The Technology Vent and Rant Thread

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by Solitaire1

Concerning long-term storage: I wonder if something like Minidisc could be a form of long-term storage? The data on a Minidisc is semi-permanent, meaning that using a minidisc doesn't affect the data stored on it and everything is permanent unless you intentionally change it (the disc has to be heated to its Curie Point).

Yes, albeit not MD per se. Magneto-Optical (MO) storage is absolutely a viable long term storage medium. The drawbacks relative to magnetic tape are cost and density: magtape offers orders of magnitude better storage densities at greatly lower costs per byte.

[nana77]

Originally Posted by Quoth

The MO storage was also on 3.5" and larger drives for PCs, but amount of storage was eclipsed by other technologies, though none are archive quality.

Sony crippled Minidisc.

The audio quality is far better than cassette, but not as good as 256 k mp3. I still have a Net MD player/recorder that still works. They are amazing low power but the mechanism wears out and eventually there will be nothing to read a Minidisc or the larger PC versions, so 100, 500, 1000 or 2000 years may be moot.

Sorry but are you saying that a 256k mp3 would be better than an analog cassette? Personally I wouldn't be so sure..

Also devices (sorry if I say it again, really) that would had cost 2 billions of dollars by that time, now might be affordable, and those are quite polished too.

The data discs as minidiscs and the audio ones were two different things, iirc:

(the laptop is @31:49) I was erroneous instead as some of those minidisc devices can record by themselves.

Comparing a mp3 with wathever others formats that are loseless can't really beat that well (imho): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_file_format

Edit: btw, on bandcamp there are still albums sold in cassettes: https://bandcamp.com/discover/all/cassette

Spoiler:

Analog Warmth: Like vinyl, cassettes offer a warm and organic sound that some listeners find appealing. The analog nature of cassette playback can lend a nostalgic quality to the music.
Limitations: Cassettes have inherent limitations, including tape hiss, limited dynamic range, and a susceptibility to wear and degradation over time. These limitations can affect overall sound quality.
Portability: Cassettes were the go-to format for music on the go before digital formats became prevalent. Their compact size and durability made them ideal for car stereos and portable players.
Nostalgia: Many listeners have strong nostalgic associations with cassette tapes, which can enhance the overall listening experience.

2. Vinyl Records: The Analog Warmth

Vinyl records, renowned for their analog warmth and tactile appeal, offer a unique listening experience. Here are some key aspects of vinyl sound quality:

Analog Warmth: Vinyl records are praised for their warm, organic, and immersive sound. Analog playback creates a natural sonic experience.
Rich Harmonics: Vinyl’s analog nature allows it to capture rich harmonics and nuances in music, especially in the midrange frequencies, which adds depth and character.
Physical Presence: The act of placing a needle on a spinning record and observing it in action creates a tangible connection to the music, which some find deeply engaging.
Imperfections and Character: Vinyl’s inherent imperfections, such as surface noise, pops, and occasional clicks, are considered part of its charm by some listeners, adding character to the music.

I'll try to shorter the posts , pardon .

[Quoth]

Minidisc used Atrac lossy compression. Better than lower bitrate mp3, but not as good as higher bit rate MP3.

Cassettes:

• Pre-recorded ones are poorer than best home HiFi cassettes because they are recorded at high speed.
• Cassettes are 1&7/8 ips. So getting more than 10 kHz upper frequency is challenging. More than 12 kHz is rare.
• Stereo cassettes are using less than 1/32" of a track, about 0.6mm, (1/8th inch tape, four tracks and guard band), so are very poor S/N
• Standard cassettes have also poor dynamic range.
• Cassettes are limited in bass response
• Cassettes have wow and flutter (varies according to equipment).
• Cassettes have more distortion than 256k mp3 and vinyl due to non-linear magnetic recording.
• Almost no pocket player supported Chrome or Metal formulations properly.
• If recording bias on cassette is increased the distortion is lower and frequency response may improve but dynamic range is reduced.
• Cassette tape recordings are worse with age or playing (wear, demagnetising, print-through).
• Dolby reduces noise (hiss) but adds distortion. Can be much worse "loss" than 128 k mp3

CD and wav format are lossless.
Minidisc is Atrac, not lossless and poorer than 256k mp3. MP3 and other digital compressions vary in quality according to encoder quality and bit rate.

