Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Sony PCM-M10 (Part 2)  (Read 189113 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline listener2

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 52
Re: Sony PCM-M10 (Part 2)
« Reply #360 on: June 23, 2010, 07:54:13 PM »
quite candidly I will to try something out.

I want to make a recording with less superior equipment than schopes microphones, a grace v3, and a sound devices 702 and when I'm ready to seed it, say it was recorded with all of those expensive things and see how many people think it was not recorded with that equipment.

we on this board can't even agree flac vs high quality mp3s sound different nevertheless a sound devices vs a sony m10.

the idea of arguing about equipment and taking someone's personal opinion so seriously and nitpicking everything is overrated and should be left to other boards.

I know I am guilty of having strong opinions but we all need to relax and remember it is about the music.

for the price of the sound devices 702, I would be able to buy 7.5 sony pcm-m10s recording (rounded down) 14 channels.

702 on b&h

m10 on b&h

more is not necessarily better but come on...14 channels to the two on the 702.
I am in concurrence with you man! I bet you that no one would really be able to tell the difference between a nice recording made on a Sony M10 (or any other decent grade recorder like the newer Edirol R-09HR) and a Sound Devices 702 grade recorder.  The mics make more of a difference in the sound quality than the digital recorders do.  The only caveat to that is the noise level of the mic preamps of any particular recorder.  But in the league of the new Sony M10 and D50 and SoundDevices 702 recorders, I don't think preamp noise wll be an issue.  They are all great units, but you get more for your money with a little M10.

Offline beatkilla

  • Trade Count: (70)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2114
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sony PCM-M10 (Part 2)
« Reply #361 on: June 23, 2010, 08:30:12 PM »
Just got my m10 and will be running dpa 4061s with battery box so i should be turning off plug in power in the menu yes or no?

Offline chrise

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Sony PCM-M10 (Part 2)
« Reply #362 on: June 23, 2010, 08:39:53 PM »
Yes.

Offline gmm6797

  • Trade Count: (10)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3591
  • Gender: Male
  • Schoeps MK4 > nBoxPlat > Sony A10/SDMixPre6/SD 722
    • Homepage
Re: Sony PCM-M10 (Part 2)
« Reply #363 on: June 23, 2010, 10:54:28 PM »
more is not necessarily better but come on...14 channels to the two on the 702.

Good luck trying to time sync those

Offline rastasean

  • in paradise
  • Trade Count: (23)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3699
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sony PCM-M10 (Part 2)
« Reply #364 on: June 24, 2010, 12:21:55 AM »
more is not necessarily better but come on...14 channels to the two on the 702.

Good luck trying to time sync those

haha. I think something more than luck would be needed but this brings up something interesting.

Why is syncing absolutely necessary? What if you have 7 different pairs of mics (well maybe a sbd, too), why not just press record 5 or so minutes in advance that way you know ALL recorders will be capturing the music. with 7 different recorders, you'll get 7 different sounding recordings so I don't think syncing is totally necessary.

Advice is a form of nostalgia, dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts and recycling it for more than it’s worth.

Offline it-goes-to-eleven

  • Trade Count: (58)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 6696
Re: Sony PCM-M10 (Part 2)
« Reply #365 on: June 24, 2010, 01:01:52 AM »
Why is syncing absolutely necessary? What if you have 7 different pairs of mics (well maybe a sbd, too), why not just press record 5 or so minutes in advance that way you know ALL recorders will be capturing the music.

The only thing that is absolutely necessary is that they are all minidiscs.

Offline fmaderjr

  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1966
Re: Sony PCM-M10 (Part 2)
« Reply #366 on: June 24, 2010, 05:36:09 AM »
I am in concurrence with you man! I bet you that no one would really be able to tell the difference between a nice recording made on a Sony M10 (or any other decent grade recorder like the newer Edirol R-09HR) and a Sound Devices 702 grade recorder.  The mics make more of a difference in the sound quality than the digital recorders do.  The only caveat to that is the noise level of the mic preamps of any particular recorder.  But in the league of the new Sony M10 and D50 and SoundDevices 702 recorders, I don't think preamp noise wll be an issue.  They are all great units, but you get more for your money with a little M10.

