Topic: Marantz PMD 671 in the field Part 3...

[leehookem]

I transfer with the machine all the time with no problems.

[sygdwm]

I transfer with the machine all the time with no problems.

ditto. pretty quickly.

i also have no need for running 24/96 so the 8gb issue is null for me. ymmv.

[Genghis Cougar Mellen Khan]

I transfer with the machine all the time with no problems.

ditto. pretty quickly.

i also have no need for running 24/96 so the 8gb issue is null for me. ymmv.

Some people may disagree, but recording in 24/96 is a big waste of memory IMO.  The highest I'll record in is 24/48 for DVD-A.  I played with A-B'ing 24/48 and 24/96 files, and I can't hear a stinkin' difference.  16bit to 24 bit was a noticable improvement, beyond that 48>96 didn't yield anything I could pick out.

tests: recorded w/DPA4022 > V3 > Tascam DVRA-1000 @ 24/48 and 24/96

playback: Tascam DVRA-1000 > Grace m902 > AKG K701 headphones and Tascam DVRA-1000 > Grace m902 > B&K ST202+ > B&W 705's

If you need more than 4hrs record time, get another 4GB card, I don't want to bank on one card anyway. Let's say you're on the road or recording a festi, if your 8GB card flakes out you're screwed, if one of your 4GB cards flakes you still have 4GB or even the ability to dump the one card while recording on the other.

[sygdwm]

indeed. i have two 4gb cards for this reason.

[jmerin]

indeed. i have two 4gb cards for this reason.

what happends if the show is over 2 hours and with 2 cards, there will be a BIG drop out

[sygdwm]

indeed. i have two 4gb cards for this reason.

what happends if the show is over 2 hours and with 2 cards, there will be a BIG drop out

i do NOT record at 24/96. 2hr limit means nothing to me.

[leehookem]

The only time I want 24/96 would be for WSP.  I still would like to have a working 8GB card.  Otherwise 24/48 is plenty.

[Genghis Cougar Mellen Khan]

indeed. i have two 4gb cards for this reason.

what happends if the show is over 2 hours and with 2 cards, there will be a BIG drop out

Not at 24/48...

Can you personally detect an audible difference between 24/48 and 24/96?  My playback system isn't junk, it's far from being "high end", but even some of the people on this forum with very impressive (easily 10x what I have in playback) mention that they have a hard time, if being able to hear an audible difference between 24/48 vs. 24/96 if they can even detect one at all.  

It's all opinions, observations, totally subjective, but I'll still stick to my own opinion that 24/96 is a HUGE waste of space.  

Interesting article from record-producer.com (bolded some of the key points):
http://www.record-producer.com/learn.cfm?a=2982

Can you hear up to 96 kHz?
If you can hear frequencies up to 20 kHz, you are in the best of aural health, and probably young too. Most of us can't, so does a sampling rate of 96 kHz really make a difference?

Can you hear up to 96 kHz?
If you can hear frequencies up to 20 kHz, you are in the best of aural health, and probably young too. Most of us can't, but some can, and 20 kHz has long since been regarded as the upper limit of human hearing. Of course some animals can hear higher frequencies, dogs and bats come easily to mind, but you can't yet buy a stereo system designed specially to cater to canine ears. I said "yet".

But in recording, ever higher and higher sampling rates are all the rage. I get people writing to me asking whether the reason their recordings sound terrible is because they don't have 96 kHz sampling.

The plain fact is this: To capture frequencies up to 20 kHz accurately, you need a sampling rate of at least twice that, plus a safety margin. That comes to 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz, depending on whether you're talking about CD or digital audio for video.

Now that is a fact that is measurable on any day of the week, in any high school science lab, anywhere in the world.

F.A.C.T.

Got that?

But where there's a fact, there's a counter to that fact based on subjective opinion. Anyone into high-end audio in a big way will insist that higher sampling rates are absolutely necessary, and suggest that 96 kHz is merely the beginning. Equipment with a sampling rate of 96 kHz should give an audio response up to at least 40 kHz, and surely that should be sufficient for anyone?

But no. You can buy equipment that samples up to 192 kHz, giving a theoretical audio response of at least 80 kHz. Now we're in the bat cave! (I do note however that Digidesign's highest-specified Pro Tools interface, which samples at 192 Hz, only has a published response up to 20 kHz. What's that all about then?)

I have absolutely nothing against striving for the ultimate in audio. It is human nature to achieve the best, then better it. But the problem is that so many people have somehow gotten hold of the idea that this is the most important thing to worry about in recording.

Not so. If you play recordings sampled at 48 kHz and 96 kHz even to sound engineers and technical experts, they are hard pressed to tell the difference. Mostly they can't. Now try the same tests on a representative sample of the kind of people who might buy your music. I can guarantee that they won't be able to tell the difference - even if you tell them what to look out for.

Now let's turn around to something that makes a real and easily heard difference to a recording - microphone position. Move a microphone a couple of inches, and it's as plain as a billboard right in front of your face what the difference is. Or compare your mixes now with what you did two years ago - there will be a massive difference due to the experience you have gained over that period.

The conclusion is that it is right to be concerned about sound quality, but chasing ever-higher sampling rates isn't the thing most likely to make a difference.

[sygdwm]

besides the filesize, i prefer 24/48 cause my dvd-a player does not output a digital signal over 24/48.

edit- what he said

[Chuck]

This is what I got from Doug Oade on the 8GB card problem:

Hi !
Yes, the info I have from Marantz indicates 8 gig and larger cards are
supported but must be formated on a computer. Also keep in mind not all
cards are the same so some brands may not ever work. I do not own any 8
gig cards( I prefer the reliability and lower operating current/temp of
2 and 4 gig CF cards) so I cannot test it but I hope this helps...Doug
--
Thank you for your interest.
We are factory authorized for all product we sell.
We want your business and try harder !
 
Sincerely,
The Oade Brothers Audio Sales Team.

[sygdwm]

 i find it easier/faster to format the card while hooked up the computer. also, i'd like to hear doug's take on the 48 vs 96 debacle.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

Has anyone done any splitter based comps of the ACM 671?

Like:

mics > splitter > acm671
                > v3
And to eval the A/D maybe:

mics > v3 > acm671

[twoodruff]

Has anyone done any splitter based comps of the ACM 671?

Like:

mics > splitter > acm671
                > v3
And to eval the A/D maybe:

mics > v3 > acm671

haven't done a comp to prove it but I don't miss the v3

[Chuck]

I'll be at the moe/Umpreys Red Rocks show, May 26, with my ACM PMD671. I'd love to do a comp with a V3 or any other pre-amp.

[Genghis Cougar Mellen Khan]

I'll be at the moe/Umpreys Red Rocks show, May 26, with my ACM PMD671. I'd love to do a comp with a V3 or any other pre-amp.

Perfect!  The buddy who asked runs 481 > DA-P1.

Now if we could only modify that DA-P1 to record @ 24bit.