Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Recording Gear => Topic started by: Mike Davis on September 17, 2013, 06:45:49 AM
-
News flash from a headphone enthusiast who uses the PCM-M10 as a 96/24-capable player (Line Out to an external headphone amp)...
The Sony PCM-D100 has been released in Asia!
Supports recording and playback DSD 2.8MHz/1bit, linear PCM 192kHz/24bit
Optional 2x or 4x up-sampling on playback
Supports DSD/WAV/FLAC/MP3/WMA/AAC
Supports SDXC cards
Separate 2-channel record level adjustments
With four AA alkaline batteries, recording times of about 25 hours are possible
http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sony.jp%2Fic-recorder%2Fproducts%2FPCM-D100%2Fspec.html
(http://www.sony.jp/products/picture/PCM-D100.jpg)
(http://www.sony.jp/products/picture/PCM-D100_std-cw.jpg)
(http://www.sony.jp/products/picture/PCM-D100_std-ccw.jpg)
(http://www.sony.jp/products/picture/PCM-D100_std-leftside.jpg)
(http://www.sony.jp/products/picture/PCM-D100_std-rightside.jpg)
(http://www.sony.jp/products/picture/PCM-D100_std-back.jpg)
(http://www.sony.jp/products/picture/PCM-D100_accy-remoto.jpg)
(http://www.sony.jp/products/picture/PCM-D100_remote001.jpg)
(http://www.sony.jp/products/picture/PCM-D100_remote002.jpg)
(http://www.sony.jp/products/picture/PCM-D100_accy-fuubou.jpg)
(http://www.sony.jp/products/picture/PCM-D100_accy-case.jpg)
At Sony China store: 5,999 RMB = $980 US (currently)
At Sony Japan store: 99,800 Yen = $1,007 U.S. (currently)
-
looks a lot like a D50...
-
DSD is a big plus in my book - looks like it has optical in as well
Hopefully around same price as the D50
-
Optical in and out. Looks like they want to grab the growing DSD playback market. (Also has FLAC playback!)
And it certainly looks like a D50 successor. Maybe an M10 successor little brother is yet to come.
32 GB built-in memory. Nice.
-
For recording: does it give us PIP at 5V or more?
Or have any recording related features over the M10?
-
The D100 is about the same size as the D50,
so just barely pocketable.
D100
Dimensions About 72.0 × 156.8 × 32.7mm
Weight (including battery) About 395g
D50
Dimensions About 72.0 × 154.5 × 32.7mm
Weight (including battery) About 365g
-
Nice! I wonder when they will be available in the U.S. ???
-
For recording: does it give us PIP at 5V or more?
Or have any recording related features over the M10?
I would hope with DSD and 24/192 the sound quality would be better than the M10
My Korg MR-1 sounds much better then the M10 and at least as good as the SD7xx series
I always used an external pre with these recorders so my expectations are higher then someone using an M10'as internal pre or lower end pocket pre for clip on style mics in low pro situations
But DSD definitely opens up the sound IMO
-
My Korg MR-1 sounds much better then the M10 and at least as good as the SD7xx series
I'll give Korg that one, as much as the MR-1 was a POS to run in the field, it sounded good. It was also one of the few handheld units that had balanced inputs IIRC...
-
I just now called Sony's U.S. sales headquarters at the number shown below and asked...
"Do you know when Sony will be releasing the new PCM-D100 recorder here in the United States?"
Answer: "No, I don't know."
???
Executive Office
Sony Corporation of America
550 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022-3211
Phone: 212-833-6800
-
Nice to see them moving forward some.
I'll wager the Korg MR1 is still going to be a better bucket, but if this can succeed the D50 and be as pocket-sized as the M10, the are going to sell a LOT of them.
-
Optical in and out. Looks like they want to grab the growing DSD playback market. (Also has FLAC playback!)
And it certainly looks like a D50 successor. Maybe an M10 successor little brother is yet to come.
32 GB built-in memory. Nice.
I was afraid Sony wouldn't make any new audio only recorders... this indeed makes me hopeful for a successor for M10 :-)
-
I doubt it!! IMO the M10 and D50 are much better hand held recorders than the MR1.
Nice to see them moving forward some.
I'll wager the Korg MR1 is still going to be a better bucket, but if this can succeed the D50 and be as pocket-sized as the M10, the are going to sell a LOT of them.
-
Does anyone know the voltage requirements of the PCM-D50? The M-10 is 3 volts which is great for my long duration nature recordings.
-
Here's a close-up picture of the record level dial I found on Head-Fi. It appears that this hinged shield lets you lock the record level dial or at least cover it to prevent accidental movement in a pocket. Hopefully it's metal, but it looks like molded plastic.
(http://cdn.head-fi.org/7/70/70cebf0a_Sony_PCM-D100_Large-5.jpeg)
-
It's purty!
-
Did the MR1 have balanced? I thought only the MR-1000 had balanced inputs.
Yes 2x 1/8" balanced inputs
-
I doubt it!! IMO the M10 and D50 are much better hand held recorders than the MR1.
The battery life and the fact the M10 accepts microSD are advantages it has over the mr-1
But that's it - the mr-1 smokes the m10 sound quality wise - I have had both and them and the m10 doesn't come close!
The balanced inputs and the display is also great on the mr-1 - the m10's display is ok
Never ran a d50 so I can't comment
-
Can anyone's give me the dummy breakdown on dsd?
-
The MR1 sounded nice, sure, and the balanced inputs were a positive. The hard drive and powering scheme sucked and the max line level signal was +9dbu. It was so well intentioned, but it was hampered by logistical issues... I think I only kept mine for 6 months.
The D50 may not have as nice of an ADC, but it does have an digital (optical) in, and it resolves the two biggest problems I had with the MR-1. Unless I'm in an extremely controlled environment, I would pick the D50 over the MR-1. In my experience it just works better in the field. If I was doing outboard studio work and wanted to do a final mix A>D in both LPCM and DSD, then I'd reach for an MR-1.
-
Does anyone know the voltage requirements of the PCM-D50? The M-10 is 3 volts which is great for my long duration nature recordings.
Sony PCM D-50 / 6v / Size B, 4.00mm OD × 1.70mm ID / Center pin (+) Ring (-)
-
Nice to see them moving forward some.
...but if this can succeed the D50 and be as pocket-sized as the M10, the are going to sell a LOT of them.
when i first saw the pic that's exactly what i thought. it looks like a D50/M10 hybrid, but then i saw that it's about the same size as the D50. it looks very cool, but i am not seeing any info that would prompt me to bag my M10 or my D50.
-
Here's a close-up picture of the record level dial I found on Head-Fi. It appears that this hinged shield lets you lock the record level dial or at least cover it to prevent accidental movement in a pocket. Hopefully it's metal, but it looks like molded plastic.
(http://cdn.head-fi.org/7/70/70cebf0a_Sony_PCM-D100_Large-5.jpeg)
i use gaff tape to keep the knob from moving, but THAT is definitely a very cool feature.
-
Records in DSD and has 32 gigs of internal memory neither the D50 or M10 have those features.
Nice to see them moving forward some.
...but if this can succeed the D50 and be as pocket-sized as the M10, the are going to sell a LOT of them.
when i first saw the pic that's exactly what i thought. it looks like a D50/M10 hybrid, but then i saw that it's about the same size as the D50. it looks very cool, but i am not seeing any info that would prompt me to bag my M10 or my D50.
-
it definitely has some very cool features. the 32gb internal memory is quite nice.
Records in DSD and has 32 gigs of internal memory neither the D50 or M10 have those features.
Nice to see them moving forward some.
...but if this can succeed the D50 and be as pocket-sized as the M10, the are going to sell a LOT of them.
when i first saw the pic that's exactly what i thought. it looks like a D50/M10 hybrid, but then i saw that it's about the same size as the D50. it looks very cool, but i am not seeing any info that would prompt me to bag my M10 or my D50.
-
Even so, I'd tape the latch down too, fwiw.
If it sounds as good as the M10, coupled with Opti-in, this puppy will be a big seller.
-
Even so, I'd tape the latch down too, fwiw.
If it sounds as good as the M10, coupled with Opti-in, this puppy will be a big seller.
+1
-
Gaffer tape seems to be the preferred american solution for engineering problems ;D
http://nedmartin.org/v3/amused/engineering-flowchart
BTW if that knob has the same "feel" like that on the D50, you do not need to tape it down. It has just the right amount of "stickyness" to avoid accidental movement and not impede fade-ins and -outs IMHO (and that even in cold weather outdoor).
Greetings,
Rainer
-
Is there a benefit to using an optical digi input instead of a coax digi input??
Coax is more sturdy IMO, but Sony keeps using the optical for some reason.
Nice looking unit.. it'd be better lookin without the external mics though.
-
Is there a benefit to using an optical digi input instead of a coax digi input??
Coax is more sturdy IMO, but Sony keeps using the optical for some reason.
Perhaps a smaller input jack thus saving internal space for other components? I've never directly compared sizes so don't know if an opti input is actually smaller.
Anyplace still selling a TOS > right angle mini TOS cable like I used to use with a JB3?
Nice looking unit.. it'd be better lookin without the external mics though.
I agree. I haven't seen a unit with external mics from any manufacturer that I consider attractive though some of the tascam units aren't as butt-ugly. But if the feature set is right I can forgive unattractive.
-
uncleyug,
optical in has no problem with ground loops. Consumer digital interfaces (aka SPDIF) are unbalanced. Some devices have galvanic isolation for SPDIF with pulse transformers on their output, but not all. So you can expect hum problems if you want to use your recorder in conjunction with your PC as an audio interface (H2 is famous for that).
Opto is by default fully isolated.
Coax-to-opto and opto-to-coax adapters are available:
http://www.thomann.de/gb/lindy_audiokonverter_spdif_digital.htm
Hope that helps.
Greetings,
Rainer
-
uncleyug,
optical in has no problem with ground loops. Consumer digital interfaces (aka SPDIF) are unbalanced. Some devices have galvanic isolation for SPDIF with pulse transformers on their output, but not all. So you can expect hum problems if you want to use your recorder in conjunction with your PC as an audio interface (H2 is famous for that).
Opto is by default fully isolated.
Coax-to-opto and opto-to-coax adapters are available:
http://www.thomann.de/gb/lindy_audiokonverter_spdif_digital.htm
Hope that helps.
Greetings,
Rainer
Hosa makes a nice DFC (Digital Format Convertor): ODL-276A I think is 24/96... And they run on DC power so you can stick one in your bag easy...
Terry
-
I know the D50 doesn't work with all devices for example UA5 so I'm wondering if a converter would work or if the D100 will be compatible with more devices.
uncleyug,
optical in has no problem with ground loops. Consumer digital interfaces (aka SPDIF) are unbalanced. Some devices have galvanic isolation for SPDIF with pulse transformers on their output, but not all. So you can expect hum problems if you want to use your recorder in conjunction with your PC as an audio interface (H2 is famous for that).
Opto is by default fully isolated.
Coax-to-opto and opto-to-coax adapters are available:
http://www.thomann.de/gb/lindy_audiokonverter_spdif_digital.htm
Hope that helps.
Greetings,
Rainer
Hosa makes a nice DFC (Digital Format Convertor): ODL-276A I think is 24/96... And they run on DC power so you can stick one in your bag easy...
Terry
-
I know the D50 doesn't work with all devices for example UA5 so I'm wondering if a converter would work or if the D100 will be compatible with more devices.
Was the D50 tested with a DFC between the UA5 and the D50 (UA5 > SPDIF > Hosa > TOS > D50)???
Terry
-
You shouldn't need one since the ua5 has an optical out. My point is that the D50 might not work with a converter. The only pre/adc I know that the D50 works with is a V3(optimod) with the upgraded chip or a usbpre2
I know the D50 doesn't work with all devices for example UA5 so I'm wondering if a converter would work or if the D100 will be compatible with more devices.
Was the D50 tested with a DFC between the UA5 and the D50 (UA5 > SPDIF > Hosa > TOS > D50)???
Terry
-
You should need one since the ua5 has an optical out. My point is that the D50 might not work with a converter. The only pre/adc I know that the D50 works with is a V3(optimod) with the upgraded chip or a usbpre2
Yeah, for newer recorders, you need newer adcs that conform to the final spec. Not many cheapo units are going to be designed with that in mind.
Anyplace still selling a TOS > right angle mini TOS cable like I used to use with a JB3?
JVC was the last group I knew of making them en masse. Maybe a boutique shop might do one though.
-
You shouldn't need one since the ua5 has an optical out. My point is that the D50 might not work with a converter. The only pre/adc I know that the D50 works with is a V3(optimod) with the upgraded chip or a usbpre2
Yeah, I know the D50 had issues with some units. I don't know enough about how SPDIF works to know if running a converter and using the SPDIF out of the UA5 would correct that problem???
I'm guessing it doesn't and that you're going to have a newer Pre/ADC in order to use the D100...
Terry
-
Very few SPDIF converters change any frame data, so the Format converter will do nothing to make the signal work or not
-
Def pretty ;D I have no use for the opti in but for others that's a huge game changer. For now, ill stick with my m10. If dsd was more compatible tho, I'd snatch one or two up no problem ;)
-
That's what I'm thinking!
You shouldn't need one since the ua5 has an optical out. My point is that the D50 might not work with a converter. The only pre/adc I know that the D50 works with is a V3(optimod) with the upgraded chip or a usbpre2
Yeah, I know the D50 had issues with some units. I don't know enough about how SPDIF works to know if running a converter and using the SPDIF out of the UA5 would correct that problem???
I'm guessing it doesn't and that you're going to have a newer Pre/ADC in order to use the D100...
Terry
-
If the AD is on par with the Korg MR-1 - I would never use an external AD with this deck and record DSD - there is no way a UA-5 or even a Mytek would offer any better sound IMO. The only need for the optical in would be for xfers, etc
-
With the digi out, I'm guessing that this could sync up with an external ADC to run four-channels... pretty cool for such a small deck!
-
With the digi out, I'm guessing that this could sync up with an external ADC to run four-channels... pretty cool for such a small deck!
Good point I wonder if you can clock sync via the SPDIF's (ala the Korg MR-2000) - That would be nice if you can run more then 2 channels DSD or even PCM
-
I would never use an external AD with this deck and record DSD
Pretty much, yeah I agree. This is basically a D50 that does DSD and has a better volume lock on it. If you wanted to use an external ADC (which is likely to be PCM) then you're almost better off getting a cheaper D50.
-
I would never use an external AD with this deck and record DSD
Pretty much, yeah I agree. This is basically a D50 that does DSD and has a better volume lock on it. If you wanted to use an external ADC (which is likely to be PCM) then you're almost better off getting a cheaper D50.
Wish they could come out with a DSD firmware for the hs-p82 then the discussion would be over :D
Tascam already has a few DSD playback and bench recorders
-
I would never use an external AD with this deck and record DSD
Pretty much, yeah I agree. This is basically a D50 that does DSD and has a better volume lock on it. If you wanted to use an external ADC (which is likely to be PCM) then you're almost better off getting a cheaper D50.
Wish they could come out with a DSD firmware for the hs-p82 then the discussion would be over :D
Tascam already has a few DSD playback and bench recorders
I think they would need the units to swap chips.
I'm only luke warm about it in the hs-p82; I'd have to drop it to PCM for editing... Seems like a whole lot of churn and space with 8ch for what would amount to not much gain. :-\ Now, the D100 has potential on some of the classical 2ch stuff I do if I could find a super clean preamp ala a Millenia or Forsell that was field powered as I'm very rarely editing that stuff, or at least so few edits that using a DSD DAW wouldn't hurt nearly as much. That would be (.)(.)
-
Am hoping the hardware is already in place
The v3 had a DSD capible burr brown AD chip (I am pretty sure a lot more support chips, a diff clock and different wiring - would have been needed to make this work)
-
It's avalible in Japan from 21 November :)
-
Im REALLY tempted to get one of these! With that Denon DSD Receiver coming onto the market, it could be a killer setup with Sony D100>DSD Denon Receiver. I just dont think my playback is good enough to hear the true DSD quality at the present moment tho :(
-
What's up with the DSD format? Last time I read about it, the general consensus was that it wasn't overly superior to PCM - IF AT ALL, due to DSD's higher distortion and other factors. Has something changed?
-
I wonder if they have made the start-up time far faster? I want to start recording almost immediately.
* FLAC playback finally. However no FLAC recording, which is a real shame.
* Hi-Res Audio seems to be its main selling point over the PCM-D50.
* SD card support.
* wireless remote
* Editing in-body. Fade-in and fade-out may save some time for some users.
* File split & join
* pitch-adjustment like the PCM-M10.
* option to record to 2 different file formats at once.
* 6 choices of EQ (which include custom settings apparently).
* orange backlight is gone, replaced with white.
* redesigned controls, mics, etc.
Price.
$450 would be a lot more reasonable than the equivalent of ~$1000 Sony is asking from their store.
Unit is still pretty bulky. It would be great to make it smaller.
-
$450 would be a lot more reasonable than the equivalent of ~$1000 Sony is asking from their store. Unit is still pretty bulky. It would be great to make it smaller.
I'm willing to bet it'll street around $650-$700 which is still too much for what it is.
-
I wonder if they have made the start-up time far faster? I want to start recording almost immediately.
* FLAC playback finally. However no FLAC recording, which is a real shame.
FLAC recording doesn't work very well - the fact that it has to realtime process the recording, FLAC encoding eats up CPU cycles (which in turn kills the battery and slows down the file IO) and limits the compression ratios (This has to do with the limited memory and CPU on the recorder - and the fact you are streaming in the audio)
The Sound Devices 7xx series offered this for the first time in 2007 and I ran it once and never again. I only got 10-20% compression and the recorder couldn't record at as high of sampling rate as when recording in BWF
Record RAW - FLAC later
-
(http://attachment.imp3.net/forum/201309/14/1544470bm07xhx7w9j8sa8.jpg)
Pic between D50 and D1 - give an idea of size (same as D50) and screen size Larger than D50
-
Record RAW - FLAC later
True, but just like MP3 and MPEG2/MPEG4 video, if there is enough demand the necessary steps will be made to do it in hardware efficiently. I guess there is not enough demand on the hardware side even though it's 2013. Lossy codecs get all the hardware encoding attention.
-
I'd have to say that with the price of storage media, that battery life would trump file size.
Even with a dedicated chip, the encoding processing takes energy.
-
+1. Don't see the need of directly recording to FLAC, converting from raw to flac wastes very little time compared to the significant investment in hardware that would be neccesary to implement FLAC recording in our portable recorders.
-
re: FLAC encoding
Writing to flash media also takes energy. Sony's D100 pages brag about MP3 battery life on their unit. To me that suggests that despite the heavy processing to encode to MP3, they are already making battery savings by writing far less data to the flash chips versus the raw data being dumped onto them.
I don't see why FLAC can't be done similarly (eventually), since encoding to FLAC doesn't require any of the heavy-processing psycoacoustics algorithms, right?
Writing far less data will mean power savings when writing to flash, which could offset some of the processing power consumption...I don't know. Sony had no problem with battery life when they were making MiniDisc. ATRAC was implemented really well and it meant less motor spin time and effective buffering. Anyway, MP3 has had a long time to get to the stage it has now (as far as efficient encoding implementations are concerned), so it may take a while with FLAC too, but to be honest I don't think enough demand is there among the population, sadly. Because I think it could be done easily if the will was there.
One thing I do know is that the HD camcorder I bought recently does really well with battery life, despite massive number-crunching recording to AVCHD or MP4. In comparison to this complexity, FLAC encoding would (should) be far easier. FLAC's problem is that it's not integrated in any major consumer standards from any of the Big Companies, so there must be far less will to go there except in specialist devices such as this, which finally get some playback love.
We don't see FLAC implemented in Blu-ray standards. Not in CD. Not in DVD. Not in many electronics used at home or portably. So there's probably not much incentive to develop (and spend money on) an encoder. Anyway, I'm happy that playback is there. This is how it started for MP3 too.
-
MP3 is lossy and FLAC is lossless - lossy compression doesn't require as many resources as lossless compression
Lossy compression can cut corners to encode faster - such as cutting out all assumed inaudible frequencies, etc
Lossless compression uses larger look up dictionaries and better compression is achieved with more historical information is known about the stream.
Also MP3 recording will use the lowest settings of the AD 16bit 44.1khz
If i where recording in FLAC I would want to encode at 24bit 96khz which has a stream rate at almost 3x that of 16bit 44.1khz
-
+1. Don't see the need of directly recording to FLAC, converting from raw to flac wastes very little time compared to the significant investment in hardware that would be neccesary to implement FLAC recording in our portable recorders.
I meant that "...converting from raw to flac ON OUR COMPUTERS wastes...", forgot that part. Every taper knows how to do a wav>flac conversion and it's a fast, easy one - why bothering in implementing a completely new encoding method? Just for the sake of saving 10 minutes? :P
-
Looks like a Japanese seller posted a "Presale" on ebay at a nice $1300 - They list the D50 for $650 - I doubt and definitely hope this isn't remotely in the ball park for a guess of the street price around $700) in the US - which is way out of the reasonable range IMO
http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-SONY-Linear-PCM-Recorder-D100-PCM-D100-Music-Player-F-S-EMS-/151134043330
-
well,
to put things into perspective: the WM-D6C I bought in `84 would cost me now 800€.
Seen this way, the D100 looks like a bargain, considering sound quality, battery life and the built-in mics.
Greetings,
Rainer
-
The D8 I bought in 2000 was $650 + 100 for extended warranty + 100 for an digital cable so I know what entry level costs where back in the day
I am just saying that I am hoping the sell it for under $500 as that seams more reasonable to me
-
Has anyone figured out if the D100's Line In and Line Out jacks are strictly Mini-TOSLINK, or are they each a combination 3.5mm TRS (analog) and Mini-TOSLINK, as seen on some Mac gear and elsewhere?
I'm hoping it's the latter, as I want to use a 3.5mm TRS analog Line Out. The fact that the jacks are labeled with "(OPT)" only makes it clear that they are, at the very least, Mini-TOSLINK.
Mike
-
Has anyone figured out if the D100's Line In and Line Out jacks are strictly Mini-TOSLINK, or are they each a combination 3.5mm TRS (analog) and Mini-TOSLINK, as seen on some Mac gear and elsewhere?
Unless it's vastly different than the D50, then they are combo jacks like on the macs.
-
Hey, that's great!
Downloading the D50 manual, I can see that its Line In and Line Out jacks were indeed combo (TRS/Mini-TOSLINK) jacks and they're even labeled the same on the D100.
So, I'd have to agree, the D100 is highly likely to have combo jacks.
Thank you
Mike
-
The D8 I bought in 2000 was $650 + 100 for extended warranty + 100 for an digital cable so I know what entry level costs where back in the day
I am just saying that I am hoping the sell it for under $500 as that seams more reasonable to me
I bought my Sony D8 back in 1997 from good ole Terrapin Tapes, and it was like $700+ plus an in/out digi cable that was $150 plus Eco charge batteries to power my 480 rig plus the D8 :P So this isn't that bad of a price ;)
-
I bought my Sony D8 back in 1997 from good ole Terrapin Tapes, and it was like $700+ plus an in/out digi cable that was $150 plus Eco charge batteries to power my 480 rig plus the D8 :P So this isn't that bad of a price ;)
The price for admission into taping has dropped significantly from 10+ years ago - where you needed $900 or so to start w/o mics
Now you can get in for $200-300
Korg had to drop the price of the MR-1 and MR-2 to the $200-300 range to move any units - I just don't see Sony moving a lot of these unless they make it price competitive to the D50
The mics do look like the maybe better
-
I bought my Sony D8 back in 1997 from good ole Terrapin Tapes, and it was like $700+ plus an in/out digi cable that was $150 plus Eco charge batteries to power my 480 rig plus the D8 :P So this isn't that bad of a price ;)
The price for admission into taping has dropped significantly from 10+ years ago - where you needed $900 or so to start w/o mics
Now you can get in for $200-300
Korg had to drop the price of the MR-1 and MR-2 to the $200-300 range to move any units - I just don't see Sony moving a lot of these unless they make it price competitive to the D50
The mics do look like the maybe better
VERY significantly!!!!! $500 now gets you an M10/CA14(Cards/Omnis)/9100 or 9200 8)
-
I think this Sony model looks really good.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesleewhittle/10151742373/
-
How much data is written in say, a 2 hour set? 4 hours?
I run 24/44 at festies and most shows. If the set is going to be less than 2 hours, i'll sometimes run 24/96. I would imagine it's a decent jump in data, right? To compare 2 hours at 24/96, which is 4 gb. How much gb is 2 hours at highest resolution on this d100 and DSD in general?
