] [Thread Prev
Re: Copying minidiscs
These are all the questions I was about to ask! Answered! Magic!
I haven't read all of the current thread to "copying minidiscs", but here's
another question: s'poze I make a cool batch of recordings of solo loop
gigs, and then I decide to edit them using Cakewalk or some other fairly
low-budget computer software magic. Can I download the MD to my hard drive
and go at it, then copy my brilliant results onto blank CD's for sale at
exorbitant prices (with beautiful hand-made graphics on the cardboard
And does anyone know where to score those groovy cardboard
thingies, as opposed to the plastic crap which cracks easily, feels ugly,
and probably emits wicked toxins as it degrades?
And by the way, I believe discussion of recording in any medium begs the
comparison to looping, as this exerpt from Ken M's post shows:
"Test the theory if you must.. Take 2 Sony MD's, go line-out to line-in
and make a copy. Turn it around and copy the copy, again, again,
again until you hear the hiss. Now try it digital -> digital and note
that the sound never alters from the original."
Looks a lot like looping to me, eh?
Douglas Baldwin, Alpha male Coyote, the Trickster
>"Michael S. Yoder" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>Saludos de la frontera!
>>I have a question for those of you with experience in MD recording:
>>Is it ABSOLUTELY crucial when making backup copies of MDs to record them
>>digitally via the optical output and input? Is there noticeable audible
>>difference by going through the line outs of one MD machine into the line
>>ins of another MD machine?
>>I have experience with DATs, and can hear no difference between an
>>DAT and the copy made via the line outs and line ins. This must mean
>>the D/A and A/D converters are good in the Sony DAT machines I use. I
>>wondered if the (much cheaper) MD technology would be about the same.
>>can get a Sony MD deck for just under $200, but without optical output.
>This is an interesting question.
>MDs perform their magic using a "lossy" compression that throws away
>most of the raw sonic information received to compress the bandwidth
>and fit all that sound onto that little disk.
>The ATRAC encoding is very sophisticated and uses multiple
>strategies to make sure that most of the information lost
>is information that you could never possibly hear.
>But information is lost on each encoding->decoding step.
>This will snowball and after several generations, you'll
>start to hear artefacts. So I'd reckon, I've never tried
>it, but this is universal to lossy compression methods.
>Note that this will happen whether or not you go through
>an analog stage. And, as Michael says, a careful and
>accurate analog copy is pretty indistinguishably close
>to the original.
>BUT, I'd still go with the digital I/O if you have
>another device that reads it. It's just far simpler
>to make an exact digital copy than an exact analog copy.
>Setting your levels wrong is a classic way to lose
>bandwidth on a copy, not a problem with digital.
>Crosstalk or hum from other channels or instruments,
>static electricity, these are all things that have
>ruined analog copies of mine in the past.
>With digital, you plug them in and press record.
>End of story. No work.
>This is terribly off-topic of course.