Topic: Marantz PMD620 VS Sony PCM-M10

[bluelawn]

please give me your experiences with these recorders.

i'm looking at replacing my UA-5 > JB3 combo with a Littlebox > PMD620 or M10

all my taping currently is open, but with a mic change in the future some light/easy stealthing may be a posibility.

i currently use a beachtek SVU-1 to monitor jb3 levels.
i would be very interested in still using it for open situations.
it's nice being able to check levels from across the room.

thanks,
Seth

[capnhook]

Just wanted to chime in here, Seth, that you were ahead of yer time, pickin' that avatar.......all the flyboys are gittin' those internal mics agin'!!

Kevin

[Idle Wind]

love my m10.  just got it.  10 minutes out of the box, I had it all figured out without even reading the manual (I probably should though.....)

with 24 bit depth you can be a little conservative on your levels and bring them up if necessary in post.  that's what I hear, anyway, not sure I understand the technical aspects of that.

here's a sample at853 subcards>9V battery box>m10 line in:

Luther "Guitar Junior" Johnson last Saturday night:

http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=294595

[aaronji]

I own and like both of these recorders.  Each has a few advantages/disadvantages compared to the other (as examples, the 620 has sufficient plug-in power for most miniature mics and the M10 has really phenomenal battery life).  There are certain situations where I'll choose one or the other based on these differences, but most of the time I find that either works well.

If I were in your shoes, I think I would go with the M10.  It has a big, bright display and is quieter than the 620.  Also has a few little extras that you may (or may not) want, like sampling at 96 kHz and built-in memory. 

On the other hand, although it costs a bit more, I have been really happy with my Oade mod 620...

[flintstone]

Since you're going line in from a decent preamp, I'm not
sure you'll be able to tell the difference between the PMD620
and the PCM-M10.  The Marantz is about $45 more expensive.

[jb63]

I spent a lot of time trying to decide between these 2, but I couldn't find the 620 any cheaper than the listed $399.
The M10s are falling out of trucks these days, and can be had for $300 and you get change back.

I think that the benefit of having the Marantz units modded weighs in (for me) above the most useful feature of the M10, which, correct me if i'm wrong, is the unique limiter function, which was what made the D1 & D50 look so good:

from some review somewhere:
"One of the most talked about features of the expensive Sony PCM-D1 is its unique limiter. It works like this: the recorder creates two audio files during recording. One is written to memory, another — recorded 20dB down — is held in a buffer. If peaks exceed zero (i.e., maximum digital level), the recorder grabs a portion of the safety track and writes it to memory. I am happy to say that the D50 shares this feature."

Of course I don't know... does the M10 do this also?

[chrise]

The M10 has a limiter function, which we were told is less sophisticated than that in the more expensive Sony units.

That said, I find the M10 limiter pretty darn good.  Not sure how it works, assuming it's not doing what you just described.

[rastasean]

The M10 has a limiter function, which we were told is less sophisticated than that in the more expensive Sony units.

That said, I find the M10 limiter pretty darn good.  Not sure how it works, assuming it's not doing what you just described.

I would agree it is very good and it does not record a -20 dB file to the buffer. I have never read anything about that I haven't seen anything in the menu about it either.

[fmaderjr]

Everyone is correct about the m10 limiter-it does not work like the D1's limiter and is less sophisticated, but it does seem to work well. I leave my limiter on, just in case, but you normally shouldn't need a limiter when recording in 24 bits because this allows you to set levels very conservatively. Thus I don't think the limiter is a major selling point.

It is a great machine, though, with a great display, much better battery life than the 620 and less expensive.

As aaronji points out, the main advantage of the 620 is being able to power more varieties of mini-mics without a battery box.

[chrise]

I'm still abit curious how the M10 limiter is working...

Some people suggested it operates "in the digital domain" - but presumably that would be useless as the A/D convertor would be clipped and hence the sound unrecoverably distorted (which it isn't).

I wonder if the M10 notices clipping *and then* quickly turns down the gain in the analog domain, perhaps by somehow switching in a pad.  This will presumably end up recording a few samples of clipped audio, which the D1/D50 design cunningly avoids.  But only requires one A/D convertor - whereas the D1/D50 design requires two (expensive).

Just a guess...

[noam]

Everyone is correct about the m10 limiter-it does not work like the D1's limiter and is less sophisticated, but it does seem to work well. I leave my limiter on, just in case, but you normally shouldn't need a limiter when recording in 24 bits because this allows you to set levels very conservatively. Thus I don't think the limiter is a major selling point.

