Topic: Effect of MD compression on .wav comp

[tms]

Hi,

There’s been some recent discussion about the use of MiniDisc for taping.  One of the downsides of MD is the fact that it uses compression and is therefore lossy.  I was curious the effect of the compression and so decided to do a comparison test. 

If anyone is interested in participating in this comp I’d love to have you weigh in.  It would especially be nice if a diverse range of listeners would participate. 

My gut feeling is that this should be an easy one to differentiate, and it should be interesting to hear the comments.

The .wav files are located here:  www.eng.buffalo.edu/~tmsnyder/MDTest  .  There are about 90mb total. 

Here are the instructions, also posted in the download directory:

This is a comparison test to study the effect of MiniDisc (MD) ATRAC compression and decompression on 16 bit, 44.1 wav files.  Only the compression is included, no A/D or D/A conversions are included in the comparison.  All transfers were done over optical connections (all digital transfers). 

Studio produced music cd’s were played on a Sony cd player.  The optical output was captured as a .wav with a JB3.  This is the control sample referred to below as the unmodified wav file. 

The same song was then played again and captured on a portable MD player, a MZ-S1 which uses ATRAC Type R compression and has an optical input.  The disc was then removed and played on a MD deck, a SONY MDS-JE480 which was modified with an optical output and sends data at 16 bit / 44.1 khz.  The resulting wav file is therefore the same size as the control.  The optical output was captured on the same JB3 as the control. 

So the only difference between the two sources is that one includes MD compression and decompression.

There were 3 CD’s used; classical, rock/blues, and bluegrass.  One song from each CD was captured using the two sources.  The songs were split into 30 second tracks so that first one source can be played, and then the other source can be played from approximately the same part of the song. 

For each song, designations of Source A and B were randomly chosen for which source was MD lineage and which was unmodified wav.  So the designations of A and B randomly vary from song to song.  A is either the MD source or the unmodified source, and B is the other remaining choice.  The designation of A or B doesn’t vary within the song.

Song 1 (Bach):

1-1A:  Song1Track1SourceA (30 seconds)
1-1B:  Song1Track1SourceB (30 seconds)

1-2A:  Song1Track2SourceA (30 seconds)
1-2B:  Song1Track2SourceB (30 seconds)

1-3A:  Song1Track3SourceA (30 seconds)
1-3B:  Song1Track3SourceB (30 seconds)

Song 1 choices (please choose one of the following):

*1* Source A is the unmodified wav file (Source B was MD compressed)
*2* Source B is the unmodified wav file (Source A is was MD compressed)

Certainty (1-5):  (1=No clue, total guess, 2=Slight suspicion, 3=Strong suspicion. 4=Pretty sure, 5=I'd bet my life on it)

Observations:

____________________________________________________________

Song 2 (Stevie Ray Vaughan):

2-1A:  Song2Track1SourceA (30 seconds)
2-1B:  Song2Track1SourceB (30 seconds)

2-2A:  Song2Track2SourceA (30 seconds)
2-2B:  Song2Track2SourceB (30 seconds)

2-3A:  Song2Track3SourceA (30 seconds)
2-3B:  Song2Track3SourceB (30 seconds)

Song 2 choices (please choose one of the following):

*1* Source A is the unmodified wav file (Source B was MD compressed)
*2* Source B is the unmodified wav file (Source A is was MD compressed)

Certainty (1-5):  (1=No clue, total guess, 2=Slight suspicion, 3=Strong suspicion. 4=Pretty sure, 5=I'd bet my life on it)

Observations:

____________________________________________________________


Song 3 (Del McCoury):

3-1A:  Song3Track1SourceA (30 seconds)
3-1B:  Song3Track1SourceB (30 seconds)

3-2A:  Song3Track2SourceA (30 seconds)
3-2B:  Song3Track2SourceB (30 seconds)

3-3A:  Song3Track3SourceA (30 seconds)
3-3B:  Song3Track3SourceB (30 seconds)

Song 3 choices (please choose one of the following):

*1* Source A is the unmodified wav file (Source B was MD compressed)
*2* Source B is the unmodified wav file (Source A is was MD compressed)

Certainty (1-5):  (1=No clue, total guess, 2=Slight suspicion, 3=Strong suspicion. 4=Pretty sure, 5=I'd bet my life on it)

Observations:

____________________________________________________________




Please describe your playback system:

____________________________________________________________

[twoheadedboy]

I think this is irrelevant now that A) you can record PCM 16-bit 44.1khz audio onto MD (1GB Hi-MD format) and B) with the Hi-MD format has arrived newer, higher quality compression settings.

No offense intended, just my two cents.

[madman]

I'd like to see a test with Hi-SP.  I bet with live, or even pre-recorded, that most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference by ear.

[itook2much]

I'd like to see a test with Hi-SP.  I bet with live, or even pre-recorded, that most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference by ear.

I use Hi-MD, & I can't.  Hi-SP recordings I've done sound as good to my ears, & the frequency range shows up just as broad when I edit.

[zowie]

Thanks for posting these.

It was interesting to compare.  I had no trouble telling which was which, however.

