naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: moles and atrac

Subject: Re: moles and atrac
From: Walter Knapp <>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:09:55 -0500
Yannick Dauby wrote:

> hi walter.
> i read many posts about enthousiasm for ATRAC systems.
> i am wondering...
> the last time i used a minidisc, it was more than 5 years and it was not=

> convincing for me...
> i make field recording mainly for composing. and usually i make
> processing on the sounds i gathered. at least a strong eq. and what i
> felt with MD, is that some sounds that are at very low level, when they
> are pushed up with eq, are more "crispy", more "damaged" comparing with
> the use of DAT.
> i use oftenly binaural microphone (the sennheiser one). and the feeling
> of space, the relief seemed to be more flatten with MD.
> please tell me : are the more recent ATRAC much more precise for that ?
> (i have made these comparisons with first cheap MD recorders)
> i am still happy with my TCD-D8, but i would like to know...

ATRAC before version 4.0 was not near as good and it's continued to
improve since then. I talk about current ATRAC, or at least 4.0 and
above. Yes, there is considerable improvement. One of the problems of
the internet in this regard is that almost all stuff critical of ATRAC
can be traced to the early machines, and it never seems to get revised
or even noted as to which version they are talking about.

The comparison would be if you talked like the quality of mp3 was always
that of the most compressed, ugly mp3 possible.

Note that I'm almost never talking about the new LP forms of ATRAC,
those are not all that good. So far the standard ATRAC is still
available on the machines.

Even with current ATRAC, a walkman MD is a consumer grade piece of
electronics. This electronics does change the sound, not as crisp as pro
equipment can do, but that's not the fault of the ATRAC, look at the
pre's, and A/D, D/A for a lot of that. Something like my pro level HHb
Portadisc will do as well or better than DAT. And it's only ATRAC 4.5.
If you wish to compare minidisc to pro equipment, use pro minidisc
equipment. You will find the differences are minute, and don't
necessarily favor DAT. Current MD, for instance uses both bit shifting
and variable bit depth to carry more dynamic range than DAT (or audio
CD) can with their fixed formats.

I have the Sennheiser binaural mic. It's ok, I find it not that
sensitive, and a bit noisy. Particularly when compared to the SASS/MKH
setups I've been experimenting with. The Portadisc tends to show the
flaws of mics very well. It's well matched in quality by the MKH series
mics.

If a simple understanding of the capabilities of ATRAC is enthusiasm,
then I suppose I'm enthused. I'm certainly impressed with the talent of
those who perfected it. The truth is it works, I don't have to worry
about it. Other than responding to misinformation on the internet or
replying to questions on the internet I hardly think about it. What I
really like about minidisc is how well it works as a field medium. I've
been recording with minidisc for a number of years, my first MD recorder
being the then brand new MZ-R30, which introduced ATRAC 4 to portable
recording. I moved from tape because of the problems of tape in high
heat and humidity. I'd simply got fed up with short lived mediums and
equipment. I did worry at first about ATRAC, but plenty of experience
using minidisc for scientific recording has long since removed that worry.

I don't use minidisc for original recording of music, though all our
cars have minidisc radios and we listen to minidisc music recording a
lot. Most of which I transcribe from CD's using our Sony MXD-D3 combo
deck. Recordings made that way are indistinguishable from the original
CD. My use of minidisc is primarily as a field recording medium for
nature recording. It will do as well or better than any digital 44k
16bit portable system. And is the tops when it comes to reliability and
durability of the recordings.

I've gone well beyond simple eq in my processing of minidisc material.
Often dissecting out single calls via various filtering methods. I've
seen no problems unique to minidisc doing this. There are always
problems filtering or transferring audio around. Digital in all it's
forms has some unique ones. So there are limits to what can be done. I
also very routinely analyze my recordings via sonograms, again without
problems because it's minidisc.

Walt





________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU