Topic: A/D of various recorders dr100mkii, m10, r44, others?

[Elana]

I like to run a second recorder as backup when I tape.  I've only been using the digital in from the preamp to all of my recorders. 

Right now I use an optimod V3 and I have been recording to a DR-100mkii via spdif.  I did have one problem where the recorder just froze in the middle of a recording due to some digital error, but besides that it's been ok.  I had to restart the recorder to continue w/ the recording and lost a full song.   In general I'm not super happy w/ how finicky it is overall (having to format the card properly, etc. etc.).  However it does give me lots of options, and now that I have a 16gb card in it, I'm not formatting it all that often, and I only had the spdif problem once so far.  So my options are to get a recorder w/ optical in and run them both digital (would be nice but there aren't a lot of optical options out there now), get a different (more reliable) recorder w/ spidif coax in and use the dr100 as backup via analog, in or do analog out of the V3 to something else.

So I'm interested in the A/D of certain recorders vs the V3's internal A/D.

So for my first question, is there a general consensus on the quality of the A/D on the DR100mkii?  The only thing I know is that I don't care so much for the pre on the dr100mkii when running mics directly to it (vs my other options of bm2p+ ua5 and of course V3).  Of course this is something I can test for myself but I figured I'd ask first.

Other option is a PCMM10, which obviously would have to be run via analog-in.  However I hear all kinds of good things about it.  I'm hoping that means the A/D is pretty good.

I've also toyed with the idea of getting an R-44 as a main recorder so I can easily do more multitracking.  Obviously that's got digital in too, but I'm curious to know if anybody has done some tests on the A/D on that vs the V3 A/D.

Stuff I'm not interested in: R09HR (M10 looks better in every way), PMD661 (had one, didn't care for it)

Thanks

[page]

The real benefit of the R09HR over the M10 is the ability to prevent gain changes by locking the keypad (the M10 allows gain changes even after turning on the lock since it uses that wheel).

As for the M10's ADC, johnw did a comp out of both outs of a sonosax one time and fed one to a 722 and the other to an M10. I could consistantly pick a favorite across his samples, but they were very close.

[Elana]

Good to know.  Was that posted here?  I found some old thread comparing the V3 A/D to the 722, but I'm not about to get one of those :-)  I don't think I'd be super worried about gain changes.

[page]

Good to know.  Was that posted here? 

yeah it was posted here, I can't remember where exactly though.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

I posted a couple of blind comps (maybe three) comparing the a/d of the v3 against the original R09.  Surprisingly, the r09 was favored by the vast majority of voters.   The results were really surprising, but it was done with quite a bit of rigor, and the outcome was repeated.  I still think the v3 a/d is excellent, and some people certainly preferred it.

I have a lot of experience with the v3 > r09 rig, and I think the m10 a/d sounds quite a bit better.  However, I have yet to hear any comps of the m10 a/d compared to the v3's a/d, or the 722.

[noahbickart]

Just know that the signal to noise spec on the m10 means that running at 24bit is useless.

What are you taping? For rock and roll through a pa, I doubt you'd care about the difference.

Solo piano in an old church....

[page]

However, I have yet to hear any comps of the m10 a/d compared to the v3's a/d, or the 722.

I swear you even posted in johnw's thread when he did his from phish @ alpine.   

[Elana]

Just know that the signal to noise spec on the m10 means that running at 24bit is useless.

What are you taping? For rock and roll through a pa, I doubt you'd care about the difference.

Solo piano in an old church....

A bit of rocky stuff and a bit of quieter stuff.  Lately I've been taping my friend's cover band, which does pop/rock covers, but they don't care about quality so much as just having a recording for them to listen to themselves. I care about quality though, and my stuff sounds worlds better than the H2 the bassist uses when I'm not there. In that case maybe the A/D difference is not as noticeable.  But I also like taping singer/songwriters.  And I try to get out to get out to shows that come through of taper-friendly artists when I can, so it varies.

I also have never taped in 24 bit.  But I may try in the future.

I posted a couple of blind comps (maybe three) comparing the a/d of the v3 against the original R09.  Surprisingly, the r09 was favored by the vast majority of voters.   The results were really surprising, but it was done with quite a bit of rigor, and the outcome was repeated.  I still think the v3 a/d is excellent, and some people certainly preferred it.

I have a lot of experience with the v3 > r09 rig, and I think the m10 a/d sounds quite a bit better.  However, I have yet to hear any comps of the m10 a/d compared to the v3's a/d, or the 722.

That's good to know about the R09.  The other thing I like about the M10 is I've been told the battery life is fantastic.  I also like that about the DR100mkii.  I can get at least 3 hours on the Li-ion battery. I don't think I've touched the AA's in it yet.

[dogmusic]

I like to run a second recorder as backup when I tape.   Right now I use an optimod V3 and I have been recording to a DR-100mkii via spdif.

So my options are to get a recorder w/ optical in and run them both digital.

The Sony D50 has optical in (and also sounds great line-in).

There was one on ebay recently for $349.00.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

However, I have yet to hear any comps of the m10 a/d compared to the v3's a/d, or the 722.

I swear you even posted in johnw's thread when he did his from phish @ alpine.   

Maybe!  It is unfortunate that we don't have a category devoted just to posting actual comps. It would make it easier to organize and find them.  Though a search for comp in the subject works pretty well.

[DSatz]

?? Why would anyone think that a preferable-sounding recording in a comparison indicates a better A/D converter, even if all the other items of recording equipment were exactly equal? The more-favored recording in a comparison only tells you that the total mixure of ingredients at that time (including, most importantly, the sound field at the exact locations of the microphones) gave you a result that's more to your liking. A different band, a different PA system, a different room, different microphone placement, different microphones--change any or all of those things as always happens in real life, and the comparison could go the other way, big time. (And that's ignoring the considerable impact of the playback system.)

Audio engineers have worked for ~100 years now with less-than-perfect equipment in less-than-perfect recording venues. We've learned to use the characteristics of that equipment and those venues, warts and all, to get the best results we can. Often that involves turning a shortcoming into a virtue, e.g. the fact that most good "omnidirectional" microphones aren't omnidirectional at high frequencies, or that most large-diaphragm cardioids are cardioid only in the midrange--we work with that.

Probably the most glaring example was when the CD medium was new and the major record companies tried to issue CDs from their vinyl tape masters--the far more transparent CD medium revealed the compromises that had been made for decades in producing LPs. That certainly wasn't the fault of the CD medium, but in the audiophile press there was a great, sanctimonious rush to shoot the messenger.

I mean, c'mon, this is obvious, isn't it? Comparisons (if well made) can tell you whether two items of equipment produce a discernably different sound or not--and if so, sometimes you can tell whether one microphone, preamp, A/D, or [whatever] has more or less of some aspect of response than another item. But that's about it. As long as both recordings are reasonably free of gross defects overall, then even if everyone clearly prefers one recording over the other, you can't judge the quality of any of the individual items of equipment that way.

--best regards

[F.O.Bean]

I would run v3>optical out>Sony D50 and be done with it. Run the dr100mkII as the backup

[johnw]

Here is that comparison. Unfortunately the files were on Megaupload so they are gone. Not sure if I still have them somewhere, but if I find them, I can post again.

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=138489.0

[Ozpeter]

?? Why would anyone think that a preferable-sounding recording in a comparison indicates a better A/D converter, even if all the other items of recording equipment were exactly equal?

Very well put, that post.  The best one could do to compare converters would be to know what part number was used and whether it was held to be better or worse than any other.

[justink]

If I didn't spend so much on my V3, I wouldn't mind just running the R-44 alone at all.