I have used the PCM D1 since it came out it 2006 until I switched last year to the Sound Devices 702. I have used it for dozens of recording of acoustic music. The Operating Instructions Manual states that the limiter cannot prevent clipping “when audio over 20dB is input.” This is supposed to result in clipping. In my experience clipping under such conditions is extremely rare. Instead, what the limiter does when its capacity is exceeded is to create a “hole-in-the sound.” This has a split second lag time: the sound starts to peak, and then disappears for a second. When people start applauding around you, you get sound punctured by multiple holes. This sound can drive you to suicide and the only way to edit such a recording is to quickly fade off. If people start to applaud at the concluding chords or when the singer finished his bit but the orchestra goes on, the recording is as good as ruined. In addition, any sudden loud sound can trigger the “hole-in-the sound.” In a performance where the director had the chorus flog the stage (with whips), every whip shot triggered a “hole-in-the sound.” The clipping that would have been caused by applause or by the whip shots would have been easily dealt with in the editing (and the clipped sound is not so unpleasant), but with the limiter on the recording was ruined. Every time I used the limiter the recording was ruined, because if you use levels high enough to need it you are bound to hit spots that exceed its capacity; safe levels outside the reach of the “hole-in-the sound” would in reality be outside the reach of the limiter, because you can’t plan without wide safety margins anyway. This past week I played for the first time a Shostakovich Sym#6 that I taped with the limiter on in 2006, but haven’t listened to until now (I taped the event for another part of the concert.) The symphony has the usual Shostakovich outbursts, so in addition to holes in the sound there where many occasions where you hear the limiter kicking in after a split second delay and lowering the sound levels abruptly – this recording is ruined. A friend who listened to these recordings with “holes-in-the sound” and sudden lowering of volume after a split second delay said this is the same limiter he heard on recordings made on ancient equipment or something like that – I can’t remember the details.

Another horror of the limiter is that editing files taped with the limiter on exposes or created electronic artifacts. For example, a soprano hit a very loud high note and you were sitting right in front of her. The limiter brought that under control and there is no clipping or “hole-in-the sound”, but you still want to manually edit the levels in that spot down because it’s still unbearable – when you try to play around with this segment that is already adulterated by the limiter you get high pitched clipping artifacts or other sounds from hell – you can’t touch such files.

So the limiter is a dangerous and useless function. It doesn’t even have the limited use that the primitive “Automatic Gain Control” function on HiMD’s had – with AGC I could tape a theatre play sitting way back in the balcony and get the delivered text as if recorded from the front row, because it automatically equalized everything. The PCM D1 does not have that circuit.

The only way to tape right is 24 bit and safe levels.

Noam

[jb63]

interesting.

well that certainly makes me happy not to use the D series Sonys...

thanks for the stories!

[chrise]

As discussed, the M-10 limiter works differently to that of the D-1 and D-50.

Also, obviously, you can turn off the limiter if you don't want it.

(ie. prefer to record the clipped audio)

[Belexes]

The only way to tape right is 24 bit and safe levels.

[Will_S]

Has anyone actually measured the PIP voltage of the PMD620 when running on AAs?  I know the specs claim 5V, but I know fron direct measurements of some Tascam devices that claim 5V, they supply less when on AA power.  Wondering if the PMD620 is the same or actually has circuitry to boost PIP above the input voltage.

[aaronji]

Has anyone actually measured the PIP voltage of the PMD620 when running on AAs?  I know the specs claim 5V, but I know fron direct measurements of some Tascam devices that claim 5V, they supply less when on AA power.  Wondering if the PMD620 is the same or actually has circuitry to boost PIP above the input voltage.

A couple of people have measured it: guysonic at 4.4V (http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,91816.msg1265738.html#msg1265738) and goodcooker at 4.6V (http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=133221.msg1745857#msg1745857)...

[fmaderjr]

Has anyone actually measured the PIP voltage of the PMD620 when running on AAs?  I know the specs claim 5V, but I know fron direct measurements of some Tascam devices that claim 5V, they supply less when on AA power.  Wondering if the PMD620 is the same or actually has circuitry to boost PIP above the input voltage.

Unloaded it supplies 4.6 volts-I don't know how to test it with a mic attached.

However, I have used it to power DPA 4060's and CA-14's at loud shows without a battery box and it seems to work perfectly. That's the main advantage to the 620 over the M10.

If you want to be able to run practically any mini-mics w/o a battery box, get the 620. If you are going to use a pre or a battery box anyway, get the M10. The M10 will run many mics without a battery box also (such as the AT853's) but I wouldn't risk using it to power more power hungry mini-mics like DPA's or CA-14's

[jb63]

If you want to be able to run practically any mini-mics w/o a battery box, get the 620. If you are going to use a pre or a battery box anyway, get the M10. The M10 will run many mics without a battery box also (such as the AT853's) but I wouldn't risk using it to power more power hungry mini-mics like DPA's or CA-14's

So is this the reason that a PMD620 seems impossible to find for under $350?

