Re: MiniDisc for field recording

[Carsten Wegener <carsten@tyfoo.de>]

am 24.09.2002 7:32 Uhr schrieb Matthias Grob unter matthias@grob.org:

>> The quality of the codec is much higher now
>> and here, in Toronto, it's very easy to get discs.
>> More and more of my friends use them too
>> so it's easy to exchange discs with our music.
>> A good portable DAT is better quality (you
>> just have to think about how much room is
>> left in the MD for the mic preamp) but the
>> MD quality is still very good - and I know
>> several people who have made very good
>> CDs from master recordings on MD.
>> Their size makes them good for spontaneous
>> field recordings.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Scott M2
> 
> a portable HD recorder like the Jukebox should have the same quality
> as a DAT, if the converter is sufficiently good (I dont know), and
> its smaller and less sensitive to humidity and such, since the
> mechanics (the HD) is totally sealed. Its pretty small too, although
> not quite as small as an MD.
> 
> I think the quality of the MD depends more on the recording level and
> you tend to give a lot of headroom when field recording because the
> volume can change suddenly, so there the uncompressed audio certainly
> is an advantage.
I´d like to know, what´s the diffrence between the compression in MD and
mp3-players. Same with the AD-converter in MD,DAT and mp3. I read that the
Archos Jukebox had better quality than most other mp3-recorder. Has someone
Experience with it? Also: Is the something like a Sampling-Rate(16 bit) in
mp3-machines?
Carsten