-
I'm really contemplating running 2 of these D100s and keep an M10 for SBD patches :) That's the ONLY possible place in the chain I would consider switching it up. Record in DSD HIGH-Res, and just burn those raw for when I can actually hear it in high-res! And just make 24 and 16bit files just like I do now for easy distribution!
-
How much data is written in say, a 2 hour set? 4 hours?
I run 24/44 at festies and most shows. If the set is going to be less than 2 hours, i'll sometimes run 24/96. I would imagine it's a decent jump in data, right? To compare 2 hours at 24/96, which is 4 gb. How much gb is 2 hours at highest resolution on this d100 and DSD in general?
2.8MHz DSD or DSD64 file size is about 20% bigger then 24/96
-
How much data is written in say, a 2 hour set? 4 hours?
I run 24/44 at festies and most shows. If the set is going to be less than 2 hours, i'll sometimes run 24/96. I would imagine it's a decent jump in data, right? To compare 2 hours at 24/96, which is 4 gb. How much gb is 2 hours at highest resolution on this d100 and DSD in general?
2.8MHz DSD or DSD64 file size is about 20% bigger then 24/96
Thanks H20 ;) Thats not too bad of an increase of data written at all IMO 8) I could make that work! I thought that the Korg units went up to 1bit 5.6mHz ??? Does this Sony only go up to 1bit 2.8mHz ???
Thanks,
Bean
-
Ouch...
http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-SONY-Linear-PCM-Recorder-D100-PCM-D100-Music-Player-F-S-EMS-/151134043330#ht_1919wt_971
-
Thanks H20 ;) Thats not too bad of an increase of data written at all IMO 8) I could make that work! I thought that the Korg units went up to 1bit 5.6mHz ??? Does this Sony only go up to 1bit 2.8mHz ???
Thanks,
Bean
Only the MR-1000 and MR-2000(rack unit) supported 5.6Mhz
The MR-1, MR-2, and Sony D100 only support 2.8Mhz
SACD's are only 2.8MHz as well
-
Ouch...
http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-SONY-Linear-PCM-Recorder-D100-PCM-D100-Music-Player-F-S-EMS-/151134043330#ht_1919wt_971
These Japanese sellers routinely list the D50 at over 2x the US street price - and I'd be willing to bet they are throwing in a new to market premium as well - at least I hope so
So I would think the US street will be no more then $650 - still too high IMO
-
Thanks H20 ;) Thats not too bad of an increase of data written at all IMO 8) I could make that work! I thought that the Korg units went up to 1bit 5.6mHz ??? Does this Sony only go up to 1bit 2.8mHz ???
Thanks,
Bean
Only the MR-1000 and MR-2000(rack unit) supported 5.6Mhz
The MR-1, MR-2, and Sony D100 only support 2.8Mhz
SACD's are only 2.8MHz as well
OK, thanks H20, thats exactly what I thought ;)
-
So I would think the US street will be no more then $650 - still too high IMO
I spoke with the Sony guy at AES today, list will be $799. The machine is slightly heavier than the D50 and thicker, the mics have bigger capsules and are supposed to be a lot better than the D50 mics. He was not sure if the digi-in would accept a DSD signal or not.
Jeff
-
The SPDIF will not accept DSD - DSD uses SDIF-3 and requires 1 BNC per Channel and 1 BNC for Clock
It may be possible to send the clock via the SPDIF (as is possible with the Korg MR-2000) so you can chain a number of these decks together and sync
-
The D50 retailed for $599 with a street of $450 so this unit will probably street for around $599
-
The list price of the PCM D-100 is $999.00 on the Sony US website so the price that you were given at AES was most likely the projected "Street" price and not the actual retail price. The $799.00 price would reflect a discount of 20% off of the retail which is typical of these products. I seriously doubt that you will find this product for $599.00 anywhere as there is no competitive handheld 24/192 recorder available at or near the list price of the D-100 recorder.
In my opinion if you have a D-100 there is no need for anything like a Tascam 680 which is a boat anchor made out of plastic and is not really a stealth class recorder suitable for recording in small venues. However the piece does provide 24/192 and was one of the only options available with this feature set for quite a while short of spending a lot more money.
-
The Korg MR-1 (used) and MR-2 offer 24/192 and can be had for under $400 - Although I would never run 24/192 only DSD with any of these
-
Here's the Sony USA product page for the D100:
http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-audio/cat-recorders/product-PCMD100/
Not much info yet.
-
Guys, do you know if Sony will also release an XLR/phantom module for the D100? The PCM-D100 seems to be a great, sturdy product, but without XLR/phantom power support I'm wondering if or how I can justify its purchase (especially with such a price tag) when I can't easily get my XLR-requiring dynamic and condenser mics to work with it. It's true that I can utilize its S/PDIF capabilities to create a recording session with my USBPre 2, a USB battery and microphones, but that setup wouldn't be really portable unless I'm missing something.
So here's a question for you folks: do you think I should get the Zoom H6 to have all I want in a recorder (multitracking, XLR/phantom power, etc), or should I spend more on the PCM-D100 for what it's supposed to offer quality/conversion-wise and find a way to circumvent its lack of XLR/phantom power? I want to upgrade what I currently use -- Olympus LS-100 whose not-so-clean internal mics and ever-nagging "press a key for its sleep mode first" issue are driving me up a wall. Apart from taping concerts, I'd like the new recorder to be used in ENG/reporter settings; so the more portable the recorder remains, the better I can take advantage of it.
-
The list price of the PCM D-100 is $999.00 on the Sony US website so the price that you were given at AES was most likely the projected "Street" price and not the actual retail price. The $799.00 price would reflect a discount of 20% off of the retail which is typical of these products. I seriously doubt that you will find this product for $599.00 anywhere as there is no competitive handheld 24/192 recorder available at or near the list price of the D-100 recorder.
In my opinion if you have a D-100 there is no need for anything like a Tascam 680 which is a boat anchor made out of plastic and is not really a stealth class recorder suitable for recording in small venues. However the piece does provide 24/192 and was one of the only options available with this feature set for quite a while short of spending a lot more money.
I have never heard anyone refer to the DR 680 as a stealth recorder, but I think there are lots of people very happy with it. I think the D-100 might barely be a stealth deck too and as of today it is untested, so hard to really comment. It might be premature to say the D100 is the best choice when it has yet to be tested, the feature set is yet to be defined, and the diversity of recording that goes on within this forum, surely proves one deck does not suit all.
-
New info today (http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/sony_unveils_pcm-d100_high_resolution_audio_portable_recorder_at_aes_2013/)
-
Sony has to convince me why I should pay $999 for this model when just a few months ago, I could have bought two Tascam DR680s for less money. For that matter, there are other combinations of recorders I could buy and still have money left over--A DR 680 and a PCM M10, for example. That would cover a lot of recording situations right there with money left over.
-
Why wouldn't Sony put XLR inputs on their highest-quality portable digital recorder ???
-
Sony has to convince me why I should pay $999 for this model when just a few months ago, I could have bought two Tascam DR680s for less money. For that matter, there are other combinations of recorders I could buy and still have money left over--A DR 680 and a PCM M10, for example. That would cover a lot of recording situations right there with money left over.
Because why would you want 2 "boat anchors". :yack: :yack: :yack:
-
Because they are twice the fun. ;D ;D
-
Why wouldn't Sony put XLR inputs on their highest-quality portable digital recorder ???
That is also my $64,000 question. Not that we should necessarily know the answer to that, but I'm wondering why I should not get, say, the Zoom H6 instead of the D100 when the D100 doesn't provide XLR/phantom power and is quite expensive. I love Sony's built quality, S/PDIF and 32GB of built-in storage, but excluding XLR/phantom/multi-tracking with such a price tag is, IMO, rather unconventional. At any rate, I just want to know if a relatively cheap solution exists to give the D100 XLR/phantom power support.
-
Why wouldn't Sony put XLR inputs on their highest-quality portable digital recorder ???
Because it has been designed as a high quality recorder for use with the internal microphones.
And - uniquely - it also has an optical digital input so you can use an external high quality mic. pre. or mixer (eg: AETA MIXY) if you want high quality recording with external mics.
Also - the size of an XLR socket will increase the size of the recorder - phantom powering will reduce battery life.
I am sure that Sony well researched the intended market before putting it into production - if adding XLRs, balanced mic. inputs and phantom powering would have increased the price by 50% (which is likely), then I'm not surprised Sony left them out if the intended market did not require them as an essential.
-
Why wouldn't Sony put XLR inputs on their highest-quality portable digital recorder ???
That is also my $64,000 question. Not that we should necessarily know the answer to that, but I'm wondering why I should not get, say, the Zoom H6 instead of the D100 when the D100 doesn't provide XLR/phantom power and is quite expensive. I love Sony's built quality, S/PDIF and 32GB of built-in storage, but excluding XLR/phantom/multi-tracking with such a price tag is, IMO, rather unconventional. At any rate, I just want to know if a relatively cheap solution exists to give the D100 XLR/phantom power support.
Quality - it's all a balance.
Adding balanced mic. pre-amps, phantom powering and XLRs costs money - leaving them out if you consider most people won't use them means you can put more money into the audio quality and the internal mic. quality.
-
It's actually laughable and inexcusable for a recorder of this size, quality and price that there are no XLR inputs.
-
Sony's decision to not equip the D100 with XLR inputs strikes me as a rather bold marketing decision, IMO, given the number of existing two channel recorders that have them at a much lower price point (Olympus DR100, Tascam DR100, Roland...). The pricing even puts it above Tascam's DR680 8 channel recorder with XLR inputs. It appears to me that the D100 has a significant price premium above over two channel recorders.
What is Sony thinking?
Sony's marketing release for the D100 seems more generally aimed at as an all in one recorder with a minor mention that it has digital input. Looking at their website, it generally seems to stress high definition recording as an overall product line theme. http://www.sony.co.uk/hub/high-resolution-audio
If Sony has created a truly superior all in one solution that doesn't require a separate preamp and microphones, and if the D100 really does offer superior recording because of the high definition format and converters, then their pricing starts to make sense. The proof will be in how it actually performs and then more informed decisions can be made about it.
But I'm not going to be the first guy to run out and buy one at $999 or even $799.
-
As I stated earlier anything over $500 is too much IMO
I can't see myself ever running the internal mics with all the other FAR superior mics that I own - same goes with the pre-amps - although I am sure the mics and possibly the preamps are probably the best for a recorder for this price or less
I was hoping for a DSD replacement for my MR-1 at some point but at this price it definitely isn't in the ballpark - and since Sony added this feature I do have hope that an M10 replacement may have this capability at a reasonable price
This looks like a cross between a D1 and D50 and is priced accordingly
-
Sony's decision to not equip the D100 with XLR inputs strikes me as a rather bold marketing decision, IMO, given the number of existing two channel recorders that have them at a much lower price point (Olympus DR100, Tascam DR100, Roland...). The pricing even puts it above Tascam's DR680 8 channel recorder with XLR inputs. It appears to me that the D100 has a significant price premium above over two channel recorders.
What is Sony thinking?
Sony's marketing release for the D100 seems more generally aimed at as an all in one recorder with a minor mention that it has digital input. Looking at their website, it generally seems to stress high definition recording as an overall product line theme. http://www.sony.co.uk/hub/high-resolution-audio
If Sony has created a truly superior all in one solution that doesn't require a separate preamp and microphones, and if the D100 really does offer superior recording because of the high definition format and converters, then their pricing starts to make sense. The proof will be in how it actually performs and then more informed decisions can be made about it.
But I'm not going to be the first guy to run out and buy one at $999 or even $799.
In retrospect, Sony PCM-D50 was more or less reasonably priced and its internal mics were great. They lacked base and were sensitive to pops and wind, but they could do the job very well. However, it was not uncommon to hear complaints about the D50's lack of XLR and phantom power. Now here comes the D100 which is significantly more expensive, offers 32GB of internal disk space, lacks XLR/phantom power/multi-channel support, and can record high-definition audio. So, IMO, the only thing which can or should justify its purchase would be the performance of its internal mics. And by that I mean the internal mics should truly outperform the XY mics of, say, the Zoom H6 in order for such a recorder with such a price tag to find its way into recorders' pockets. As far as ENG/interview settings are concerned, a recorder without XLR support has never been the star of the show unless, for instance, it does a great job of recording in mono and, like many ENG mics, proves not to be oversensitive to handling by interviewees. Sony has mentioned ENG as one of the selling points of the D100, and I'm more eager to see it tested under such circumstances.
-
FYI, the D100 is now on B & H for preorder with a price tag of $799: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1008089-REG/sony_pcm_d100_portable_stereo_field.html
-
This looks like a cross between a D1 and D50 and is priced accordingly
And the question is whether it is closer in quality to the D1 than the D50, i.e., is it a D1 without the analog VU meters? Are the preamps as good? Are the mics even better?
If the D100 is the direct D1 replacement, then it is a bargain at $799, since it has digital in, can record longer than the D1's measly 4GB limit, and does so in DSD format.
-
Neither of these machines provide a digital input and they do not have removable storage media either. For anyone wishing to record with an external a/d converter via a digital input this recorder is not an option. The recorder has low battery life as well according to all of the reviews which I have read. If DSD is the way to go then it is certainly an affordable option.
Has anyone tried one of the machines out using DSD and reviewed the sound quality?
The Korg MR-1 (used) and MR-2 offer 24/192 and can be had for under $400 - Although I would never run 24/192 only DSD with any of these
-
For those that would like to read more about the inherent differences and benefits of PCM VS DSD you can read more at Wikipedia. Apparently DSD does not have a clear cut advantage over PCM sound quality and actually has greater noise content at higher frequencies (20khz an up) than PCM. I have not yet auditioned a DSD recorder so can not say first hand if they are in fact superior. i plan on giving it a try and comparing it to 24/192 pcm using an external a/d input. My current a/d provides -135 db s/n ratio which is significantly better performance than the recorder offers. for this reason alone I feel it is worth staying with PCM 24/192 until something better rolls down the pike!
DSD vs. PCM
There has been much controversy between proponents of DSD and PCM over which encoding system is superior. Professors Stanley Lipshitz and John Vanderkooy from the University of Waterloo, in Audio Engineering Society Convention Paper 5395 (2001), stated that 1-bit converters (as employed by DSD) are unsuitable for high-end applications due to their high distortion. Even 8-bit, four-times-oversampled PCM with noise shaping, proper dithering and half data rate of DSD has better noise floor and frequency response. However, in 2002, Philips published a convention paper arguing against this in Convention Paper 5616[dead link]. Lipshitz and Vanderkooy's paper has been criticized in detail by Professor Jamie Angus at an Audio Engineering Society presentation in Convention Paper 5619[dead link]. Lipshitz and Vanderkooy responded in Convention Paper 5620.
There are fundamental distortion mechanisms present in the conventional implementation of DSD.[17] These distortion mechanisms can be alleviated to some degree by using digital converters with a multibit design. Historically, state-of-the-art ADCs were based around sigma-delta modulation designs. Oversampling converters are frequently used in linear PCM formats, where the ADC output is subject to bandlimiting and dithering (Hawksford 1995). Many modern converters use oversampling and a multibit design. It has been suggested that bitstream digital audio techniques are theoretically inferior to multibit (PCM) approaches: J Robert Stuart notes,[18] "1-bit coding would be a totally unsuitable choice for a series of recordings that set out to identify the high-frequency content of musical instruments, despite claims for its apparent wide bandwidth. If it is unsuitable for recording analysis then we should also be wary of using it for the highest quality work."
When comparing a DSD and PCM recording of the same origin, the same number of channels and similar bandwidth/SNR, some still think that there are differences. A study conducted at the Erich-Thienhaus Institute in Detmold, Germany, seems to contradict this, concluding that "hardly any of the subjects could make a reproducible distinction between the two encoding systems. Hence it may be concluded that no significant differences are audible."[19]
In the popular Hi-Fi press, it had been suggested that linear PCM "creates [a] stress reaction in people", and that DSD "is the only digital recording system that does not [...] have these effects" (Hawksford 2001). This claim appears to originate from a 1980 article by Dr John Diamond entitled Human Stress Provoked by Digitalized Recordings.[20] The core of the claim that PCM (the only digital recording technique available at the time) recordings created a stress reaction rested on "tests" carried out using the pseudoscientific technique of Applied Kinesiology, for example by Dr Diamond at an AES 66th Convention (1980) presentation with the same title.[21] Diamond had previously used a similar technique to demonstrate that rock music was harmful due to the presence of the "stopped anapestic beat".[22] Dr Diamond's claims regarding digital audio were taken up by Mark Levinson, who asserted that while PCM recordings resulted in a stress reaction, DSD recordings did not.[23][24][25]
A double-blind subjective test between high resolution linear PCM (DVD-Audio) and DSD did not reveal a statistically significant difference.[26] Listeners involved in this test noted their great difficulty in hearing any difference between the two formats.
-
The AD/DA converter used on the D100/MR-1/etc (most all BurrBrown AD/DA converters) first convert to DSD then convert to PCM for AD conversion and PCM > DSD > Analog
This is done to allow for noise shaping to help reduce the quantization error.
If you record in DSD you are bypassing the PCM processing and will also save yourself some space. The 24/192 is derived from the 2.8Mhz DSD signal.
There is no advantage to sound quality in recording to PCM 24/192 over DSD with this recorder
-
Sony's decision to not equip the D100 with XLR inputs strikes me as a rather bold marketing decision...
Since it has digital I/O you can add an outboard mic pre that has XLRs and 48 Phantom Power, like our Mic2496 V2 ( (http://www.core-sound.com/Mic2496/1.php)http://www.core-sound.com/Mic2496/1.php).
-
Sony's decision to not equip the D100 with XLR inputs strikes me as a rather bold marketing decision...
Since it has digital I/O you can add an outboard mic pre that has XLRs and 48 Phantom Power, like our Mic2496 V2 ( (http://www.core-sound.com/Mic2496/1.php)http://www.core-sound.com/Mic2496/1.php).
That's indeed one of the most important advantages of the D100. However, adding something like, say, the Sound Devices USBPre 2, a USB battery and some cables to connect them to one another decreases the portability of the recorder. As such, as interesting and noise-free as this combination sounds (I might even go that route), it can no longer be called a truly portable recorder. As it's a Sony recorder, though, my hope is to get high-end converters and outstanding built-in mics from the D100 to justify the over-all loss of portability with USB mixers in the chain.
-
However, adding something like, say, the Sound Devices USBPre 2, a USB battery and some cables to connect them to one another decreases the portability of the recorder. [/unquote]
The Mic2496 V2 doesn't require an external USB battery - it can run on an optional rechargable LiIon battery pack - so the load is reduced quite a bit.
-
However, adding something like, say, the Sound Devices USBPre 2, a USB battery and some cables to connect them to one another decreases the portability of the recorder. [/unquote]
The Mic2496 V2 doesn't require an external USB battery - it can run on an optional rechargable LiIon battery pack - so the load is reduced quite a bit.
That's true, but it would be useful for those who already have the Mic2496 V2. For many of those who don't, having to add a $599 device like that to a $799 recorder would be out of the question. Furthermore, that might be a personal taste but I prefer the USBPre 2 to Mic2496 V2.
-
For those that are already recording with DSD capable recorders such as the Korg or plan to use the PCM-D100 how do you plan to edit your files from a live recording? I have been unable to find a single editing tool that will allow anything comparable to what we currently have available with PCM editing software (I use Wavelab, Audacity, Soundforge, and Izotope). The tool supplied by Korg will let you split a file however this is a pretty crude way to make tracks from your concert recording. I believe only workstations are available to perform the editing functions that we would like to use for post production work on these files and the hardware is quite costly.
I spoke with someone from Sony studios and they said that the sound quality is not something that everyone prefers over a properly recorded PCM 24/96 or 24/192 file.
I presently record 24/96 digital in from an external a/d converter via spdif to a Tascam DR100 MKII with excellent results. I plan on getting the Sony recorder to go to 24/192 and see if it makes an improvement in the sound. I also plan on getting the Mytek DAC and playing back recorded material from the same concert recorded in both DSD as well as 24/192 PCM to see if there is any reason to go through the trouble of switching to this format. If I am unable to perform all of the editing that I would like to perform short of converting DSD to 24/192 to edit and then convert back to DSD I doubt that the difference is worth what everyone is writing about.
-
For those that are already recording with DSD capable recorders such as the Korg or plan to use the PCM-D100 how do you plan to edit your files from a live recording? I have been unable to find a single editing tool that will allow anything comparable to what we currently have available with PCM editing software (I use Wavelab, Audacity, Soundforge, and Izotope). The tool supplied by Korg will let you split a file however this is a pretty crude way to make tracks from your concert recording. I believe only workstations are available to perform the editing functions that we would like to use for post production work on these files and the hardware is quite costly.
I spoke with someone from Sony studios and they said that the sound quality is not something that everyone prefers over a properly recorded PCM 24/96 or 24/192 file.
I presently record 24/96 digital in from an external a/d converter via spdif to a Tascam DR100 MKII with excellent results. I plan on getting the Sony recorder to go to 24/192 and see if it makes an improvement in the sound. I also plan on getting the Mytek DAC and playing back recorded material from the same concert recorded in both DSD as well as 24/192 PCM to see if there is any reason to go through the trouble of switching to this format. If I am unable to perform all of the editing that I would like to perform short of converting DSD to 24/192 to edit and then convert back to DSD I doubt that the difference is worth what everyone is writing about.
All valid points indeed. As far as I'm concerned, though, I want to see if the internal microphones are really worth the $799 price tag. If they surpass the X/Y mics of the H6 and those of the older D50 by a meaningful margin, IMO it'll then be worth purchasing because both its internal mics can be used in a wide range of settings and, perhaps more important than that, its digital input can be utilized to record in combination with, say, the USBPre 2 and XLR mics. The combo will undoubtedly create one of the most professional and portable setups as the D100 itself isn't that large and, like the USBPre 2, is quite durable. On the other hand, if its internal mics display the same degree of noise performance compared with those of the D50/H6, my expectations will be badly tempered. After all, Sony has always touted the recording capabilities of the D100, and I do hope it truly delivers in that regard.
Like you I also count on its enhanced PCM capabilities and am itching to get the first comprehensive review as it becomes available somewhere.
-
If I am unable to perform all of the editing that I would like to perform short of converting DSD to 24/192 to edit and then convert back to DSD I doubt that the difference is worth what everyone is writing about.
Thanks for bringing up this issue. There seems to be a DSD vs PCM war going on, and since the postings and articles supporting one medium or the other mostly contradict each other, it's not possible to get a real sense of the benefits or sound quality of each except from first hand listening.
Even then, it's hard to know what you're listening to. Apparently your DAC or Mac may be converting DSD to PCM to get it out the analog outputs -- or is it the other way around? ???
It seems that DSD is not easily edited but I'm assuming the D100 would at least allow track splits.
It is suggested by some that DSD is best suited for a live to 2-track session, or for archiving, or as a mastering medium when transferred from an analog tape final mix.
And it is analog tape that DSD is being compared to by its supporters. One conclusion from a comp was that the PCM 24/192 recording sounded like the mic feed but that the DSD 5.6 sounded like the live musicians.
Anyone here with experience with DSD? I'm confused.
-
There is DSD editing software out there but it is very expensive. A company called parallex or something makes it
You can track DSD files with Korg Audiogate
There is a program from Phillips that will compress DSF files into lossless compressed DST files
DSD files sound more open as compared to PCM IMO
DSD also allows more headroom before clipping
-
There is DSD editing software out there but it is very expensive. A company called parallex or something makes it
You can track DSD files with Korg Audiogate
There is a program from Phillips that will compress DSF files into lossless compressed DST files
DSD files sound more open as compared to PCM IMO
DSD also allows more headroom before clipping
Good info. Thanks for that.
My understanding is that if you don't have Korg hardware, you need a Twitter account to run Audiogate. From their download page:
"AudioGate can be freely downloaded and used by anyone, but either
A KORG MR series product or
A valid Twitter account
is required in order to activate the software.
Users who do not own a KORG MR series product are also subject to the following limitations.
User support will not be available from KORG Inc. nor from its regional distributors.
The Auto Tweet function cannot be disabled.
* Internet access is required when activating, exporting, or creating a disc.
* You must allow AudioGate to automatically tweet to your Twitter account."
I'm not sure how that works because I don't have a Twitter account.
-
Just to keep this thread updated. . . B&H now says that the D100 will be available on Feb 28 2014. I was expecting to see it released earlier -- perhaps in January as it'll be available in East Asia in a couple of weeks or so.
-
Seems to be a bit more info on this:
http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/files/cat/audio/pressreleases/NEW_PRODUCT-Sony_PCM-D100_recorder-AES_2013.pdf
"The product is Sony's highest-quality digital recorder....."
