Taking Sides: MiniDisc vs. MP3

The iPod wishes it could be as cool. Sure it can hold a shitload more music and looks all Kubrick but it's just a jukebox, really.

Would like one of those 5cm CD portables though.

And if we're going to get technical about quality/compression, MD's ATRAC has a fixed bitrate of 292 kbps. It's older and less advanced than MP3, and qualitywise roughly equivalent to 160 kbps MP3, so if you're encoding MP3 with 192 kbps or higher bitrates, MP3 wins; and MD is clearly superior to low bitrate MP3s.

Sod compression rates, Ronan wins on the basis of this argument.

i'm just saying like. having said that, if i had a LOT of money i'd buy a mac and ipod.

Worth thinking about praps - it is certainly possible to hear that stuff is missing from MP3 and ATRAC encoded music. I remember Neil Young (and lots of others) raging against CDs for similar reasons, and to some extent I'd have to agree - portable turntables anyone? (by the way - where do you get those battery powered decks you see geek-collectors with at record fairs)

So yeah, I can live with digital (I'm not a vinyl fascist), but if it was practical (for me) I think it would be nice to go completely analogue - there's just no comparison in terms of musical detail. Of course most records are made/recorded/mastered digitally these days (often form CD-Rs!) so I guess that kind of defeats the point, unless yer just after the pops and clicks.

One question - anyone know what became of IFS fractal encoding? This does work for video and allows you to encode data into tiny spaces and actually get back more information than you put in in the first place (!), depending on the power of your decompresser and time restrictions. I know the encoding process is v.complicated, but surely it is practical now?

MP3 is also far from the best compression system - it's just taken off due to availablity / publicity. So even in the free music era we've ended up with a VHS/Betamax scenario.

You're right, analogue is *awful*. Only kidding - or am I?

I don't wish to derail this thread into The Most Tedious Argument Of Them All, but, in information theory terms, there's no analogue format that can come close to the best digital and, as far as current mainstream delivery formats are concerned, CD leaves LP standing. Why LP can *sound* better in many regards is a different kettle of, er, shell(ac) fish.

I've read many of Neil Young's comments over the years, and he seems to have been scarred by encounters with early, poorly-implemented digital - he talks about fizzing, harsh timbres on reverb trails and the like. Whither the dither? There's not a lot wrong with 16/44.1k as an end-product thesedays (sourced from 30ips tape, 24/96k HD, whatever).

Heehee. No, you're right, my turntable sucks!

I don't wish to derail this thread into The Most Tedious Argument Of Them All

Too late...

SO, go on bore us all - are you saying that 24/96k can rival the resolution in the grain of good vinyl? (I realise it's not really comparable and that there are many other factors involved)

Do circuits exist that can provide a smooth (actually analogue) interpolation between the x levels available in a digital recording? Do good digital players do this? Is this one reason that LPs can sound better?

I accept that 96k probably just about covers it, but what bothers me about say 44.1k is that although you can encode frequencies up 22k, what happens if you have multiple tones around that level running out of phase? That probably makes no sense but I've started now so...

Anyway, lossy compression is still dodgy. And 16 bit seems quite limited as well.

I do like CDs really.

My old MD recorder does sound 'fizzy', and that's actually quite nice sometimes. Certainly prettier than lo-bitrate MP3 squelch.

Yes, that's the problem. This is a stupendously dull subject about which I've expended an outrageous amount of energy in the past. Oh, why couldn't I just let yr comment pass? My stomach gets into little knots when I think of some of the Usenet 'debates'.

are you saying that 24/96k can rival the resolution in the grain of good vinyl? (I realise it's not really comparable and that there are many other factors involved)

Well, what is the resolution of good vinyl? In information theory terms (resolution = dynamic range x bandwidth), vinyl is miles behind - not even very close to 16/44.1k. It's a mistake to think that an analogue system is inherently more 'natural', or has more detail. Every recording and replay system has its limitations.

Do circuits exist that can provide a smooth (actually analogue) interpolation between the x levels available in a digital recording? Do good digital players do this?

*All* digital equipment does this. There are no gaps or stair-steps in the sound - a continuous analogue waveform is reconstructed from the sampled info. The Nyquist theorem states that we only need sample a waveform at at least twice the highest frequency within that waveform to gather a complete record of the data. Now, bandwidth-limiting a musical signal to just above the upper limit of adult human hearing may produce its own set of problems, but we can be sure that the subsequent sampling doesn't chuck anything *else* away.

The fixed number of amplitude levels associated with digital means a limit to how small successive changes in the amplitude can be - but with analogue and its greater associated self-noise, the limits are even more restrictive. The noise obscures anything smaller than itself. So there's *less* resolution in the amplitude domain with analogue despite it being a continuous system.

Is this one reason that LPs can sound better?