Vinyl and tape have analogue losses (noise, frequency response and distortion) and mp3 can be better than vinyl or cassette. The higher speed 1/4" tapes can be better than vinyl, inc Elcaset (brilliant but too late). Most cassette tapes don't come close to vinyl quality. CD beats vinyl on noise, dynamic range, and distortion. Also effectively on frequency response after a few playing, but the upper limit on CD is beyond hearing or any content.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by nana77

Sorry but are you saying that a 256k mp3 would be better than an analog cassette? Personally I wouldn't be so sure.

Yes, absolutely. I can demo on high end cassette gear next time you are here (not far from Shannon airport).
And of course pre-recorded cassettes are worse!

Many analogue systems are "lossy", so cassette is worse than vinyl, AM is worse than FM, a 1920s 78 is worse than a 1970s LP and all are worse than studio analogue tape or CD.

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Minidisc is Atrac, not lossless and poorer than 256k mp3. MP3 and other digital compressions vary in quality according to encoder quality and bit rate.

And there are several incarnations of the ATRAC (Adaptive Transform Acoustic Coding) encoders, with different degrees of bitwise reduction. DAT uses ATRAC but drops fewer bits than MiniDisc. IIRC, MiniDisc uses 5:1 reduction while DAT uses 4:1 reduction.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by ratinox

And there are several incarnations of the ATRAC (Adaptive Transform Acoustic Coding) encoders, with different degrees of bitwise reduction. DAT uses ATRAC but drops fewer bits than MiniDisc. IIRC, MiniDisc uses 5:1 reduction while DAT uses 4:1 reduction.

We were discussing Minidisc, which some people still use. It's now possible to control & copy any digital audio to a NetMD player without the evil Sony software, but most Minidisc players only use Atrac, though there was a longer play version on some MD players with more compression/loss. I don't use the LP mode on my MZ-707, though that is still better than a cheap cassette player. The regular ATRAC from CD via rip to wav is certainly good enough for a portable player, or in the car. Better than cassette. I bought a load of blank discs in 2006. Unlike CD-R/DVD-R/tape they won't go off. Likely the MD player will fail.

I used to use an analogue desk, PC and wav for live recording. Now I have a Zoom Handy H6N, only six channels, but uncompressed 6 channel wav recording for a long period on SD card and 4x AAAA cells. I had the 4 channel one for a while but very slow to boot with more than 4G card.

[Quoth]

The Hi-MD was too late. It allowed digital reading of the media and alternates to ATRAC, inc uncompressed. Sony deliberately made it impossible to digitally read even your own live recordings from mini-disc.

The MD-LP Atrac must have been 10:1 bit rate compression as it doubled play time. So standard ATRAC was 292 kbit/s, and LP 132 kbit/s. Later there were other ATRAC versions.
They also later had improved encoders producing files compatible with the earliest players.

Sony media execs just about crippled every Sony HW product.

[nana77]

Originally Posted by Quoth

The Hi-MD was too late. It allowed digital reading of the media and alternates to ATRAC, inc uncompressed. Sony deliberately made it impossible to digitally read even your own live recordings from mini-disc.

The MD-LP Atrac must have been 10:1 bit rate compression as it doubled play time. So standard ATRAC was 292 kbit/s, and LP 132 kbit/s. Later there were other ATRAC versions.
They also later had improved encoders producing files compatible with the earliest players.

Sony media execs just about crippled every Sony HW product.