Interestingly it states that internal noise from A-D conversion is reduced by using 2 A-D converters for a single channel - this achieves a signal to noise ratio of "up to" 100dB. I checked the M10 spec (p.97 in the manual) and that suggests a SNR of 87dB, so potentially the D100 is quite a step up in preamps, or am I not comparing apples with apples here??
Playback and headphone amps are also quite a bit upgraded according to the description.
-
Seems to be a bit more info on this:
http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/files/cat/audio/pressreleases/NEW_PRODUCT-Sony_PCM-D100_recorder-AES_2013.pdf
"The product is Sony's highest-quality digital recorder....."
Interestingly it states that internal noise from A-D conversion is reduced by using 2 A-D converters for a single channel - this achieves a signal to noise ratio of "up to" 100dB. I checked the M10 spec (p.97 in the manual) and that suggests a SNR of 87dB, so potentially the D100 is quite a step up in preamps, or am not comparing apples with apples here??
Playback and headphone amps are also quite a bit upgraded according to the description.
Curiously, what's the SNR value for the older D50? Is it lower than that of the M10? My own experience shows that M10's internal mics are very quiet (the quietest mics I've seen in a portable recorder), but at the same time they produce some sort of dark, muffled audio which I don't like much. I prefer the natural, quasi-live qualities of the D50 mics to the dark, static qualities of the M10 mics. Now if the D100 can provide quieter preamps compared with those of the M10 while retaining and improving the D50 mics, I guess I've found my next recorder -- something that can also complement my USBPre 2 via its digital input.
-
Checked the D50 spec and it says "93dB or above for the optical line input". So that's roughly half-way between the M10 and the D100, although I wonder if the 100dB quoted for the D100 is only for the optical input? Either way it seems quieter.
-
Checked the D50 spec and it says "93dB or above for the optical line input". So that's roughly half-way between the M10 and the D100, although I wonder if the 100dB quoted for the D100 is only for the optical input? Either way it seems quieter.
Thanks for checking. The D100 will be released in Japan in a few days and I guess we should be able to taste its first video/blog reviews soon. I'm not usually excited about recorders sans XLR/phantom power, but this one seems to be an exception with its digital input and great internal mics.
-
I keep scouring the web for the manual. It must be there somewhere if released very soon, but maybe only in Japanese?
-
I keep scouring the web for the manual. It must be there somewhere if released very soon, but maybe only in Japanese?
I also do that every now and then in hopes of gaining access to its manual. :) So far no luck though. Honestly the Feb. 28, 2014 release date in the USA really hurts -- it's too much of a wait! As I'm in the Mid East, I'm trying to see if it becomes available in countries like Malaysia or Singapore sooner. Importing it from Japan might also be a possibility albeit a faraway one. I badly need something to get my USBPre 2 up and running in the field and Marantz PMD 661MKII or Tascam DR-100MKII don't cut it for me -- they're bigger and don't have good internal mics either. I don't like most Tascam products at all. <smile>
-
Guys, do you know if I get it from Amazon Japan, the menu will be in English or in Japanese? Obviously I don't want the latter as I can't work with it. I have someone in Japan who might be able to order one for me from here: http://www.amazon.co.jp/82E3B83-PCM-D100-SONY-83E3B82E3E3E3E383-D100/dp/B00FAY1LQ8
It'll be available there in a week or so and I badly need a small, rugged recorder with high-quality internal mics and digital input (for use with USBPre 2). Everything points to the D100. :)
-
Guys, do you know if I get it from Amazon Japan, the menu will be in English or in Japanese? Obviously I don't want the latter as I can't work with it. I have someone in Japan who might be able to order one for me from here: http://www.amazon.co.jp/82E3B83-PCM-D100-SONY-83E3B82E3E3E3E383-D100/dp/B00FAY1LQ8
It'll be available there in a week or so and I badly need a small, rugged recorder with high-quality internal mics and digital input (for use with USBPre 2). Everything points to the D100. :)
Probably some of the internal menus will be in Japanese. Here is a page from the SONY Japan M10 manual:
-
Guys, do you know if I get it from Amazon Japan, the menu will be in English or in Japanese? Obviously I don't want the latter as I can't work with it. I have someone in Japan who might be able to order one for me from here: http://www.amazon.co.jp/82E3B83-PCM-D100-SONY-83E3B82E3E3E3E383-D100/dp/B00FAY1LQ8
It'll be available there in a week or so and I badly need a small, rugged recorder with high-quality internal mics and digital input (for use with USBPre 2). Everything points to the D100. :)
Probably some of the internal menus will be in Japanese. Here is a page from the SONY Japan M10 manual:
Thanks for the information you provided. So, with this in mind, do you think it wouldn't be wise to get the D100 from Japan? Or would Sony allow us to change the language from Japanese to English? The M10 supports 11 languages and one can select the desired language "for tracks, menus, folder names, file names, etc" -- (Detail Menu->Language, as outlined on page 18 of the M10 PDF manual).
-
Guys, do you know if I get it from Amazon Japan, the menu will be in English or in Japanese? Obviously I don't want the latter as I can't work with it. I have someone in Japan who might be able to order one for me from here: http://www.amazon.co.jp/82E3B83-PCM-D100-SONY-83E3B82E3E3E3E383-D100/dp/B00FAY1LQ8
It'll be available there in a week or so and I badly need a small, rugged recorder with high-quality internal mics and digital input (for use with USBPre 2). Everything points to the D100. :)
Probably some of the internal menus will be in Japanese. Here is a page from the SONY Japan M10 manual:
Thanks for the information you provided. So, with this in mind, do you think it wouldn't be wise to get the D100 from Japan? Or would Sony allow us to change the language from Japanese to English? The M10 supports 11 languages and one can select the desired language "for tracks, menus, folder names, file names, etc" -- (Detail Menu->Language, as outlined on page 18 of the M10 PDF manual).
I never noticed that. You could try changing the language on the M10 and see what happens. It does seem that with this option you wouldn't have any problem with menus if you ordered from Japan.
-
Guys, do you know if I get it from Amazon Japan, the menu will be in English or in Japanese? Obviously I don't want the latter as I can't work with it. I have someone in Japan who might be able to order one for me from here: http://www.amazon.co.jp/82E3B83-PCM-D100-SONY-83E3B82E3E3E3E383-D100/dp/B00FAY1LQ8
It'll be available there in a week or so and I badly need a small, rugged recorder with high-quality internal mics and digital input (for use with USBPre 2). Everything points to the D100. :)
Probably some of the internal menus will be in Japanese. Here is a page from the SONY Japan M10 manual:
Thanks for the information you provided. So, with this in mind, do you think it wouldn't be wise to get the D100 from Japan? Or would Sony allow us to change the language from Japanese to English? The M10 supports 11 languages and one can select the desired language "for tracks, menus, folder names, file names, etc" -- (Detail Menu->Language, as outlined on page 18 of the M10 PDF manual).
I never noticed that. You could try changing the language on the M10 and see what happens. It does seem that with this option you wouldn't have any problem with menus if you ordered from Japan.
Honestly I wasn't aware of the language option either before getting your reply. I then checked the M10 manual and found it in the Detail menu. At any rate, the rationale behind Sony's decision to make the D100 available in Europe and the USA more than 3 months after its availability in Japan and China is beyond my ken. That might be the classic fear of supply shortage, but, IMO, its price tag -- bordering $800 -- should effectively obviate such a concern.
-
Guys, do you know if I get it from Amazon Japan, the menu will be in English or in Japanese? Obviously I don't want the latter as I can't work with it. I have someone in Japan who might be able to order one for me from here: http://www.amazon.co.jp/82E3B83-PCM-D100-SONY-83E3B82E3E3E3E383-D100/dp/B00FAY1LQ8
It'll be available there in a week or so and I badly need a small, rugged recorder with high-quality internal mics and digital input (for use with USBPre 2). Everything points to the D100. :)
Probably some of the internal menus will be in Japanese. Here is a page from the SONY Japan M10 manual:
Thanks for the information you provided. So, with this in mind, do you think it wouldn't be wise to get the D100 from Japan? Or would Sony allow us to change the language from Japanese to English? The M10 supports 11 languages and one can select the desired language "for tracks, menus, folder names, file names, etc" -- (Detail Menu->Language, as outlined on page 18 of the M10 PDF manual).
I never noticed that. You could try changing the language on the M10 and see what happens. It does seem that with this option you wouldn't have any problem with menus if you ordered from Japan.
Honestly I wasn't aware of the language option either before getting your reply. I then checked the M10 manual and found it in the Detail menu. At any rate, the rationale behind Sony's decision to make the D100 available in Europe and the USA more than 3 months after its availability in Japan and China is beyond my ken. That might be the classic fear of supply shortage, but, IMO, its price tag -- bordering $800 -- should effectively obviate such a concern.
I just checked the Detail Menu on my North American M10, and there are only three language choices - English, Spanish and French.
The UK M10 manual shows a choice of six European languages - Deutsch (German), English, Español (Spanish), Français (French), Italiano (Italian), Русский (Russian) - but no Asian languages.
So you may not have a choice of English on a Japanese model.
What are the eleven languages on your M10?
-
Guys, do you know if I get it from Amazon Japan, the menu will be in English or in Japanese? Obviously I don't want the latter as I can't work with it. I have someone in Japan who might be able to order one for me from here: http://www.amazon.co.jp/82E3B83-PCM-D100-SONY-83E3B82E3E3E3E383-D100/dp/B00FAY1LQ8
It'll be available there in a week or so and I badly need a small, rugged recorder with high-quality internal mics and digital input (for use with USBPre 2). Everything points to the D100. :)
Probably some of the internal menus will be in Japanese. Here is a page from the SONY Japan M10 manual:
Thanks for the information you provided. So, with this in mind, do you think it wouldn't be wise to get the D100 from Japan? Or would Sony allow us to change the language from Japanese to English? The M10 supports 11 languages and one can select the desired language "for tracks, menus, folder names, file names, etc" -- (Detail Menu->Language, as outlined on page 18 of the M10 PDF manual).
I never noticed that. You could try changing the language on the M10 and see what happens. It does seem that with this option you wouldn't have any problem with menus if you ordered from Japan.
Honestly I wasn't aware of the language option either before getting your reply. I then checked the M10 manual and found it in the Detail menu. At any rate, the rationale behind Sony's decision to make the D100 available in Europe and the USA more than 3 months after its availability in Japan and China is beyond my ken. That might be the classic fear of supply shortage, but, IMO, its price tag -- bordering $800 -- should effectively obviate such a concern.
I just checked the Detail Menu on my North American M10, and there are only three language choices - English, Spanish and French.
The UK M10 manual shows a choice of six European languages - Deutsch (German), English, Español (Spanish), Français (French), Italiano (Italian), Русский (Russian) - but no Asian languages.
So you may not have a choice of English on a Japanese model.
What are the eleven languages on your M10?
Interesting. Mine (which was purchased from Amazon.com) displays the following languages:
Deutsch (German), English, Espanol (Spanish), Frangais (French), Italiano (Italian), PyccKHH (Russian), (Japanese), (Korean), (Chinese), (Chinese), Iviei (Thai).
This is really getting complicated. Do you know if we can ask this from Sony reps in Japan? Alternatively, I'm curious to know if someone here has purchased their M10 in Japan. It's not clear which release of the D100 is to be sold in Japan, but it would be very difficult to ship it without English -- even if it were the only language apart from Japanese.
-
Guys, do you know if I get it from Amazon Japan, the menu will be in English or in Japanese? Obviously I don't want the latter as I can't work with it. I have someone in Japan who might be able to order one for me from here: http://www.amazon.co.jp/82E3B83-PCM-D100-SONY-83E3B82E3E3E3E383-D100/dp/B00FAY1LQ8
It'll be available there in a week or so and I badly need a small, rugged recorder with high-quality internal mics and digital input (for use with USBPre 2). Everything points to the D100. :)
Probably some of the internal menus will be in Japanese. Here is a page from the SONY Japan M10 manual:
Thanks for the information you provided. So, with this in mind, do you think it wouldn't be wise to get the D100 from Japan? Or would Sony allow us to change the language from Japanese to English? The M10 supports 11 languages and one can select the desired language "for tracks, menus, folder names, file names, etc" -- (Detail Menu->Language, as outlined on page 18 of the M10 PDF manual).
I never noticed that. You could try changing the language on the M10 and see what happens. It does seem that with this option you wouldn't have any problem with menus if you ordered from Japan.
Honestly I wasn't aware of the language option either before getting your reply. I then checked the M10 manual and found it in the Detail menu. At any rate, the rationale behind Sony's decision to make the D100 available in Europe and the USA more than 3 months after its availability in Japan and China is beyond my ken. That might be the classic fear of supply shortage, but, IMO, its price tag -- bordering $800 -- should effectively obviate such a concern.
I just checked the Detail Menu on my North American M10, and there are only three language choices - English, Spanish and French.
The UK M10 manual shows a choice of six European languages - Deutsch (German), English, Español (Spanish), Français (French), Italiano (Italian), Русский (Russian) - but no Asian languages.
So you may not have a choice of English on a Japanese model.
What are the eleven languages on your M10?
Interesting. Mine (which was purchased from Amazon.com) displays the following languages:
Deutsch (German), English, Espanol (Spanish), Frangais (French), Italiano (Italian), PyccKHH (Russian), (Japanese), (Korean), (Chinese), (Chinese), Iviei (Thai).
This is really getting complicated. Do you know if we can ask this from Sony reps in Japan? Alternatively, I'm curious to know if someone here has purchased their M10 in Japan. It's not clear which release of the D100 is to be sold in Japan, but it would be very difficult to ship it without English -- even if it were the only language apart from Japanese.
Wow, that's a lot of languages. Was that Amazon.com in the US?
I have no connection to Sony other than being a fan of their recorders since my first TC-55, so whether the Sony reps in Japan will respond is a good question. No harm trying.
My inclination would be to wait until the D100 is released and check the online manual.
-
Guys, do you know if I get it from Amazon Japan, the menu will be in English or in Japanese? Obviously I don't want the latter as I can't work with it. I have someone in Japan who might be able to order one for me from here: http://www.amazon.co.jp/82E3B83-PCM-D100-SONY-83E3B82E3E3E3E383-D100/dp/B00FAY1LQ8
It'll be available there in a week or so and I badly need a small, rugged recorder with high-quality internal mics and digital input (for use with USBPre 2). Everything points to the D100. :)
Probably some of the internal menus will be in Japanese. Here is a page from the SONY Japan M10 manual:
Thanks for the information you provided. So, with this in mind, do you think it wouldn't be wise to get the D100 from Japan? Or would Sony allow us to change the language from Japanese to English? The M10 supports 11 languages and one can select the desired language "for tracks, menus, folder names, file names, etc" -- (Detail Menu->Language, as outlined on page 18 of the M10 PDF manual).
I never noticed that. You could try changing the language on the M10 and see what happens. It does seem that with this option you wouldn't have any problem with menus if you ordered from Japan.
Honestly I wasn't aware of the language option either before getting your reply. I then checked the M10 manual and found it in the Detail menu. At any rate, the rationale behind Sony's decision to make the D100 available in Europe and the USA more than 3 months after its availability in Japan and China is beyond my ken. That might be the classic fear of supply shortage, but, IMO, its price tag -- bordering $800 -- should effectively obviate such a concern.
I just checked the Detail Menu on my North American M10, and there are only three language choices - English, Spanish and French.
The UK M10 manual shows a choice of six European languages - Deutsch (German), English, Español (Spanish), Français (French), Italiano (Italian), Русский (Russian) - but no Asian languages.
So you may not have a choice of English on a Japanese model.
What are the eleven languages on your M10?
Interesting. Mine (which was purchased from Amazon.com) displays the following languages:
Deutsch (German), English, Espanol (Spanish), Frangais (French), Italiano (Italian), PyccKHH (Russian), (Japanese), (Korean), (Chinese), (Chinese), Iviei (Thai).
This is really getting complicated. Do you know if we can ask this from Sony reps in Japan? Alternatively, I'm curious to know if someone here has purchased their M10 in Japan. It's not clear which release of the D100 is to be sold in Japan, but it would be very difficult to ship it without English -- even if it were the only language apart from Japanese.
Wow, that's a lot of languages. Was that Amazon.com in the US?
I have no connection to Sony other than being a fan of their recorders since my first TC-55, so whether the Sony reps in Japan will respond is a good question. No harm trying.
My inclination would be to wait until the D100 is released and check the online manual.
Yes, it was purchased for me in the USA from Amazon.com. The problem is that I don't know a Japan-oriented Sony phone number or email address to ask this. My hope is that as it's released in Japan on November 21, the PDF manual is also made available simultaneously. I don't have a lot of time to play the waiting game as my contact might leave Japan soon.
-
The Sony Global support page
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/Support/
has a Japan contact in English. Depending on cookies, this might be it.
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/Support/Feedback/index.html
You could contact them, tell them you're an American (or Brit or Aussie!) living in Japan, and ask them about the language on the D-100.
-
The Sony Global support page
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/Support/
has a Japan contact in English. Depending on cookies, this might be it.
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/Support/Feedback/index.html
You could contact them, tell them you're an American (or Brit or Aussie!) living in Japan, and ask them about the language on the D-100.
Thanks for the link. I'll try contacting them and if I get a reply -- before the manual hits the web, I'll keep the thread updated. I'm also looking forward to getting the PDF manual soon. Hopefully the contact form doesn't require a Japanese address/zip code/phone number which I don't have. :)
-
The D100 recorder which is about to be released in Japan supports English.
While I was struggling with the Sony contact form to take the issue to the company, I noticed that a Japanese fellow had posted a new video demo of the D100 on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t240MgI7bz0
I asked him about English support and he confirmed that English is indeed there. I hope he can post his impressions of the D100 as he keeps using it.
-
Guys, more conversations with the owner of the D100 in Japan indicated that the Japanese release doesn't support English. I hope no one in the USA has ordered the recorder from its Japanese owners :) Again the Youtube URL is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t240MgI7bz0
Also, Sony Japan has apparently uploaded a D100-related video on Youtube -- it's all music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctAdps94X1s
-
The D100 manual in Japanese:
http://www.sony.jp/ServiceArea/impdf/manual/44754150PCM-D100.html
-
The D100 manual in Japanese:
http://www.sony.jp/ServiceArea/impdf/manual/44754150PCM-D100.html
Thanks for the link. With the Japanese manual now available, the debate regarding the presence of English in the Japanese product continues. Page 79 of the manual indicates that the D100 supports English as well as Japanese. Would you please take a look to confirm or reject my findings? I used Google Translate's Upload service -- http://translate.google.com/?tr=f&hl=en
to translate it to English though the translation isn't all that useful. Also, the PDF can be directly downloaded from here: http://www.sony.jp/ServiceArea/impdf/pdf/44754150M-JP.pdf
-
Just to put the English discussion to rest and to end the rumors, I should add that the D100 which was released a couple of hours ago in Japan indeed supports English. The Japanese fellow who owns one also confirmed it on Youtube after I told him about page 79 of the Japanese manual.
-
I have been researching and pondering over the relative merits of 2.8 MHz DSD and 24/192 recording with the D100.
Main conclusions so far:
* 24/192 has more information, is more 'detailed', but 2.8 MHz DSD generally sounds 'better' or more 'life-like' than 24/192 when used in a live music recording environment, dynamics and sense of depth/space are more analog-like
* 24/192 can be readily edited in a DAW as you would a 24/44 or 24/96 file
* 24/192 can be burnt to DVD-A (dual layer disc if needed)
* DSD cannot be edited in anything other than fairly expensive software programs (e.g. Pyramix $1,000 - edit)
* You can create your own DSD discs of recordings using the free software 'Audiogate' from Korg. This will let you trim, split, adjust levels up or down, join etc, and then create the necessary DSD file structure for DVD burning (but not effects/plug-ins/EQ etc)
* Native DSD files can only be easily played on the recorder itself, hooked up to hi-fi (or in Foobar if you have DSD-capable DAC - edit)
* DSD discs created from Audiiogate can be played very nicely on a Playstation PS3 (using the analog out, not digi....)
* Most universal disc players that tout DSD capability will convert the DSD signal to PCM if using digi out
* Most experts seem agreed that 5.6MHz DSD and 24/384 are the future and are as near-analog as currently possible in sound quality
-
I have read that you can buy Merging Technologies Pyramix software for under $1000 now - so you can edit DSD for much less nowadays
It's also important to note that most AD converters convert into a bitstream (ala DSD stream) before converting into PCM - so that 24-192 recording you made on ur D100 was a 2.8Mhz DSD stream first - this allows for noise shaping to help offset quantization error
AD's have worked this way for over 20 years
-
^
Re the Pyramix software, thanks for that, I found it and it seems quite capable.
Re the conversion, I note in the D100 info released thus far from Sony says there are 2 separate A-D converters for LPCM and DSD, so it sounds like a signal may not be processed in the way you described, I don't know (which is better??, I presume so?)
-
It's unlikely that there is two seperate AD converters as most if not all DSD capible AD's also output 24 bit/192khz or higher pcm
The additional chip and power overhead for DSD would be to get the DSD serial output into a hardware format the main SOC can except - the nice thing about PCM is that these same AD's support I2S bus which only supports PCM data and is supported by most SOCs (System On a Chip - the CPU in the recorder)
So to interconnect the AD > SOC is fairly trivial for PCM whereas to connect the DSD outputs of the AD to the SOC requires some support chips such as an FPGA, etc
SOC maybe a traditional CPU based solution such as ARM based or a DSP one
-
What happens if you record video with a separate audio track in DSD and then you try to use the DSD audio track in the video?
If DSD is not 100% compatible with video editing software, then that would also be something else to consider.
-
I don't think DSD is considered to be used in conjunction with Video - it's more for audiofile or audio mastering purposes.
If I where recording video (which doesn't interest me personally for concerts) I would want to use PCM w/ a timecode solution. If I was not using timecode and mixing in the audio post then it really doesn't matter what it was recording in (either DSD or PCM) for video - there is an extra step of converting DSD to PCM as the end result on the video is PCM. If I was using a D100 I would record in DSD regardless of video or not as the audio quality would be very important to me (meaning I would want a DSD version of the Audio for personal use or archival purposes).
My main recorder is PCM only but I do like the sound of DSD over PCM there just isn't a more than 2 track portable DSD recorder at present and there may never be as there is no interest in the industry that truly drives the high end market (film/TV).
DSD seems to be a niche audiophile format and other technologies such as 32bit 384+Khz may replace it or maybe not. Film/Video seems to be locked at 24bit 48Khz for now.
-
* Native DSD files can only be easily played on the recorder itself, hooked up to hi-fi
You can play DSD or DFF files with Foobar, and convert them to PCM if you wish:
http://www.exasound.com/Blog/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/61/Configuring-Foobar2000-for-ASIO-DSD-DXD-Playback-with-exaSound-DACs.aspx (http://www.exasound.com/Blog/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/61/Configuring-Foobar2000-for-ASIO-DSD-DXD-Playback-with-exaSound-DACs.aspx)
http://www.audiostream.com/content/how-play-dsd-file-using-foobar2000 (http://www.audiostream.com/content/how-play-dsd-file-using-foobar2000)
-
* Native DSD files can only be easily played on the recorder itself, hooked up to hi-fi
You can play DSD or DFF files with Foobar, and convert them to PCM if you wish:
http://www.exasound.com/Blog/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/61/Configuring-Foobar2000-for-ASIO-DSD-DXD-Playback-with-exaSound-DACs.aspx (http://www.exasound.com/Blog/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/61/Configuring-Foobar2000-for-ASIO-DSD-DXD-Playback-with-exaSound-DACs.aspx)
http://www.audiostream.com/content/how-play-dsd-file-using-foobar2000 (http://www.audiostream.com/content/how-play-dsd-file-using-foobar2000)
DSD goes in, but is Foobar outputting DSD or LPCM audio?
-
It's unlikely that there is two seperate AD converters as most if not all DSD capible AD's also output 24 bit/192khz or higher pcm
The additional chip and power overhead for DSD would be to get the DSD serial output into a hardware format the main SOC can except - the nice thing about PCM is that these same AD's support I2S bus which only supports PCM data and is supported by most SOCs (System On a Chip - the CPU in the recorder)
So to interconnect the AD > SOC is fairly trivial for PCM whereas to connect the DSD outputs of the AD to the SOC requires some support chips such as an FPGA, etc
SOC maybe a traditional CPU based solution such as ARM based or a DSP one
I must admit I don't understand a lot of what you have said, but to quote Sony's press releases:
"The PCM-D100 is equipped with a dedicated AD converter for both LPCM and DSD, providing specialised functionality for respective modes"; and
"The PCM-D100 uses separate A to D converters for PCM and DSD recording"
Is there any significance in this, or are Sony having us on?