[jpschust]

it's irrelevant in the sense that no matter what it is a lossy compression.  you lose dynamic range- how much more do you need?

[tms]

Thanks for posting these.

It was interesting to compare.  I had no trouble telling which was which, however.

Great, thanks for listening to them!  Would you mind PM'ing me with your answers and comments?



Todd in Buffalo

[tms]

it's irrelevant in the sense that no matter what it is a lossy compression.  you lose dynamic range- how much more do you need?

It might not be irrelevent to everyone though, depending on their application.  For instance, I carry an MD as a backup to my JB3.  And the MD was my first recorder, as it is for a lot of people.  It's small, inexpensive, waterproof, and records for 7 hours on a single AA battery. And I find that I actually listen to my MD recordings a lot more than my JB3 recordings because it's so easy to pop one in my deck.  95% of my JB3 recordings are still on my PC harddrive waiting to be tracked and burned to CD.

Since it turns out I'm still using the MD even though it is obsolete, I was wondering how much is lost by the compression, that was the reason for the comp.  I figured that others might want to hear the change caused by ATRAC as well.

[tms]

it's irrelevant in the sense that no matter what it is a lossy compression.  you lose dynamic range- how much more do you need?

You're right, for achiving purposes you shouldn't use an MD.

[tms]

I'd like to see a test with Hi-SP.  I bet with live, or even pre-recorded, that most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference by ear.

I use Hi-MD, & I can't.  Hi-SP recordings I've done sound as good to my ears, & the frequency range shows up just as broad when I edit.

A Hi-MD test would be kind of pointless, the data are very nearly bit perfect when recorded optical-in and recovered with HiMDRenderer. 

What are the specs on Hi-SP?  Is it better quality than SP?

[zowie]

Those are my comments.  I can hear the difference easily.  The ATRAC doesn't suck, but it's clearly worse.  I don't have time to fill out the whole shebang.

Hi-SP is not bit perfect, just the oppositem it is another lossy compression algo.  The question presented by Madman is whether (or not) Hi-SP sounds better than old SP, which would be interesting to know IF one is going to use any lossy compression in the first place, which of course is undesirable for live recording except under exceptional circumstances (i.e., its still better than nothing)>

[tms]

Those are my comments.  I can hear the difference easily.  The ATRAC doesn't suck, but it's clearly worse.  I don't have time to fill out the whole shebang.

Hi-SP is not bit perfect, just the oppositem it is another lossy compression algo.  The question presented by Madman is whether (or not) Hi-SP sounds better than old SP, which would be interesting to know IF one is going to use any lossy compression in the first place, which of course is undesirable for live recording except under exceptional circumstances (i.e., its still better than nothing)>

Right, Hi-SP is not bit perfect, but Hi-MD recorded as PCM and recovered by HiMDRenderer is.

Right, Hi-SP is still compressed, which is definitely not as good as uncompressed.  I just wasn't sure if it was more compressed or less compressed than SP.  I think it's even more compressed (lower bitrate) than SP.

Please PM me with your answers, I'm interested to see how you did. 

Song 1:  Were the A tracks MD or .wav?
Song 2:  Were the A tracks MD or .wav?
Song 3:  Were the A tracks MD or .wav?

[tms]

Those are my comments.  I can hear the difference easily.  The ATRAC doesn't suck, but it's clearly worse.  I don't have time to fill out the whole shebang.

Hi-SP is not bit perfect, just the oppositem it is another lossy compression algo.  The question presented by Madman is whether (or not) Hi-SP sounds better than old SP, which would be interesting to know IF one is going to use any lossy compression in the first place, which of course is undesirable for live recording except under exceptional circumstances (i.e., its still better than nothing)>

Right, Hi-SP is not bit perfect, but Hi-MD recorded as PCM and recovered by HiMDRenderer is.

Right, Hi-SP is still compressed, which is definitely not as good as uncompressed.  I just wasn't sure if it was more compressed or less compressed than SP.  I think it's even more compressed (lower bitrate) than SP.

Please PM me with your answers, I'm interested to see how you did. 

Song 1:  Were the A tracks MD or .wav?
Song 2:  Were the A tracks MD or .wav?
Song 3:  Were the A tracks MD or .wav?

[Brian Skalinder]

Hi-SP is not bit perfect, but Hi-MD recorded as PCM and recovered by HiMDRenderer is.

Have you done any controlled testing with HiMDRenderer to verify its bit-accuracy?  I'm sure the author has improved it from when I last checked into it, but...last I looked into it HiMDRenderer did not prove bit-accurate.

[poorlyconditioned]

Hi-SP is not bit perfect, but Hi-MD recorded as PCM and recovered by HiMDRenderer is.

Have you done any controlled testing with HiMDRenderer to verify its bit-accuracy?  I'm sure the author has improved it from when I last checked into it, but...last I looked into it HiMDRenderer did not prove bit-accurate.

The problem is not whether HiMDRender is bit accurate.  I think it is, and *a small number of* my tests confirm this.  The problem is that the MD *resamples* the digital input.  So, for the purist, you need a NJB3 for digital recording.

