[Mark C]

This thread caught my attention because I have a similar situation to that of DJ Bizz-E, except I haven't actually spent money on the equipment yet. But I want to do some field recording with MD... spoken word only, not music ... for mastering CD's. But here I read about "Loosy Compression"... Is it so loose that I'll have substandard narrative recording?

Then comes my core question - can I do a digital transfer to do editing on my PC from the ATRAC to working in WAV format? And how?

Admittedly ignorant (and cheap) but eager to learn...

[bvaleria]

Mark C ---
Don't let what I said above scare you away from using it - MD should be fine for what you have in mind (and will give you significantly better results than cassette)... but it is *NOT* CD or DAT quality, and is not a viable format for mix-down or mastering.

Bruce

[Mark C]

Is it necessary to go from MD to PC via optical cable to do a true digital transfer? That is what I've come to believe. Isn't line out miniplug transfer yielding just an analog signal? I've been assuming that I'd need both a portable MD recorder (since none currently have optical out) and an MD deck (since they do offer optical out) to get ease of portable recording AND digital transfer. Where do I need to go to get the right primer on this?

[bvaleria]

Mark C -- You're correct - you need digital out (likely S/PDIF) on the MD and digital in on your PCs soundcard to do a digital transfer. Check out this link for more info:
http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/a...458389,00.html

Bruce

[Stan Williams]

Some of the music i've heard lately could use a little throwing away. hey-hey-hey

[bvaleria]

Absolutely!

Bruce

[ranchfield]

Bruce.. dunno what to make of your soapbox speech about lossy compression and MD "HARDLY a serious mix-down or mastering format... " probably not much.

I am fully well aware of how MD Atrac works and what it does to music. That said, the work I've done with my MD (including mastering and mixing) has produced more than one top-5 charting songs on internet charts (MP3.com, Riffage) and continues to receive airplay on major market radio stations as well as placement in movies.

If the end product sounds great, who am I (or you) to question how it got that way?

[bvaleria]

Originally posted by ranchfield
Bruce.. dunno what to make of your soapbox speech about lossy compression and MD "HARDLY a serious mix-down or mastering format... " probably not much.

I am fully well aware of how MD Atrac works and what it does to music. That said, the work I've done with my MD (including mastering and mixing) has produced more than one top-5 charting songs on internet charts (MP3.com, Riffage) and continues to receive airplay on major market radio stations as well as placement in movies.

If the end product sounds great, who am I (or you) to question how it got that way?

Soapbox speech?? Well whatever dude...
What difference does it make if a track gets airplay to the quality of recording???? Even worse - am I supposed to take Internet charts as a serious measure of quality???? Give me a break... next you're going to tell me that MP3s are CD-quality!!! (no... they aren't...)

You go ahead and mixdown and master to MD if you want, if it works for you... although you won't win awards for sound quality.

Keep in mind, some people DO have better ears than others in judging what sounds great or not.

Bruce Valeriani
Blue Bear Sound

[Edited by bvaleria on 11-02-2000 at 07:30]

[ranchfield]

Ummm, ok Bruce. Perhaps you need to not combine your technical knowledge with your arrogance.

My only point was no matter what recording device you use, the end result to the listeners ears are what really matters... whether you use a two-track tube Wollenasck from the 60's, or the latest digital 16 track from Yamaha, what the listener hears (and likes) is purely subjective.

I find it amazing that you can presume "that some people DO have better ears than others in judging what sounds great or not." From this I gather there are some people that do not have good enough ears to decide what music they will like?
Yikes, how do you and your ego fit into the same room?

And thanks for your permission to "mix down to MD if you want". Actually, I do, and I will.

I offered my accomplishments using the MD format so forum readers can see what can be done with the Mini Disk. I totally dig the format and am quite comfortable to look outside the box of what is commonly perceived the MD can do.

Why you chose to criticize my own achievements on a personal level is a mystery to me.

Have I won any "awards" for sound quality? Nope, haven't really entered such contests. I'm quite comfortable with the radio play though...

[bvaleria]

Hey bud... you know nothing about me, and if you did, you'd know I'm neither egotistical nor arrogant -- I DO however, have strong opinions based on experience. I never criticized you personally on any level so I don't understand why you're so offended - I simply made a comment on a mixdown format you (and others I'm sure) happen to use.

People mix-down and master to a lot of formats - cassette, analog 2-track, DAT, hard disk and MD. There are characteristics that go along with each format, but you can't possibly argue the fact that the worst type of mixdown unit is one that loses part of the signal. Given a choice, most people would like the format that represents the best possible recording capability. The fact that MD sounds WAY better than cassette, doesn't make it a high-quality mixdown format - and it doesn't come close to a DAT with high-quality converters (or even, some will argue, a high-calibre 2-track analog unit!)

I heard your MP3s after your last post - nicely balanced, somewhat over-compressed, and they all sound somewhat thin in the mids, which is exactly what I expected to hear from a recording mixed to MD. (A Slightly-sucked-out-in-the-mids recording happens to be a MD sound characteristic...) So yeah, anyone with a cut above the average listener hearing skills can (and will!) notice a difference.

Incidently, I don't "presume" anything - I offered my opinion in a public forum -- people can take it for what it's worth...

Get a grip....
Bruce

[Stan Williams]

Ok guys, back to the bar, and drinks are on me !

[bvaleria]

Thanks Stan... I'll have a double!!

Bruce

[Ray J]

To answer the original question of which version of ATRAC the JE530 has, I think all of the 500 series has 4.0 or greater. I was looking into getting a 510 or 520 for a mixdown deck, and I didn't see any with less than 4.0.

Ray J

[The Green Hornet]

YO Guys:

Free drinks? Count me in and I enjoyed your discussion.

Green Hornet

[Stan Williams]

Oh, I was talking about those old internet free drinks !

[Nilbog]

My 2 cents -

Most people don't really understand how ATRAC works. I have read in multiple places that this is how it works:
The sound audible to the human ear is NOT compressed. It is the sound that is inaudible that is compressed. I don't know if it has changed to become this way in recent generations, or if it was always this way. But I used to think the inaudible sounds were just CUT out, and they sound you could hear was compressed. That's not true.

So anyway, the point is, what you can hear, is not compressed. It's what you can't hear that is compressed.

-N

[bvaleria]

Nillbog -- yes... except the problem is in determining exactly what is audible, and what frequencies will be overshadowed or "masked out" by other frequencies/levels (making them inaudible). Compared to the original ATRAC version, they've improved that determination to a great degree, but there is still some measure of compromise between sound quality and storage space required for the sound.

It still is a lossy compression scheme so sound quality will ALWAYS suffer to a degree, and can never compare to a full-frequency/full-level recording media such as DAT.



Bruce

[Nilbog]

other digital media such as photgraphs and videos get away with 25 to 1 compression with almost no noticable loss.
I agree that it's NOT the same as DAT, but I think it is comparable. I think it's already proven itself by having people buy it instead of DAT systems.