-
It is possible that there are 2 seperate AD's but I still am leaning to this statement as being lost in translation between the engineers and Sony marketing
-
Count me IN! After 2014 gets here, I am going to buy a D100 and comp it against the 24bit of my m10s ;)
-
* Native DSD files can only be easily played on the recorder itself, hooked up to hi-fi
You can play DSD or DFF files with Foobar, and convert them to PCM if you wish:
http://www.exasound.com/Blog/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/61/Configuring-Foobar2000-for-ASIO-DSD-DXD-Playback-with-exaSound-DACs.aspx (http://www.exasound.com/Blog/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/61/Configuring-Foobar2000-for-ASIO-DSD-DXD-Playback-with-exaSound-DACs.aspx)
http://www.audiostream.com/content/how-play-dsd-file-using-foobar2000 (http://www.audiostream.com/content/how-play-dsd-file-using-foobar2000)
DSD goes in, but is Foobar outputting DSD or LPCM audio?
if the d>a supports DSD, foobar2000 can support direct DSD (not LPCM) output -- see http://www.matrix-digi.com/pdf/fb2k_dsd_Setup_Guide.pdf for instructions
-
It's unlikely that there is two seperate AD converters as most if not all DSD capible AD's also output 24 bit/192khz or higher pcm
The additional chip and power overhead for DSD would be to get the DSD serial output into a hardware format the main SOC can except - the nice thing about PCM is that these same AD's support I2S bus which only supports PCM data and is supported by most SOCs (System On a Chip - the CPU in the recorder)
So to interconnect the AD > SOC is fairly trivial for PCM whereas to connect the DSD outputs of the AD to the SOC requires some support chips such as an FPGA, etc
SOC maybe a traditional CPU based solution such as ARM based or a DSP one
Hi H2O,
I think I know what you are saying here, and it tends to resolve, in my mind, a conundrum I felt when I first saw the battery lifetimes listed for each of the recording formats supported by the D100 as given on Sony's Pro Audio website; i.e., "25 hrs @44.1kHz/16 bit; 18 hrs @192kHz/24bit or 12 hrs @ DSD2.8" (See - http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-audio/cat-recorders/product-PCMD100/ (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-audio/cat-recorders/product-PCMD100/), and look under Specifications). If most (if not all) DSD capable AD's also output 192kHz/24bit LPCM or higher, then that signal can be sent off directly to the SOC (System On a Chip) without incurring any additional power burden on the battery. But if a straight out of the AD DSD signal also requires ancillary chip hardware, such as an FPGA (Field-Programmable Gate Array), be up and running in order to make that signal understandable to the SOC, then it makes sense that the stated battery lifetime would be shorter with the D100 operating in a DSD only mode. This tends to support your claim that the D100's ADC is of the conventional variety.
However, from the ProSoundWeb press release (see - http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/sony_unveils_pcm-d100_high_resolution_audio_portable_recorder_at_aes_2013/ (http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/sony_unveils_pcm-d100_high_resolution_audio_portable_recorder_at_aes_2013/)), its unclear as to what Sony really has going on in their ADC. Sony has been known to come up with some proprietary circuit arrangements in the past, so perhaps they have something new going on here as well. I guess we'll all have to wait for some info to come in from those who have taken a peek inside a D100, and/or have seen the schematics of one.
-
I forgot to add that the reason I though that the battery lifetimes, as list by Sony for each of the D100's recording formats, was a conundrum was due to my assumption that the conversion of a DSD signal from the D100's AD would require additional PCM conversion hardware to be up and running, which would imply a shorter battery lifetime for the D100's LPCM mode. But if the D100's DSD ADC can output a native PCM signal, and the DSD signal itself requires ancillary hardware to be up and running instead, then the battery lifetimes listed by Sony make a good deal more sense.
-
Coming soon?
$799 at B&H
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1008089-REG/sony_pcm_d100_portable_stereo_field.html
-
^ Yep, rip-off UK / EU has it pre-ordered at roughly the same numbers (but in Euros!) at a couple of places right now.
-
Here's a site with some D100 recordings made with the internal mics. I only downloaded the 2nd piano recording but it sounded really good.
http://saburo-ubukata.com/stereo/D100/rd.html
Apparently they were converted to 24/96 from DSF or 24/192.
-
Here's a site with some D100 recordings made with the internal mics. I only downloaded the 2nd piano recording but it sounded really good.
http://saburo-ubukata.com/stereo/D100/rd.html
Apparently they were converted to 24/96 from DSF or 24/192.
Truly promising recordings indeed! I guess we should continue envying our Japanese and Chinese friends! :)
Seriously, the D100 seems to be the absolutely worthy successor to the D50.
-
HOLY FUCK those Piano samples sound AMAZING IMO 8) ;D I will DEF be getting [1] or [2] of these puppies ;D
-
It seems that Sony will put the D100 on display at CES -- check here: http://www.cesweb.org/Press/CES-Press-Events/2014/PRESS-DAY-Sony-Press-Conference.aspx
Click the "More Information" link. Perhaps we'll get more demos then -- hopefully.
-
The first comprehensive Sony PCM-D100 English manual is now online. Check the starting page here: http://helpguide.sony.net/icd/pcmd100/v1/en/contents/contentslist01.html
-
B&H in New York has the expected due date for the D100 listed as Feb 28, 2014... they are taking pre-orders for $799.00
New Item, Available for pre-order
Expected availability: February 28 2014
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=1008089&is=REG&Q=&A=details
-
B&H in New York has the expected due date for the D100 listed as Feb 28, 2014... they are taking pre-orders for $799.00
New Item, Available for pre-order
Expected availability: February 28 2014
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=1008089&is=REG&Q=&A=details
Yeah I saw that the other day too!
-
I didn't read every page nor do I understand what this dsd stuff is
But I don't see why this is $800
To me, for what most of us do, this is an m10 with digi in/out and movable patern mics
Can someone give me the cliff notes on dsd and if there is another reason to buy this for $800
Tia
-
The line-in preamps (SNR = 98-100dB) spec better than the D50 (93dB) and far better than the M10 (87dB). Even the D1 reported only SNR of 96dB. So, coupled with the hi-res PCM and DSD capability it is potentially a really good deck. Whether it is worth $800 remains to be seen.
-
The line-in preamps (SNR = 98-100dB) spec better than the D50 (93dB) and far better than the M10 (87dB). Even the D1 reported only SNR of 96dB. So, coupled with the hi-res PCM and DSD capability it is potentially a really good deck. Whether it is worth $800 remains to be seen.
Also, add the 32-GB of built-in memory, cross-memory recording and the presence of a high-quality windscreen in the D100 package -- something which was sold for $49 for the M10! The loudest complaint we're hearing about the D100 is the absence of XLR/phantom on an $800 device. That's a fair criticism to some extent though if the D100 truely delivers, I'd be more than happy to pair it with my USBPre 2 and an external USB battery to make up for that. Honestly in that price range nothing can match the preamps of the USBPre 2 if phantom/XLR are needed.
-
Honestly in that price range nothing can match the preamps of the USBPre 2 if phantom/XLR are needed.
I suggest that you have a look at our Mic2496 V2. It has excellent pre-amps and no USB supply is needed.
-
Honestly in that price range nothing can match the preamps of the USBPre 2 if phantom/XLR are needed.
I suggest that you have a look at our Mic2496 V2. It has excellent pre-amps and no USB supply is needed.
Thanks. Mic2496 V2 is a great product, but I already have the USBPre 2 as it's also my USB soundcard as well as my field pre -- the V2 apparently can't do the former. I haven't tested the V2 and haven't compared it with the USBPre 2 either, but the USBPre 2 can handle low-output dynamic mics like a charm -- without ever adding an iota of hiss to the audio. The Shure SM7B is a good example of such a mic.
-
Also, add the 32-GB of built-in memory, cross-memory recording and the presence of a high-quality windscreen in the D100 package -- something which was sold for $49 for the M10!
I wouldn't think 32GB memory, cross memory recording or a windscreen would tempt many folk here to shell out $800 on a D100. There has to be more to it than that, and I suspect the preamps with the high quality spec must go a long way towards explaining the seemingly high price.
-
Also, add the 32-GB of built-in memory, cross-memory recording and the presence of a high-quality windscreen in the D100 package -- something which was sold for $49 for the M10!
I wouldn't think 32GB memory, cross memory recording or a windscreen would tempt many folk here to shell out $800 on a D100. There has to be more to it than that, and I suspect the preamps with the high quality spec must go a long way towards explaining the seemingly high price.
That's very true -- I was just mentioning the little extras here and there. The updated preamps tell the gist of the story -- as you put it.
-
A lot of great things about the Sony decks:
- excellent , low noise preamps
- long battery life, including the ability to go into very low use "standby" mode,
- excellent user interface/controls.
The new deck adds SNR that is as good as, or better than many USB interfaces.
These are most useful if you want to do field recording, play back and/or edit on the deck. All you need is a set of (Sony) 7506 phones.
For live recording, there are lots of options, but nothing beats a great all-in-one deck when you need it.
Richard
-
Does anyone know what the EIN of this recorder is?
-
And this is the first deck, IMHO, that has killer internal mics! Those piano samples were amazing IMO! I'll probably buy 1 and see what its like!
-
Here's a photo I found on the web that apparently shows separate A/D converters for DSD and PCM:
-
Guys, do you know which cable should be used to connect the digital output of the Sound Devices USBPre2 to the D100's digital input? Is this the correct cable, and if it is, do I need an extra adapter for the connection to be established?
Hosa Technology - Toslink Male to Mini-Toslink 3.5mm Male Fiber Optic Cable: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/297015-REG/Hosa_Technology_OPQ_210_Toslink_Male_to_Mini_Toslink.html
-
Here's a photo I found on the web that apparently shows separate A/D converters for DSD and PCM:
Interesting. Which site was this from (all Japanese presumably? The official Sony press releases suggested there was separate ad converters so this seems to confirm.
-
Guys, do you know which cable should be used to connect the digital output of the Sound Devices USBPre2 to the D100's digital input? Is this the correct cable, and if it is, do I need an extra adapter for the connection to be established?
Hosa Technology - Toslink Male to Mini-Toslink 3.5mm Male Fiber Optic Cable: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/297015-REG/Hosa_Technology_OPQ_210_Toslink_Male_to_Mini_Toslink.html
that looks right.
-
Guys, do you know which cable should be used to connect the digital output of the Sound Devices USBPre2 to the D100's digital input? Is this the correct cable, and if it is, do I need an extra adapter for the connection to be established?
Hosa Technology - Toslink Male to Mini-Toslink 3.5mm Male Fiber Optic Cable: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/297015-REG/Hosa_Technology_OPQ_210_Toslink_Male_to_Mini_Toslink.html
That's what I use from my USBPre2 to my D50, so I assume that'll work.
-
Here's a photo I found on the web that apparently shows separate A/D converters for DSD and PCM:
Interesting. Which site was this from (all Japanese presumably? The official Sony press releases suggested there was separate ad converters so this seems to confirm.
Yes, all Japanese which I don't understand, but found while clicking around looking for some info about this unit (very little available!).
Here's the site:
http://like-a-sony.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-09-25-1
-
If they are seperate sony went to a lot of trouble to add DSD - meaning they must see some future value in it
-
If they are seperate sony went to a lot of trouble to add DSD - meaning they must see some future value in it
Of course they do - Sony was one of the key players in the development of DSD / SACD. Speaking of DSD, I really don't see the advantage to using it - right now, it seems much more trouble than it's worth. Not trying to hijack this thread, but can anyone shed any light on why one would record in DSD over high-bitrate PCM, other than with the end goal of selling SACDs?
Here's an interesting article on the topic from Ayre with some sound samples to compare:
http://www.ayre.com/insights_dsdvspcm.htm (http://www.ayre.com/insights_dsdvspcm.htm)
-
I am not going into DSD anymore on this thread except that DSD is bigger then ever right now (indirectly linked to the PS3 ability to extract SACD's into ISO's or DSF/DST files). But it is seeming to become a more Pro-sumer format with all the DSD playback (not necessarily SACD) capable DAC's and receivers on the market now.
I don't see the need to go to SACD anymore as many Receiver's and DAC's can play DSF files natively (plus the plugin's for many PC/MAC based players).
-
Thanks, "page" and "dogmusic," for confirming the digital cable.
-
Not trying to hijack this thread, but can anyone shed any light on why one would record in DSD over high-bitrate PCM, other than with the end goal of selling SACDs?
I'm not entirely sure. As I understand it, DSD vs (hi res) PCM opinion is fairly evenly split among 'audiophiles'. DSD supporters will tell you that DSD captures the live performance (and particularly transient hits like drums) better than PCM, as DSD is simulating a pulse or wave with a moving series of 0's and 1's, whereas PCM is trying to nail an absolute value (I don't think I explained that 100% correctly but hopefully you get my drift).
-
Not trying to hijack this thread, but can anyone shed any light on why one would record in DSD over high-bitrate PCM, other than with the end goal of selling SACDs?
I'm not entirely sure. As I understand it, DSD vs (hi res) PCM opinion is fairly evenly split among 'audiophiles'. DSD supporters will tell you that DSD captures the live performance (and particularly transient hits like drums) better than PCM, as DSD is simulating a pulse or wave with a moving series of 0's and 1's, whereas PCM is trying to nail an absolute value (I don't think I explained that 100% correctly but hopefully you get my drift).
@Yates7592, out of curiosity, do you own the D100, or are you planning to get one? It's in the list of your recorders along with the M10.
If nothing goes awry, a distributor is going to offer the D100 later next week or in 2 weeks here. Hope I can get one!
-
Amir, yes I got one from HK. It's a beautiful machine, but I've yet to use it. Should be maiden voyage this weekend 8)
-
Amir, yes I got one from HK. It's a beautiful machine, but I've yet to use it. Should be maiden voyage this weekend 8)
Congrats are in order then! I'm very much looking forward to your recording samples or comparisons in case you are in such a position to do that.
BTW, do you know of a converter or adapter which can be used to connect a dynamic mic (like Beyerdynamic M58) to the D100? I know that the D100 doesn't have XLR, but I've heard good recordings with the D50 and dynamic mics and am assuming that the same thing (if not better) can be done with the D100 if the proper converter is used.
-
Can't wait to hear it!
-
I am using a Sound Devices USBpre2 with a Sony PCM-D50 - will there be any audible difference using the D100 instead?
What a shame - I would have liked an all in one unit!
-
^^^ No XLRs/P48 on the Sony.
-
First run with my D100 under my belt this weekend. Stealth op, front stage, dead centre, in small 300 capacity club (DPA4061 > BB > D100, record level 5, line-in, DSD format). Short 2 mins sound sample attached. Very pleased with the results, my best pull to date I would say. Don't know if this is down to the D100, or DSD, or a bit of both, or something else? BTW - the D100 is noticeably quieter than the M10, my tests at home comparing the 2 decks make this very obvious even to my cloth ears. Not that I'll be getting rid of the M10, far from it, the M10 is quite a bit smaller than the D100, and invaluable in those ultra >:D situations.
http://we.tl/TEMbXrDjEw
-
First run with my D100 under my belt this weekend. Stealth op, front stage, dead centre, in small 300 capacity club (DPA4061 > BB > D100, record level 5, line-in, DSD format). Short 2 mins sound sample attached. Very pleased with the results, my best pull to date I would say. Don't know if this is down to the D100, or DSD, or a bit of both, or something else? BTW - the D100 is noticeably quieter than the M10, my tests at home comparing the 2 decks make this very obvious even to my cloth ears. Not that I'll be getting rid of the M10, far from it, the M10 is quite a bit smaller than the D100, and invaluable in those ultra >:D situations.
http://we.tl/TEMbXrDjEw
Any suggestions on how to play this file on a Mac?
-
Foobar with dsd driver will play. Not sure if Audiogate works on macs.
-
Given the difficulties of playing DSD files on Windows, I'm not sure if I want to record via that format as I get my D100. Not that it's not doable (it sure is), but it's too much of a hassle. Also, editing DSD files isn't really feasible at this time -- I want to do that with apps like Sound Forge.
-
^^^^
I'm listening now to my recording, the D100 is hooked up to my amp and speakers. To me; the (apparent) benefit of recording in DSD is well worth the perceived trouble with processing and playback. Audiogate is freeware and can perform all of the basic editing tasks like file splits, joins, fades, normalise etc. The next step is Pyramix which can let you use all your VST plug ins etc. So its just a question of comfort zone and what you feel best with. What I would say is that I'm really glad I went the DSD route on this occasion. I doubt I would have captured the sheer realism of that night if I had gone PCM. The dynamics and especially the sense of depth are like I've not heard before in my recordings. Early days yet though, so open mind essential
-
^^^^
I'm listening now to my recording, the D100 is hooked up to my amp and speakers. To me; the (apparent) benefit of recording in DSD is well worth the perceived trouble with processing and playback. Audiogate is freeware and can perform all of the basic editing tasks like file splits, joins, fades, normalise etc. The next step is Pyramix which can let you use all your VST plug ins etc. So its just a question of comfort zone and what you feel best with. What I would say is that I'm really glad I went the DSD route on this occasion. I doubt I would have captured the sheer realism of that night if I had gone PCM. The dynamics and especially the sense of depth are like I've not heard before in my recordings. Early days yet though, so open mind essential
All great stuff! But have you managed to compare the PCM-oriented capabilities of the D100 with those of the D50/M10? Just asking since you have an M10...
-
I still would love to know the EIN of this recorder. I do a little music but it's mostly spoken word or nature and I'd love a smaller setup that is very quiet. If this thing is around -127dBu or so I would definitely pick it up.
It's a shame it doesn't have XLR inputs. Don't know if you can even buy sony's overpriced adapter anymore.
-
I still would love to know the EIN of this recorder. I do a little music but it's mostly spoken word or nature and I'd love a smaller setup that is very quiet. If this thing is around -127dBu or so I would definitely pick it up.
It's a shame it doesn't have XLR inputs. Don't know if you can even buy sony's overpriced adapter anymore.
Cant help with the EIN but i think it will be around the figure you quoted. Regarding the Sony xlr adaptor its discontinued but fits the d100 like a glove.
-
First run with my D100 under my belt this weekend. Stealth op, front stage, dead centre, in small 300 capacity club (DPA4061 > BB > D100, record level 5, line-in, DSD format). Short 2 mins sound sample attached. Very pleased with the results, my best pull to date I would say. Don't know if this is down to the D100, or DSD, or a bit of both, or something else? BTW - the D100 is noticeably quieter than the M10, my tests at home comparing the 2 decks make this very obvious even to my cloth ears. Not that I'll be getting rid of the M10, far from it, the M10 is quite a bit smaller than the D100, and invaluable in those ultra >:D situations.
http://we.tl/TEMbXrDjEw
Any suggestions on how to play this file on a Mac?
There is a great program for the Mac that plays DSD files, it is called Audirvana Plus... There is a 14 day free trial on their website.. I use it mostly for feeding my USB Dac, but I did down load the recording file above and it played great on the standalone Mac....
-
I still would love to know the EIN of this recorder. I do a little music but it's mostly spoken word or nature and I'd love a smaller setup that is very quiet. If this thing is around -127dBu or so I would definitely pick it up.
It's a shame it doesn't have XLR inputs. Don't know if you can even buy sony's overpriced adapter anymore.
Cant help with the EIN but i think it will be around the figure you quoted. Regarding the Sony xlr adaptor its discontinued but fits the d100 like a glove.
kingtut38,
Check out this link to the "Theatre of Noise" website that features an article titled "Summary of Portable Digital Audio Recorders (http://www.theatreofnoise.com/2009/11/summary-of-portable-digital-audio.html)", and scroll down to where the EIN's of various portable digital recorders are listed. Since the EIN for the D50 is given as -126dBu, and since the D100 is advertised (or at least touted by some) as being a good deal quieter* than even the D50, I would expect that the D100 would more than satisfy your -127dBu criteria.
*I should be a little careful when I say this, as the difference between -126dBu, -127dBu, or -128dBu is sufficiently small enough that many other factors will come into play before this one or two dBu difference will begin to matter.
yates7592,
Thanks for the info regarding the fit of the Sony XLR-1 adapter to the D100. It makes me all the more glad that I had the good sense to acquire one, from a Japanese reseller over the past summer, for use with my D50. Now I can expect to see no problems with regards to its fit and functionality with respect to its use with a D100. :D
-
[Thanks for the info regarding the fit of the Sony XLR-1 adapter to the D100. It makes me all the more glad that I had the good sense to acquire one, from a Japanese reseller over the past summer, for use with my D50. Now I can expect to see no problems with regards to its fit and functionality with respect to its use with a D100. :D
-
First run with my D100 under my belt this weekend. Stealth op, front stage, dead centre, in small 300 capacity club (DPA4061 > BB > D100, record level 5, line-in, DSD format). Short 2 mins sound sample attached. Very pleased with the results, my best pull to date I would say. Don't know if this is down to the D100, or DSD, or a bit of both, or something else? BTW - the D100 is noticeably quieter than the M10, my tests at home comparing the 2 decks make this very obvious even to my cloth ears. Not that I'll be getting rid of the M10, far from it, the M10 is quite a bit smaller than the D100, and invaluable in those ultra >:D situations.
http://we.tl/TEMbXrDjEw
Would it be possible for you to share this file in WAV or some additional format? I realize your impression is that the DSD format is clearly superior, but I won't/can't use DSD right away. However I would love to get a sense of how the D100 is recording.
-
Good day! Could you, please, upload a sample of d100's internal mics and your voice or voice + guitar, may be? Your recordings will be the first d100's voice recordings in the web. :D It is very important. Please, pleeeeease...) I want to hear it so much! You can even record one word in d100. Using internal mics, because what about external mics, you can plug tube mic to the 10 000$ preamp - then to the line in of the zoom h4n and quality will be superb, so this is not a test. The main thing is internal mics!
-
thanks for the info and the pics. I'm guessing you're correct about the D100 having a better EIN than the D50. I'm sure one of the guys over at avisoft will test it. This thing will be a huge hit with the nature crowd if it can accomplish FR2le or SD702 noise levels.
XLR is still a problem considering Sony discounted it's adapter. Even if it was still available the adapter plus the D100 would be pushing up into used SD702 territory.
Looks like a great piece though.
-
Good day! Could you, please, upload a sample of d100's internal mics and your voice or voice + guitar, may be? Your recordings will be the first d100's voice recordings in the web. :D It is very important. Please, pleeeeease...) I want to hear it so much! You can even record one word in d100. Using internal mics, because what about external mics, you can plug tube mic to the 10 000$ preamp - then to the line in of the zoom h4n and quality will be superb, so this is not a test. The main thing is internal mics!
If you scroll back earlier in this thread there is a link to a Japanese blog with several samples of the internal mics recording piano, street and nature I think.
-
Would it be possible for you to share this file in WAV or some additional format? I realize your impression is that the DSD format is clearly superior, but I won't/can't use DSD right away. However I would love to get a sense of how the D100 is recording.
I really doubt that DSD produces "clearly superior" results compared to PCM. Lots of debate on the subject, but, if you look at some of the ABX test results, they suggest that experienced listeners can't distinguish them (at best, maybe a few people can perceive a difference). If there is an audible difference, it must be pretty small (especially when you consider the strictly controlled test environments)...
-
Good day! Could you, please, upload a sample of d100's internal mics and your voice or voice + guitar, may be? Your recordings will be the first d100's voice recordings in the web. :D It is very important. Please, pleeeeease...) I want to hear it so much! You can even record one word in d100. Using internal mics, because what about external mics, you can plug tube mic to the 10 000$ preamp - then to the line in of the zoom h4n and quality will be superb, so this is not a test. The main thing is internal mics!
If you scroll back earlier in this thread there is a link to a Japanese blog with several samples of the internal mics recording piano, street and nature I think.
Here you go....
http://saburo-ubukata.com/stereo/D100/rd.html
-
Thank you, i listened to this samples, but there is no voice
-
I still would love to know the EIN of this recorder. I do a little music but it's mostly spoken word or nature and I'd love a smaller setup that is very quiet. If this thing is around -127dBu or so I would definitely pick it up.
It's a shame it doesn't have XLR inputs. Don't know if you can even buy sony's overpriced adapter anymore.
Cant help with the EIN but i think it will be around the figure you quoted. Regarding the Sony xlr adaptor its discontinued but fits the d100 like a glove.
kingtut38,
Check out this link to the "Theatre of Noise" website that features an article titled "Summary of Portable Digital Audio Recorders (http://www.theatreofnoise.com/2009/11/summary-of-portable-digital-audio.html)", and scroll down to where the EIN's of various portable digital recorders are listed. Since the EIN for the D50 is given as -126dBu, and since the D100 is advertised (or at least touted by some) as being a good deal quieter* than even the D50, I would expect that the D100 would more than satisfy your -127dBu criteria.