I agree with you & rastasean. I do think that a small percentage of people could tell the difference and that it would matter to them, but I know I wouldn't be able to and I don't think most people would. That's why I don't intend to upgrade from good small recorder like the M10 (with a littlebox if I need phantom or an external pre for more clean gain).
« Last Edit: June 24, 2010, 10:08:11 AM by fmaderjr »
AT853's (all caps)/CM-300 Franken Naks (CP-1,2,3)/JBMod Nak 700's (CP-701,702) > Tascam DR-680
Or Sonic Studios DSM-6 > M10

Offline ts

  • Trade Count: (81)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3617
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sony PCM-M10 (Part 2)
« Reply #367 on: June 24, 2010, 07:53:20 AM »
Anyone using battery powered mics directly into the M10? Mic-in is the way to go I guess.
ts, I am not sure exactly what you are asking but if you mean a mic that has its own battery power and does not require PIP from the recorder, I just tested the Sony M10 with my Audio Technica AT-8022 stereo condenser mic plugged into the Mic Input jack with Sony M10 mic plug-in-power "off".  I had tons of gain with it.  I only set the record level control to "4" to match the same level I get with the M10's internal built-in mics set at "3" recording a fairly loud home theater stereo system playing jazz station from my cable service music channel.

I think you must have had your M10 record gain set to automatic gain control = "on".  Turn it off and you should get much mic input gain.  (unless of course your particular self powered mics are extremely low output or defective?)

sorry, i should have said mics with internal batteries. and yes, rec level is set to manual, if thats what you are refering to.


what happens if you leave PIP on, using mics with internal batteries?

Offline fmaderjr

  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1966
Re: Sony PCM-M10 (Part 2)
« Reply #368 on: June 24, 2010, 10:10:59 AM »
what happens if you leave PIP on, using mics with internal batteries?

I can't say what will happen, but the plug in power should be off when using mics that don't run on plug in power. Leaving it on can't do any good and could do harm.
AT853's (all caps)/CM-300 Franken Naks (CP-1,2,3)/JBMod Nak 700's (CP-701,702) > Tascam DR-680
Or Sonic Studios DSM-6 > M10

Offline ts

  • Trade Count: (81)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3617
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sony PCM-M10 (Part 2)
« Reply #369 on: June 24, 2010, 10:38:51 AM »
what happens if you leave PIP on, using mics with internal batteries?

I can't say what will happen, but the plug in power should be off when using mics that don't run on plug in power. Leaving it on can't do any good and could do harm.

I'm kinda thinking the same. I want to try this little pre: http://www.soundprofessionals.com/cgi-bin/gold/item/SP-PREAMP behind my stock Nak 700's, but the PIP is always on and the Nak 700's run on internal 6V batts. :hmmm:

How do your Franken Naks work with the littlebox?
« Last Edit: June 24, 2010, 10:46:00 AM by ts »

Offline fmaderjr

  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1966
Re: Sony PCM-M10 (Part 2)
« Reply #370 on: June 24, 2010, 11:18:36 AM »
How do your Franken Naks work with the littlebox?

Absolutely incredible. I recorded a friend's band (guitar/bass/drums) with that combo and it's probably the best sounding recording I've made in my 10 years of recording. Hard to see how it could have sounded better with a $3000 set of mics.

If you get a littlebox for your mics, be sure you can switch off the phantom/plug in power. I didn't ask for that option because I don't have any battery powered mics.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2010, 11:22:05 AM by fmaderjr »
AT853's (all caps)/CM-300 Franken Naks (CP-1,2,3)/JBMod Nak 700's (CP-701,702) > Tascam DR-680
Or Sonic Studios DSM-6 > M10

Offline fmaderjr

  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1966
Re: Sony PCM-M10 (Part 2)
« Reply #371 on: June 24, 2010, 11:38:46 AM »
I want to try this little pre: http://www.soundprofessionals.com/cgi-bin/gold/item/SP-PREAMP behind my stock Nak 700's, but the PIP is always on and the Nak 700's run on internal 6V batts. :hmmm:

It might be worth calling or e-mailing Chris Carfagno at Sound Pro's and asking if they could make you one with switchable plug in power.
AT853's (all caps)/CM-300 Franken Naks (CP-1,2,3)/JBMod Nak 700's (CP-701,702) > Tascam DR-680
Or Sonic Studios DSM-6 > M10

Offline ts

  • Trade Count: (81)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3617
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sony PCM-M10 (Part 2)
« Reply #372 on: June 24, 2010, 11:50:14 AM »
How do your Franken Naks work with the littlebox?

