From: "bluemagpie2003" <>
>
> Walt:
>
> What is the difference between the CF card recorder(ex.maranz PMD)
> and Minidisc? I need to transform the sound in MD to computer=20
> again by a line, doesn't that affect the quality?
> How do I decide which kind to buy?
> Thank you!
There is nothing wrong with analog transfers if done well. After all,
that's how the signal got from the mic to the recorder. Even if we see
some mics being falsely advertised as being digital. Whatever that is.
Since the advent of digital there has been this thing that digital can
be copied unmodified, and is therefore somehow better. If making many
generations of copy that is generally so, but for the single transfer
situation it's not near as much difference. In nearly all cases a
quality analog transfer won't be the limiting factor on your sound
quality. That will far more likely be in your recording environment,
your technique, or your recording front end.
In deciding on a recorder, don't decide on the basis of transferring the
recording. Decide on the other end, transferring the signal from
environment to recording. There are significant differences at that end
that make the transfer to computer trivia.
As far as difference between a card recorder and minidisc, there are
several, here's a few:
Minidisc is a archival medium that's pretty cheap and with a
considerable track record of high reliability. You can record on new
media all the time and archive the original recording as one leg of your
backup system. In contrast cards are expensive, and thus not considered
archival, but very temporary. You have to copy them to something to
archive, and soon before you run out of cards. If out on a long trip
recording you have to have that archiving system along. Or trust your
recordings to a intermediate with some of the hard disk storage systems.
Which leaves all your eggs in one basket. A single failure of that hard
disk could loose your entire trip's recording. It's not theory, I know a
number of folks who have had that very experience. I have had folks tell
me for more years than I care to count how cards are getting cheaper and
soon they will be as cheap as minidisc. So far I've seen no great
progress on that scale. I normally have 6 extra 80 minute blank
minidiscs in a pocket on my Portadisc's case, and at least a dozen more
along in the ranger. Try buying that much time in cards. And that's just
for shorter forays. It's no problem to toss in more boxes of minidiscs.
And I don't have a laptop or any other type of system to copy to along
to complicate my trips.
Either minidisc or card recordings can be transferred into a computer
digitally. That the inexpensive minidisc recorders don't do this does
not mean it does not exist. I use a HHb Portadisc, and normally transfer
with a optical digital audio connection. Often many months after
recording. It's not that costly to get a home deck that does digital
output to supplement your consumer minidisc if you want digital transfer.
Card recorders can transfer to computer faster. With minidisc you have
to do this at normal speed as they are not a computer accessory, but a
stand alone audio recorder based on real-time operations. I do not
consider this a advantage for card recorders, in fact it may be a
disadvantage. It promotes the modern habit of putting out stuff that has
not been critically listened to. I use the transfer time with minidisc
to take a critical listen to the entire recording, often for the first
time. To make decisions about the recording and what to do with it. If
you transfer fast, you still should be doing this. But I already see
this not being done. Look at how people use digital cameras and put out
absolute junk that they could not possibly have looked at. Because they
don't have to look at it. Note that since the minidisc is archival, you
can choose when to transfer far more than with card recorders. During my
busy season I do little transferring, it awaits the slack off season.
Not a option with cards unless you are very rich.
Much has been made of card recorders recording without compression.
While minidisc uses a very highly refined compression called ATRAC. Most
of this negativity has always been on the part of folks who don't have
any long term experience with minidisc, and the reasons are mostly in
error. Some highly placed organizations put out blatantly misleading
information on this. With especially constructed artificial sounds you
can find where the compression did something differently, with real
material ATRAC has been shown to work very well indeed. I have a CD of
Georgia frogcalls out that's sold nearly three thousand copies in it's
first year, is approaching it's third pressing. Almost all minidisc
recordings, and all that's come back from folks using it is the high
quality of the recordings. And it's far from the only commercial CD
containing MD material. The limitations on the quality of my recordings
are other things than compression. It's virtually a non-issue.
A artificial difference between minidisc and higher end card recorders
is just that. Most folks using minidisc record with a inexpensive
consumer minidisc recorder, that's not the same thing as something like
the semi-pro Marantz, and very different from a pro recorder.
Comparisons between recordings will show differences, most of which are
due to the lower quality of the electronics in the consumer minidisc.
Yet such comparisons rarely adjust their commentary to account for this.
If you compare to a pro level minidisc like the HHb Portadisc I use, the
Marantz is not as good. I have seen everything a consumer minidisc does
wrong in recording blamed on the ATRAC compression, most "tests" of
ATRAC compression are done on such consumer machines. Minidisc's
abilities are assumed to be limited to what those consumer MD's can do.
The reality is that consumer level electronics, regardless of the
storage medium will not do as well as pro level electronics. You get
what you pay for.
Finally, minidisc is a well established and well known recording system.
The card systems are ultimately tied to the instantly obsolete computer
industry, and have little track record as field recorders. I personally
try to keep as much of my stuff tied the least to computers as I can. I
can't afford to toss good equipment.
There is a newer version of minidisc coming out. It has higher capacity
discs, can allow recording either compressed or uncompressed as a
result. So far all we have seen are consumer quality equipment, not
really aimed at field recording at all, but at the by the track music
sales. It has potential if quality equipment is built around the new
disk. It may also shock a few folks when they try compressed and
uncompressed recordings in the same recorder. How little difference, if
any, that they find.
You should balance quality between your recorder and your mics. You
won't get most of the benefits of a thousand dollar mic hooking it to a
two hundred dollar consumer recorder. Many of the lower quality mics
used in nature recording are designed with this balance in mind, they
match the consumer recorders. If you are considering a high end
recorder, to benefit from it you are also committing to high end mics.
Think of your recording gear as a system. The ME mic you are using is
already pushing or exceeding the limits of consumer gear. Even the
Marantz is not doing it full justice. In order not to go completely
broke, it helps to plan the future, decide where you are going with it
all. And buy accordingly.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|