Topic: Sony's new $600 recorder PCM-D50 PT II

[Todd R]

D'oh -- I totally forgot abuot this issue.  Yep, that's right, the D50 strictly conforms to the spdif standard is the issue I believe (makes sense, it is a sony standard). 

Unfortunately, the OP has a UA-5, not a mic2496, so he's probably SOL.

[headroom]

Phony Sony :-(

[Brian Skalinder]

Some background on the issue, for those curious (though some of it is V3-specific).  I suspect Edirol fell into the same "trap" as Grace (or Sony as M-Audio, depending on one's perspective):

Hi All,
I thought I would chime in here and provide a little background based on what we've learned about the issues you are experiencing.  First of all, technically speaking, the V3 is the source of the "problem" with the MTII and the Sony D50.  The original V3 firmware does not indicate high sample rate information properly.  Also, in consumer mode, bit depth is not indicated.   There are a couple of reasons for this.  First, at the time we developed the V3 the IEC-90958 standard (the official spdif specification) did not include implementation of bit depth indication and there was no consumer recording equipment that supported high sample rates.  Second, the AES-3 specification allows for bit depth and high sample rate indication but it is not a requirement.  With this we implemented sample rate indication for 44.1kHz and 48kHz to satisfy consumer DAT and CDR recorders but assumed that if you were recording at higher sample rates your equipment (hard disk recorder or DAW) would require you to set the record sample rate and bit depth manually.  There was also an issue with memory space in the V3 processor not allowing room for these extended registers.  We have now updated the original V3 firmware so that it will indicate high sample rate information in both professional (AES-3) mode and consumer (IEC-958-3).   It will also indicate 24 bit data at all times in both professional and consumer mode.  Jamie, our firmware wizard, was able to streamline the code enough to include these.  This new firmware is being beta tested presently on the MTII and will be shortly on the Sony D50.  The V3 firmware lives on a socketed IC chip that can be easily replaced in the field.  When the testing is complete we will ship new chips to anyone who wants the new firmware free of charge.  I'll post a link to an online order form on our web site when it is ready.  In the mean time I apologize the the inconvenience that this has caused.

With the large quantity of older equipment out there and the fact that these standards change often, it seems like a bad idea to design a piece of equipment that relies only on embedded digital stream data and does not allow for manual override of record settings.  I applaud M-Audio's rapid response to this issue with their new firmware.

Michael

[EarlyMorningRain]

Some interesting reading there, Brian and everyone else.

I don't own a D50, MT nor a V3 etc, but was wondering one thing in particular.

If the fault lies within the unit feeding the recorder (in this instance, the UA-5 preamp), then why would some preamps work while others don't?  Meaning my UA-5 has no problem sending a 24bit signal to my iPAQ 2495 (which uses the PDAudio card and has only a optical input jack on it). Or is it because of what's "capturing" that signal (ie the recorder) and how that device was configured to do so? If it's the latter, then that just plain stinks !!

[headroom]

Hi thank fou your light for this. The Microtrack I ( old unit) can easy and follow 441/48/96  PCM Modes in 24 bit. But SONY PCM 50 ( newer unit ) cannot do this, cough cough.

[Brian Skalinder]

Some interesting reading there, Brian and everyone else.

I don't own a D50, MT nor a V3 etc, but was wondering one thing in particular.

If the fault lies within the unit feeding the recorder (in this instance, the UA-5 preamp), then why would some preamps work while others don't?  Meaning my UA-5 has no problem sending a 24bit signal to my iPAQ 2495 (which uses the PDAudio card and has only a optical input jack on it). Or is it because of what's "capturing" that signal (ie the recorder) and how that device was configured to do so? If it's the latter, then that just plain stinks !!

First, a clarification:  units like the UA-5 and V3 act as both preamp and ADC in a single box.  The issue involves the signal output by the ADC portion of these devices and doesn't really have anything to do with the preamp portion.

As for fault, take your pick:  One could argue it's...

• Grace and Edirol's fault for not setting the flag in their ADC outputs to say "Hey, Mr. Recorder!  I'm a 24-bit data stream...make sure you record me as 24-bit and don't default to 16-bit, you pinwit".  But the flag was not included in the SPDIF standard and not required by the AES-3 standard at the time of their development / manufacture, so...why would they?  (Note:  the AES-3 standard only applies to the V3, since it can output both consumer, i.e. SPDIF, and professional, i.e. AES formats;  the UA5 only outputs consumer format.)
  