Back to whether to us MD.  I would say yes.  I've seen *much* bigger differences from changing microphones, microphone powering (phantom vs. battery box), and microphone placement.  If you're using anything like CSB omnis or AT853, I think it is perfectly reasonable to use MD (compressed or not).  Oh yeah, I would rather have analog in (line/mic) to a MD than to a NJB3 any day.  MD has proper gain controls and no HD noise on analog in.  So, as noted in my "sig" below, I would either use analog in to MD or digital in (eg., UA5) to NJB3.

  Richard

[madman]

Those are my comments.  I can hear the difference easily.  The ATRAC doesn't suck, but it's clearly worse.  I don't have time to fill out the whole shebang.

Hi-SP is not bit perfect, just the oppositem it is another lossy compression algo.  The question presented by Madman is whether (or not) Hi-SP sounds better than old SP, which would be interesting to know IF one is going to use any lossy compression in the first place, which of course is undesirable for live recording except under exceptional circumstances (i.e., its still better than nothing)>

Actually, my question is whether or not the human ear can hear the difference between Hi-SP and uncompressed in a blind test. 

[tms]

Hi-SP is not bit perfect, but Hi-MD recorded as PCM and recovered by HiMDRenderer is.

Have you done any controlled testing with HiMDRenderer to verify its bit-accuracy?  I'm sure the author has improved it from when I last checked into it, but...last I looked into it HiMDRenderer did not prove bit-accurate.

I have not b/c I don't own one.  But from what I've read it is very very close to bit perfect.  Apparently the software recovers the data in 2 minute windows (those are bit perfect) and then puts it all together.  At those 2 minute intervals the software author says it may or may not be bit perfect.

Depends on how much of a purist you are I guess, budget, what you have on hand, what your objectives are. 

If I had one I'd use it for taping, they're smaller than a JB3 and I like the removable media.

[tms]

The problem is not whether HiMDRender is bit accurate.  I think it is, and *a small number of* my tests confirm this.  The problem is that the MD *resamples* the digital input.  So, for the purist, you need a NJB3 for digital recording.

Can you expand on this?  How does resampling change the data?

I thought I had isolated just the effect of compression but apparently the resampling was also included in the comp too.

[tms]

Actually, my question is whether or not the human ear can hear the difference between Hi-SP and uncompressed in a blind test. 

This comparison is essentially the same as a Hi-SP vs. wav test.  Reading online (http://forums.minidisc.org/index.php?showtopic=11644&hl=)  I found the specs of SP and Hi-SP.   ATRAC SP is 292 kbps,  Hi-SP is 256 kbps.

SP and Hi-SP are essentially the same, so this comparison should answer this.  If you want to repeat with the Hi-SP that would be good too.

[Brian Skalinder]

Hi-SP is not bit perfect, but Hi-MD recorded as PCM and recovered by HiMDRenderer is.

Have you done any controlled testing with HiMDRenderer to verify its bit-accuracy?  I'm sure the author has improved it from when I last checked into it, but...last I looked into it HiMDRenderer did not prove bit-accurate.

I have not b/c I don't own one.  But from what I've read it is very very close to bit perfect.  Apparently the software recovers the data in 2 minute windows (those are bit perfect) and then puts it all together.  At those 2 minute intervals the software author says it may or may not be bit perfect.

Depends on how much of a purist you are I guess, budget, what you have on hand, what your objectives are. 

If I had one I'd use it for taping, they're smaller than a JB3 and I like the removable media.

Thanks for the update, TMS.  "Very very close to bit-perfect", and "may or may not be bit perfect" does not equal bit perfect.  I'm just trying to ensure people have access to accurate information.  I know I'd be upset if I bought that solution thinking it's bit-perfect, when in fact it is not.  And I agree, whether the solution proves useful depends on the individual case.

[zowie]

Hi-SP is not bit perfect, but Hi-MD recorded as PCM and recovered by HiMDRenderer is.

Have you done any controlled testing with HiMDRenderer to verify its bit-accuracy?  I'm sure the author has improved it from when I last checked into it, but...last I looked into it HiMDRenderer did not prove bit-accurate.

I have not b/c I don't own one.  But from what I've read it is very very close to bit perfect.  Apparently the software recovers the data in 2 minute windows (those are bit perfect) and then puts it all together.  At those 2 minute intervals the software author says it may or may not be bit perfect.

Depends on how much of a purist you are I guess, budget, what you have on hand, what your objectives are. 

If I had one I'd use it for taping, they're smaller than a JB3 and I like the removable media.

Thanks for the update, TMS.  "Very very close to bit-perfect", and "may or may not be bit perfect" does not equal bit perfect.  I'm just trying to ensure people have access to accurate information.  I know I'd be upset if I bought that solution thinking it's bit-perfect, when in fact it is not.  And I agree, whether the solution proves useful depends on the individual case.

Well, I'm thinking about buying a HiMD to run mic in strictly for unobtrusive recording.  So resampling isn't really an issue for me.  Bad transfer software could be.  A comparison of how much quality is lost with the new HiSP vs. PCM would be nice to know in order to make an informed judgment about using it on occassions where the set is too long to fit at 16/44.

