which is better?
- Thread starter Prizmaxic
- Start date
Son of Mixerman
Mix Junior
CD is better.
Minidiscs use a form of compression to get the same amount of music on the disc. Unfortunately, compression does remove some of the original music because of ATRAC algorithms. Its basically selective bit truncation which has side effects or artifacts as we say. MD is good enough when used for certain situations, but its a step down in quality when compared to CD. MD were suppose to replace CD's, for your car or portable walkman things it would be fine.
SoMm
Minidiscs use a form of compression to get the same amount of music on the disc. Unfortunately, compression does remove some of the original music because of ATRAC algorithms. Its basically selective bit truncation which has side effects or artifacts as we say. MD is good enough when used for certain situations, but its a step down in quality when compared to CD. MD were suppose to replace CD's, for your car or portable walkman things it would be fine.
SoMm
Blue Bear Sound
New member
That depends......... better for what?Prizmaxic said:
CDs make better frisbees than MDs do, if you're so-inclined to use them that way... MDs are smaller than CDs so they're better if size matters..... CDs are round, MDs are square, so CDs are better for those that prefer round shapes and vice-versa.... yadda-yadda.......
Buffalo Bob
New member
"Oh, the humanity!"
chessparov
New member
If you're someone who wants an objectively better sound quality than
cassette and ease of use, the minidisc format can be an excellent choice.
While any of us who posted here so far can hear the difference between
CD and minidisc, the vast majority of the listening public wouldn't know
or care about it. Listen to the current top 40 if you don't believe it!
Seriously Priz, if you tell us your specific application you'll get better advice.
Chris
cassette and ease of use, the minidisc format can be an excellent choice.
While any of us who posted here so far can hear the difference between
CD and minidisc, the vast majority of the listening public wouldn't know
or care about it. Listen to the current top 40 if you don't believe it!
Seriously Priz, if you tell us your specific application you'll get better advice.
Chris
Blue Bear Sound
New member
er... yeah... right...Cowboy said:
jjones1700
Learning, always learning
Minidisc is good for putting down ideas onto a recording medium. I've used mine to kick around ideas. Once I had something worth putting together, I put it down on tape. Substitute CDs for tape as your preference permits. So yes, minidisc still has it's uses. The ATRAC compression is the one thing that keeps it from being a true recording medium. However, they are quite durable, can take a good hit before it skips, and can be recorded on hundreds of times. CDs are just as fragile as vinyl, despite what anyone says. Records could break and/or get scratched up, just as CDs do today.
If I confused ya, minidisc for practice and non-critical recordings. CD for recording and production, if you are going digital.
If I confused ya, minidisc for practice and non-critical recordings. CD for recording and production, if you are going digital.
jjones1700
Learning, always learning
Minidisc is better to use if you use backup tracks in your live performance
Never thought about the backup tracks.
I don't do live so I guess I never would have thought of it. Good use though!!Re: Which is better
I prefer(red) MD:
Pros: MiniDisc is much smaller, more convenient, protective cover, and sounds good. Their small size lends itself to smaller sound equipment. Although more expensive, in time, their price & capacity would have been competitive with CD and HD. The only reasons CD's are still popular is due to super cheap blank ones (which drives the PC CD/DVD drive mkt, and the pre-recorded CD mkt).
Cons: Neat idea at first, but MD disc and players/recorders weren't introduced at a competitive price, and couldn't keep up pricing for CD and other technologies. Lower revenue means less R&D, higher cost, longer time to become a "mature" technology in terms of professional recording, PC compatibility, consumer acceptance.
Had hard drives and memory IC's not gotten so cheap, and small, it might have bought MD's some more time. I do think that an MD-like product will replace CD and DVD for pre-recorded, and blank portable, media, sometime soon.
I prefer(red) MD:
Pros: MiniDisc is much smaller, more convenient, protective cover, and sounds good. Their small size lends itself to smaller sound equipment. Although more expensive, in time, their price & capacity would have been competitive with CD and HD. The only reasons CD's are still popular is due to super cheap blank ones (which drives the PC CD/DVD drive mkt, and the pre-recorded CD mkt).