Seriously, I'd love to try out one of these, but for a solid year I haven't seen one go for less than the price of 2 M10s.

What do you guys think about THAT?!

[sunjan]

B/H are having a used unit in at $290:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800747976-USE/Marantz_PMD620_PMD620_Professional_Handheld_Digital.html

But apart from that, google shopping clock them all at $349 or above...

[andromedanwarmachine]

Hey Noam,

when you say (regarding the AGC on your old HiMD) that you could record from the balcony "as if recorded from the front row, because it automatically equalized everything"

do you mean it equalized the levels or that AGC has tone adjustment built in depending on gain...?

sorry everybody- this is a bit off-topic

JimP

[noam]

Equalized levels.

Noam

[andrea doria]

you'll find some stable 3v or 4,5v newer and older pip recorders to work with dpa 40xx, especially with 4063. best you have 2 mono ins like the older Korg.

but like all mics mini dpas still are richer sounding on sd, sqn or other pro gear. it's easy hearable, but it starts a loss of belief in minimalisation. sound physics is why neumann, gefell, schoeps do no lapels.

to win back the advantage of minimalism we need a small sized best sounding preamped all in one recorder. a fine, powerfull, neutral scale from lows to highs without a cheap colored user hype. without bundles of toyish features and inbuilt compromised mics. no more than 200g. who is nearest? may be it would break the formula "smaller is cheaper".  http://www.taperssection.com/Smileys/throwback/evil.gif

[BitRater]

you'll find some stable 3v or 4,5v newer and older pip recorders to work with dpa 40xx, especially with 4063. best you have 2 mono ins like the older Korg.

but like all mics mini dpas still are richer sounding on sd, sqn or other pro gear. it's easy hearable, but it starts a loss of belief in minimalisation. sound physics is why neumann, gefell, schoeps do no lapels.

to win back the advantage of minimalism we need a small sized best sounding preamped all in one recorder. a fine, powerfull, neutral scale from lows to highs without a cheap colored user hype. without bundles of toyish features and inbuilt compromised mics. no more than 200g. who is nearest? may be it would break the formula "smaller is cheaper".  http://www.taperssection.com/Smileys/throwback/evil.gif

Your last paragraph highlights one of the things I liked best about the Marantz PMD620 I had. It was a no-nonsense, straight-ahead kind of recorder. I would gladly give up the four or six track record capability, variable mic patterns and other gewgaws that are increasingly common now, and trade them for a recorder that simply does two tracks very well and has excellent mic preamps.

[andrea doria]

this summer we ran in a river landscape some dpa and dynamic md 441 with small recorders. we had 2 mr1 korg, 2 Microtrack (the better preamp is the older one) and 1 sony m10. for the dpas (4063) we needed pip 3v or 5v (microtrack has). The Korg MR1 ran shortly till battery was exhausted, needed reloading with a field solution. But it sounded best of all, nearer to professional gear, preamps clearly hissed a bit, but without problem near a hissy running river. MT 24/96 was quite good sounding too, but a bit too crisp (like good amateur gear). both MTs sat out from humide air. the contacts of the cf-cards caused it.

The M10 is a reliable, easy too handle machine, especially with the dpa (4063) and dyns, no batt problems (2 AA ran a week) and so on, but in my ears it sounds not as best. like the older MT24/96 (not bad like many people claimed) it has nearly no hiss. On dynamics we needed specially soldered symmetric/asymmetric (it's a bad direction) cables or caught a really insufficient sound profile. after all: the sound of M10 seemed us to be a step restricted; colorated differences between pro and user gear?

our landscape experience let us feel the lack of a pro sounding small recorder. some middle dimensioned recorders (Marantz, Fostex, Sony) soundwise are nearer, meno coloured, but loosing the advantage of smallness, but only nearer, not quite target reaching.

We had no pdm 620, but some weaks ago i heard 620s tracks, for my ear it's half stepping to pro sound, but still coloured; so Korgs old Mr1 preamps are sounding better, more neutral with a kind of good saturation but a little hiss, but the need of external power solution not only annihilates the smallness, it causes unstable connections. so where ever possible we turned back to heavier pro sound gear. Yes: the Korg with two symm intros was not a bad start. But whereto runs it nowadays.

let's try to discuss the question of sound. in real work it's most important, but not easy to debate. noise and sound quality are different shoes.