Topic: Sony PCM-M10 (Part 2)

[aryolkary]

Hi, been a happy user of the Sony for a few months now.
Here are some piano recordings, internal mics, mostly recorded in mp3 320kpbs, some were recorded in 16bit 44khz wav. With an upright, a small room and the lack of mic placement expertise, this is as good as I could get:

Higher quality (audio only)
http://www.esnips.com/web/aryolkary

Youtube link (to hear it with lesser quality, more artifacts, but in the end what most people will listen to)
http://www.youtube.com/aryolkary

No processing or effects were added. Some reverb would be nice though, too dry sounding, specially when comparing it with grand piano recordings (in halls or studios).
Regards,
Ary

[tardis71]

Here's a song by the Lee Boys I recorded about a month ago with my M10 using the internal mics.
It was at Smith's Olde Bar sitting in the tables on the right side about 20 feet from the stacks.
Record is just setting on the table pointing up in the direction of the stacks. No editing was done to it. Is converted to 128 mp3 tho. Sounds better as wav..and even better once eq-ed. But It will give you an idea of that the internals can do. Sound was pretty loud... enjoy!

Click here for Lee Boy's Superstition MP3 recorded with M10 Internal mics

[Ozpeter]

Very interesting sample, tardis71.  I took the liberty to take a sample from it with the first 20 seconds unchanged, then another 20 seconds run through the "Phase EQ" effect I mentioned before (which applies widening EQ using MS techniques) - for me, much more clear, wide and open with the effect applied.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/9/22/1451533/leeboys%20widened.mp3 (1MB, 40 seconds only).

[tardis71]

Wow! very cool! sir! ;-) I'll have to check that plug in out.
 

[Ozpeter]

For ease of reference re that plugin here's an edited quote from a couple of pages back -

Here's a link to a VST plugin (free) which can be used to manipulate the eq of mid and side channels -

http://rekkerd.org/matthew-lindsay-ncl-phase-eq/

if you don't want to read the manual for the Matthew Lindsay VST, simply select the "MS Enhancement" preset and you'll be impressed right away

[Kevin T]

Wow

I was leaning towards getting an M10 but the internals leave me wanting. Just the opposite of my H2 you either get heaven or hell. With The M10 is just always oddly vanilla with out major post bandaids    

[johnw]

Anyone know what unity is on this? I read through the threads and couldn't figure that out, so sorry if I missed it.

[tardis71]

Wow

I was leaning towards getting an M10 but the internals leave me wanting. Just the opposite of my H2 you either get heaven or hell. With The M10 is just always oddly vanilla with out major post bandaids    

Hummm Heaven or Hell or a strong vanilla steady as she goes? I would think I would rather have something dependable and vanilla over the chance of getting Hell...no? 
Keep in mind that my recording was done on the side...not in the middle of the room.
All in all a pretty good recording for just plunking down a 2x4inch recorder on a table. It would have sounded better for sure if it was at the soundboard. But I'm still in the testing out phase. I have no doubt that the m10 with it's internals can make even better recordings. It's gonna depend on the live mix mostly and were you record from. As to my recording...that was pretty close to the live sound... I'd say if anything I was too close...Plus the mix was really loud. But everything is very clear and who doesn't do post eq to make even the best original recording sound even better? I've heard H2 recordings and I'll take the M10 over any of them. imho! ;-)

[MikeMannZ]

Wow

I was leaning towards getting an M10 but the internals leave me wanting. Just the opposite of my H2 you either get heaven or hell. With The M10 is just always oddly vanilla with out major post bandaids    

Whoa the H2 over the m10......

[it-goes-to-eleven]

But everything is very clear and who doesn't do post eq to make even the best original recording sound even better?

Yuck.  The best recordings don't need EQ or post.

Any most of us here don't do EQ or post.

[page]

But everything is very clear and who doesn't do post eq to make even the best original recording sound even better?

Yuck.  The best recordings don't need EQ or post.

Any most of us here don't do EQ or post.

agreed.

Some don't do EQ cause they have gotten good at what they do or believe it's accuracy for better or worse that means something. Some don't do EQ cause they are ignorant in how to or are apathetic towards it.

But most of us can agree the best recordings still don't need EQ though. 

[guysonic]

Anyone know what unity is on this? I read through the threads and couldn't figure that out, so sorry if I missed it.

Posted reply copied below in this thread, but easy to miss so here's another view:

Quote from: fmaderjr on January 11, 2010, 03:14:00 AMguy-can you test for the approximate unity gain setting?

Also it'd be great to know if there is a level below which you would still get clipping if you had to set the level below that point to keep the meters from going over 0 dB. I made a very informal test line in to try to determine this approximately and it looked like that point was probably very low (possibly around 1/10 on the wheel). This ratio to the highest level appears to me to be a good bit lower than on Sony DAT's and MD's which is a good thing.

When I was using a Korg MR-1, I found your testing results of these issues invaluable in making flawless recordings.

GUYSONIC REPLIED: Going in LINE jack with REC level knob set at #6 and with deck set for LINE (not headphone) output, the LINE output jack signal equaled the input giving unity 'system gain.' 

My impression was lowest stable REC knob setting is about #1.  In other words, suggest that no lower than #1 REC level setting be used to assure not overloading the deck showing maximum signal indications at or near 0 dB VU FS.

[tardis71]

Point taken...yeah I didn't need EQ for my AKG 414 recorded shows...but I mostly do stealth so that's really what type recordings I was thinking of when I made that statement. So yes, for my Core Sound and other Mini mic recordings...EQ almost always made them better...imho! I'm talking about small mics that are comparable to the M10 mics. The Internals on the M10 are not 414s! ;-) But they are pretty good for a 2x4 all in one recorder!

[johnw]

Thanks guysonic. Mine should be here soon. Excited about trying this after owning the D50 for a year or so.

[Ozpeter]

Whoa the H2 over the m10......

The H2 is designed as a four-capsule mic array with built in recorder.  Use it for anything else and you quickly run into its limitations (eg horrific mic input noise when using external mics). 

The M10 is designed as a recorder with mics added just in case you need to use them.   It's best for voice recording applications where you want to grab sound from all round eg at a meeting.  For concert use it will be recording audience noise from all directions, and room reflections too, rather than providing any focus on the band. It has a very good mic preamp for using external mics, which is the preferred option where possible.

That's my take.   Show me any precedent for a well regarded stereo mic using closely spaced omni capsules and I'll eat my words.  Any discussion of mic technique using omni capsules will suggest a minimum spacing of 40cm (IIRC).  The M10 mic layout is a design compromise.  You can make a recording that appears to sound good but the stereo imaging doesn't stand up to close examination, whereas the stereo imaging of the H2, particularly when using all four capsules, is very good.  The M10 is, none the less, all round a very nice device.