[tms]

Well, I'm thinking about buying a HiMD to run mic in strictly for stealthing.  So resampling isn't really an issue for me.  Bad transfer software could be.  A comparison of how much quality is lost with the new HiSP vs. PCM would be nice to know in order to make an informed judgment about using it on occassions where the set is too long to fit at 16/44.

If you record 16/44.1 PCM using the analog in, SONY allows you to get your wav files off the HiMD bit perfect over their software.  Analog in = no problem.

Digital recordings are the problem with SONY.  The transfer software, HiMDRenderer only comes into play if you record optical in.  SONY doesn't want you to be able to get the wavs directly from the HiMD.  HiMDRenderer supposedly gets around this, but may not be bit perfect.  So the transfer software problem of not being bit perfect only comes into play if you're trying to record dig-in.

What are you going to compare the HiMD A/D>compressed audio to?

[tms]

Thanks for the update, TMS.  "Very very close to bit-perfect", and "may or may not be bit perfect" does not equal bit perfect.  I'm just trying to ensure people have access to accurate information.  I know I'd be upset if I bought that solution thinking it's bit-perfect, when in fact it is not.  And I agree, whether the solution proves useful depends on the individual case.

It may be more appropriate to say that it hasn't been proven not bit perfect yet.  The only real testing I've read about is right here in this thread and the he says it was bit perfect in all his tests.

This brings up another even more off topic question, is there such a thing as a bit perfect recorder in a real world scenario?  It seems like I've read on ts.com that supposed bit perfect recorders like the JB3 have occasionally dropped bits.

Personally I don't even care, I don't own a HiMD and probably never will.  I just thought it would be fun to put up a comp using an MD and watch people smash it out of the park.  Seems like it would be fun.  So far no takers though! 

[Brian Skalinder]

It may be more appropriate to say that it hasn't been proven not bit perfect yet.

I believe it's wise to err on the side of caution, i.e. assume it's not bit-perfect until proven so.  If we assume it's bit-perfect and it isn't, the consequences are flawed recordings.  If we assume it is not bit-perfect and it is, then there are no downsides.
 

is there such a thing as a bit perfect recorder in a real world scenario?

Yes.  My D100 was bit-perfect - I tested it.  My JB3 setup of V3 > Hosa ODL-312 > optical > V3 and V3 w/optical mod > optical > JB3 proved bit-perfect in a large sampling of test data.  I know because I tested it.  I'm in the process of testing my MT2496 now, too.

It seems like I've read on ts.com that supposed bit perfect recorders like the JB3 have occasionally dropped bits.

The JB3 proves bit-perfect with some gear, and not with others.  Usually, the culprit has been a digital format converter, and not the JB3 proper.

[Zaphod]

is there such a thing as a bit perfect recorder in a real world scenario?

Yes.  My D100 was bit-perfect - I tested it.  My JB3 setup of V3 > Hosa ODL-312 > optical > V3 and V3 w/optical mod > optical > JB3 proved bit-perfect in a large sampling of test data.  I know because I tested it.  I'm in the process of testing my MT2496 now, too.

What is the testing process to ensure bit-accuracy?

I haven't seen it mentioned, and I'm curious about it.

[Brian Skalinder]

What is the testing process to ensure bit-accuracy?

Basically two ways:

OPTION 1

• play back a digital file from PC, through a bit-perfect soundcard, into the recording device
• transfer the newly recorded file from the recording device back to the PC
• perform a comparison¹ of the two WAVs - they should match identically, sample for sample
  

.
or

OPTION 2

• record a file from a single ADC output to two recording devices, a known bit-perfect recorder (A) and the recorder in question (B)
• transfer both A and B recordings to a PC
• perform a comparison¹ of the two WAVs - they should match identically, sample for sample

.
Of course, in both cases, we need a known bit-perfect device.  IMO, option 2 is better because some gear may prove bit-perfect when paired with certain gear, but not with others.  So, we should test with the gear we use to record in the field. 

¹ EAC, WaveLab, and other apps have WAV compare features.

Link to a specific test case I outlined for the CO2:

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=36146.msg463275#msg463275

[zowie]

Well, I'm thinking about buying a HiMD to run mic in strictly for stealthing.  So resampling isn't really an issue for me.  Bad transfer software could be.  A comparison of how much quality is lost with the new HiSP vs. PCM would be nice to know in order to make an informed judgment about using it on occassions where the set is too long to fit at 16/44.

If you record 16/44.1 PCM using the analog in, SONY allows you to get your wav files off the HiMD bit perfect over their software.  Analog in = no problem.

Digital recordings are the problem with SONY.  The transfer software, HiMDRenderer only comes into play if you record optical in.  SONY doesn't want you to be able to get the wavs directly from the HiMD.  HiMDRenderer supposedly gets around this, but may not be bit perfect.  So the transfer software problem of not being bit perfect only comes into play if you're trying to record dig-in.

What are you going to compare the HiMD A/D>compressed audio to?

To HiMD A/D non-compressed audio (16/44 pcm) and to old MD-SP compressed audio.