FFmpeg has an implementation[11] of an ATRAC3 decoder, which was converted to fixed precision and implemented in the Rockbox series of firmware for ARM, Coldfire and MIPS processors. RealAudio8 is a high-bitrate implementation of ATRAC3 (up to 352.8kbit/s). Atracdenc is an open source implementation of ATRAC3 compatible encoder which also can use RealAudio container.

Had a Sony HDD NW-HD5, yes the Atrac software was so messy, and available only for Windows, too it didn't had a Rockbox version.

Spoiler:

Quite nice tought.

[Quoth]

This works in Chromium running on Linux to NetMD with USB.
https://web.minidisc.wiki/

Control player and add new songs to disc.

Even worked on ChromeOS in Chrome Browser, and on Chromium on Crostini Linux in a container to NetMD via USB on ChromeOS.

Doesn't or didn't work on Vivaldi Browser.

[Solitaire1]

Originally Posted by Quoth

The Hi-MD was too late. It allowed digital reading of the media and alternates to ATRAC, inc uncompressed. Sony deliberately made it impossible to digitally read even your own live recordings from mini-disc.

The MD-LP Atrac must have been 10:1 bit rate compression as it doubled play time. So standard ATRAC was 292 kbit/s, and LP 132 kbit/s. Later there were other ATRAC versions.
They also later had improved encoders producing files compatible with the earliest players.

Sony media execs just about crippled every Sony HW product.

Sony did the same thing with their digital audio players (DAPs) for a time. Sony made some excellent DAPs but they were badly hobbled by Sony's attempt to maintain complete control. As an example: You were mandated to use Sony's SonicStage software and without it your computer couldn't "see" the Walkman DAP when you plugged it into the Computer. Also, their DAPs didn't play MP3s, instead you had to transcode your MP3 files to Sony's ATRAC codec using SonicStage which would then load the files on your player.

Eventually, Sony relented and in 2007 they released their first DAPs that didn't require SonicStage and could play MP3s natively. You were also able to use any Music Management Software with their DAPs. Unfortunately, what they did with their first DAPs cost them the chance to compete with the iPod.

I still use a Walkman DAP (I bought my first one in around 2007) because they are excellent music players, although they do have their quirks (the album art must be in a specific format or it won't display). But if they were still as hobbled as their first DAPs I would never had given them a try.

[Solitaire1]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Minidisc used Atrac lossy compression. Better than lower bitrate mp3, but not as good as higher bit rate MP3.

Cassettes:

• Pre-recorded ones are poorer than best home HiFi cassettes because they are recorded at high speed.
• Cassettes are 1&7/8 ips. So getting more than 10 kHz upper frequency is challenging. More than 12 kHz is rare.
• Stereo cassettes are using less than 1/32" of a track, about 0.6mm, (1/8th inch tape, four tracks and guard band), so are very poor S/N
• Standard cassettes have also poor dynamic range.
• Cassettes are limited in bass response
• Cassettes have wow and flutter (varies according to equipment).
• Cassettes have more distortion than 256k mp3 and vinyl due to non-linear magnetic recording.
• Almost no pocket player supported Chrome or Metal formulations properly.
• If recording bias on cassette is increased the distortion is lower and frequency response may improve but dynamic range is reduced.
• Cassette tape recordings are worse with age or playing (wear, demagnetising, print-through).
• Dolby reduces noise (hiss) but adds distortion. Can be much worse "loss" than 128 k mp3

CD and wav format are lossless.
Minidisc is Atrac, not lossless and poorer than 256k mp3. MP3 and other digital compressions vary in quality according to encoder quality and bit rate.

Vinyl and tape have analogue losses (noise, frequency response and distortion) and mp3 can be better than vinyl or cassette. The higher speed 1/4" tapes can be better than vinyl, inc Elcaset (brilliant but too late). Most cassette tapes don't come close to vinyl quality. CD beats vinyl on noise, dynamic range, and distortion. Also effectively on frequency response after a few playing, but the upper limit on CD is beyond hearing or any content.