*I should be a little careful when I say this, as the difference between -126dBu, -127dBu, or -128dBu is sufficiently small enough that many other factors will come into play before this one or two dBu difference will begin to matter.
yates7592,
Thanks for the info regarding the fit of the Sony XLR-1 adapter to the D100. It makes me all the more glad that I had the good sense to acquire one, from a Japanese reseller over the past summer, for use with my D50. Now I can expect to see no problems with regards to its fit and functionality with respect to its use with a D100. :D
I think all the Sony rigs have great preamps. Lots of detail and very low noise.
What the D100 does is increase the SNR (signal to noise ratio) of the ADC. It goes from about 70dB in M10 to 80dB in D50, to 90-100dB in the D100. Basically the D100 is one of the first "prosumer" recorders to get a full 16bits (and a bit more) on the ADC. Not quite as good as the Sound Devices, but certainly a big improvement in quality.
-
B&H just updated their expected availability to February 28th. Was really hoping it'd be available in January.
-
I still would love to know the EIN of this recorder. I do a little music but it's mostly spoken word or nature and I'd love a smaller setup that is very quiet. If this thing is around -127dBu or so I would definitely pick it up.
It's a shame it doesn't have XLR inputs. Don't know if you can even buy sony's overpriced adapter anymore.
Cant help with the EIN but i think it will be around the figure you quoted. Regarding the Sony xlr adaptor its discontinued but fits the d100 like a glove.
kingtut38,
Check out this link to the "Theatre of Noise" website that features an article titled "Summary of Portable Digital Audio Recorders (http://www.theatreofnoise.com/2009/11/summary-of-portable-digital-audio.html)", and scroll down to where the EIN's of various portable digital recorders are listed. Since the EIN for the D50 is given as -126dBu, and since the D100 is advertised (or at least touted by some) as being a good deal quieter* than even the D50, I would expect that the D100 would more than satisfy your -127dBu criteria.
*I should be a little careful when I say this, as the difference between -126dBu, -127dBu, or -128dBu is sufficiently small enough that many other factors will come into play before this one or two dBu difference will begin to matter.
yates7592,
Thanks for the info regarding the fit of the Sony XLR-1 adapter to the D100. It makes me all the more glad that I had the good sense to acquire one, from a Japanese reseller over the past summer, for use with my D50. Now I can expect to see no problems with regards to its fit and functionality with respect to its use with a D100. :D
I think all the Sony rigs have great preamps. Lots of detail and very low noise.
What the D100 does is increase the SNR (signal to noise ratio) of the ADC. It goes from about 70dB in M10 to 80dB in D50, to 90-100dB in the D100. Basically the D100 is one of the first "prosumer" recorders to get a full 16bits (and a bit more) on the ADC. Not quite as good as the Sound Devices, but certainly a big improvement in quality.
illconditioned,
You're absolutely correct in pointing this out. The main improvement of the D100 over its predecessors (the D50 or even the D1) is in the sophistication of its ADC's. About three years ago (March 14, 2011), Rene Coronado did a quick comparison between a Sony D50 and a Sound Devices 744t, with both recorders being sent a live audio feed from an Audio Technica AT4050. The main reason for the comparo was to test the sound quality of the Deneke PS-2 phantom power supply when feeding the D50, but it quickly became a comparison between the D50 and 744t as well. (See "quickie shootout -- 744t vs PCM D50 with phantom power (http://thesoundmyheadmakes.blogspot.com/2011/03/quickie-shootout-744t-vs-pcm-d50-with.html)" from Rene's blog site "The Sound My Head Makes".) Anyway, the provided sound samples show that the D50 comes surprisingly close to the 744t, with the 744t (to my ear) pulling ever so slightly ahead of the D50 in terms of overall richness of sound and depth of presentation.
A "full 16bits" indeed. What I find somewhat amusing in all this is that it is only in moving to ADC's with rather sophisticated converter designs (using DSD 2.8MHz or 24bit/192kHz, or better, sampling standards) that we finally begin to approach the sound quality of the CD's 16bit/44.1kHz "perfect sound forever" format!
-
B&H just updated their expected availability to February 28th. Was really hoping it'd be available in January.
This isn't in fact new -- please check page 11 of the thread.
-
What the D100 does is increase the SNR (signal to noise ratio) of the ADC. It goes from about 70dB in M10 to 80dB in D50, to 90-100dB in the D100. Basically the D100 is one of the first "prosumer" recorders to get a full 16bits (and a bit more) on the ADC. Not quite as good as the Sound Devices, but certainly a big improvement in quality.
Agreed. Actual (or rather Sony spec) SNR figures are:
M10 (87dB) < D50 (93dB) < D1 (96dB) < D100 (100dB)
-
I like this thread, it makes me look forward to buying a D100 when they come out. I am upgrading from a Zoom H4n, and it more or less came down between getting a Sony D100 or a used Sound Devices 744T. I figure the D100 will be a more flexible portable recorder, even if I have to buy a small mixer for some uses (maybe a Sound Devices USBPre2 or MixPre-D to provide external XLR mic capability for the D100, and also to act as audio interface to my Macbook - the H4n does that now).
Too bad Sony didn't equip the D100 to also play role of USB audio interface (as the H4n does). I suppose that means that if I want to record using D100 mics onto DAW software on the Mac, I'll need to do so via a USBPre2 (or keep using my H4n)? The D100 will be more for field recording - what will be the best way to copy the recording files to the Macbook for editing etc.? Mine is the recent MBP which did away with audio in port, so it has to go in via USB. Alternatively, I suppose files can be copied by inserting the D100's SD card into the Macbook.
Anyway, I'm still sorting out how the D100 will fit in with the rest of my gear, as you can tell...
-
if the d100 is anything like the m10, it will have a usb port that, when connected to the macbook, will cause the d100's file structure (wav files) to appear as external drives in the macbook, allowing you to copy directly from the d1oo or edit the files on the d100
-
Here is the first review I've seen of the D100 (in English). Also reviews the new Tascam DA3000.
http://everythingaudionetwork.blogspot.ca/2014/01/ean-quickview-two-new-pcmdsd.html
Nice to hear from someone who has owned all three Sony's: D1, D50, AND M10.
His comparison with the Tascam DR100mkii is a surprise since generally people seem to think its preamps are not all that great.
-
Here is the first review I've seen of the D100 (in English). Also reviews the new Tascam DA3000.
http://everythingaudionetwork.blogspot.ca/2014/01/ean-quickview-two-new-pcmdsd.html
Nice to hear from someone who has owned all three Sony's: D1, D50, AND M10.
His comparison with the Tascam DR100mkii is a surprise since generally people seem to think its preamps are not all that great.
Thanks for the URL -- interesting read.
The DR-100MKII doesn't have bad preamps IMO though they're a tad quiet. I haven't had much success with the MKII's preamps and my low-output dynamic mics, but it's good for condensers. Its internal mics (particularly the Omni ones) are not that eye-catching either.
-
[Thanks for the info regarding the fit of the Sony XLR-1 adapter to the D100. It makes me all the more glad that I had the good sense to acquire one, from a Japanese reseller over the past summer, for use with my D50. Now I can expect to see no problems with regards to its fit and functionality with respect to its use with a D100. :D
Thanks, yates7592, for posting these images of your D100/XLR-1 rig. I never noticed that you had placed photos of your D100/XLR-1 combo in your post, because in order to see these photos you must first be logged on. A very sweet looking piece of kit!! :D
-
The PCM-D100 video introduction by Sony Professional USA is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1_Dyf0174A
-
Dear friends, is this such a great problem to upload a 10 second voice *wav recorded in sony pcm d100?
There is no voice examples of this recorder at all. I think that the reason is that it's quality is the same as m10 or zoom h4n.
In the sample with piano, recorded with sony d100, there is an amazing hiss aka zoom h4n
-
I'm not sure when Sony updated their webpages (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-audio/cat-recorders/product-PCMD100/) (look under "Resources") to include this link to a PDF download of a PCM-D100 brochure (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/assetDownloadController/Sony_PCM_D100_Brochure.pdf?path=Asset Hierarchy$Professional$SEL-yf-generic-153707$SEL-yf-generic-153748SEL-asset-418803.pdf&id=StepID$SEL-asset-418803$original&dimension=original) (Sony gives a release date of 01/14/2014), but it contains a summery of all the currently understood specs on the D100. Really nothing new here, just a nice four page synopsis.
-
Am I missing something here.. because I thought you NEED to supply an analog signal to record DSD. You "can" feed the unit a digital signal, and it will just convert whatever A/D you feed it to DSD format and you gain nothing, you might as well just record a digital signal as PCM. This is the same thing as the Korg MR-1000. Analog Line IN > DSD sounds great. If you send a digital line to a DSD recorder, you are defeating the point of the DSD.
So how can you feed a stereo analog line-in to this unit, so you can then record THAT signal as DSD?
If you have to rely on the internal mics to go to DSD, then this recorder is way over-priced.
-
btw... I bought a Korg MR-1000 when they first came out... I run DPA 4022 to V2 analog out > MR-1000... for years... have not seen a better rig. I also have a Lunatec V3, which sits at home because I don't need the digital out.
Recently my internal hard drive on my Korg has been acting up. I have replaced it already with an internal 120GB hard drive (the stock drive is only 40GB).
I stopped taping for awhile, I go through phases... been recording since the 80s... I was thinking of getting something smaller and more portable, not stealth... but it has to be reliable, less external batteries.. etc. I want to use my DPA 4022s...
So I am ready to replace the internal hard drive AGAIN on the Korg Mr-1000... but this is after years of use... and I go a HUGE amount of analog master tape transfers to the Korg, so it gets a lot of use. The Korg is bulky (relatively) in size and has a plastic feel... but unit works fine in the field. The external box is empty inside, if you open it up and look inside, it could be half the size. And it has XLRs in and out. And 5 Mhz DSD recording vs. 2.8 Mhz DSD formats are a big difference.
I don't see this new Sony unit as even being as good as the Korg, because of the limits of no XLR or analog ins.
-
Ok, I guess the Toslink IN can also be a mini stereo analog in... really? we are using these kind of connections on an $800 deck.
Throw away the silly internal mics, and include RCA analog ins... make it a $300 DSD bit dumper that runs on AA batteries.
-
There is an analog unbalanced line in so you can do any pre > line in > dsd with the d100
-
There is an analog unbalanced line in
yeah, and it screams "pro" quality, don't it!
-
that's pretty sexy
-
the microphones are plastic :-\
http://www.audiotranskription.de/sony-pcm-d-100
-
i was right - sony pcm d100 has background hiss more than the zoom h4n has. ;D 1000 bucks for a piece of....?
-
i was right - sony pcm d100 has background hiss more than the zoom h4n has.
built in mics or external mics in both tests?
-
Samples were internal on both D100 and LS100.
-
Samples were internal on both D100 and LS100.
While I do believe that the comparison between the H4N and the D100 is more or less a joke, I'd like to know your take on the comparison between the D100 and the LS-100. That clock test there was peculiar (though useful) in that the levels in both recordings were gradually (and artificially) magnified for the sake of comparison. I myself sense a higher degree of noise in the LS-100 recording -- especially in the left channel of the football track. Also, I seem to be able to hear people talking in the left channel of the D100 football track -- something which is apparently absent in that of the LS-100.
-
^^^ To be honest, I haven't listened to the samples provided, I will try to later. The internal mics are not particularly important to me, although it will be interesting to listen to those samples. But like you, I think this guy above is talking BS when he tries to compare the D100 to the H4N.
-
I have to agree about internal mics - I have yet to see a recorder that I would remotely consider using the internal mics for recording anything this site is focused on.
ALL internal mics are garbage IMO and are only there for use in interviewing or personal experimentations. If you are using internal mics to make concert or nature recordings you have a lot too learn.
-
I got my D100 on Friday and set up this test vs my D50 today.
The D50 chain was Beyer MC930 mics>Audient MICO preamp>D50 line-in.
The D100 was internal mics at 120º wide stereo on the same stand as the Beyers.
As usual my piano is out of tune. There is a river outside my house so that may account for some of the ambient white noise.
D50: https://app.box.com/s/mvnwghlpqo613gafc9yn
D100: https://app.box.com/s/mqsd7m4iib8fsxp6bbrc
-
I got my D100 on Friday and set up this test vs my D50 today.
The D50 chain was Beyer MC930 mics>Audient MICO preamp>D50 line-in.
The D100 was internal mics at 120º wide stereo on the same stand as the Beyers.
As usual my piano is out of tune. There is a river outside my house so that may account for some of the ambient white noise.
D50: https://app.box.com/s/mvnwghlpqo613gafc9yn
D100: https://app.box.com/s/mqsd7m4iib8fsxp6bbrc
Thanks for the samples -- will listen to them later today via my pro headphones. In the meantime, do you agree with the author(s) of this German review? http://www.audiotranskription.de/sony-pcm-d-100
Specifically, does your machine have the very same hardware characteristics as the pre-production model reviewed -- rather noisy mic positioning and fragile mem card holder? The extra features of the D100 aside, do you prefer it to the D50 at least when internal mics and the built-in preamps are concerned?
-
Thanks for the samples -- will listen to them later today via my pro headphones. In the meantime, do you agree with the author(s) of this German review? http://www.audiotranskription.de/sony-pcm-d-100
Specifically, does your machine have the very same hardware characteristics as the pre-production model reviewed -- rather noisy mic positioning and fragile mem card holder? The extra features of the D100 aside, do you prefer it to the D50 at least when internal mics and the built-in preamps are concerned?
Since I read the review in translation only, I wasn't clear about all the criticisms. If the reviewer had read the manual, he would know that in order to move the record level knobs separately, you push in the middle knob. They're very smooth.
Yes, the mic housing is hard plastic, but I don't know how that affects the sound. Do other handhelds have metal internal mics?
Not sure what noisy mic positioning is. I wouldn't change the direction of the mics during recording, if that's what he means. But who would do that with any mic?
Yes, the mem card door is a bit vulnerable, but on the other hand, it's easy to open and get the card out without resorting to tweezers as I do on the D50.
I think the internal mics are better than the D50. Tomorrow I will set up a recording from the Beyers into the D50 and D100 simultaneously to compare their preamps.
-
Thanks for the samples -- will listen to them later today via my pro headphones. In the meantime, do you agree with the author(s) of this German review? http://www.audiotranskription.de/sony-pcm-d-100
Specifically, does your machine have the very same hardware characteristics as the pre-production model reviewed -- rather noisy mic positioning and fragile mem card holder? The extra features of the D100 aside, do you prefer it to the D50 at least when internal mics and the built-in preamps are concerned?
Since I read the review in translation only, I wasn't clear about all the criticisms. If the reviewer had read the manual, he would know that in order to move the record level knobs separately, you push in the middle knob. They're very smooth.
Yes, the mic housing is hard plastic, but I don't know how that affects the sound. Do other handhelds have metal internal mics?
Not sure what noisy mic positioning is. I wouldn't change the direction of the mics during recording, if that's what he means. But who would do that with any mic?
Yes, the mem card door is a bit vulnerable, but on the other hand, it's easy to open and get the card out without resorting to tweezers as I do on the D50.
I think the internal mics are better than the D50. Tomorrow I will set up a recording from the Beyers into the D50 and D100 simultaneously to compare their preamps.
At least the LS-100's mic housing is also plastic -- that's what I feel and it's not a problem. I'm looking forward to your preamp comparisons. The D100 hasn't yet become available here.
-
Here are mic-in and line-in preamp comps of the D50 and D100.
I don't have a phantom power adapter to go mic-in with the Beyers, so I used an old battery-powered SONY ECM-979 stereo mic, its output split into the mic-ins of the two recorders.
The line-in test was done Beyer MC 930's>Audient MICO>splitter>line-ins of the two recorders.
D50 mic-in: https://app.box.com/s/h3k31ctarpdsq7zu0621
D100 mic-in: https://app.box.com/s/qkkpxn4swvfvp2k5thn9
D50 line-in: https://app.box.com/s/4n9h8ho0dux6ja9y61nj
D100 line-in-in: https://app.box.com/s/fyrrfn7ge3dkb96zejg0
-
Here are mic-in and line-in preamp comps of the D50 and D100.
I don't have a phantom power adapter to go mic-in with the Beyers, so I used an old battery-powered SONY ECM-979 stereo mic, its output split into the mic-ins of the two recorders.
The line-in test was done Beyer MC 930's>Audient MICO>splitter>line-ins of the two recorders.
D50 mic-in: https://app.box.com/s/h3k31ctarpdsq7zu0621
D100 mic-in: https://app.box.com/s/qkkpxn4swvfvp2k5thn9
D50 line-in: https://app.box.com/s/4n9h8ho0dux6ja9y61nj
D100 line-in-in: https://app.box.com/s/fyrrfn7ge3dkb96zejg0
Thanks for the samples! Quite interestingly, the more I listen to them via my pro headphones, the more I come to the conclusion that there's virtually no difference between the two recorders! Across the board, the mic-in samples are far more noisier than the line-in ones -- that's not strange. However, the D50 line-in sample is as noisy as that of the D100, and the same is also true about both mic-in samples. I also sense some sort of minor rumbling or squeaking in both line-in samples. Considering these results, I'm wondering which D100-compatible portable mics I should get for concert-recording when seated in the middle of the audience.
-
Some of the noise is the river outside my house. And it's a windy day here. My house is not sound-proofed.
The rumble and squeak is also most probably ambient.
Then again, it could be me --- I haven't eaten all day!
-
Some of the noise is the river outside my house. And it's a windy day here. My house is not sound-proofed.
The rumble and squeak is also most probably ambient.
Then again, it could be me --- I haven't eaten all day!
:) Fortunately I don't have the D50 to face the dilemma of upgrading to D100 or continuing with that. Currently I have the LS-100 and given my need for a digital-in, upgrading to the D100 seems to be logical. Of course provided that the reseller finally makes it available here!
-
given my need for a digital-in, upgrading to the D100 seems to be logical.
If you only need a bit-bucket, what about the TASCAM DR100mkii? Just $221.00 on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/DR-100mkII-2-Channel-Portable-Digital-Recorder/dp/B006JVNTXO
-
given my need for a digital-in, upgrading to the D100 seems to be logical.
If you only need a bit-bucket, what about the TASCAM DR100mkii? Just $221.00 on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/DR-100mkII-2-Channel-Portable-Digital-Recorder/dp/B006JVNTXO
It's hard to argue against a cheaper recorder like the DR-100MKII. I saw it a couple of months ago and, frankly, don't like it at all. It isn't as sturdy as I like it to be. Also, I don't like its dual-battery system coupled with the fact that I should buy an extra charger for it. In addition to the digital-in, I want something whose internal mics I can fall back on when the need arises and the D100 easily beats the DR-100MKII in that respect. My LS-100 holds up well against the DR-100MKII; so if I'm to get a new recorder, it should be a step up from the LS-100. Since I'm a radio journalist, I'm also thinking about matching the D100 with low-output dynamic mics (namely Beyerdynamic M58 and Sennheiser MD46), and hope the D100's performance proves to be superior to that of the LS-100 in that respect. Finally, as I'm visually impaired (totally blind), the D100 is quite easier to operate and control with its higher-quality mechanical knobs and controls.
-
I have to agree about internal mics - I have yet to see a recorder that I would remotely consider using the internal mics for recording anything this site is focused on.
ALL internal mics are garbage IMO and are only there for use in interviewing or personal experimentations. If you are using internal mics to make concert or nature recordings you have a lot too learn.
Roland R-26 internal mic's are decent.
-
I have to agree about internal mics - I have yet to see a recorder that I would remotely consider using the internal mics for recording anything this site is focused on.
ALL internal mics are garbage IMO and are only there for use in interviewing or personal experimentations. If you are using internal mics to make concert or nature recordings you have a lot too learn.
Roland R-26 internal mic's are decent.
If the term "decent" is to be applied to internal mics, nothing can beat those of the D100. I've seen the R26 internal mics in action, and they're just above-average IMO. But there is an inherent problem with internal mics of any ilk which are absent in decent external mics. So while the D100 has perhaps the best internal mics around, their comparison with even average external mics is absolutely problematic.
-
given my need for a digital-in, upgrading to the D100 seems to be logical.
If you only need a bit-bucket, what about the TASCAM DR100mkii? Just $221.00 on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/DR-100mkII-2-Channel-Portable-Digital-Recorder/dp/B006JVNTXO
It's hard to argue against a cheaper recorder like the DR-100MKII. I saw it a couple of months ago and, frankly, don't like it at all. It isn't as sturdy as I like it to be. Also, I don't like its dual-battery system coupled with the fact that I should buy an extra charger for it. In addition to the digital-in, I want something whose internal mics I can fall back on when the need arises and the D100 easily beats the DR-100MKII in that respect. My LS-100 holds up well against the DR-100MKII; so if I'm to get a new recorder, it should be a step up from the LS-100. Since I'm a radio journalist, I'm also thinking about matching the D100 with low-output dynamic mics (namely Beyerdynamic M58 and Sennheiser MD46), and hope the D100's performance proves to be superior to that of the LS-100 in that respect. Finally, as I'm visually impaired (totally blind), the D100 is quite easier to operate and control with its higher-quality mechanical knobs and controls.
I bought the TASCAM DR100mkii thinking I could use its digital input with my Audient MICO preamp. When that turned out to be wrong, I put it to work with my USBPre2 as a bit-bucket for my portable rig, and left my D50 as the permanent installation, along with the MICO, for recording piano.
The TASCAM DR100mkii may be sturdier than you think. I find it to stand up quite well in field recording. It's true that, compared to the Sony's, the DR100mkii battery life is problematic. However, since I already need an external battery for the Pre2, having another along seems just part of the rig.
I don't share your assessment of the D50 vs D100 comparison. I think the D100 mic preamp is a lot better. Plus it records at 24/192 (my tests were done at 24/96 since that's all the D50 can do) and I found a really audible difference in using the higher rate.
I do have a few dynamic mics --- AKG D880, Shure SM57, Electrovoice RE-10 --- none of them too great, but if you'd like I can test the D100 with one of them.
-
I think the D100 mic preamp is a lot better. Plus it records at 24/192 (my tests were done at 24/96 since that's all the D50 can do) and I found a really audible difference in using the higher rate.
Glad to hear I'm not the only one who also notices the benefits of a hgher sampling rate. :) There are a lot of folk around here that are very sceptical about this. I'm not a bat (or a dog), but I CAN hear a difference. It's in the bigger soundstage, and depth of the recording.
-
given my need for a digital-in, upgrading to the D100 seems to be logical.
If you only need a bit-bucket, what about the TASCAM DR100mkii? Just $221.00 on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/DR-100mkII-2-Channel-Portable-Digital-Recorder/dp/B006JVNTXO
It's hard to argue against a cheaper recorder like the DR-100MKII. I saw it a couple of months ago and, frankly, don't like it at all. It isn't as sturdy as I like it to be. Also, I don't like its dual-battery system coupled with the fact that I should buy an extra charger for it. In addition to the digital-in, I want something whose internal mics I can fall back on when the need arises and the D100 easily beats the DR-100MKII in that respect. My LS-100 holds up well against the DR-100MKII; so if I'm to get a new recorder, it should be a step up from the LS-100. Since I'm a radio journalist, I'm also thinking about matching the D100 with low-output dynamic mics (namely Beyerdynamic M58 and Sennheiser MD46), and hope the D100's performance proves to be superior to that of the LS-100 in that respect. Finally, as I'm visually impaired (totally blind), the D100 is quite easier to operate and control with its higher-quality mechanical knobs and controls.
I bought the TASCAM DR100mkii thinking I could use its digital input with my Audient MICO preamp. When that turned out to be wrong, I put it to work with my USBPre2 as a bit-bucket for my portable rig, and left my D50 as the permanent installation, along with the MICO, for recording piano.
The TASCAM DR100mkii may be sturdier than you think. I find it to stand up quite well in field recording. It's true that, compared to the Sony's, the DR100mkii battery life is problematic. However, since I already need an external battery for the Pre2, having another along seems just part of the rig.
I don't share your assessment of the D50 vs D100 comparison. I think the D100 mic preamp is a lot better. Plus it records at 24/192 (my tests were done at 24/96 since that's all the D50 can do) and I found a really audible difference in using the higher rate.
I do have a few dynamic mics --- AKG D880, Shure SM57, Electrovoice RE-10 --- none of them too great, but if you'd like I can test the D100 with one of them.
Thanks for your invaluable points. I'd be glad to hear a Shure SM57 recording if it's feasible.
