Topic: Sony PCM-D100

[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!

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. 

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.

[aaronji]

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...

[Amir]

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).

[John Willett]

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

[Amir]

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?

[kleiner Rainer]

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

[John Willett]

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.

[yates7592]

[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?

[Egor]

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 
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? 

[aaronji]

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? 

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.

[sdbirder]

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
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

[yates7592]

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.

[sdbirder]

Yes please. I just found your old post and the link has indeed expired.

Cheers

[yates7592]

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

[Jonmac]

I downloaded the file, but I none of my players or DAWS will recognise it, any ideas ?