Re transferrs -- fine for me.  I'm not going to use MD with a front end ADC.  If I'm able to bring a larger package w/ outboard gear package I'd be brininging my NJB or laptop. 

[madman]

Actually, my question is whether or not the human ear can hear the difference between Hi-SP and uncompressed in a blind test. 

This comparison is essentially the same as a Hi-SP vs. wav test.  Reading online (http://forums.minidisc.org/index.php?showtopic=11644&hl=)  I found the specs of SP and Hi-SP.   ATRAC SP is 292 kbps,  Hi-SP is 256 kbps.

SP and Hi-SP are essentially the same, so this comparison should answer this.  If you want to repeat with the Hi-SP that would be good too.

ATRAC SP is indeed 292kbps, but it's using an older form (I think the oldest) of ATRAC and is available on the older MD format, Hi-MD formats don't even support this ancient encoding.  Hi-SP uses ATRAC3plus and is specific to Hi-MD technology only.  Bitrate to bitrate comparisons are not apples to apples when dealing with different encoding mechanisms.  In short, SP and Hi-SP are nowhere near the same.

[tms]

Actually, my question is whether or not the human ear can hear the difference between Hi-SP and uncompressed in a blind test. 

This comparison is essentially the same as a Hi-SP vs. wav test.  Reading online (http://forums.minidisc.org/index.php?showtopic=11644&hl=)  I found the specs of SP and Hi-SP.   ATRAC SP is 292 kbps,  Hi-SP is 256 kbps.

SP and Hi-SP are essentially the same, so this comparison should answer this.  If you want to repeat with the Hi-SP that would be good too.

ATRAC SP is indeed 292kbps, but it's using an older form (I think the oldest) of ATRAC and is available on the older MD format, Hi-MD formats don't even support this ancient encoding.  Hi-SP uses ATRAC3plus and is specific to Hi-MD technology only.  Bitrate to bitrate comparisons are not apples to apples when dealing with different encoding mechanisms.  In short, SP and Hi-SP are nowhere near the same.

So newer = better?  You sure you want to stick with that theory?

But great, another comp!  Do a SP to HiSP comparison and find out.  I bet you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between these two compressions in a blind test.

I was basing my statement that SP ~ HiSP on this from minidisc.org:

-------------------------------------------------

Ok so here's how it goes.

As far has HiMD is concerned Atrac 256kbps (also known as HiSP) is the best Atrac sounding compression you can use. While sonicstage does encode Atrac into 320kbps these are as of yet not supported on HiMD.

Here is a list of supported bitrates and my opinion on them.

PCM (1411kbps): CD quality, this has no compression and is by far the best sound quality available.
-My rating: ***** (5/5)

Atrac3+ HiSP (256kbps):Highest quality Atrac compression. Very comparable to the original Atrac (which had a bitrate of 292kbps), this compression is almost impossible to tell apart from the original PCM source.
-My rating: ***** (5/5 because the whole point of compression is to let you store more audio in the same space and for all intensive purposes this sounds the same as PCM)
<snip of lower bitrates>

[madman]

Actually, my question is whether or not the human ear can hear the difference between Hi-SP and uncompressed in a blind test. 

This comparison is essentially the same as a Hi-SP vs. wav test.  Reading online (http://forums.minidisc.org/index.php?showtopic=11644&hl=)  I found the specs of SP and Hi-SP.   ATRAC SP is 292 kbps,  Hi-SP is 256 kbps.

SP and Hi-SP are essentially the same, so this comparison should answer this.  If you want to repeat with the Hi-SP that would be good too.

ATRAC SP is indeed 292kbps, but it's using an older form (I think the oldest) of ATRAC and is available on the older MD format, Hi-MD formats don't even support this ancient encoding.  Hi-SP uses ATRAC3plus and is specific to Hi-MD technology only.  Bitrate to bitrate comparisons are not apples to apples when dealing with different encoding mechanisms.  In short, SP and Hi-SP are nowhere near the same.

So newer = better?  You sure you want to stick with that theory?

If you took a moment to read the improvements of ATRAC3plus over ATRAC, you might understand why.  I don't currently have access to a Hi-MD deck, but I remember it sounding much better than my old MD decks that use SP/ATRAC.

[zowie]

If you took a moment to read the improvements of ATRAC3plus over ATRAC, you might understand why.  I don't currently have access to a Hi-MD deck, but I remember it sounding much better than my old MD decks that use SP/ATRAC.

Read them where?

[madman]

If you took a moment to read the improvements of ATRAC3plus over ATRAC, you might understand why.  I don't currently have access to a Hi-MD deck, but I remember it sounding much better than my old MD decks that use SP/ATRAC.

Read them where?

The Hi-MD FAQ on minidisc.org has some information on ATRAC3plus vs ATRAC.  Then again, a lot has to do with equipment.  I even hear a difference between my sharp portable recorder and my Sony home deck.  I'm pretty certain it's easy to tell Hi-SP vs SP, if I ever get access to Hi-MD again I'll do a more scientific comparison.

