Take the MiniDisc Challenge!

Which one is the Minidisc recording?

  • #1 is the MiniDisc

    Votes: 2 33.3%

  • #2 is the MiniDisc

    Votes: 4 66.7%
  • Total voters
    6
P

Phloodpants

New member
OK, there has been some debate here about the quality of an MD recording versus a lossless format like DAT.

Now, I certainly will admit that ATRAC compression is inherently NOT identical to the native 16-bit 44.1K format, but my question is...

Can you hear the difference?

I personally don't hear a difference at all. However, I am certainly open to the possibily that there is a difference! That would be very interesting to me if someone out there actually can hear it. I would tip my lead ear to them then!

So I've arranged a test. I made a direct digital rip of a song by Baden Powell called "Introdução ao Poema dos Olhos da Amada" that is exactly 1 minute long. I then recorded that same 1 minute into my Marantz PMD-650 MD recorder. Then I played the MD into the computer digitally (it's a pro unit, so it does have digi out) into an SBLive. (not the best card actually, but the digi in should be fine)

Now, once I had the recording of the MD, I had to do a little editing to make sure the tracks were exactly the same length. Also, the MD recording came out a couple db lower than the direct rip, so I had to match the levels. I was able to match them within .01db, so that should not affect the results. But keep in mind that the MD recording thus has the further disadvantage of having been manipulated digitally and subject to some dithering.

OK, here they are! You tell me which is which!

www.hoppehome.com/MDChallenge/Introducao ao Poema dos Olhos da Amada - 1.wav

www.hoppehome.com/MDChallenge/Introducao ao Poema dos Olhos da Amada - 2.wav

WARNING: These files are 10MB, so a broadband connection is recommended!

Please use the poll options to log your choice in addition to any commentary you might have.

P.S. Please don't be whippin' out any waveform analysis tools of any kind! I can confirm that it is possible to tell the difference that way, but that certainly doesn't do anyone any good! Use only your ears!
 
Last edited:
Yo Pants that are flooded:

The one thing that a minidisc DOES NOT HAVE is headroom. I've taken stuff I've done on my MD8 and re-mastered it on my Yam 2816 at 16 bit -- the result is superior quality from the 16 bit cut.

Like, think about it; if a box that costs twice as much as the MD8 doesn't sound any better, it would not sell....the 2816 sells, as does the 4416.

I still have my MD8 plugged in because it is a useful box for certain things. But, for vocals, it's the 2816 all the way, as well as many other formats in the digital domain.

Happy May Day
Green Hornet




:D :D :p :p :p :cool: :cool: :cool:
 
#2 is the minidisc - it has a very slightly thinner, less present sound - which is a characteristic of ATRAC processing....


Bruce
 
Green Hornet, the MD should theoretically have the same headroom as a CD. It is still in the end a 16 bit format so it's dynamic range should be identical.

But I can certainly understand how the effective headroom might be different from unit to unit, depending on the quality. There is a headroom difference between DAT units for example.
 
I'd have to say number 2 is the Minidisk, but I could only notice any difference when listening closely on headphones.
The difference is minimal.

Oren
 
I don't know which is a mini disc, but #1 sounds the best (by a very small margin) #2 sounded a wee bit harsher, not as smooth. However, the smoothness could be a loss of quality (the dithering). It's weird, it's more something that is felt rather than heard.

For now I'll say that #2 is the mini disc

However, if somebody had replaced my entire cd collection with mini disc quality replicas (or whatever processed #2), I doubt I'd notice.

-Sal
 
I would have loved to participate in this, but there's no way I could justify downloading a 10 meg file! Why don't you post smaller files for an evaluation like this? Why not chop it down to a one minute snippet of each clip so that dial-up users can get in on this too?
 
Actually, they are exactly 1-minute snips...

Just let it go overnight. Should take a couple hours... They are hosted on a very reliable connection at a major ISP, so you should be able to get them without interruption.
 
What's the point?

Somebody who knows what they are doing can make worthwhile recordings on any format but a better format will always yield higher sonic quality.

MiniDisc is a great format for live audio playback. We used it in theatre productions because it is easy to load up music cues and sound effects in the order you need them. It's also easy to quickly rearrange them if there is a last minute change.