I think a factor with the Compact Cassette (CC) is that it was not designed to be a music format. It was designed for recording dictation and it was good for that function. Much of what was subsequently done with the CC was a retrofit to make it do things it wasn't designed to do but using what was already available. Considering its limitations, its amazing that the CC can sound as good as it often can. But if someone was designing an analog audio tape format for music I doubt they would make something like the CC. It might be something closer to the RCA Tape Cartridge (runs at 3.75 ips, 1/4 inch tape, in a much larger cartridge).

What set the Minidisc apart was that it was the first format specifically designed for portable use, rather than being a retrofit for that function. I know 8-track was also designed as a portable format, but it was designed for use in cars and trucks rather than a format you'd carry with you, although just like with the CC they retrofitted the ability to take it with you (like with the Panasonic Dynomite player).

Minidisc was designed to eliminate portable issues like skipping. As an example, the Minidisc's skip protection was so good that during some demos the Presenter would take the Minidisc out a player while it was playing, hold it up, put it back in the player, and the music would not be interrupted.

I never had a problem with Minidisc because I didn't worry about using it like a digital audio player. Instead, I treated it like a CC deck/player with some added features. I recorded my Minidiscs just like I'd record CCs so I didn't have to worry about computer software. As far as recording Minidiscs, I just used the regular sound quality.

One thing with Minidisc is that Sony kept working on the format, improving it, and eventually they released a lossless version of the Minidisc.

[Renate]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Cassettes are 1&7/8 ips. So getting more than 10 kHz upper frequency is challenging. More than 12 kHz is rare.

Well, that's no problem for me.
When I was younger the 15,734 Hz from flyback transformers in TVs used to annoy me.
Now I'd hate to even do an audio test.
Ok, I just did an informal one.
9300 Hz is my cutoff.

[Solitaire1]

Originally Posted by Renate

Well, that's no problem for me.
When I was younger the 15,734 Hz from flyback transformers in TVs used to annoy me.
Now I'd hate to even do an audio test.
Ok, I just did an informal one.
9300 Hz is my cutoff.

I did an informal test a few years ago and I estimate my hearing tops out in the 12-13khz range, likely due to age. I also did an ABX test and discovered that I couldn't reliably tell the difference between a FLAC file, a CBR 320kpbs MP3 with LAME encoding and a VBR MP3 with LAME encoding at the highest quality. Sometimes I could sense a slight difference, but I not enough to state that one sounded better than the others.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by Solitaire1

I think a factor with the Compact Cassette (CC) is that it was not designed to be a music format. It was designed for recording dictation and it was good for that function. Much of what was subsequently done with the CC was a retrofit to make it do things it wasn't designed to do but using what was already available. Considering its limitations, its amazing that the CC can sound as good as it often can.

I've always argued that while I buy music on CD, that the Compact Cassette is a good format for audiobooks:

• Good enough quality (even 300 Hz to 3kHz is workable)
• Remembers playing position (CD rubbish for that).
• Fits pocket (CDs don't).

Certainly even MP3 (apps like Musicolet on a phone remembers position) can be more use than CD for an audiobook and even 64 kbps* mono is OK for a simple audio book.

[* ISDN uses lossless 64k and 8 kHz sampling, but some lossy formats at 64k can sound better for mono]

Originally Posted by Solitaire1

But if someone was designing an analog audio tape format for music I doubt they would make something like the CC. It might be something closer to the RCA Tape Cartridge (runs at 3.75 ips, 1/4 inch tape, in a much larger cartridge)..

Elcaset https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elcaset

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by Renate

Well, that's no problem for me.
When I was younger the 15,734 Hz from flyback transformers in TVs used to annoy me.
Now I'd hate to even do an audio test.
Ok, I just did an informal one.
9300 Hz is my cutoff.

The 405 TV was 10.125 kHz. Terrible. The UK should never have restarted it in 1946.

A well made 625 or 525 TV didn't have audible line whistle (nearly same frequencies), some were terrible.