MiniDisc versus Dat, The Great Debate...

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by S8 Booster:
Just adding some info to respond to the continous misleading statments that MDs are not on par with MiniDV or DAT recorders.

In fact it is superior in sound quality. The early MDs had flaws (less than perfect IC converters etc) that were corrected many years ago.

From the info here (full story)
http://www.minidisc.org/mj_ja3es.html#mdquality
which actually dates back in December 1995 it is obvious that the MD technology is better and surely it has improved a lot since then.

MD sound files can be digitally copied without losses the same way as DV files can be copied without losses, just to correct another misunderstanding. Depends how far you want to go.



R

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 04, 2002 10:23 PM: Message edited by: S8 Booster ]</font></font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by crimsonson:
sorry S8Booster it will take more than an article from a website that is obviously for the advancement of MD to convince me or almost every pro around the world.

So far that is the only site I know that says MD is better than DAT (in a very NARROW sense), from an engineer who obviously is part of the MD R&D.

Second MD like MPEG is a variable compression scheme, meaning some parts will not be as good as others. Definetely a no no for pro use.

Third MD gets this kind Dynamic range because its compresses the signal!! 16 bit means jack if you are not quantifying 100% of data.
Its like DV' 8 bit color quality - just like DigiBeta but its a 4:1:1 compression compared to 4:2:2 of D -beta. That is a 2:1 data difference. With MD and DAT the difference is bigger since MD ATRAC throws away as much as 5:1.

Fourth MD is susceptible to skips- no doubt about it. Even at 40 sec buffer pros are afraid to use it. I mean why put your reputation on the line for a missing sound less than a half a second (or worst)? Hmmm its like using a camera that might give you flash frames in the middle of a shoot. Hey its only 1 frame out hundreds right ?

Fifth MD compression scheme will actually make certain sound that is extremely loud/soft level even out in order to fit in its 2.8 bit limit. So you get a "flatter" recording. Teh sound quality that analog HiFi freaks hate about digital sound!!


Lastly the ATRAC it talks about is version 3.5. Current consumer and many pro MD ear is still in this version. I have only seen a very small (Ok 1 or 2 pro stuff) handful gear that is using ATRAC 4. So it might have been 7 years but MD is still (or at least mostly) using old tech.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by S8 Booster:
MD: Still only refering to "old truthts"?
Read the site again and try to understand teh technology design.
Even at ATRAC 3.5 the dynamic range and the ability to record and playback subtle details are superior for the MD whatever other factor you mix in and I am pretty sure that the MDs are still slammed by by the PROs due to the "bad start" the MD got.

Another factor is the much misunderstood compression method. The compression used here is different from the one used for DV or digital images.

Example. a digital JPEG picture:

A standard picture can be compressed heavlily before your eye notes the difference between the original uncompressed and the reasonably heavy compressed one.

It is impossible to see the difference before you magnify the image significatly.

It s not possible to magnify the "compressed" or rather coded MD sound the same way to make the human ear hear the diffrences and can comparably be seen by the eye.

Why is that?
The Digital image can be magnified of 2 or basically 3 axis (including colour bit depth).

For comparisation the MD file can not be magnified over more than one axis or be played back at ultra slow speed to "magnify" the sound to make the ear detect any defects from the compression.

Additionally, if you look at the D/A conversion the curcuits are designed to optimise and recreate the original coded waveform.

Additionally for film sound recording most of it will be human conversation and most sounds will be in the range of up to 3.5 kHz (you may double or triple that for 2nd and 3rd harmonics to cover it all) and in this context it would be impossible to differ between a linear 16 bit and the MD/ATRAC CODED sound recording whatever.

As you will see the resolution of the DAT/Mini DV may drop to 12 bis as the MD always retains the true 16 bit resolution, a tremendous difference actually.

PRO portable MD Recorder: http://users.aol.com/fmgp/pmd.htm

R

</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by crimsonson:
"It s not possible to magnify the "compressed" or rather coded MD sound the same way to make the human ear hear the diffrences and can comparably be seen by the eye."


Yes you can. Each speakers have certain capabilities. Liek you said technical specs is not the complete picture. For example you buy $100 computer speakers and $10,000 speakers system. I bet you can hear and differentiate certain timbre much better with the $10,000 even though they have the same frequency response of 20-20K.

That is why musicians and sound engineers use high quality loud speakers. That is why movie theaters sound system needs to meet certain standards (like THX). Speakers like video monitors can show weakness in compression. Espcially when you magnify the resolution (pixel count for video and Volume Unit for audio).
Show a compressed JPEG on a TV and it looks great. Show the same image on a same size pro monitor and it aint so hot. Same with speakers and sound.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Alex]

I remembered this debate from a couple of months ago and decided to create a new topic post because I recently met someone who had an interesting take on the dat versus mini-disc issue.

I have e-mailed this person and HOPE they will come onboard and contribute their experience with both audio formats.