You do have a great setup! It's good to have confirmation that the D100 can provide noticeably better recordings (I've not yet seen its 24-192 samples).
As for the DR-100MKII's battery problem, unfortunately I should keep my gear as compact as possible and since I have a USBPre 2 which naturally requires an external battery, it would be better for me to avoid a recorder whose reliability hinges on a second external battery.
-
I think the D100 mic preamp is a lot better. Plus it records at 24/192 (my tests were done at 24/96 since that's all the D50 can do) and I found a really audible difference in using the higher rate.
Glad to hear I'm not the only one who also notices the benefits of a hgher sampling rate. :) There are a lot of folk around here that are very sceptical about this. I'm not a bat (or a dog), but I CAN hear a difference. It's in the bigger soundstage, and depth of the recording.
Agreed. It sounds less squashed.
-
I'd be glad to hear a Shure SM57 recording if it's feasible.
I did try a recording with the Shure SM57, but then I remembered that I had this AKG D202, and it sounded more legit:
https://app.box.com/s/7db0ibvdji8x6d796s5o
-
I'd be glad to hear a Shure SM57 recording if it's feasible.
I did try a recording with the Shure SM57, but then I remembered that I had this AKG D202, and it sounded more legit:
https://app.box.com/s/7db0ibvdji8x6d796s5o
Thanks for the recording -- it looks stunningly fantastic! Just one point: may I know the output of the D202? As it's discontinued, I can't find that on the web. Is it weaker than that of, say, Beyerdynamic m58's 1.3mV/Pa? My M58 is usable with the LS-100 if you ignore the minor but truly noticeable hiss which is generated (I don't like it), but your recording was virtually broadcast-ready.
BTW, if the recorded voice is yours, you do possess a great broadcast-oriented voice!
-
I think the D100 mic preamp is a lot better. Plus it records at 24/192 (my tests were done at 24/96 since that's all the D50 can do) and I found a really audible difference in using the higher rate.
Glad to hear I'm not the only one who also notices the benefits of a hgher sampling rate. :) There are a lot of folk around here that are very sceptical about this. I'm not a bat (or a dog), but I CAN hear a difference. It's in the bigger soundstage, and depth of the recording.
Agreed. It sounds less squashed.
Personally, I think the skepticism is well warranted. As I understand it, a single mic, regardless of sampling rate, will be mono. Information on soundstage/imaging comes from using more than one mic to introduce time and/or amplitude differences, which the ears/brain of the listener uses to perceive spatiality. Most of that perception comes from low frequency sound, so would be unaffected by higher sampling rates. Even if ultrasonic frequencies (assuming you can record them well in the first place) affect the perception of space (two pretty big assumptions), look at the D100s frequency response specs: at 96 kHz sampling it's 20 Hz - 40 kHz and at 192 kHz sampling it's 20 Hz - 45 kHz. You're only getting a fraction of an octave increase at 192, at frequencies over twice the generally accepted limits of human hearing. I find it difficult to believe that one extra ultrasonic note will dramatically affect things...The differences you are hearing might be due to improperly controlling the comparison, confirmation bias, or better implementation at one sampling rate (I wouldn't even be too surprised to hear that Sony purposefully manipulated this a bit, given their big hi-res push).
Another interesting thing I noted in those frequency response specs is that they use a different threshold for DSD compared to PCM (-6 dB versus -2 dB). I would be curious to see the DSD range using the same threshold; I'd guess that it would be more limited than PCM if they did so...
YMMV and all that good stuff...
[EDIT: Typo.]
-
Just one point: may I know the output of the D202? As it's discontinued, I can't find that on the web. Is it weaker than that of, say, Beyerdynamic m58's 1.3mV/Pa?
Some D202 specs:
Sensitivity at 1 kHz = 1.6 mV/Pa (0.16 mV/microbar)
Impedance at resp. 125 Hz, 1 kHz and 10 kHz = 200, 300 and 210 ohms
Min. Actual Load Impedance >= 500 ohms
-
I'd be glad to hear a Shure SM57 recording if it's feasible.
I did try a recording with the Shure SM57, but then I remembered that I had this AKG D202, and it sounded more legit:
https://app.box.com/s/7db0ibvdji8x6d796s5o
Thanks for the recording -- it looks stunningly fantastic! Just one point: may I know the output of the D202? As it's discontinued, I can't find that on the web. Is it weaker than that of, say, Beyerdynamic m58's 1.3mV/Pa? My M58 is usable with the LS-100 if you ignore the minor but truly noticeable hiss which is generated (I don't like it), but your recording was virtually broadcast-ready.
BTW, if the recorded voice is yours, you do possess a great broadcast-oriented voice!
Here is a webpage with info on the D202:
http://www.coutant.org/akgd202/index.html
As Tom McCreadie has pointed out, the D202 is 1.6mV/Pa.
The sample I posted was the D202 directly into the mic input of the D100 (XLR to 3.5 mm mono) and recorded at 24/96.
The file was normalized in Audacity and exported as a mono flac file. Nothing else was done to it. So I think the D100 will suit your purposes for broadcast journalism.
Thank you for your kind words re my voice. My younger years were spent consuming vast quantities of cigarettes which no doubt formed my talent. ;D
-
I think the D100 mic preamp is a lot better. Plus it records at 24/192 (my tests were done at 24/96 since that's all the D50 can do) and I found a really audible difference in using the higher rate.
Glad to hear I'm not the only one who also notices the benefits of a hgher sampling rate. :) There are a lot of folk around here that are very sceptical about this. I'm not a bat (or a dog), but I CAN hear a difference. It's in the bigger soundstage, and depth of the recording.
Agreed. It sounds less squashed.
Personally, I think the skepticism is well warranted. As I understand it, a single mic, regardless of sampling rate, will be mono. Information on soundstage/imaging comes from using more than one mic to introduce time and/or amplitude differences, which the ears/brain of the listener uses to perceive spatiality. Most of that perception comes from low frequency sound, so would be unaffected by higher sampling rates. Even if ultrasonic frequencies (assuming you can record them well in the first place) affect the perception of space (two pretty big assumptions), look at the D100s frequency response specs: at 96 kHz sampling it's 20 Hz - 40 kHz and at 192 kHz sampling it's 20 Hz - 45 kHz. You're only getting a fraction of an octave increase at 192, at frequencies over twice the generally accepted limits of human hearing. I find it difficult to believe that one extra ultrasonic note will dramatically affect things...The differences you are hearing might be due to improperly controlling the comparison, confirmation bias, or better implementation at one sampling rate (I wouldn't even be too surprised to hear that Sony purposefully manipulated this a bit, given their big hi-res push).
Another interesting thing I noted in those frequency response specs is that they use a different threshold for DSD compared to PCM (-6 dB versus -2 dB). I would be curious to see the DSD range using the same threshold; I'd guess that it would be more limited than PCM if they did so...
YMMV and all that good stuff...
[EDIT: Typo.]
I hesitate to get into this war because I don't have the technical expertise. But, as they say, I know what I like. I found this quote online and it expresses what I feel I hear:
"I have tweeters that go flat to 60kHz and have still useable output up to 100kHz. Where my ears go to is irrelevant. There is significant content up there harmonically that reinforces the harmonics of the entire frequency spectrum. Any musician who has played an acoustic instrument knows that is the case. I hear the effects of that content above 20kHz on the entire signal below 15kHz."
-
^^^ Interesting quote, but it contains something of a contradiction with respect to sampling rate. As I read it, he is saying that he needs speakers capable of ultrasonic playback to hear the effects of ultrasonic sound on the audible range ("I hear the effects of that content above 20kHz on the entire signal below 15kHz."), But if those effects are in the audible range, then they can be recorded and played back without the ultrasonics. As Lavry puts it (http://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-white-paper-the_optimal_sample_rate_for_quality_audio.pdf (http://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-white-paper-the_optimal_sample_rate_for_quality_audio.pdf)):
It has been well documented that acoustic musical instruments generate energy at frequencies far above audibility. In the performance space (before any recording takes place), if there is any mechanism that enable ultrasonic frequencies to impact what we hear, it would require energy transfer from ultrasonic frequencies to the audible range. Therefore, using microphones and gear that cover what we hear enables us to capture and keep ALL the energy we need. We can store it, convert it and at some point play back all that we need. There is no good reason for keeping what we don’t hear, because everything we heard in the original performance is already there.
Incidentally, I don't know why you say "war". It's just another internet discussion...
-
^^^ Interesting quote, but it contains something of a contradiction with respect to sampling rate. As I read it, he is saying that he needs speakers capable of ultrasonic playback to hear the effects of ultrasonic sound on the audible range ("I hear the effects of that content above 20kHz on the entire signal below 15kHz."), But if those effects are in the audible range, then they can be recorded and played back without the ultrasonics. As Lavry puts it (http://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-white-paper-the_optimal_sample_rate_for_quality_audio.pdf (http://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-white-paper-the_optimal_sample_rate_for_quality_audio.pdf)):
It has been well documented that acoustic musical instruments generate energy at frequencies far above audibility. In the performance space (before any recording takes place), if there is any mechanism that enable ultrasonic frequencies to impact what we hear, it would require energy transfer from ultrasonic frequencies to the audible range. Therefore, using microphones and gear that cover what we hear enables us to capture and keep ALL the energy we need. We can store it, convert it and at some point play back all that we need. There is no good reason for keeping what we don’t hear, because everything we heard in the original performance is already there.
Incidentally, I don't know why you say "war". It's just another internet discussion...
That quote I posted is a bit out of context, because someone had told this guy that there weren't the speakers that could play back hi-res audio.
"War" is sort of tongue-in-cheek, but people seem very entrenched and invested in their opinions on this, and it seems as if it's "either-or" -- you're on one side or the other. And it's also about being told that you can't hear something that you hear.
"There is no good reason for keeping what we don’t hear, because everything we heard in the original performance is already there."
There are people who don't hear any difference between an mp3 and a CD and have the math and the specs to prove that there is no difference.
I remember when friends first played me their CD's and tried to convince me they were better than LP's.
Here's another quote:
"I did a days worth of tests - the same program recorded at 48, 96, and
192k at the same time. We recorded piano, acoustic guitar, percussion,
drums. Not a scientific A/B/C test, but as blind as we could make it.
Everyone (6 people - musicians, engineers, bystander) picked the 192k.
Most telling, the piano player ran into the room after hearing the 192k
from outside the control room saying "I never heard it sound like I hear
it while I'm playing."
You never realize how bad 48k sounds until you do this test. 192k is
pure and airy, 96k has a mid-range grunge that appears, and 48k really
has a lot of the mid-range hardness.
I buy Dan Lavry's argument about poor converter implementation. I buy
all the other audio engineering guru's finding problems with 192k too.
They all make some good points. But I've heard it and I'm convinced it
sounds better.
That being said, I don't go out of my way to record anything at 96k
anymore. It's too much effort for not a lot of advantage in the end for
most types of recording. But if I had to make a real "audiophile"
recording, I'd do it at 192k in a flash."
--
Bobby Owsinski
Surround Associates
http://www.surroundassociates.com
-
That quote I posted is a bit out of context, because someone had told this guy that there weren't the speakers that could play back hi-res audio.
The important thing he said, though, wasn't about the speakers, it was about the audible effects. And if the ultrasonics are affecting the audible range, than you don't need hi-res to record it...
"War" is sort of tongue-in-cheek, but people seem very entrenched and invested in their opinions on this, and it seems as if it's "either-or" -- you're on one side or the other. And it's also about being told that you can't hear something that you hear.
There is solid scientific and mathematical evidence that some of the hi-res claims can not possibly be true, such as more detail. Nyquist is irrefutable in that respect. You can't have better than perfect waveform reconstruction.
And nobody is telling anybody what they can or can't hear. In my earlier post, in fact, I mentioned several possible reasons why someone might hear a difference.
"There is no good reason for keeping what we don’t hear, because everything we heard in the original performance is already there."
He is obviously using the universal "we" to describe what it is possible for humans to hear, physiologically speaking.
As for the new quote, purely anecdotal, of course, and provides no details about how blind it actually was or what the recording chains were (and the link doesn't work). In the end, use whatever sampling rate makes you happy. If you think it sounds better, that's what matters for your recordings. But "less squashed"? Come on. Given a source with a bandwidth up to, say, 40 kHz, Nyquist is clear: 192 can't do a better job than 96 (at least not due to the sampling rate itself). On top of that, as Lavry and others have described, recording at 192 can actually have deleterious effects...
-
That quote I posted is a bit out of context, because someone had told this guy that there weren't the speakers that could play back hi-res audio.
The important thing he said, though, wasn't about the speakers, it was about the audible effects. And if the ultrasonics are affecting the audible range, than you don't need hi-res to record it...
"War" is sort of tongue-in-cheek, but people seem very entrenched and invested in their opinions on this, and it seems as if it's "either-or" -- you're on one side or the other. And it's also about being told that you can't hear something that you hear.
There is solid scientific and mathematical evidence that some of the hi-res claims can not possibly be true, such as more detail. Nyquist is irrefutable in that respect. You can't have better than perfect waveform reconstruction.
And nobody is telling anybody what they can or can't hear. In my earlier post, in fact, I mentioned several possible reasons why someone might hear a difference.
"There is no good reason for keeping what we don’t hear, because everything we heard in the original performance is already there."
He is obviously using the universal "we" to describe what it is possible for humans to hear, physiologically speaking.
As for the new quote, purely anecdotal, of course, and provides no details about how blind it actually was or what the recording chains were (and the link doesn't work). In the end, use whatever sampling rate makes you happy. If you think it sounds better, that's what matters for your recordings. But "less squashed"? Come on. Given a source with a bandwidth up to, say, 40 kHz, Nyquist is clear: 192 can't do a better job than 96 (at least not due to the sampling rate itself). On top of that, as Lavry and others have described, recording at 192 can actually have deleterious effects...
Sorry, you may have all the current numbers on your side, but I don't believe that today's science is the pinnacle of human knowledge. It's been wrong and foolish too many times in the past. What we may discover about hearing and music in the future will make all this seem like tin cans and string.
Therefore, some people may indeed hear something more at 192 and science simply may not be able to explain why -- yet.
But the war of science and art is obvious here. If my description of what I hear are the words "less squashed" and you say "Come on" because you believe only the current numbers can be right, then you are telling me I can't possibly have heard what I heard.
I have been recording the same piano with the same mics at 24/96 for 4 years, and after listening to it recorded at 24/192, it seemed to me to have a more open quality to it which I described as "less squashed". You may say that that is "anecdotal". But all human experience is "anecdotal".
Was I hearing the wrong artifacts? Possibly. Perhaps 192 is a whole new art form. Maybe deleterious effects is a good thing.
Anyway, I'm going to let you have the last word because I really don't have the technical expertise to carry on with this discussion. My perspective is instinctual and I realize that can be boring if we're not having a few beers in a loud bar, trying to shout over the band.
-
I'd be glad to hear a Shure SM57 recording if it's feasible.
I did try a recording with the Shure SM57, but then I remembered that I had this AKG D202, and it sounded more legit:
https://app.box.com/s/7db0ibvdji8x6d796s5o
Thanks for the recording -- it looks stunningly fantastic! Just one point: may I know the output of the D202? As it's discontinued, I can't find that on the web. Is it weaker than that of, say, Beyerdynamic m58's 1.3mV/Pa? My M58 is usable with the LS-100 if you ignore the minor but truly noticeable hiss which is generated (I don't like it), but your recording was virtually broadcast-ready.
BTW, if the recorded voice is yours, you do possess a great broadcast-oriented voice!
Here is a webpage with info on the D202:
http://www.coutant.org/akgd202/index.html
As Tom McCreadie has pointed out, the D202 is 1.6mV/Pa.
The sample I posted was the D202 directly into the mic input of the D100 (XLR to 3.5 mm mono) and recorded at 24/96.
The file was normalized in Audacity and exported as a mono flac file. Nothing else was done to it. So I think the D100 will suit your purposes for broadcast journalism.
Thank you for your kind words re my voice. My younger years were spent consuming vast quantities of cigarettes which no doubt formed my talent. ;D
That's indeed the case. The D100 is, among other things, a great broadcast/interview-oriented recorder as demonstrated by the sample you provided. Also thanks for the info regarding the D202.
-
Sorry, you may have all the current numbers on your side, but I don't believe that today's science is the pinnacle of human knowledge. It's been wrong and foolish too many times in the past. What we may discover about hearing and music in the future will make all this seem like tin cans and string.
Therefore, some people may indeed hear something more at 192 and science simply may not be able to explain why -- yet.
But the war of science and art is obvious here. If my description of what I hear are the words "less squashed" and you say "Come on" because you believe only the current numbers can be right, then you are telling me I can't possibly have heard what I heard.
I have been recording the same piano with the same mics at 24/96 for 4 years, and after listening to it recorded at 24/192, it seemed to me to have a more open quality to it which I described as "less squashed". You may say that that is "anecdotal". But all human experience is "anecdotal".
Was I hearing the wrong artifacts? Possibly. Perhaps 192 is a whole new art form. Maybe deleterious effects is a good thing.
Anyway, I'm going to let you have the last word because I really don't have the technical expertise to carry on with this discussion. My perspective is instinctual and I realize that can be boring if we're not having a few beers in a loud bar, trying to shout over the band.
The theory and math are correct. Shannon actually formally proved it and the gazillion implementations prove it further. The physiological evidence is pretty solid too.
As I understand it, the implementation is where differences can arise. Obviously, there are real world physical and engineering constraints involved in making an ADC; the extent to which the designers can successfully deal with those can impact how they sound. Converters can differ considerably in quality and even a given converter can do better or worse at different sampling frequencies. I'd much rather have a great converter at 48 kHz than a crappy one at, well, any sampling rate. If you are sampling above the Nyquist rate, it is the converter that matters not the sampling frequency itself...
-
Quite strangely, B&H has delayed the shipment of the D100. They're now talking about a March 31st availability: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1008089-REG/sony_pcm_d100_portable_stereo_field.html
Perhaps Sony should learn a lesson or two from their newly revised Xperia line of smartphones -- delaying shipment is dangerous especially if your product is a tad on the pricey side -- and without a couple of features some might found necessary or missing (XLR/phantom power).
-
I was talking to Sony about the PCM-D100 at BVE in London this week.
They said they had to make some changes to comply with the European EC regulations which is why it is not in Europe yet (but should be at any moment).
Maybe the delay in the US is due to the EC compliant version being rolled out across the board ???
-
I was talking to Sony about the PCM-D100 at BVE in London this week.
They said they had to make some changes to comply with the European EC regulations which is why it is not in Europe yet (but should be at any moment).
Maybe the delay in the US is due to the EC compliant version being rolled out across the board ???
Do you happen to know -- or can you guess -- what those changes might be?
-
Dogmusic,
William Thomson, 1st Lord Kelvin summed it up nicely:
“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.”
Another point: if you feed the usual tweeters ultrasonic sound, you can expect audible intermodulation products. The membranes do not behave very well when operated above the audio range. Look up "partial resonances". So maybe what you hear at higher sampling rates is not a better reproduction of sound, but a preferred certain amount of high frequency distortion. Remember the Aphex Aural Exciter? Same principle...
Greetings,
Rainer
-
I was talking to Sony about the PCM-D100 at BVE in London this week.
They said they had to make some changes to comply with the European EC regulations which is why it is not in Europe yet (but should be at any moment).
Maybe the delay in the US is due to the EC compliant version being rolled out across the board ???
Do you happen to know -- or can you guess -- what those changes might be?
They didn't say - but as EC regulations refer to RF interference I guess that it may have needed extra shielding to prevent RF getting out / coming in.
-
[They didn't say - but as EC regulations refer to RF interference I guess that it may have needed extra shielding to prevent RF getting out / coming in.
Well I bought mine from Hong Kong before Xmas, so does that mean I may have a RF problem?
-
Sorry for my english:
When i see discussions about sample rates. i always smile and laught :) Because 99% don't know anything about it. So, listen to me:
1. CD is better than viyl. (if the mastering year is equal) Because cd is wave 16/44 and vinyl is 16/44 + 3 stages of distortion.
2. There is no digital or analog sound. All sound is analog, bacause sound is a oscillation. Analog or digital can be only representation of the sound
3. All vinyl is wave 16/44 or sometimes 24/96 files, with the addition of distortion during recording on vinyl, with the addition of distortion during cutting vinyl and with the addition of distortion during playback. "Warmth" of vinyl sound is just layering distortion that looks nice :) Vinyl is the most distorted sound. So, "pleasure" of listening to vinyl is nothing but sympathy for the severely distorted sound. Vinyl is a distorted wave. Distorted to make many people happy :D
4. If you say that wave 24/96 is better than 24/192, you must say that a photo 500 on 500 is better that it's 3000 on 3000 original jpeg. Then more the rate, then more accurate representation of sound we have.
5. The best, with 0% of distortion, music format is: uncompressed 24 bit file, played using good dac on PC or laptop (not cd, cd also adds 0.000000000001% of distortion)
6. We cannot hear the difference between anything higher that 20Khz. But we can feel this difference. You cannot hear difference between 16/44 and 24/192, but you can feel it and see it truly. Ears are not the only things which we use in listening: yes, ear cannon hear something higher 20khz. Download wave 16/44 and make 16/20 khz from it. No difference? ;D ;D ;D
-
4. If you say that wave 24/96 is better than 24/192, you must say that a photo 500 on 500 is better that it's 3000 on 3000 original jpeg. Then more the rate, then more accurate representation of sound we have.
That's an intuitively attractive analogy. Unfortunately, it doesn't hold. As long as you are sampling at a rate greater than twice the highest frequency in the sample, you can perfectly recreate the waveform. After that, there is no improvement in accuracy. That's the essence of the sampling theorem.
6. We cannot hear the difference between anything higher that 20Khz. But we can feel this difference. You cannot hear difference between 16/44 and 24/192, but you can feel it and see it truly. Ears are not the only things which we use in listening: yes, ear cannon hear something higher 20khz. Download wave 16/44 and make 16/20 khz from it. No difference? ;D ;D ;D
The example makes no sense; of course you'll hear the difference between 44.1 kHz (which covers the entire audible frequency range) and 20 kHz, which cuts out a large swath of the audible frequency range (above 10 kHz). As to feeling the difference with ultrasonic content, well, perhaps. As I recall, the papers on this that found ultrasonic perception referred to bone conducted, and not air conducted, sound. The air conducted studies haven't shown the same.
-
I found an english PCM-D100 PDF manual on the Sony UK site. It was kind of a pain to find and I had to register to download it. I uploaded it to Mega.nz for anyone that's interested in reading it.
PCM-D100.pdf 1.4 MB
https://mega.co.nz/#!DoRTzQpa!PK_bEpJK1DPfgpe5sJYb6ZKrrxXaFu5vuJOE28iWTFk (https://mega.co.nz/#!DoRTzQpa!PK_bEpJK1DPfgpe5sJYb6ZKrrxXaFu5vuJOE28iWTFk)
Mega downloads can be finicky. If you have troubles try another browser like Firefox.
Has anyone found PCM-D100 samples in .dff or .dsf files yet? All I can find are wav conversions. I've got Foobar2000 configured to play .dff using the DSDIFF plugin on my ASUS Xonar Essence STX.
Cheers,
SDBirder
-
Has anyone found PCM-D100 samples in .dff or .dsf files yet? All I can find are wav conversions. I've got Foobar2000 configured to play .dff using the DSDIFF plugin on my ASUS Xonar Essence STX.
I put one up earlier in this thread but I think the link will be expired now. I can put another up if you want.
-
Yes please. I just found your old post and the link has indeed expired.
Cheers
-
Ok, new link below for 90 sec .DSF clip. Some support band I taped from stage front, not my cup of tea really, but has a nice smooth analogue-like sound IMO. Not 100% sure if I prefer DSD over LPCM yet.
DPA4061>BB>D100
http://we.tl/FS3N05bqK8
-
I downloaded the file, but I none of my players or DAWS will recognise it, any ideas ?
-
Download Audiogate free dsf program, or use Foobar with dsf drivers added on.
-
Download Audiogate free dsf program, or use Foobar with dsf drivers added on.
I had a look at Audiogate but it needs
A KORG MR series product or
A valid Twitter account
to activate it, and I have neither.
I'll investigate Foobar but I think that is only a player, How do you actually edit
a DSF file ?
-
Not many programs will edit DSD, and none are free or even cheap. Pyramix is probably the most accessible one. I didn't have a Twitter account either but just created a bogus one so that I could use Audiogate.
-
Pyramix, £526 + VAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think I'll stick with .WAV.
-
Pyramix, £526 + VAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think I'll stick with .WAV.
This was the main reason I'm sticking with 24bit WAV for now!