[tms]

Here's the first report from a co-worker.  He's a music lover with a decent stereo, mid-range consumer grade stuff, ~$1000 worth of speakers, cd player and receiver.  I gave him a CD with the two sets of samples and the text file, here's what he says:

"I listened to these both in my car (sitting in the garage, not driving) and at home by listening to the first few seconds of each track and then forwarding to the next.  30 seconds was too long for me to remember the sound.  Sometimes I thought one might sound a little different, maybe brighter or tinny-er (?) but when I went back and listened to the other matching track it sounded the same.  I don't want to guess which one is which, I can't tell the difference, they sound the same to me."

[Karl]

I can't take your above test (I'm on dialup  ) but I used to record MD.  In the height of it, I recorded with a portable Sharp DR-7.  I would then transfer to PC via md deck Sony MDS-JE510.  I could hear differences between that and lossless.  Basically, the high frequencies were not as clear.  But I really doubt most Joe Schmoes' would be able to tell the difference.

[WiFiJeff]

  But I really doubt most Joe Schmoes' would be able to tell the difference.

That's the problem with these "comparisons," isn't it.  "I gave my co-worker a glass of Chateau Lafitte and a glass of Gallo Chardonnay and he couldn't tell the difference" is less a statement about the quality of wines than about the low-lifes I work with.

Jeff

[tms]

If you took a moment to read the improvements of ATRAC3plus over ATRAC, you might understand why.  I don't currently have access to a Hi-MD deck, but I remember it sounding much better than my old MD decks that use SP/ATRAC.

Read them where?

The Hi-MD FAQ on minidisc.org has some information on ATRAC3plus vs ATRAC.  Then again, a lot has to do with equipment.  I even hear a difference between my sharp portable recorder and my Sony home deck.  I'm pretty certain it's easy to tell Hi-SP vs SP, if I ever get access to Hi-MD again I'll do a more scientific comparison.

Sony went thru so many variations of ATRAC compression, but they're all based on the same FFT algorithm.  The recorder I used for this is the MZ-S1, the manual says it uses ATRAC3 for LP2 and LP4, and ATRAC type R for SP.  

The minidisc.org website describes ATRAC3plus as just another upgrade of the compression algorithm, they call it ATRAC4.  But if that's what a Hi-MD recorder uses to acheive 64kbps compression it doesn't much matter because it's going to sound like 128kbps mp3 according to sony's research (ass).

Hi-SP on a Hi-MD deck which is 256kbps is going to be the same as the newest SP types on a plain jane MD recording at 292kbps.  They are using the same compression algorithm, they didn't reinvent the underlying mathmatics.  They may have tweaked it slightly to suit the new hardware, but they didn't go back to the drawing board and reinvent a new algorithm.

So sure, MD is obsolete.  For that matter so is Hi-MD since Sony is not developing the line any further.

The variability you hear between equipment, are you using analog or digital connections?  The difference might not have anything to do with the compression but instead the A/D and D/A in the recorder or deck and the amplifier.

FWIW this comp was done with all digital connections.

[tms]

  But I really doubt most Joe Schmoes' would be able to tell the difference.

That's the problem with these "comparisons," isn't it.  "I gave my co-worker a glass of Chateau Lafitte and a glass of Gallo Chardonnay and he couldn't tell the difference" is less a statement about the quality of wines than about the low-lifes I work with.

Jeff

So what you're saying is that unless a person has $10,000 worth of home audio equipment they can't enjoy music and they are also a low-life? 

[tms]

I can't take your above test (I'm on dialup  ) but I used to record MD.  In the height of it, I recorded with a portable Sharp DR-7.  I would then transfer to PC via md deck Sony MDS-JE510.  I could hear differences between that and lossless.  Basically, the high frequencies were not as clear.  But I really doubt most Joe Schmoes' would be able to tell the difference.

Were you going digital-in or analog-in?  Could some of the difference have been due to the two different A/D's? 

[zowie]

Rant Warning!!!

  But I really doubt most Joe Schmoes' would be able to tell the difference.

That's the problem with these "comparisons," isn't it.  "I gave my co-worker a glass of Chateau Lafitte and a glass of Gallo Chardonnay and he couldn't tell the difference" is less a statement about the quality of wines than about the low-lifes I work with.

Jeff

So what you're saying is that unless a person has $10,000 worth of home audio equipment they can't enjoy music and they are also a low-life? 

By definition anyone without $10k of home equipment is a low life, and you're one if you don't know that!

Seriously, I didn't make the original statement but I'll respond.  There are some people with $10k of equipment who still can't hear the difference because they lack listening skills.  There are many people who lack good listening skills because they've never heard good equipment -- I've seen so many user reviews where the reviewer can only compare products on the basis of volume capability and quantity of bass and goofy operational features.  And there are also many people (including a few putative audiophiles I've met) who have never heard a world class symphony orchestra or chamber ensemble live in a decent hall, live jazz ensemble, etc. and don't have a good frame of reference for judging gear.   And of course if you don't know what you're missing for any of these reasons, you don't have any desire to buy more revealtory (not necessarily more expensive) equipment.

Also, I should note that I've heard $10k and $100k systems that were unlistenable, and carefully assembled $2k systems that are thrilling.

