naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Consumer MD quality

Subject: Re: Consumer MD quality
From: Rob Danielson <>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 15:50:07 -0500
Kind of depressing to test where it goes astray
though when we'll have MD decks in the field
until there's a cost-effective replacement. Net
MD probably hasn't increased the chances of
getting better a-d converters. Those in my
MT-90's seem a snidge better than those in my
first computer audio card, vintage 92. Some
heartening developments though: I've been talking
with a rep from Sony about the discussed
HiMD/sonicstage software changes to enable .wav
file usb transfer and editing access. They said
they should be making an announcement in a few
days. Might show-up under sonystyle.com ->
portable audio-> registration/support. One might
have to have a registered Sony product/log on to
access the full info though.  Best, Rob D.

  =3D =3D =3D =3D

At 6:21 PM +0000 8/10/04, Rich Peet wrote:
>Thanks for the review.
>
>Now for another test of md I could try recording both to hard drive
>and to my md via optical input at the same time.  That will give a
>recording using the same mics, mic pre, and a/d to compare.  only the
>atrac translation part of the md would be the difference, if I didn't
>miss something. But then, maybe I really can't stop a consumer md
>from resampling an optical input internally, I guess I don't know.
>
>Rich
>
>--- In  Rob Danielson <>
>wrote:
>>  Waiting for the 744T recorder to roll out, I've recorded many hours
>>  this Summer using several consumer grade SHARP MT-90 MD decks (and
>>  all my DATS resting in peace). I've experienced 100% technical
>>  reliability, MD is an amazing, _little_ medium.
>>
>>  I've noticed two qualities/differences comparing them to recordings
>>  made with the Sony D7-D8/M-1 DAT recorders I've used for years.=A0
>All
>>  recordings were made with the same low noise mics and MP-2 preamps
>>  and all transfers were made digitally.
>>
>>  1) The analog to digital processing circuits in the Sharp MD's is
>>  understandably not as transparent. This results in a "harmonic"
>>  structure in the sound that can be heard as a subtle chord of
>tones.
>>  It creates a more "musical" sounding recording with broadband
>>  original material (like location "air") but it also makes such
>>  sources sound more similar than they are. The a-d quality in the
>>  MT-90 is better than I thought it would be, but limited if one
>hopes
>>  to do things like make subtle contrasts in post. Using the optical
>>  digital input could get around the a-d lI assume.
>>
>>  2) Frequency nodes/artifacts. There are often some very narrow
>>  frequencies that are not reproduced correctly or as accurately as
>>  with non compressed 16bit.  These narrow bandwidths are either
>>  significantly attenuated or, instead of one tone, there's a blend
>of
>>  two tones fighting for the same location on the frequency spectrum.
>>  I've heard this at times with 16 bit recordings-- but its much more
>>  pronounced with the MD recordings I've been working with. The dip
>in
>>  response or discordant tone seem to create false tones that one has
>a
>>  hard time balancing with EQ. I've encountered enough of
>these "spots"
>>  now that I'm confident that they are somehow produced by the Sharp
>MD
>>  recorders/MD media.
>>
>>  I'm happy with the recordings and its likely that one could not
>hear
>>  these quality differences when making analog MD transfers because
>of
>>  the additional noise, distortion and a->d step. Of course, consumer
>>  MD's use different a->d circuits than the Portadisc recorders and
>>  this is important to remember.
>>
>>  Is it likely these traits occur with other or all consumer-grade MD
>>  recorders? I really couldn't say as my use of other MD recorders is
>>  limited.  Best,  Rob D.
>>
>>
>>  --
>>  Rob Danielson
>>  Film Department
>>  University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
>
>
>
>
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Rob Danielson
Film Department
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

>From   Tue Mar  8 18:27:51 2005
Message: 1=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 18:21:51 -0000
From: "Rich Peet" <>
Subject: Re: Consumer MD quality

Thanks for the review.

Now for another test of md I could try recording both to hard drive
and to my md via optical input at the same time.  That will give a
recording using the same mics, mic pre, and a/d to compare.  only the
atrac translation part of the md would be the difference, if I didn't
miss something. But then, maybe I really can't stop a consumer md
from resampling an optical input internally, I guess I don't know.

Rich

--- In  Rob Danielson <>
wrote:
> Waiting for the 744T recorder to roll out, I've recorded many hours
> this Summer using several consumer grade SHARP MT-90 MD decks (and
> all my DATS resting in peace). I've experienced 100% technical
> reliability, MD is an amazing, _little_ medium.
>
> I've noticed two qualities/differences comparing them to recordings
> made with the Sony D7-D8/M-1 DAT recorders I've used for years.=20
All
> recordings were made with the same low noise mics and MP-2 preamps
> and all transfers were made digitally.
>
> 1) The analog to digital processing circuits in the Sharp MD's is
> understandably not as transparent. This results in a "harmonic"
> structure in the sound that can be heard as a subtle chord of
tones.
> It creates a more "musical" sounding recording with broadband
> original material (like location "air") but it also makes such
> sources sound more similar than they are. The a-d quality in the
> MT-90 is better than I thought it would be, but limited if one
hopes
> to do things like make subtle contrasts in post. Using the optical
> digital input could get around the a-d lI assume.
>
> 2) Frequency nodes/artifacts. There are often some very narrow
> frequencies that are not reproduced correctly or as accurately as
> with non compressed 16bit.  These narrow bandwidths are either
> significantly attenuated or, instead of one tone, there's a blend
of
> two tones fighting for the same location on the frequency spectrum.
> I've heard this at times with 16 bit recordings-- but its much more
> pronounced with the MD recordings I've been working with. The dip
in
> response or discordant tone seem to create false tones that one has
a
> hard time balancing with EQ. I've encountered enough of
these "spots"
> now that I'm confident that they are somehow produced by the Sharp
MD
> recorders/MD media.
>
> I'm happy with the recordings and its likely that one could not
hear
> these quality differences when making analog MD transfers because
of
> the additional noise, distortion and a->d step. Of course, consumer
> MD's use different a->d circuits than the Portadisc recorders and
> this is important to remember.
>
> Is it likely these traits occur with other or all consumer-grade MD
> recorders? I really couldn't say as my use of other MD recorders is
> limited.  Best,  Rob D.
>
>
> --
> Rob Danielson
> Film Department
> University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

<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