There are lots of artefacts associated with vinyl replay which don't completely go away with even the most exotic turntables or pristine pressings. Happily, many of these artefacts are euphonic - phase anomalies magically expanding the stereo image, tonearm resonance warming up the mid-range, HF roll-off giving that silky tone. It's more of a case of what vinyl adds to reproduction, than what CD omits. Beyond that it's a matter of preference.

I accept that 96k probably just about covers it, but what bothers me about say 44.1k is that although you can encode frequencies up 22k, what happens if you have multiple tones around that level running out of phase?

There is heterodyning to consider - the audible difference tones in ultrasonic content not actually being captured in a single 44.1k sampling channel, but I guess this is covered (in multitrack recording) by running at a higher rate, making sure all that harmonic stuff is caught within 0-22kHz (when lots of 96k channels are mixed together), and then down-converting to 44.1k for CD. I'm nudging the limits of my knowledge there and could be spouting garbage.

And 16 bit seems quite limited as well.

Probably not ideal for recording, but not really a problem for domestic playback, especially with dither and noise-shaping to give an effective SNR of well over 100dB in the areas to which the ear is most sensitive.

I do like CDs really.

And I love LPs. I just have this terrible knee-jerk reaction to vaunted notions that there's more of the original music signal on them than CDs. There might well be more 'going on' with playback, mind (groove rush, all manner of harmonic oddities).

Even with the "worst case" of 96 dB, you'll still have to crank up the volume to 96 + noisefloor (30 dB for a quiet bedroom, 26 dB for a recording studio) to hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit. Of course, 16 bit is NOT suitable for tracks that have to be downmixed. So I'm indeed not so impressed by using 24 bit as a playback format. Although with current technology, 24 bit DACs are almost as cheap as 16 bit ones, so it's a bit of a "why not" issue.

Now I can love my CDs without reservation. Oh I think Siegbran just ruined it for me again.

Oddly, I was just listening to a CD of Taj Mahal Travellers' 'August 1974' album before I read your post. The sleeve notes say they use a heterodyne effect 'which changes tone colors back and forth very slowly.' Could never hear it myself...

No...just kidding...don't answer that.

I don't quite get those who prefer MD. The only advantage I think it has is in live recording, and that's only if you own one of the Sharp units (size doesn't count as an advantage if you're comparing them to the iPod). Sony MDs make you do everything with three or four buttons, and unless they've changed them recently, it's almost impossible to adjust recording levels plus no adjustments can be made while it's recording. The Nomad 3 will record, but you can't adjust recording levels. As soon as Creative gets off their collective ass and upgrades the firmware to allow for adjustment of recording levels, MD will have nothing on my mp3 jukebox.

I believe that's the point. ;-)

did y'all know they still made minidisc players?? not for much longer though. RIP big format

DCC fans can still eat a fuc

Loving Jonesey's science upthread.

Aw, this thread.

Still have boxes of MDs. Sony MD deck was taken out of my system in the grand hi-fi sell-off of last summer but then reinstated when I realised I still needed optical and coaxial connections for playing back stuff from the laptop or the Akai HD multi-track. So it gets used every day, just not necessarily with a MiniDisc inside it.

Still a fantastic format for field recording, live practice, etc, with a decent stereo/binaural mic.

Also: for reasons I don't fully understand, the internal connections around the phono stage in my 25-y-o Cyrus amp are so crummy that one channel of vinyl playback occasionally drops out, but this *isn't* apparent (as often) if I listen to vinyl through the MD deck (Cyrus set to "record phono", Sony MD set to "analogue" and rec-pause). So I listen to a lot of LPs through the MD deck. Which finally fully invalidates my audiophile credentials. Oh well, I had a good run.

I still have a bow or two and two working MD player - recorder walkmans. To me the appeal has always been being able to record on the fly.

I knew only one person with an MD player. I think I saw it at his house a week after reading about it the first time and being surprised that he knew about it. It seemed like the greatest thing in the world, like a smaller version of a CD that was also re-recordable and even more durable as a portable device - I remember vigorously shaking it for a few seconds just to see if it would skip. (It did NOT.) MP3's came soon after and then once I got an iPod, MiniDisc really did seem like a relic, but it was pretty awesome for a short while.

i have a minidisc with an interview with wendy james on it.

unfortunately i have no idea re whats on it as my MD player died soon after the chat (around the same time she was releasing her first racine album).
also, i had no idea re gadgets and setting things up, so pretty sure it has none of my side of the interview on it.
all that said, we had a cracking chat once she had got home and opened a bottle of bubbly.
(i originally called at the designated time, she answered : 'darling, i am in a taxi, call me back in 15 mins yeah ..' )

I'd be happy to make it into a mp3 if you want to mail it to me

thats not the half of the story.
at the time i was a support desk monkey.
as the time approached re the interview, i decided to come clean with my boss.
soon as he heard the words 'wendy james' he was all 'go into the executive boardroom and do what you need to do'.
i dont think i have ever had such an easy hour off work.

ta for the offer LG, that's very kind of you, but i have lots of minidiscs, and no idea which is the one that has the half sided interview on it.