Topic: Sony PCM-M10 or the Olympus LS-11

[MikeMannZ]

First off I gotta say killer info on the m10 provided here.  Great samples, pictures, and charts.  There doesn't seem to be any in depth threads on the ls-11.  Wingfieldaudio considers the ls11 a better machine.  Does it come close to the m10?  Which recorder would you choose?  I can get a brand new ls-11 for 300.  I would basically be using the internal mics for capturing song ideas at rehearsals, although I would take it out into the field as well.  I would like to get the best low end response posssible.

Thanks
Mike 

[jboyzh]

I'm wondering as well... Seems the M10 has about the same noise floor according to http://www.avisoft.com/recordertests.htm and theatreofnoise.com . wingfieldaudio.com and -while in german- audiotranskription.de also post some interesting samples where you can compare the two.

From my personal experience with the LS-10 and now LS-11, I can say that the LS-11 also delivers where the LS-10 somewhat failed: low frequencies, so no more bass roll off which makes it now a fully great sounding and well built recorder for music, nature, and speech.

I have no M10 at hand, but listening to the sound samples on the above sites, the LS-11 seems to have slightly better clarity when recording from the internal mics than the M10 imo.

Personally, I prefer the LS-11 design and features over the M10. It would, however, be interesting to have more comparisons between these two regarding recording quality.

[MikeMannZ]

I spoke with Olympus a few days ago and they claim that the only changes on the LS-11 were increase battery time and internal memory.  The tech claimed nothing was done internally to alter recording behavior.  do you have a sample recording of a live band that illustrate the improved bass response? 

[jboyzh]

Frequency range is definitely better now:

Olympus, at least here in Switzerland, clearly states "Verbesserung des Frequenzverlaufs"= "improvement of frequency range" on the LS-11 site (Google Translation, second last point: http://bit.ly/diK2a5 ).

Then, you can hear it in the sound examples of both LS-10 and LS-11 side by side (forest, train station, choir, speech) on
http://audiotranskription.de/vergleichstest-digitaler-rekorder.htm

[guysonic]

Until someone does a real bench test of the LS-11 like I did on the LS-10, I would not say the MIC input's lack of bass has been corrected. 
The LINE input on the LS-10 was indeed 20 cycles to 44K, and assume same for LS-11 as published specs seem to indicate.

See: http://www.sonicstudios.com/ls10revw.htm

[Ozpeter]

If we're looking at the internal mics, the difference is perhaps between the Olympus cardioid mics (I assume that's what they are??) and the Sony omni mics (I believe no other mainstream portable recorder uses omnis).  You either prefer one or the other.  Personally I prefer the Sony sound to be post-processed as I described in the main M10 thread.

There does seem to be a high level of user satisfaction with the M10.

[chrise]

Some nice things about the PCM-M10 are:

- 5 second prerecord buffer

- Ridiculously long battery life

I've had mine about 3 weeks and used it most days.  With the supplied AAs, the battery meter is only now dipping below "full"...

[MikeMannZ]

If we're looking at the internal mics, the difference is perhaps between the Olympus cardioid mics (I assume that's what they are??) and the Sony omni mics (I believe no other mainstream portable recorder uses omnis).  You either prefer one or the other.  Personally I prefer the Sony sound to be post-processed as I described in the main M10 thread.

So excuse my newbie-ness, and I'm a drummer too (please hold all jokes...thank you).  I spoke with a nice fella Chris at the sound professional and he mentioned that typically cardioids do not have as much bass response as omni's.  He thought that I would not like the Olympus line based on this.  So am I correct in understanding that the Sony may capture more bass, but need a bit of post processing in order to bring it out?  Is it a more flatter wider response than cardioid?  Everything that I've listened to in the m10 string I've really liked.  I'll have to go back and notice if people processed their uploaded files. 

Mike

[fmaderjr]

I heard an orchestral recording with the LS-10 and it was mediocre sounding at best. The M10 internals are much better and won't distort up to 124 dB, which is very good for internals. Ozpeter did not mean he favors post processing to bring out the bass-he means that he likes to use it to widen the stereo spread (which may or may not be important to you).

[MikeMannZ]

I heard an orchestral recording with the LS-10 and it was mediocre sounding at best. The M10 internals are much better and won't distort up to 124 dB, which is very good for internals. Ozpeter did not mean he favors post processing to bring out the bass-he mean that he like to use it to widen the stereo spread (which may or may not be important to you).

Everything that I've heard from either unit...to me has sounded a bit thin.  I think both the 10 and 11 do a great just at representing the highs and mids, but lack in the lows.  I wouldn't be looking to widen the stereo spread necessarily, but certainly wouldn't be opposed to doing it.  I was just hoping to get a really good recording without having to muck with every tune, every time.

Mike

[chrise]

To get a really good recording, you probably need to use external mics.

(which will show what these recorders are really capable of).

[MikeMannZ]

To get a really good recording, you probably need to use external mics.

(which will show what these recorders are really capable of).

Which I do plan on doing, but I do want the unit to function well on it's own as well. 

[jboyzh]

I'm not a technical person, so can't provide frequency courves. But what I can say from the LS-10 and the LS-11, first hand, is this:

- Sound of the LS-10 was thin, good for speech, music had to be equalized.
- Sound of the LS-11 is full and has wonderful bass, but is also nice in the highs, both from internal mics, and mic-in. speech is clear and deep, music doesn't have to be post processed. It's the deciding difference to the LS-10. But I understand if you don't believe, and wait until somebody can provide the graphs to prove... it's just my ears :-)

Some more points on the LS-11:
- Oly uses AA instead of AAA of the Sony. I have more of them.
- Oly uses SDHC instead of microSD. Dito.
- Battery life of the LS-11 is more than good enough. The M10 has some more hours. I don't care.
- LS-11 is lighter and I prefer the form factor to the M10.
- Startup time is short: 2 sec with 8GB internal RAM and 4 GB SDHC.

As I already have an LS-11 and being completely happy with, also for music, I'd need a good reason (improvement in sound quality) to also buy an M10.

Maybe I should get one just to compare... Does anybody have the two?

[fmaderjr]

Some more points on the LS-11:
- Oly uses AA instead of AAA of the Sony. I have more of them.

What gave you that idea? The Sony uses AA's as well. It would never get the battery life it is capable of with AAA's.

[jboyzh]

Oops, I stand corrected with the batteries. sorry for that one...