Shifting gears slightly, there are also people who can hear the difference but just don't care.  I have a lot of sympathy (or is it empathy?) for this position.  Mother Zowie for example, can play three instruments, loves music and sometimes goes to hear it live, and can certainly hear the huge difference between my playback system and her Aiwa light-show-cum-stereo, but simply lacks any desire to own anything better.  I have a very entry level car stereo (required by the realities of NYC), a 1950 RCA 45 changer that I restored, and a 1913 victorola.  None of this gear measures up sonically to MD-SP.  And yet I have an absolute ball listening to them and get tremendous enjoyment from the music.  Similarly, some of the best times of my life were with friends in high school and college sitting around listening to badly set up low end component systems, a quality of experience that has never been matched sitting in the "sweet spot" of the high end systems I've owned playing overpriced audiophile reissues.

People who can't hear the difference between Hi-MD and uncompressed audio, because of lack of listening skills or lack of quality equipment and no intention of upgrading, and people who just don't care because they enjoy the music just about as much in mid-fi as they do in hi-fi might, probably SHOULD enjoy the conveniences and cost-savings of minimal gear and compressed audio.

But I can easily hear the difference between MD-SP and uncompressed recording.  I also care very much about the quality of my masters, as do others who listen to them.  So I'm not going to make compressed recordings absent extenuating circumstances (i.e., that or nothing).  Therefore, who gives a flying it is not significant to me and a number of other people who hang out here whether one of your co-workers heard a difference between the two formats.

+t for posting the samples, because I think they are educational even if I do not believe they make a meaningful point.

[WiFiJeff]

By definition anyone without $10k of home equipment is a low life, and you're one if you don't know that!

Actually, I only said my co-workers were low-lifes, disirregardless of their tastes in wine or hifi.  For the record, I don't drink Chateau Lafitte or have a $10,000 audio system myself, I use headphones and favor Diet Coke.  But when I read reviews of gear or concerts, or wine or food, or whatever, I find you have to know a lot about the person whose subjective opinion is weighing in for that opinion to be at all useful.  And some opinions tell you more about the opiner than about the matter in question.  Clearly, lots of people find mp3 compression unobjectionable and enormously convenient.  It works better for some things than others.  I am trying to convince myself that 24/96 is reliably better than 16/44.1, it's not a first-order effect like when you go from cassette to DAT but I think I hear it.  That somebody I don't know can't hear any difference isn't a useful data point, I think.

Jeff

[zowie]

By definition anyone without $10k of home equipment is a low life, and you're one if you don't know that!

Actually, I only said my co-workers were low-lifes, disirregardless of their tastes in wine or hifi.  For the record, I don't drink Chateau Lafitte or have a $10,000 audio system myself, I use headphones and favor Diet Coke.  But when I read reviews of gear or concerts, or wine or food, or whatever, I find you have to know a lot about the person whose subjective opinion is weighing in for that opinion to be at all useful.  And some opinions tell you more about the opiner than about the matter in question.  Clearly, lots of people find mp3 compression unobjectionable and enormously convenient.  It works better for some things than others.  I am trying to convince myself that 24/96 is reliably better than 16/44.1, it's not a first-order effect like when you go from cassette to DAT but I think I hear it.  That somebody I don't know can't hear any difference isn't a useful data point, I think.

Jeff

It's seems we mostly agree except that you are flat out wrong on the most important issue:

Diet Pepsi : Diet Coke :: DAT : cassette

 

[tms]

Rant Warning!!!

  But I really doubt most Joe Schmoes' would be able to tell the difference.

That's the problem with these "comparisons," isn't it.  "I gave my co-worker a glass of Chateau Lafitte and a glass of Gallo Chardonnay and he couldn't tell the difference" is less a statement about the quality of wines than about the low-lifes I work with.

Jeff

So what you're saying is that unless a person has $10,000 worth of home audio equipment they can't enjoy music and they are also a low-life? 

By definition anyone without $10k of home equipment is a low life, and you're one if you don't know that!

Seriously, I didn't make the original statement but I'll respond.  There are some people with $10k of equipment who still can't hear the difference because they lack listening skills.  There are many people who lack good listening skills because they've never heard good equipment -- I've seen so many user reviews where the reviewer can only compare products on the basis of volume capability and quantity of bass and goofy operational features.  And there are also many people (including a few putative audiophiles I've met) who have never heard a world class symphony orchestra or chamber ensemble live in a decent hall, live jazz ensemble, etc. and don't have a good frame of reference for judging gear.   And of course if you don't know what you're missing for any of these reasons, you don't have any desire to buy more revealtory (not necessarily more expensive) equipment.

Also, I should note that I've heard $10k and $100k systems that were unlistenable, and carefully assembled $2k systems that are thrilling.

Shifting gears slightly, there are also people who can hear the difference but just don't care.  I have a lot of sympathy (or is it empathy?) for this position.  Mother Zowie for example, can play three instruments, loves music and sometimes goes to hear it live, and can certainly hear the huge difference between my playback system and her Aiwa light-show-cum-stereo, but simply lacks any desire to own anything better.  I have a very entry level car stereo (required by the realities of NYC), a 1950 RCA 45 changer that I restored, and a 1913 victorola.  None of this gear measures up sonically to MD-SP.  And yet I have an absolute ball listening to them and get tremendous enjoyment from the music.  Similarly, some of the best times of my life were with friends in high school and college sitting around listening to badly set up low end component systems, a quality of experience that has never been matched sitting in the "sweet spot" of the high end systems I've owned playing overpriced audiophile reissues.