Cons: Neat idea at first, but MD disc and players/recorders weren't introduced at a competitive price, and couldn't keep up pricing for CD and other technologies. Lower revenue means less R&D, higher cost, longer time to become a "mature" technology in terms of professional recording, PC compatibility, consumer acceptance.
Had hard drives and memory IC's not gotten so cheap, and small, it might have bought MD's some more time. I do think that an MD-like product will replace CD and DVD for pre-recorded, and blank portable, media, sometime soon.
robin watson
New member
I'll second the minidisc 8 track.
ADAT (not 'DAT,' by the way, which is a 2-track format) was great in its time, but the comparative 'software' robustness and speed of minidisc outweighs ADAT several times over. You'll also have an all-in-one machine, whereas an ADAT requires an outboard mixer (+ cable$). I have heard of several issues regarding minidisc's hardware/mechanical reliability - screens going blank/lighting up permanently, functions failing, eject mechanisms jamming, etc. And there's also the availability of minidisc 'data' discs, which I think you have to use with a multi-track machine.
Having used ADAT for a few years, I can whole heartily say minidisc recording (certainly for just getting ideas down) is a better option than ADAT. If sound is an issue, ADAT is a level up from minidisc, but the latter isn't BAD at all really.
But then, you could get really interesting and consider a nice reel-to-reel if 8 tracks is all you crave. Not much more inconvenient than ADAT, robust and great sound (with the right machine). $$ though, unless you get lucky.
R
ADAT (not 'DAT,' by the way, which is a 2-track format) was great in its time, but the comparative 'software' robustness and speed of minidisc outweighs ADAT several times over. You'll also have an all-in-one machine, whereas an ADAT requires an outboard mixer (+ cable$). I have heard of several issues regarding minidisc's hardware/mechanical reliability - screens going blank/lighting up permanently, functions failing, eject mechanisms jamming, etc. And there's also the availability of minidisc 'data' discs, which I think you have to use with a multi-track machine.
Having used ADAT for a few years, I can whole heartily say minidisc recording (certainly for just getting ideas down) is a better option than ADAT. If sound is an issue, ADAT is a level up from minidisc, but the latter isn't BAD at all really.
But then, you could get really interesting and consider a nice reel-to-reel if 8 tracks is all you crave. Not much more inconvenient than ADAT, robust and great sound (with the right machine). $$ though, unless you get lucky.
R
robin watson
New member
I'll second the minidisc 8 track.
ADAT (not 'DAT,' by the way, which is a 2-track format) was great in its time, but the comparative 'software' robustness and speed of minidisc outweighs ADAT several times over. You'll also have an all-in-one machine, whereas an ADAT requires an outboard mixer (+ cable$). I have heard of several issues regarding minidisc's hardware/mechanical reliability - screens going blank/lighting up permanently, functions failing, eject mechanisms jamming, etc. And there's also the availability of minidisc 'data' discs (you have to use, I think) to consider.
Having used ADAT for a few years, I can whole heartily say minidisc recording (certainly for just getting ideas down) is a better option than ADAT. If sound is an issue, ADAT is a level up from minidisc, but minidisc isn't BAD at all really.
But then again, you could get really crazy and consider a nice reel-to-reel, if 8 tracks are all you crave. Not much more inconvenient than ADAT, mechanically robust, and great sound (with the right machine). $$ though, unless you get lucky.
R
ADAT (not 'DAT,' by the way, which is a 2-track format) was great in its time, but the comparative 'software' robustness and speed of minidisc outweighs ADAT several times over. You'll also have an all-in-one machine, whereas an ADAT requires an outboard mixer (+ cable$). I have heard of several issues regarding minidisc's hardware/mechanical reliability - screens going blank/lighting up permanently, functions failing, eject mechanisms jamming, etc. And there's also the availability of minidisc 'data' discs (you have to use, I think) to consider.
Having used ADAT for a few years, I can whole heartily say minidisc recording (certainly for just getting ideas down) is a better option than ADAT. If sound is an issue, ADAT is a level up from minidisc, but minidisc isn't BAD at all really.
But then again, you could get really crazy and consider a nice reel-to-reel, if 8 tracks are all you crave. Not much more inconvenient than ADAT, mechanically robust, and great sound (with the right machine). $$ though, unless you get lucky.
R