-
Maybe it's worth waiting until someone can document a double blind test demonstrating that people can hear a difference between PCM at 44.1/16 and some other "hi-rez" format.
I've been waiting for years and years.
As soon as one leaves behind a true and valid test one is in "golden ear" land, and we know that way lies madness like $2000 per inch interconnects, green markers on CD edges, and little pyramids to hold cables off the floor.
Fran
-
Maybe it's worth waiting until someone can document a double blind test demonstrating that people can hear a difference between PCM at 44.1/16 and some other "hi-rez" format.
I've been waiting for years and years.
As soon as one leaves behind a true and valid test one is in "golden ear" land, and we know that way lies madness like $2000 per inch interconnects, green markers on CD edges, and little pyramids to hold cables off the floor.
Fran
This.
Well said, Fran.
-
I guess I should sell all my gear and go back to running a dat deck again
-
I guess I should sell all my gear and go back to running a dat deck again
Put a top-notch A/D in front of it and I would agree. The point is related to the recording format, not the sub-par line/mics stage of portable dat decks manufactured in the 80s/90s.
The ratio of conjecture/anecdotes to comps on this forum is too damn high.
-
4. If you say that wave 24/96 is better than 24/192, you must say that a photo 500 on 500 is better that it's 3000 on 3000 original jpeg. Then more the rate, then more accurate representation of sound we have.
That's an intuitively attractive analogy. Unfortunately, it doesn't hold. As long as you are sampling at a rate greater than twice the highest frequency in the sample, you can perfectly recreate the waveform. After that, there is no improvement in accuracy. That's the essence of the sampling theorem.
6. We cannot hear the difference between anything higher that 20Khz. But we can feel this difference. You cannot hear difference between 16/44 and 24/192, but you can feel it and see it truly. Ears are not the only things which we use in listening: yes, ear cannon hear something higher 20khz. Download wave 16/44 and make 16/20 khz from it. No difference? ;D ;D ;D
The example makes no sense; of course you'll hear the difference between 44.1 kHz (which covers the entire audible frequency range) and 20 kHz, which cuts out a large swath of the audible frequency range (above 10 kHz). As to feeling the difference with ultrasonic content, well, perhaps. As I recall, the papers on this that found ultrasonic perception referred to bone conducted, and not air conducted, sound. The air conducted studies haven't shown the same.
Egor is spot on. I record 24/44.1 all the time. And I've compared those recordings to the samples I've made 16/44.1. You can definitely "feel" the resolution between the 2 formats. But your ears must be dialed in for it. I have spent marathon 12+ hours on editing just one show. What he is saying has to deal with acute senses. That said, I'll never record 16/44.1 from what I learned working with my recordings. AMOF, I'll never record 24/48 because of the bump of 2khz in the highs...... makes me crazy. So there you have it. :P
-
^^^ Except we were discussing sampling rate and not bit depth...
-
I was joking above - I will still record at 24bit 96khz and 1bit 2.8Mhz DSD
And I do think dsd sounds better then PCM - it is a completely different approach to converting analog to digital
-
I guess I should sell all my gear and go back to running a dat deck again
Does your current rig offer any convenience benefits over DAT? Audio quality is one part of recording gear but is far from the totality, isn't it?
If you create carefully level matched double-blind comparisons of your DAT capture and your current rig can you tell the difference? I've done this with various recording systems and rejected those that didn't measure up in objective comparisons.
Are you aware of how powerfully bias effects impact what we humans "hear?" Are you aware of the years of testing that have demonstrated the uselessness of sighted comparisons?
Do you use little pyramids to keep your speaker cables off the floor? If not, why not, since David Gilmour did. Surely you wouldn't question the validity of his testimonial, would you?
Are you _really_ interested in knowing the impact of the gear you buy, or are you simply working to have the coolest sig? It's not a snap to do these comparisons well, but the results can really change the way one thinks about audio gear.
Fran
-
Nice thing - price on D50 is now two times higher =) I think, that the reason is that everyone understands, that d100 mics are equal to d50. And only fool can pay 1000$ for a recorder with dsd-format which he will never use because in cannot be edited (EVEN PYRAMIX DAW MAKES A DXD FROM DSD (24 BIT 384 KHZ), THERE IS NO PROGRAM TO EDIT AND ADD EFFECTS TO DSD) and cannot be played by 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of people. 24/96 d50 is equal to d100's 24 bit waves. But now....price of d50 is about 700-800, a month earlier it was 400 :))) so no one now can get sound of d100 saving 600$ and buyng d50))
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid=p5360.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.XSony+PCM-D50+&_nkw=Sony+PCM-D50+&_sacat=0&_from=R40
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Professional-Portable-24-bit-Recorder/dp/B000WTWXFE/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1394762376&sr=8-3&keywords=sony+pcm+d50
-
I guess I should sell all my gear and go back to running a dat deck again
Does your current rig offer any convenience benefits over DAT? Audio quality is one part of recording gear but is far from the totality, isn't it?
If you create carefully level matched double-blind comparisons of your DAT capture and your current rig can you tell the difference? I've done this with various recording systems and rejected those that didn't measure up in objective comparisons.
Are you aware of how powerfully bias effects impact what we humans "hear?" Are you aware of the years of testing that have demonstrated the uselessness of sighted comparisons?
Do you use little pyramids to keep your speaker cables off the floor? If not, why not, since David Gilmour did. Surely you wouldn't question the validity of his testimonial, would you?
Are you _really_ interested in knowing the impact of the gear you buy, or are you simply working to have the coolest sig? It's not a snap to do these comparisons well, but the results can really change the way one thinks about audio gear.
Fran
Come on really ::)
-
Nice thing - price on D50 is now two times higher =) I think, that the reason is that everyone understands, that d100 mics are equal to d50. And only fool can pay 1000$ for a recorder with dsd-.....
D50/D100 owners, is that true? I'm not inclined to believe that -- maybe the D50's price hike reflects the renewed interest in that old recorder because the D100's shipment has been delayed.
I've not yet been able to get the D100, but Sony clearly mentions "redesigned microphones" in its description of the D100. Nothing, however, can prove that better than a side-by-side comparison of both recorders in action -- PCM please! :)
-
on 12 -19 page you can find d50 and d100 side by side, using built in mics. everyome who heard, said there is no difference. but..yes, redesigned mics - now they are plastic, and d50 has metal)))))
-
on 12 -19 page you can find d50 and d100 side by side, using built in mics. everyome who heard, said there is no difference. but..yes, redesigned mics - now they are plastic, and d50 has metal)))))
Is it necessarily a bad thing given the fact that the mics of the D100 are reportedly larger?
-
http://www.avisoft.com/recordertests.htm
-
http://www.avisoft.com/recordertests.htm
So the D100 finally found its way into that famous table? :) Based on the information presented there, the D100 beats the D50 in many ways though it still remains to be seen what that victory translates to in real-life situations. I haven't heard D50 and D100 internal mic recordings side by side.
-
http://www.avisoft.com/recordertests.htm
So the D100 finally found its way into that famous table? :) Based on the information presented there, the D100 beats the D50 in many ways though it still remains to be seen what that victory translates to in real-life situations. I haven't heard D50 and D100 internal mic recordings side by side.
-------------- dogmusic
Trade Count: (0)
Taperssection Member
Posts: 436
Re: Sony PCM-D100
« Reply #233 on: February 23, 2014, 02:12:19 PM »
Quote
Here are mic-in and line-in preamp comps of the D50 and D100.
I don't have a phantom power adapter to go mic-in with the Beyers, so I used an old battery-powered SONY ECM-979 stereo mic, its output split into the mic-ins of the two recorders.
The line-in test was done Beyer MC 930's>Audient MICO>splitter>line-ins of the two recorders.
D50 mic-in: https://app.box.com/s/h3k31ctarpdsq7zu0621
D100 mic-in: https://app.box.com/s/qkkpxn4swvfvp2k5thn9
-----------------------------------------------------------
-
http://www.avisoft.com/recordertests.htm
So the D100 finally found its way into that famous table? :) Based on the information presented there, the D100 beats the D50 in many ways though it still remains to be seen what that victory translates to in real-life situations. I haven't heard D50 and D100 internal mic recordings side by side.
-------------- dogmusic
Trade Count: (0)
Taperssection Member
Posts: 436
Re: Sony PCM-D100
« Reply #233 on: February 23, 2014, 02:12:19 PM »
Quote
Here are mic-in and line-in preamp comps of the D50 and D100.
I don't have a phantom power adapter to go mic-in with the Beyers, so I used an old battery-powered SONY ECM-979 stereo mic, its output split into the mic-ins of the two recorders.
The line-in test was done Beyer MC 930's>Audient MICO>splitter>line-ins of the two recorders.
D50 mic-in: https://app.box.com/s/h3k31ctarpdsq7zu0621
D100 mic-in: https://app.box.com/s/qkkpxn4swvfvp2k5thn9
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thanks -- I'd listened to those great recordings a few weeks ago. However, with my previous message I meant that I was looking for recordings prepared in a more controlled setting. With these recordings I can detect virtually no difference between the 2 recorders -- even with pro headphones at work.
-
:D in stock at B&H. Just ordered mine! Can't wait.
-
:D in stock at B&H. Just ordered mine! Can't wait.
Dear Sunflute, great news! Could you, please, upload some files after getting this device? I mean voice) On a max level pcm 24/192 and dsd in 1 meter from device. Etc) pleeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaase! :D
-
Hello Everyone, So far in early testing, I Love this recorder.....definitely much better than the previous PCM-D50 and way better than the Tascam DR 100 MKII. I love the sound of the DSD recording option in fact I think it's a good way to feel a DSLR camera for nice, analog sounding video (even if the signal then gets converted back to compressed format). I tried doing some testing at 192PCM and 2.8DSD and I think I prefer the DSD sound. Hopefully in the next week or so I'll put some samples up for everyone to hear! The build quality is also fantastic!
-
Hello Everyone, So far in early testing, I Love this recorder.....definitely much better than the previous PCM-D50 and way better than the Tascam DR 100 MKII. I love the sound of the DSD recording option in fact I think it's a good way to feel a DSLR camera for nice, analog sounding video (even if the signal then gets converted back to compressed format). I tried doing some testing at 192PCM and 2.8DSD and I think I prefer the DSD sound. Hopefully in the next week or so I'll put some samples up for everyone to hear! The build quality is also fantastic!
amazing news, we are waiting for your pcm 24/192 and dsd samples so much!!!!!! it will be good to hear samples of voice (or guitar) at max rec gain using built in mics.
-
Hello Everyone, So far in early testing, I Love this recorder.....definitely much better than the previous PCM-D50 and way better than the Tascam DR 100 MKII. I love the sound of the DSD recording option in fact I think it's a good way to feel a DSLR camera for nice, analog sounding video (even if the signal then gets converted back to compressed format). I tried doing some testing at 192PCM and 2.8DSD and I think I prefer the DSD sound. Hopefully in the next week or so I'll put some samples up for everyone to hear! The build quality is also fantastic!
If this test isn't of any value to you, then please don't bother going to the effort, but I would really love to know how it sounds playing your 24-bit recordings, via the SPDIF optical output to a DAC and amp of your choice -and- via the analog Line Out to an amp of your choice, using the D100's own DAC.
In other words, how well does it play what you've recorded (as opposed to removing the microSD card and taking it elsewhere for editing and playback)?
Thank you!
Mike
-
Would there by any audible difference in what is being recorded between the PCM d50 and PCMd100 using the DIGITAL INPUT? (i.e. from a Sound Devices USBpre2 )
THANKS.
-
No
-
Revealing my ignorance of DSD, with this question...
Does anyone know if using the D100's optical output would in any way degrade the playback of a DSD recording?
I'm comfortable with assuming that analog output from the D100's DAC would not diminish DSD recordings and that the headphone out (via its very weak 25mW into 16-Ohm amp section) would be OK, as well, but what about the optical out (SPDFIF)?
Thanks!
Mike
-
Optical out is pcm only - I don't know if the d100 allows DSD audio (converting to PCM first) out of the optical output though
-
Thanks!
-
Interested to hear if anyone jumped from the D50 to the D100 and if there are any dramatic differences. I love my D50.
-
Optical out is pcm only - I don't know if the d100 allows DSD audio (converting to PCM first) out of the optical output though
OK, I sent this query to Sony Pro Support:
Does the PCM-D100's optical output (S/PDIF) support DSD2.8 playback without degradation of any kind?
Similarly, does the optical output (S/PDIF) support LPCM 192kHz/24bit playback without degradation? I'm pretty sure it can transport 192kHz/24bit LPCM, but I'm most concerned about the DSD2.8.
Please advise.
Thank you!
Mike
Here's the reply from Sony:
Hi Mike
Yes PCM-D100 optical does output DSD 2.8, LPCM this output is digital data no degradation is present, see attached ops manual page 86
Regards, thanks for choosing Sony.
Here's what he was referencing, from page 86 (specifications) of the PCM-D100 Operating Instructions:
Signal-to-noise ratio (S/N)
(Input from the LINE IN (OPT) jack, output from LINE OUT (OPT) jack when recording/playing back) (1 kHz IHF-A)
....DSD 2.8MHz/1bit: 98 dB or above
....LPCM 192kHz/176.4kHz/96kHz/88.2 kHz/48kHz/44.1 kHz 24bit: 96 dB or above (for /S/N 100dB OFF)/100 dB or above (for S/N 100dB ON)
Total harmonic distortion
(Input from the LINE IN (OPT) jack, output from LINE OUT (OPT) jack when recording/playing back)
....DSD 2.8MHz 1bit: 0.008% or below (1 kHz, 22 kHz LPF)
....LPCM 192kHz/176.4kHz 24bit, 96kHz/88.2kHz/48kHz/44.1kHz 16bit/24bit: 0.006% or below (1 kHz, 22 kHz LPF)
I find it hard to believe that the Optical Out of the the hybrid connector labeled "LINE OUT (OPT)" can actually deliver "DSD2.8 S/PDIF" to an external DAC, as my recent study of this topic has me believing there's no such thing as a 1-bit/2.8MHz mode for S/PDIF. And if so, why can't I find any DACs that can accept this on an Optical Input?
At best, the PCM-D100's DSD2.8 playback must be getting converted to 192 kHz/24-bit LPCM. More research is needed, but I think Sony's in-house email answer guy is cluelessly misinterpreting the specs. They are not broken down to show Analog Line Out specs vs. Optical Out specs.
What do you guys think?
Mike
-
Their is a protocol called DSD over PCM (some call it DoP) but this is typically run over USB - from what I have read it requires running PCM at 32bit 384khz or something like that so as to not affect timing - and maybe tied to DSD128 not DSD64 as the sony uses
I may be wrong on the speed but DoP requires a DoP capable DAC and the only ones I have seen use USB - it is a newer technology
-
This is an interesting topic & I'm glad to see the DSD vs 24 bit argument resurface again. I used to own the Korg MR1000 & to my ears there is a noticeable improvement in sound quality vs 24 bit. In fact it is so noticeable that I have just ordered the Ifi Audio IDSD for my headphone system. It plays native DSD files with no processing, the guys at Ifi Audio really seem to get it. I don't know how many of you spend anytime over at Head-fi but those guys take their listening very seriously & they have a wealth of knowledge in regards to high Rez files. Which brings me to my question, it's the age old question really that doesn't require a specific answer but more of a thought process. Those of you who can or can't hear differences in file types or bit depth, what is your playback system? There is a significant difference in everyone's playback systems & in my opinion it is part of the reason why there are so many different opinions in what one person can hear over another. Again, not a contest on who's got the better playback just a thought. Here's the link for Inano DSD
http://www.ifi-audio.com/en/nano_iDSD.html
-
Aside from the dsd functionality, which I have admittedly not used...am I crazy for thinking the d100 does not sound nearly as good as the d1 at 24/44.1? My d1 got stolen (after 5 years of making solid recordings) and instead of tracking down a replacement, I opted to wait for the d100 release. So far i'm not sure it is a suitable replacement for the d1. My main issue is that the d100 seems to not handle high volumes as well, like say band practice in a small room. In this same room, with the same level settings, same resolution, the d1 would effortlessly produce a flawless rendering, without any -20 cut engaged. The d100 seems to distort a bit at high volumes, even when the meters are in the clear. Also, d100 seems to have more audible noise floor, whereas the d1 self noise was basically non-existent. After years of working with the d1, the d100 feels and sounds "prosumer" to me, rather than pro audio, which is what I was afraid of when I ordered it. I wish I had more time to put it through its paces, maybe I would eventually realize that it is a suitable replacement for the d1. Even the d100 user manual makes no indication of utilizing it for capturing live shows and events...which is another use I have for it. It suggests using it for stuff like recording yourself "practicing" acoustic guitar and recording nature sounds. Good stuff for sure, and stuff I do, but what about a high res recording of the SF symphony? d1...no problem. Any thoughts?
-
Aside from the dsd functionality, which I have admittedly not used...am I crazy for thinking the d100 does not sound nearly as good as the d1 at 24/44.1? My d1 got stolen (after 5 years of making solid recordings) and instead of tracking down a replacement, I opted to wait for the d100 release. So far i'm not sure it is a suitable replacement for the d1. My main issue is that the d100 seems to not handle high volumes as well, like say band practice in a small room. In this same room, with the same level settings, same resolution, the d1 would effortlessly produce a flawless rendering, without any -20 cut engaged. The d100 seems to distort a bit at high volumes, even when the meters are in the clear. Also, d100 seems to have more audible noise floor, whereas the d1 self noise was basically non-existent. After years of working with the d1, the d100 feels and sounds "prosumer" to me, rather than pro audio, which is what I was afraid of when I ordered it. I wish I had more time to put it through its paces, maybe I would eventually realize that it is a suitable replacement for the d1. Even the d100 user manual makes no indication of utilizing it for capturing live shows and events...which is another use I have for it. It suggests using it for stuff like recording yourself "practicing" acoustic guitar and recording nature sounds. Good stuff for sure, and stuff I do, but what about a high res recording of the SF symphony? d1...no problem. Any thoughts?
Could you, please, upload dsd samples of d100? recording chord playing D-G-Cadd9? I mean bright simple chords. Please!!!!! There is no acoustic guitar recording of d100 on web!
-
My main issue is that the d100 seems to not handle high volumes as well, like say band practice in a small room. In this same room, with the same level settings, same resolution, the d1 would effortlessly produce a flawless rendering, without any -20 cut engaged. The d100 seems to distort a bit at high volumes, even when the meters are in the clear. Also, d100 seems to have more audible noise floor, whereas the d1 self noise was basically non-existent. ... d1...no problem. Any thoughts?
Did you use the D1 and D100 with the built in mics or external ones?
Noam
-
I used the built-in mics...which have worked well for my purposes over the years. I'm actually really disappointed that the d100 has performed so badly with the live band recordings, because it has a ton of features which would be great to have that i'll miss when going back to a d1 or d50 (32GB, DSD, etc..). The d100 actually does sound incredible when recording quieter sources, so it's super frustrating that it can't handle the loud stuff too, like the older models could. So close to greatness!
Just to be sure before returning the d100, I took it out to a loud show in SF last night and tried to see what i could get. From 20' from the stage, input set around 2-3, meters never clip..and the results were the worst sounding recording I've ever made with a Sony PCM recorder. Full of weird pops and distortion uncharacteristic of the line.
I saw another thread on here by someone else having the same problem with recording loud shows.
-
Sounds like the preamps do not have a lot of headroom or it is meant to be used in that circumstance with an input pad on (does it have that feature?) Try it with the input pad on.
-
I don't know if Sony has deliberately changed the ability of the internal mics to handle high SPL, but at least two people here seem to have issues. Whilst the manual gives little away, the Sony press release info did state that the internal mics are "highly sensitive", pandering to the nature recorders. It would have been helpful if they had put some numbers to this so that punters can make their own minds up. Thinking about it now, I did a very brief test run with the internal mics just outisde my house. It was quite a windy day but the dawn chorus was in full swing, and the levels were clipping occasionally even with the 20dB pad engaged. I thought nothing of it at the time.
However, it is a superb deck when using external mics, no question.
-
I used the built-in mics...which have worked well for my purposes over the years. I'm actually really disappointed that the d100 has performed so badly with the live band recordings, because it has a ton of features which would be great to have that i'll miss when going back to a d1 or d50 (32GB, DSD, etc..). The d100 actually does sound incredible when recording quieter sources, so it's super frustrating that it can't handle the loud stuff too, like the older models could. So close to greatness!
Just to be sure before returning the d100, I took it out to a loud show in SF last night and tried to see what i could get. From 20' from the stage, input set around 2-3, meters never clip..and the results were the worst sounding recording I've ever made with a Sony PCM recorder. Full of weird pops and distortion uncharacteristic of the line.
I saw another thread on here by someone else having the same problem with recording loud shows.
Could you, please, upload some guitar files using built in mics? There is no audiosamples of d100 in the internet
-
Sorry I returned the d100 to b&h..I don't know if my experience using the built-in mics to record high SPL sources are indicative of what most users can expect (maybe my unit was defective?) but there was no way that thing was going to work for what I need it for most of the time, which is recording bands. I think the comment about the preamps not having a lot of headroom is a possibility...hopefully if this is a real problem for enough people it will prompt Sony to make some changes to their design.
In the meantime, found a good deal on a slightly used D1.. :)
-
I would not be surprised if the preamps are not as good as the D1. If using the digital in, it should be as good as any (and better than the D1 since the D1 does not have a digital input.)
But without the digital in - it appears the jury is out on that one.
-
I would say the jury is out on the preamps not just digital-input
The AD section is much better then the m10, D1, and D50 as it offers up to 24/192 and DSD64
Personally I could care less about the internal mics or internal preamps - there is only one hand held recorder I would buy for it's internal preamps and that is the Sonosax minir82 - all the rest are cost focused designed preamps and are not going to be Pro level (the D1 may be an exception as sony didn't hold back on it)
-
Thanks for the input guys..I'm primarily interested in these units for their portability and the fact that I don't need to pack mics, cables, stands, cases, et al. just to make a decent recording of something. but throughout this thread I've become curious about the results I might achieve through external mics..I have a few nice ones laying around.
Sounds like people have a lot of different reasons for why these units will or won't work for them. With returning the d100, I did feel a sense of regret that I was forgoing some of the more modern AD stuff mentioned below, in favor of technology from almost a decade ago. Assuming the unit I had was not defective, if Sony were to address the SPL issue in a future update, I'd be all about the d100.
Until then, I suppose...I didn't plan to do much DSD recording to begin with.
-
Thanks for the input guys..I'm primarily interested in these units for their portability and the fact that I don't need to pack mics, cables, stands, cases, et al. just to make a decent recording of something.
---
Until then, I suppose...I didn't plan to do much DSD recording to begin with.
So why not try the D50 or M10?
Noam
-
Guys, would you please recommend a good XLR to mini jack adapter suitable for the D100 -- preferably on Photo Video? I'd like to use it to connect dynamic mics to the D100.
Thanks.
-
Thanks for the input guys..I'm primarily interested in these units for their portability and the fact that I don't need to pack mics, cables, stands, cases, et al. just to make a decent recording of something.
---
Until then, I suppose...I didn't plan to do much DSD recording to begin with.
So why not try the D50 or M10?
Noam
Good question...I was considering bringing that stuff up, but didn't presume anyone to be interested.
I was very close to going with the D50 this time instead of D1, if for the only reason you can still find new backstock of D50 from Japan or Korea on ebay. I think its impossible to find a new D1 in box, at least it would be very rare. It was not my first preference to buy a used D1, but the seller has a good reputation for being honest and trustworthy. The price and condition description were right.
I have owned a D50 in the past before my first D1. I know it is a solid unit, and sound-wise there is not enough difference between it and the D1 to base a decision off of. But there are a few minor things I prefer on the D1 hardware side which I feel suit my needs better. Nit-picky personal things..
I don't like how the D50 has one input knob for both channels. I do tend to set those levels independently of one another based on the angle of the unit from the source. I was glad to see the d100 inherited that feature from the D1.
This one is hard to describe...I don't like how the D50 replaced the D1s "pivoting head" mic design with an adjustable x-y spread for each mic. I tend to find that the tight x-y stereo config yields better results no matter what the source (personally), so I don't mind sacrificing the adjustable x-y feature with D1. I much prefer the "pivoting head" design for setting recording levels for my own performances when I am alone. I find it very convenient to be able to point the mics at myself (the source) tilt the D1 down towards the ground, and then pop the mics up level with me. This way I can still see the meters from where I am sitting from as I play (they are upside down obviously), and I can adjust if needed while holding an instrument. You cant do that with the d50 or d100. You need to guess at the recording levels, record a bit, stop, walk around to the other side of the unit, listen back and check the levels, make adjustments, etc..just because you cant see the meters while sitting in front of the recorder. I hope that one makes sense because its a big one in my mind.