People who can't hear the difference between Hi-MD and uncompressed audio, because of lack of listening skills or lack of quality equipment and no intention of upgrading, and people who just don't care because they enjoy the music just about as much in mid-fi as they do in hi-fi might, probably SHOULD enjoy the conveniences and cost-savings of minimal gear and compressed audio.

But I can easily hear the difference between MD-SP and uncompressed recording.  I also care very much about the quality of my masters, as do others who listen to them.  So I'm not going to make compressed recordings absent extenuating circumstances (i.e., that or nothing).  Therefore, who gives a flying it is not significant to me and a number of other people who hang out here whether one of your co-workers heard a difference between the two formats.

+t for posting the samples, because I think they are educational even if I do not believe they make a meaningful point.

First off, thank you for the +t!

Second, I agree with you that it doesn't matter whether anyone can hear the difference.  For archiving, it's lossy and shouldn't be used as a primary recorder.  I totally agree.  But as you also said, it's better than nothing.  I carry mine as a backup to my JB3.  That's why I did the test, to see how much different it would be if I did have to use it.

I was hoping some people with good ears and equipment would weigh in on the differences here, but no one has.  That's the reason why I'm taking the comp out to my friends and family.

So if you did listen to the samples, please PM me with your answers, I'm really interested to see which ones you think are the MD compressed.  I won't put any names with answers, it will be anonymous.

[tmerk]

Hi tms,

I'm currently weighing pros & cons of HiMD vs. something like an Edirol R-09, so I appreciate your taking the time to put this together.  My hearing isn't what it once was, and I used cheezy playback equipment, but here goes.

Song 1 choices (Bach): 2 - B is the wav source; A is MD

Certainty:  3 - strong suspicion

Observations: 

There's a snap sound at 20 seconds in 1-2 that sounds more defined/crisper in the B version than in A.

On song 1-3, a whistling (flute?) comes in at 25 seconds.  It sounds a tad washed  out/supressed in the A version.




Song 2 choices (SRV): 1 - A is the wav source; B is MD

Certainty:  2.5 - between slight & strong suspicion

Observations:  The B versions sounded a shade flatter, as if the crispy highs were somehow lost.  I started with this set of songs since I've heard the tune many times.




Song 3 choices (Del McCoury): 1 - A is the wav source; B is MD

Certainty:  3 - strong suspicion

Observations:

3-1 A sounds fuller somehow.  E.g., the banjo pick attacks at the beginning of the song sound sharper on the A version than B. 

3-2 There seems to be more richness in the voice timbre for A vs. B.


Please describe your playback system:

IBM ThinkPad T23
Windows Media Player
KOSS ear plugs ($20)


Overall conclusion, both the CD and MD versions work for me, especially for casual listening.  I guess the crisper sounds of the source versions add a little sparkle, but I had to focus hard to catch it...and, of course, I could be wrong on my guesses in which case I'd spring for an HiMD.

Thanks,  Tom

[tms]

Hi tms,

I'm currently weighing pros & cons of HiMD vs. something like an Edirol R-09, so I appreciate your taking the time to put this together.  My hearing isn't what it once was, and I used cheezy playback equipment, but here goes.

Song 1 choices (Bach): 2 - B is the wav source; A is MD

Certainty:  3 - strong suspicion

Observations: 

There's a snap sound at 20 seconds in 1-2 that sounds more defined/crisper in the B version than in A.

On song 1-3, a whistling (flute?) comes in at 25 seconds.  It sounds a tad washed  out/supressed in the A version.




Song 2 choices (SRV): 1 - A is the wav source; B is MD

Certainty:  2.5 - between slight & strong suspicion

Observations:  The B versions sounded a shade flatter, as if the crispy highs were somehow lost.  I started with this set of songs since I've heard the tune many times.




Song 3 choices (Del McCoury): 1 - A is the wav source; B is MD

Certainty:  3 - strong suspicion

Observations:

3-1 A sounds fuller somehow.  E.g., the banjo pick attacks at the beginning of the song sound sharper on the A version than B. 

3-2 There seems to be more richness in the voice timbre for A vs. B.


Please describe your playback system:

IBM ThinkPad T23
Windows Media Player
KOSS ear plugs ($20)


Overall conclusion, both the CD and MD versions work for me, especially for casual listening.  I guess the crisper sounds of the source versions add a little sparkle, but I had to focus hard to catch it...and, of course, I could be wrong on my guesses in which case I'd spring for an HiMD.

Thanks,  Tom

Thanks for playing Tom!  I PM'd you on this.

[gl0bber]

While doing the comparison try not to fall into the easy trap of confusing MD with HiMD (especially in PCM mode).  They are worlds apart.  In fact, you will find that on playback the HiMD portables will outperform most portable CD players in almost every respect.