• Sony and M-Audio's fault because they should not have built their recorders to rely on a flag that wasn't (isn't?) included in and/or required by the standard.
• Simply a function of changing standards and different interpretation and implementation of those standards;  it doesn't make much sense to assign fault.

[Todd R]

Yes, it is definitely unfortunate.  Sony is designed to meet the relevant standard, but it would be nice to include a manual override if that can be done in a new firmware version.

I'm curious if anyone has used an ad2k in front of a D50 and whether it worked.  There aren't too many older A/D units we use much for field recording that provide a 24bit output.  The ad2k, V3, and UA5 are probably the main candidates, and perhaps the mytek, though that is newer and might include the correct flags.

So the UA5 doesn't work in front of the D50 at 24bits, and the V3 has a firmware upgrade to allow it.  Anyone know about the ad2k and mytek?

[headroom]

Yes, it is definitely unfortunate.  Sony is designed to meet the relevant standard, but it would be nice to include a manual override if that can be done in a new firmware version.

No Firmware Updates from Sony arround. I personaly think this will never happen.
 All have the same Firmware creation dates and versions yet...

[612]

I truly do appreciate all of the clarification (hopefully other UA-5 owners do too!). I do remember reading about this issue with the V3 > D50 combo. I should have investigated further before purchasing. The lack of people running UA-5 > D50 @ 24 bits should have tipped me off. I was just so excited about this recorder that I dove in without doing the proper research.

Yikes, spending $448 to record @ 16/48 (something I can already do with the UA-5 > h120) stings a bit. Live and learn I guess.

HMMM I don't really feel like upgrading pres to record @ 24 bit. Does this mean the D50 hits the Yardsale? HMMM. 

Edit: I would love to hang onto it but geez....that purchase really hit the bank account hard.

[Todd R]

That's crappy John.

FWIW, I'd sell the UA5 and keep the D50 before I sold the D50 to keep the UA5.

I don't know if you've seen the threads, but you could probably sell the UA5 and get one of the new Naiant littlebox preamps:

http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,122871.0.html

Both Chuck and I ran separate comps of the littlebox head-to-head against the Lunatec V3, and it compared very well to the V3.  In fact, in both comps, with blind comparisons more people preferred the littlebox to the V3.  Very nice preamp, with an introductory price of $180 if Jon still has that going.

The D50 actually has a very nice analog/line input stage, so running it with a nice preamp in front of it sounds very good, and would allow you to record at 24bits.

[612]

That's a good point, Todd. Selling the D50 over the UA-5 would be kind of a silly move so I should reverse my train of thought. Thanks for the Naiant heads up.

/ends thread jack & likely keeps the D50.

[EarlyMorningRain]

no more bit bucket usage though with going with that littlebox however (as I think that was the route John was aiming for).

Those are nice looking preamps though!

[Todd R]

True enough in that regard.  In my comp, I only compared the littlebox to the V3's preamp stage, with the A/D stage coming from the R44.  Chuck compared the littlebox>iriver to the V3(digital)>iriver though, and the littlebox recording still sounded very nice compared to the V3 acting as both preamp + AD.

If you really are into the sound of your preamp+AD, then yes you need a digi-in bit bucket recorder.  And I know for years when I ran my V3, that's what I wanted.  The real question though in John's case is how does the package of the littlebox+d50 analog in compare in sound to UA5 (digital out) to recorder?  If you like the sound of the D50 line-in (using the internal AD) enough, then you won't need a digi-in recorder.

I'm getting far too biased in this, since I really do like that sound quite well, and I've sold my V3 to now run either PSP2>D50 line in, or littlebox>D50 line in.  For me, the D50 works great as a non-bit bucket, analog-in recorder.  I loved the D50 as a bit bucket, and I love it as well as a line-in recorder.  Really too bad though that it is so limited as a bit bucket.  Still haven't heard about how it fairs with a mytek or ad2k, but it seems its use as a bit bucket is pretty restricted due to this 24bit flagging issue.

[notsofast]

I recently plugged my new D50 line in into the SBD, the results sounded like the signal was too hot and it brick walled. I am not dismissing user error, as I am getting to know the deck.

My questions is, do I need to pad the line in from the SBD to the D50? I have done similar patches with my FR2LE and never had this happen.

Tim

[Belexes]

I've never had an issue with my board patches to the D50.  That being said though, I do have some attenuators in my bag in case there may be an issue I can fix.