Topic: Sony PCM-M10 (Part 3)

[guysonic]

Here's my revised (more info) suggestions for best recording settings:

Use M10 ONLY set in 24 bit recording mode.  Sample rate is your choice, but suggest using 44.1K sample rate if wanting best CD compatible editing options.

Use M10 ONLY with MIC INPUT sensitivity switch set in "LOW" taping over this switch to not be moved. "HIGH" setting is way too much 20 dB boosted first stage gain giving inferior audio quality.  Even with very low VU levels, LOW setting gives cleaner more defined 24bit depth audio best boosted in post edit, NOT by using deck in HIGH setting.

Use M10 in full manual (not AUTO, Limiter) record level control mode setting also taping over this switch. 

Wise tact is to always engage HOLD feature so touching buttons do not accidentally stop recording until you're ready to stop the session. 

Do all editing in 24 bit mode, adjusting loudness and other changes desired.  Then as last software edit step convert copy of file to 16 bit if later doing CD storing this copy of file for disc burning purposes.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

Also, are right-angle mini's generally preferred?  Would going straight-in 1/8" be too 'bulky' (using that term loosely)?

It completely depends on the cable and connector.   Some 1/8 cables are made with goofy amounts of heatshrink (many cables I see pictured on TS look that way).  I guess they'd rather strain the internal jack than the cable.  And some cables are made with stiff cable that strains the jack - I think that is a major source of jack strain.   Some RA cables are worse than straight-in terms of strain.   The m10 jacks are on the top, so a straight in can be good if in a pocket or a bag.

An RA on a side entry jack, with an overly reinforced cable, strains the jack if the recorder and cable are 'squeezed'.

Ideally, I'd say...  Use cable as flexible as 1804a, cut the connector down to nothing, and pot it in hot glue or epoxy, as Guysonic does.

[spyder9]

Just joined Team M10.  Gave it a test run over the weekend.  Ran it head to head against the R09HR.  Will upload samples to the M10 vs R09HR thread this week.

Very impressed with the ADC.  Extremely clean.  Reminds me of the V3.  Transparent.  High frequencies much more recessed than the D50.  The main reason I dumped the D50 after 2 shows.  Little light in the low frequency department, however.

Did you know there are effects to increase the bass...in playback. its in the effects menu, bass1 or bass2 or off.

Yes, I saw that.  Prefer not to add any effects for now.

[visibility]

Hi, I am new to this forum. I have just spent several hours reviewing all the messages on the M10. I am pretty much convinced I need one of these units but I have some noob questions I hope someone can help me with.

The main reason I am interested in the M10 (and D50 to some degree) is for recording ambient soundscapes - waterfalls, babbling brooks, wind, rain, ocean waves, thunder, etc. I would not be using the unit to record music as that is not my scene. Sorry  . One thing I *am* concerned about is the apparent minimal stereo separation owing to the omni mics. I have listened to some samples provided by users and this issue is obvious. I have listed to samples from the D50 with the mics placed in different positions and the separation is quite stunning.

My question is whether post production manipulation of the stereo image to produce wider stereo separation loses much signal in the process and sounds ‘natural’. I have heard some samples of this also on this forum and it sounds better than nonprocessed but as I eventually plan to burn these images to CD for family, friends, and patients (I'm a shrink), I want it to sound as natural as possible.

I know very little about external mics except that they seem to be very expensive. I would rather not have to bother with them but if what I want cannot be achieved with internal mics I may have to go that way. Can I ask in practice how this would work given there in only a single stereo in socket? I am guessing you would use two mono mics spliced into the stereo input? Can anyone recommend suitable but not overly expensive external mics for this function? I will be recording in the wilderness so I can’t be lugging too much equipment.

The M10 has some compelling selling points and sounds perfect for my needs except for the stereo separation issue. I would be grateful of your responses and views.

Many thanks.

[jiawa]

Hi, I am new to this forum. I have just spent several hours reviewing all the messages on the M10. I am pretty much convinced I need one of these units but I have some noob questions I hope someone can help me with.

The M10 has some compelling selling points and sounds perfect for my needs except for the stereo separation issue. I would be grateful of your responses and views.

Many thanks.

