Topic: Sony PCM-D100

[Amir]

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.

[dogmusic]

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.

[yates7592]

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.

[Amir]

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.

[dogmusic]

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.

[dogmusic]

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

[Amir]

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!

[aaronji]

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.]

[Tom McCreadie]

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

[dogmusic]

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. 

[dogmusic]

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."

[aaronji]

^^^  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):

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...

[dogmusic]

^^^  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):

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

[aaronji]

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...

[dogmusic]

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.