Lastly, I don't prefer the optical input found on all models besides the D1. None of my mixers feature optical outs (I had a DAT once that did..) so the 1/8" stereo input on the D1 makes it more compatible with my studio gear if my objective is to use the D1 for transferring line level audio from say a 1/2" tape machine via mixer. I never use it for that, but its a good option in theory.
There might be more, but those are the main reasons.
I've never looked too closely at the M10, but I did hear that it was a little noisier than the other three units...so that plus all the above for the M10.
-
Guys, would you please recommend a good XLR to mini jack adapter suitable for the D100 -- preferably on Photo Video? I'd like to use it to connect dynamic mics to the D100.
Thanks.
You mean a Y cable? I just did a search last week and found a few on Amazon (for example - http://tinyurl.com/l7s345u - there are others).
But - this means unbalancing the connection. Is this such a straightforward issue as just another cable? It doesn't require a (possibly expensive) box like the SONY XLR-1?
Noam
-
Guys, would you please recommend a good XLR to mini jack adapter suitable for the D100 -- preferably on Photo Video? I'd like to use it to connect dynamic mics to the D100.
Thanks.
You mean a Y cable? I just did a search last week and found a few on Amazon (for example - http://tinyurl.com/l7s345u - there are others).
But - this means unbalancing the connection. Is this such a straightforward issue as just another cable? It doesn't require a (possibly expensive) box like the SONY XLR-1?
Noam
Yes, it seems that such a cable would work -- I should give it a thorough look. I just want a cable/adapter to connect dynamic mics (Beyerdynamic M58 and Sennheiser MD46) to the D100 and don't need phantom power. So far, I haven't been able to locate such a cable on B&H -- do you know if it is offered there?
Admittedly, with such a price point -- and given the not-so-exciting experience of a couple of users here with the D100's internal mics -- I'm still wondering why Sony forewent XLR connections with the D100. If Zoom can incorporate 4 XLR connections into a $400 recorder -- the H6, couldn't Sony add 2 of them to an $800 recorder -- the D100? I really don't buy the price vs feature ratio because, well, at least according to what we've heard so far the difference between the internals of the D100 and, say, Olympus LS-100 are nominal at best. I'm getting the D100 primarily to pair it with my USBPre2 and if Zoom H6 had digital-in, I wouldn't hesitate to get it -- what the H6 offers with its internal mics I get with my Olympus LS-100 and their preamps are more or less equal. I need digital-in which, as far as available products are concerned, only the D100 and the DR-100MKII offer and I don't like Tascam's product here either. Sadly, low-output dynamic mics which I mentioned in this post (especially Beyer M58) don't work very well with the LS-100 or the DR-100MKII.
-
The D50 has a digital input and it words great with the USBpre2.
I don't know how you are going to do better than a D50 with a USBpre2 unless you go to a Nagra or Sonosax, I suppose.
-
The D50 has a digital input and it words great with the USBpre2.
I don't know how you are going to do better than a D50 with a USBpre2 unless you go to a Nagra or Sonosax, I suppose.
You are absolutely right about the D50. But it's no longer available -- at least from major retailers, in online shops and with acceptable warranties. Even if it's within reach (not in my region), the price difference between the D50 and the D100 is rather minimal.
-
Good point. Unless you are savings hundreds of dollars - if you are going digital in - get the D100. If for anything, the fact that the storage capability is much better (i.e. larger internal storage and larger external card capacity.)
-
Good point. Unless you are savings hundreds of dollars - if you are going digital in - get the D100. If for anything, the fact that the storage capability is much better (i.e. larger internal storage and larger external card capacity.)
I've also considered Tascam DR-100MKII and Marantz PMD661MKII which have digital-in, but something mysterious makes me gravitate towards the D100. Perhaps since I already have the USBPre2, I don't feel the need to utilize XLR/preamp capabilities on something which is, in effect, inferior to USBPre2 -- my favorite.
-
Guys, I've found a very interesting new recording which demonstrates the capabilities of the D100's internal mics. It's worth listening: https://soundcloud.com/therecordist/sony-pcm-d100-trains
-
Guys, I've found a very interesting new recording which demonstrates the capabilities of the D100's internal mics. It's worth listening: https://soundcloud.com/therecordist/sony-pcm-d100-trains
Thank you! Do you know, is there some vocals/guitar recordings on d100 in the internet? Haven't find any
-
Guys, I've found a very interesting new recording which demonstrates the capabilities of the D100's internal mics. It's worth listening: https://soundcloud.com/therecordist/sony-pcm-d100-trains
Thank you! Do you know, is there some vocals/guitar recordings on d100 in the internet? Haven't find any
Not that I know of.
-
Optical out is pcm only - I don't know if the d100 allows DSD audio (converting to PCM first) out of the optical output though
You're right! It took a Sony Pro support representative one day short of three weeks to answer my question! Today he has finally received a solid reply from Sony Japan, saying that the PCM-D100's Optical Out does not support DSD2.8 playback. Its Line Out does (using the internal DAC), as does the Headphone Out, of course.
So, the question for people who want to use the PCM-D100 as a portable audio player, now becomes: How good is the internal, proprietary DAC (for use with Line Out to an external portable headphone amp)?
I fear it might not be any better than my Sony PCM-M10's proprietary DAC - which is somewhat lacking in mids energy, a little bright, and ever so slightly (very slightly) grainy in the treble (again, via Line Out to an external amp).
I was hoping to use Optical Out to an external portable DAC and amp of my choice - I can still do that, but not for playing DSD2.8 files.
OK... back to discussions of recording capability (instead of playback).
:)
Mike
-
OK... back to discussions of recording capability (instead of playback).
The famous audio recorder reviewer -- Neal Ewers from Ravenswood Productions -- has released part 1 of his PCM-D100 podcast. Don't miss it if you're interested in Sony's latest recorder. The download URL is https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10881362/PCMd100%20recorder%20review%20part%201.mp3
In short -- and according to his comparisons and what my ears confirmed, the D100 has fantastic internal mics (noticeably quieter than those of the H6, D50 and LS-100) with a good balanced audio representation. It also has ultra-quiet preamps for ENG dynamic mics -- good news for radio reporters.
-
Wow! What a voice! Captivating.
-
Wow! What a voice! Captivating.
Neal is a great singer and musician: http://www.ravenswood.org
He's the go-to man for audio recorder reviews of any ilk.
-
The review by Neal Ewers is great! I'm definitely looking forward to Part 2 of his review.
Does anyone know where his audio reviews are stored? I could easily download the MP3 provided by Amir, but I don't know where these reviews "live" permanently on the web. (Went to Ravenswood, but no luck there.) I'd actually like to listen to some of his other audio reviews if they are collated in a convenient location.
-
The review by Neal Ewers is great! I'm definitely looking forward to Part 2 of his review.
Does anyone know where his audio reviews are stored? I could easily download the MP3 provided by Amir, but I don't know where these reviews "live" permanently on the web. (Went to Ravenswood, but no luck there.) I'd actually like to listen to some of his other audio reviews if they are collated in a convenient location.
Neal's reviews are scattered on a couple of websites and I don't have the URL to many of them. In the meantime, I'm providing the following links to his reviews.
Zoom H6: http://www.blind-geek-zone.net/wp-content/uploads/gravity_forms/3-98839556b66feeea5fbbaaad6c392a4c/2013/09/Zoom-H6-Recorder-Review.mp3
Olympus LS-100: http://www.blind-geek-zone.net/wp-content/uploads/gravity_forms/3-98839556b66feeea5fbbaaad6c392a4c/2012/12/Olympus-LS-100-Recorder-Review.mp3
Olympus LS-14: http://www.blind-geek-zone.net/wp-content/uploads/gravity_forms/3-98839556b66feeea5fbbaaad6c392a4c/2012/12/Olympus-ls-14-Recorder-Review.mp3
I'll try to find and share his Sony PCM-D50, Zoom H2N and Zoom H4N reviews.
-
Amir: Thanks so much!
-
The review by Neal Ewers is great! I'm definitely looking forward to Part 2 of his review.
Does anyone know where his audio reviews are stored? I could easily download the MP3 provided by Amir, but I don't know where these reviews "live" permanently on the web. (Went to Ravenswood, but no luck there.) I'd actually like to listen to some of his other audio reviews if they are collated in a convenient location.
Neal's reviews are scattered on a couple of websites and I don't have the URL to many of them. In the meantime, I'm providing the following links to his reviews.
Zoom H6: http://www.blind-geek-zone.net/wp-content/uploads/gravity_forms/3-98839556b66feeea5fbbaaad6c392a4c/2013/09/Zoom-H6-Recorder-Review.mp3
Olympus LS-100: http://www.blind-geek-zone.net/wp-content/uploads/gravity_forms/3-98839556b66feeea5fbbaaad6c392a4c/2012/12/Olympus-LS-100-Recorder-Review.mp3
Olympus LS-14: http://www.blind-geek-zone.net/wp-content/uploads/gravity_forms/3-98839556b66feeea5fbbaaad6c392a4c/2012/12/Olympus-ls-14-Recorder-Review.mp3
I'll try to find and share his Sony PCM-D50, Zoom H2N and Zoom H4N reviews.
And this is the URL to Neal's Zoom H2N review: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10881362/Zoom%20H2N%20Recorder%20Review.mp3
-
First, I'm not a sound professional. Heck, not even a sound wannabe! So here's my question:
I recently got the Sony D100 and am very happy with it. There are some situations where I'd like to use it as part of my rig to record interviews/dialogs. I'll be using two lav mics (Countryman E6) going into a MixPre-D. From there I have XLR going out and then into the D100 via stereo-XLR-to-3.5-jack cable to line in. This setup sounds very good, but I'm wondering if there's any better way to send audio from the MixPre-D to the Sony D100.
On another thread (http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=146929.0) they are discussing going from a MixPre-D to Marantz 661 via SPDIF input. I have no idea what SPDIF is, or if there's really a better way to send audio to the D100. But if there is a higher-quality approach, and the only cost is acquiring the right kind of cable, then I'm all ears! Any suggestions/comments on this?
-
I dont think you need a new cable. To go digital in to the D100 you need the USB-pre, not the mix-pre.
-
And the question would be if it is worth going digital in. For music and critical recording, yes. For someone talking - I doubt it.
-
AB52 and yates7592: Thanks for both of your responses. Great to know that the setup I already have in place is probably the best I can do for recorded conversations.
The D100 is quickly becoming my "go to" device. Very happy with it.
-
You should be in great shape for conversastions. I tried a Sony PCM D1 with a Mixpre and it was great.
-
Guys, the first PCM-D100 firmware is now available. V1.01 fixes a problem with fast forward/rewind under certain circumstances. You may want to grab it from here: http://www.sony.co.uk/support/en/content/cnt-dwnl/prd-dna/sony-pcmd100-firmware-update-ver101/PCM-D100
-
Guess that means Sony has abandoned, or at least relaxed, their no firmware update policy...
-
Guess that means Sony has abandoned, or at least relaxed, their no firmware update policy...
Whatever route Sony has chosen, that's a very good piece of news. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember having seen a firmware update for the D50. Of course, one might argue that the D50 never needed a firmware update, but with this facility one is always hopeful to see potential bugs squashed sooner or later.
-
Definitely good news. As far as I know, they never updated the firmware for the D1, D50 or M10. There is always something that can be improved a little.
-
Optical out is pcm only - I don't know if the d100 allows DSD audio (converting to PCM first) out of the optical output though
You're right! It took a Sony Pro support representative one day short of three weeks to answer my question! Today he has finally received a solid reply from Sony Japan, saying that the PCM-D100's Optical Out does not support DSD2.8 playback. Its Line Out does (using the internal DAC), as does the Headphone Out, of course.
So, the question for people who want to use the PCM-D100 as a portable audio player, now becomes: How good is the internal, proprietary DAC (for use with Line Out to an external portable headphone amp)?
I fear it might not be any better than my Sony PCM-M10's proprietary DAC - which is somewhat lacking in mids energy, a little bright, and ever so slightly (very slightly) grainy in the treble (again, via Line Out to an external amp).
I was hoping to use Optical Out to an external portable DAC and amp of my choice - I can still do that, but not for playing DSD2.8 files.
OK... back to discussions of recording capability (instead of playback).
:)
Mike
Revisting this sub-topic, I now know of two PCM-D100 owners who have discovered that the Optical Out doesn't reliably support sampling rates any higher than 96 kHz. That's two different people trying to use the Optical Out to two different DACs. One of them is using an expensive glass cable that handles higher rates without issues on other gear.
The better news is that the Line Out from the PCM-D100's proprietary DAC sounds better than the PCM-M10's DAC - like the M10, the DAC is a little bright and somewhat lacking in dynamics, but apparently doesn't suffer the M10's very slight graininess.
I'm getting all of this second-hand, so if anyone has a counterpoint to these observations, I'm all ears. :-)
Mike
-
This does not surprise me as optical SPDIF typically only supports upto 96khz.
Many higher end pro audio gear does not support above 96khz on optical I/o (I.e. Lunate. V3, sound devices usbpre2, etc)
From what I am reading around it seems some chipsets may support higher rates but it seems they do this by playing tricks (I.e. By using multiple 96khz channels to split a 192khz signal into). This means they are not following official standards - which Sony almost always will do - see all the threads about how original adopters of the d50 couldn't get the them to lock to v3's or sd usbpre2's until grace and sound devices released firmware updates to align the output of their AD's with the true SPDIF standards that sony's d50 was locked too.
BTW Why would any one use the D100 as a playback device in this fashion - why not get a real DAC unit like the sony pha-2, Teqc ud-501, fostex hp-a4, etc and use a computer to playback your endless library of hidef content using Foobar 2000 or other program. Or just not use the standard line out of the d100 if you are truely in a pinch
Sony at some point may release a firmware update to allow 192khz via optical if their design supports this but I would doubt this
-
I can report that I started recording at 192k via the optical input from the RME Babyface into the PCM-D100 and so far no problems.
I'll report if I run into problems when recording at greater lengths, time wise.
-
I can report that I started recording at 192k via the optical input from the RME Babyface into the PCM-D100 and so far no problems.
I'll report if I run into problems when recording at greater lengths, time wise.
That's good news - the original poster is looking for 192Khz output - Any luck with the D100 outputing 192Khz via optical?
-
I've been working with my PCM-D100 over the past few days and must say that the experience has been mostly positive. If, however, you're opting for something truly challenging, go straight to number 5 below.
1. The PCM-D100 has ultra-quiet preamps. And when I say "quiet," I do mean it. Not only are its internal mics quiet, but connecting dynamic microphones to it via an XLR-to-mini cable results in superb audio recordings. Beyerdynamic M58 and M99 shine when paired with the D100 -- I wasn't expecting that with the former. With dynamic mics only my USBPre2 can surpass the D100. The D100 is, without a doubt, a definite improvement over the D50 in terms of noise and overall audio representation.
2. The use of the windscreen is a must. Well, what can I say? That was also the case with the D50 which I didn't own but saw in action several times. Even small movements of the D100 in a room results in air coming into contact with the internal mics and audio gets distorted. The included windscreen is a top performer, though, blocking that effect without muffling high frequencies.
3. If internal mics are plastic, the metal cage is quite tough -- like the rest of the recorder. In short, damaging the mics isn't an easy job as they are properly guarded by a metal cage. The D100 isn't exactly light -- like the M10, but the metal case looks and feels quite professional in hand and in the field. Were I a little too unfair, I'd say the D100 chassis blows the mostly metal Olympus LS-100 out of water. The D100 might not totally do that when it comes to looks, but it achieves such a feat when it comes to sonic features, noise and ease of functionality.
4. Perhaps the best internal mics on a portable recorder? I say "perhaps" because I've had the chance to own the M10, the LS-100 and the D100 so far and have worked with the H4N, the H2N, the H6 and the D50 over the past couple of years. Very simply put, the D100's internal mics generate a well-balanced audio, with highs, mids and lows reflected quite neutrally. Unlike, say, the H6, its mics aren't sibilant at all. Neal Ewers -- whose PCM-D100 podcast can be found in this same thread -- also confirms my point about sibilance.
5. Headphones -- what to use? I'm confused by what seems to be a strange decision on Sony's part. Now here comes the irksome problem. I'm using Senal SMH-1000 headphones -- http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/755659-REG/Senal_SMH_1000_STUDIO_MONITOR_HEADPHONES.html . For a few days I was thinking that I can't get up close to the D100's mics -- internal or external -- as the audio would be noticeably distorted. However, the distortion goes away if you listen to your recordings on the computer. It's definitely there when monitoring via headphones -- regardless of the headphone volume, and is really annoying. Neal also confirms that he can duplicate this weird effect with a few headphone pairs other than the famous Sony MDR-7506. So Sony has apparently done something to the D100 headphone preamps in favor of its own headphones -- at least the 7506.
Now if monitoring via something like the SMH-1000 has become very difficult, the question is which headphones you recommend to take care of the problem? I don't like the 7506 due to its long, non-removable cable. As far as I can tell, Sony doesn't recommend any specific headphones for the D100 on its regional websites, leaving the field open to all sorts of interpretations. I'm currently leaning toward Beyerdynamic T51P -- http://www.amazon.com/Beyerdynamic-T51P-Tesla-Headphone-Silver/dp/B00ELAIHDM , but can't test the thing before purchasing it. Once purchased, it can't be returned -- as strange as that might sound. So have you tested that one with the D100 for monitoring? I'd appreciate your suggestions and D100-specific headphone recommendations.
-
I use these headphones with the D50 with great success - especially for hearing what is actually going in the recorder - because the headphones have great isolation characteristics. http://www.amazon.com/Beyerdynamic-770-PRO-250-ohms/dp/B0006NL5SM
If you just want audio fidelity - and not worried about sound blockage - these headphones are better than the sony 7506 IMHO:
http://www.amazon.com/Beyerdynamic-770-PRO-250-ohms/dp/B0006NL5SM
-
I use these headphones with the D50 with great success - especially for hearing what is actually going in the recorder - because the headphones have great isolation characteristics. http://www.amazon.com/Beyerdynamic-770-PRO-250-ohms/dp/B0006NL5SM
If you just want audio fidelity - and not worried about sound blockage - these headphones are better than the sony 7506 IMHO:
http://www.amazon.com/Beyerdynamic-770-PRO-250-ohms/dp/B0006NL5SM
Thanks. May I ask if you've also tested them with the PCM-D100? As far as I can tell, the PCM-D50 doesn't exhibit the headphone glitch affecting the D100.
I'd like to know which headphones D100 owners here use.
-
I have not tested it with the D100. The AT D50 headphones are very efficient
-
I have not tested it with the D100. The headphone analysis where somehow it would work better with Sony headphones makes no sense to me at all. Now if a pair of headphones is leaking audio information into the microphones of the unit - that can cause feedback - but that should happen with any manufacturer's headphones where the headphone sound is getting close to the microphones. I closed paid like the beyerdynamic headphones I mentioned above should work fine. Perhaps ask someone at B and H which has a return policy to try it with the headphones and see if they experience the problem.
-
I have not tested it with the D100. The headphone analysis where somehow it would work better with Sony headphones makes no sense to me at all. Now if a pair of headphones is leaking audio information into the microphones of the unit - that can cause feedback - but that should happen with any manufacturer's headphones where the headphone sound is getting close to the microphones. I closed paid like the beyerdynamic headphones I mentioned above should work fine. Perhaps ask someone at B and H which has a return policy to try it with the headphones and see if they experience the problem.
First, the Senal SMH-1000 headphones don't leak audio at all -- they're quite superb in that regard, and the problem isn't audio leakage either to begin with. The issue is that you feel distorted audio being recorded when monitoring via headphones if you move a bit close to the D100 mics -- something which is absent when listening to its recordings on the computer via the very same headphones.
Second, Sony's propensity for its own headphones in the case of PCM-D100 doesn't make sense to me either, but so far evidence points to this conclusion. And it's not only Senal SMH-1000 -- I can mention other problematic headphones if desired. After all, so far the MDR-7506 has been found to be immune. That's why I'm trying to figure out which headphones people are using with the D100 -- not the D50. I'm not sure if your D50 experience can be translated to the D100.
-
An update on the headphone-related problem.
I went ahead and purchased Beyerdynamic T51P from the company's reseller -- also check http://www.amazon.com/Beyerdynamic-T51P-Tesla-Headphone-Silver/dp/B00ELAIHDM .
I'm very happy to report that now the audio distortion problem is gone! I can also get quite close to the microphones without any strange audio problems whatsoever.
So if you want to purchase the PCM-D100 from B&H and are also in need of headphones, definitely avoid their recommended Senal SMH-1000 -- it's awful for use with the D100. B&H recommends this headphone -- http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/755659-REG/Senal_SMH_1000_STUDIO_MONITOR_HEADPHONES.html -- for all recorders, without bothering to test its recommended product with them. It's just that Senal SMH-1000, as fantastic as it sounds, isn't the D100's heavenly match.
What's more, I should correct the assumption that Sony favors its own headphones with the PCM-D100 -- the T51P clearly indicates that it doesn't. However, this Beyerdynamic product is almost $300, meaning the D100 isn't forgiving with headphones at all. Even now I can feel the D100's powerful stereo separation with the T51P -- something which was impossible with Senal SMH-1000. The bottom line is that an $800 recorder requires, ahem, premium headphones for proper monitoring!
-
The newly uploaded B&H Sony PCM-D100 video can be watched here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MLbGsfduvU&feature=youtube_gdata
-
Sony D100 vs Tascam DR-100 mkII
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3Mn-YbflxM
Sony D100 vs Sony D50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AbrcL8RYfI
-
Ok. I'm in. I just bought one.
I used to own a D50 but it sounded too strident. I believed it made dogs bark from a mile away. I quickly returned it and I've been a happy M10 owner ever since.
I'm buying the D100 because:
1) Better sound. Way better sound. The samples above sold me. Very natural to the ear. Though I heart the M10, I always thought it was light in the bass department.
2) Optical in/out. Gives me more options.
3) 32GB on board memory You never have enough space. I should be able to cover Lockn with this and 1 sd card as backup space.
4) The Latch over the dual gain knob. Huge. My Aerco cannot dial-in gain between the channels. I tape down the single knob on the M10.
DSD doesn't matter to me. Maybe in a couple of years, when good editing software becomes available.
-
spyder9: Congrats! I bought the D100 and truly love it. I use it in so many different ways. I had owned a D50, but did not use it nearly as much. To me this is a vastly improved product.
-
spyder9: Congrats! I bought the D100 and truly love it. I use it in so many different ways. I had owned a D50, but did not use it nearly as much. To me this is a vastly improved product.
Agreed! Just to add to what has already been said, its preamps are pleasantly quiet for low-output dynamic microphones. I also like its internal mics a lot.
-
spyder9: Congrats! I bought the D100 and truly love it. I use it in so many different ways. I had owned a D50, but did not use it nearly as much. To me this is a vastly improved product.
Agreed! Just to add to what has already been said, its preamps are pleasantly quiet for low-output dynamic microphones. I also like its internal mics a lot.
Could you, please, download voice or guitar, recorded on int mics?
-
Egor,
You may want to check out Neil's review. If I remember correctly much (or part) is done using the internals. Here's the link:
http://ravenswood.org/AllThingsNeal/2014/06/11/sony-pcmd100-recorder-review/
-
Egor,
You may want to check out Neil's review. If I remember correctly much (or part) is done using the internals. Here's the link:
http://ravenswood.org/AllThingsNeal/2014/06/11/sony-pcmd100-recorder-review/
Thank you!!!! Perfect voice recording, isn't it? Sounds analog like, even in mp3 format. Excellent!
-
Ok. I'm in. I just bought one.
I used to own a D50 but it sounded too strident. I believed it made dogs bark from a mile away. I quickly returned it and I've been a happy M10 owner ever since.
I'm buying the D100 because:
1) Better sound. Way better sound. The samples above sold me. Very natural to the ear. Though I heart the M10, I always thought it was light in the bass department.
2) Optical in/out. Gives me more options.
3) 32GB on board memory You never have enough space. I should be able to cover Lockn with this and 1 sd card as backup space.
4) The Latch over the dual gain knob. Huge. My Aerco cannot dial-in gain between the channels. I tape down the single knob on the M10.
DSD doesn't matter to me. Maybe in a couple of years, when good editing software becomes available.
Congrats Dan! I want [2] of these myself :) Let us know how you like it!
-
they are grazy at Sony, you buy for that price 3 TV here, for recorder, which most of the time is in the closet ,
Ane
-
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=169217.0
New thread was started. Please post there, for we are at the 25 page cap.
Brian, please lock this thread. Thanks.