But I dont see the point in recording on one. It's doesnt really save you that much money over a computer DAW in the long run.
 
I figured i'd throw in a sample of the Sony mdm xk4. I loved this 4 tracker back in the day! Listen to "what you put me through, and, how a woman must feel". They were transfered to my SB card via toslink from my sony mdmj something- the home stereo component- and converted to mp3. Not bad in the day for demo purposes. "Ain't enough time in a day" was done on a korg d1600. MD still has a place in my home studio, and my heart!

musician.com/community/artists/view_band.asp?band_ID=13827
 
OK, well I'm not getting a lot of response on this, so I'll spill the beans...

The minidisc is... #1 ! !

You can confirm this with a spectrum analysis tool like the one that comes with Sound Forge. You'll notice a slight drop in amplitude past 16KHz.

Funny how everyone thought it was #2, although it's too small a statistical group to draw any real conclusions from.

I suppose it is possible that the MD actually does sound better than the original, possibly due to the data compression having some sort of pleasing effect, similar to a warm tube amp for example.

From these results, I would say MD is a fine format for tracking (ala MD8) and field recordings. It is more robust than DAT, so that's a pretty compelling argument there. For mastering, I wouldn't usually recommend it just because there are lossless formats easily available such as recording into a computer. Also, a lossless master will survive future encoding into ATRAC and MP3 better on the consumer end.

But I think it really does shed some light on the sound quality of MD. So many people have been complaining that MD sounds TERRIBLE. That is clearly not the case! Some well-respected ears were fooled!
 
cool experiment, it would be neat if there were a larger sample of people. It would also be neat if you couldn't see the peoples replies before you vote. These can easily sway what people choose.

-Sal
 
MD altrak tends to actually remove some of the overtones and you end up with a cleaner sounding track. I have a decent SONY model I bought early on.

So you wont see me trashing MD but Its not the best format out. As a matter of fact Mastering to hard disc is my reccomendation the sky is the limit to what kind of quality you can experince there.

My DAT pet peaves are the fact that you are dealing with tape and waiting for rewinding and ffing. while you can access the track immediately on the disc format.
 
I've had a couple opf MiniDisc recorders for about 6 years and I always felt that when I recorded a CD or digital track, it seemed to make them sound a bit warmer and smoother. Why, I have no idea, but others have a/b'd with me and have agreed. Go figure.
 
Interesting, but doesn't prove anything...

There's a couple of issues --
a) you had to do some manipulation to get both those clips - even simple level adjustment means some math was applied to one signal and not the other....

b) it's not statistically useful -- you'd have to do multiple rounds of double-blind comparisons to draw or infer any solid conclusion.

c) there IS an audible difference - meaning ATRAC IS changing the sound -- this fact alone makes it an unsuitable medium to mixdown or master to.

I work with MD occasionally and I constantly notice the "thinner, less present" sound when I A/B the MD copy to the original.


Bruce
 
Haven't listened to the clips, but just a quick ?
How was the CD transfer to the MD performed? Did you use a CD-player/MD unit, or did you plug the analog outs of a CD player into the Analog ins of your minidisc. If this was the case, the DA/AD conversion obviously was a factor in this.

BTW, I just dumped my Yamaha MD4S for a Mackie 1202VLZ Pro since I do all my tracking with my Delta 44. (The Mackie is for monitoring type stuff). I could definitely hear the difference betweeen the MD and my PC (24 bit/44.1khz uncompressed), but a big part of that probably had to do with the AD converters in the Delta 44 vs. those in the Yamaha.
 
The transfer to MD was done by plugging a CD Player's digital out into the digital in of the MD recorder. Transfer from MD to computer was also digital.

Blue Bear, no it doesn't necessarily prove anything, and I never really thought it would prove anything definitively. More statistics would need to be collected and it would have to be done in a more controlled environment.

But it DOES prove that MD sounds damn good! Good enough to fool some good ears.

Basically, it definitively contradicts those who say that MD sounds BAD. That is clearly not the case.
 
The compression makes it bad in the sense that if you go more than the first generation the loss multiplies Itself so you lose alot of headroom using it.

I dig the first generation and will use it to store mixes for DJ use. But the use of MD for Mastering is not better than the other digital formats. But tons better than Cassette.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top