Absolutely incredible. I recorded a friend's band (guitar/bass/drums) with that combo and it's probably the best sounding recording I've made in my 10 years of recording. Hard to see how it could have sounded better with a $3000 set of mics.

If you get a littlebox for your mics, be sure you can switch off the phantom/plug in power. I didn't ask for that option because I don't have any battery powered mics.

How do the mics enter the littlebox? Mini xlr?

Offline sparkey

  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4055
Re: Sony PCM-M10 (Part 2)
« Reply #373 on: June 24, 2010, 12:11:19 PM »
Most people - e.g. stock car stereo systems on the way to work - may not be able to tell the difference....those who have invested into their playback systems probably would be able to tell the difference.  Don't get me wrong, there is a bang-for-the-buck argument to be made....but systems that reproduce accurately you should be able to tell the difference on.

I want to make a recording with less superior equipment than schopes microphones, a grace v3, and a sound devices 702 and when I'm ready to seed it, say it was recorded with all of those expensive things and see how many people think it was not recorded with that equipment.
702 on b&h
m10 on b&h
#Generalstrike for president in 2024

Offline Todd R

  • Over/Under on next gear purchase: 2 months
  • Trade Count: (29)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4901
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sony PCM-M10 (Part 2)
« Reply #374 on: June 24, 2010, 12:14:40 PM »
The folks who say that you won't hear a difference should try it sometime.  Not to say the M10 doesn't sound good, or even better than the 722, since I haven't tried myself -- but you might be surprised.  I have done a number of controlled comps of recorders and A/D stages.  It's really pretty easy since it is often very easy for one mic preamp to feed two different recorders or A/D's.

I've done comps many times of various options compared to the Lunatec V3 I owned for 7 years or so.  I'd bet I'd have a pretty good track record picking out a V3 recording since I ran it so much and did many listening tests with it.  If nothing else, the V3 has a very accurate and realistic reproduction of cymbal decays, I can generally pick out a V3 recording in a controlled comp readily by listening for this alone.

Most recently I did a controlled comp using my PSP2 with dual outputs, one fed to a Tascam 680 recorder and one fed to an Oade-modded R44 recorder.  I found hearing the differences between the recordings to be very, very apparent -- subtle, but apparent. It took a long time and a lot of listening to finally judge which one I preferred since both had their good and bad qualities, but strictly to differentiate between the two wasn't very difficult.  That said, both the 680 and the Oade R44 sounded very good and most people would be happy with recordings from either recorder.


On the need to sync recorders, the issue is time drift between recorders.  Even if both recorders are set to sample at 44,100 samples per second, in reality they will sample at slightly different rates because the oscillators used to develop the clock signal are not completely accurate.  As a rough example, if you have two recorders sampling at 44,100 samples per second and the clocks are 99.99% accurate (+/- 0.0001), one could be running on the fast side of that accuracy, and one on the slow side.  Even with this level of accuracy, the 2 sources over 2 hours (7,200 seconds or nominally 317,520,000 samples) could vary by 1.4 seconds.  That is, the 2 sources could drift from one another by 1400 milliseconds, and a drift of more than 30 or 40 milliseconds or more becomes noticeable as an echo or excessive unpleasant reverb.
Mics: Microtech Gefell m20/m21 (nbob/pfa actives), Line Audio CM3, Church CA-11 cards
Preamp:  none <sniff>
Recorders:  Sound Devices MixPre-6, Sony PCM-M10, Zoom H4nPro

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.099 seconds with 44 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF