Re: Copying minidiscs

["K. Douglas Baldwin" <dbaldwin@suffolk.lib.ny.us>]

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
jewelbox/envelope)?
And does anyone know where to score those groovy cardboard 
jewelbox/envelope
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
dbaldwin@suffolk.lib.ny.us

>"Michael S. Yoder" <myoder@tamiu.edu> 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
original
>>DAT and the copy made via the line outs and line ins.  This must mean 
>that
>>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.  
>One
>>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.
>