Would Olympus LS-10/11 work in your case?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS4PYn6prBs

[Kevin T]

Or for soundscapes the Zoom H2. In 4mic surrond or 5.1 ambisonic could be stunnning

[visibility]

Would Olympus LS-10/11 work in your case?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS4PYn6prBs

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Thanks for the link.

The Olympus LS-11 was on my shortlist but according to reviews I have read, the Sony had better audio specs, battery life, and build. Moreover, the LS-11 is outrageously and prohibitively over-priced in this country (Australia). The H2 suggested by Kevin above does have the two sets of stereo mics but the mics, preamps, and build are apparently pretty crappy. I haven't actually seen either device and these comments come from reviews.

Any thoughts on post processing to widen the stereo separation as queried in my initial post?

[Ozpeter]

Have you seen my posts (somewhere  here...) where I discussed and demonstrated widening techniques for the M10 - and did I post any ambient examples?  If not maybe I should bestir myself and do so.  But I have to say although I'm in general an M10 fan, I personally don't like its imaging.

Meanwhile, don't dismiss the H2 - listen to the example posted at http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=104998.msg1401411#msg1401411 (assuming the sample can still be downloaded).

[visibility]

Have you seen my posts (somewhere  here...) where I discussed and demonstrated widening techniques for the M10 - and did I post any ambient examples?  If not maybe I should bestir myself and do so.  But I have to say although I'm in general an M10 fan, I personally don't like its imaging.

Meanwhile, don't dismiss the H2 - listen to the example posted at http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=104998.msg1401411#msg1401411 (assuming the sample can still be downloaded).

Yes, it was your post processing I was referring to Ozpeter. I think it was you that reprocessed some existing audio samples. It was actually hard to tell by listening to the short clips, though.

The link to the H2 example just plays blank unfortunately but in any case I'm not awestruck (in the same way that I am by the M10) by the H2 design and mic quality.

On the other hand, the mics on the M10 seem really quite good it’s just that they are omnidirectional and there is considerable overlap of left and right images which result in very poor stereo separation - almost a mono image.

A couple of quick questions.

1. Is it possible to place some sort of physical barrier between the mics to limit mixing of the left and right images. I have no idea what this divide might look like in reality?

2. With your post-processing method, how effective is this actually in producing something close to what our ears might hear?

I am really trying to make do with the M10 in case you haven’t guessed.

Thanks.

[groovon]

...Is it possible to place some sort of physical barrier between the mics to limit mixing of the left and right images. I have no idea what this divide might look like in reality?

[/quote]

At a minimum this would have to be a disk (at least 10" in diameter?) positioned with a mic on each side. So a slot would have to be cut out of the disc for the recorder to sit in. You could bracket and mount the whole thing off the 1/4" socket. I was actually thinking of building one out of Plexiglass/Perspex, but it would be a cumbersome setup, and ultimately I don't see any advantage over using a pair of external mics.
(The M-10's internal mics are decent, but generally thought of as a 'bonus', or just for off-the-cuff use.)
Dave

[visibility]

...ultimately I don't see any advantage over using a pair of external mics.

Dave

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I see Dave. Please excuse my ignorance but how is this done in practice - attaching 2 mics to a single stereo mic input? I gather these would need to be individually powered by battery. Does one use 2 x mono mics spliced into the stereo input? Can anyone provide details of suitable but not overly expensive external mics for this function? I'm pretty new to this entire field and know very little. Any help is appreciated.

[Ozpeter]

Post-processing is a fudge, inevitably.  You'll have seen from my posts that the high frequencies are pushed to the edge of the image and the low frequencies to the centre, and any correction can't be exact. 

As for that H2 sample - http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/9/22/1451533/Dogs%20in%20park%20for%20net%20MS.mp3 - having now bothered to recheck it myself, it plays fine here.  As it's a recording of relatively quiet sounds, you have to keep the playback volume up, though beware of the end (car doors slamming and car radio coming on). 

I could mention another H2 sample but as this is a PCM-M10 thread I won't.  Oh well, as you begged, see http://www.2090.org/zoom/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=11501 - my point being that for stereo imaging the H2 is probably king of portable recorders due to its capsule configuration.  (Obviously it's not king on a great number of other fronts!).  The M10 is IMHO not at all good for imaging, on the other hand.  But excellent in many other respects.

[rastasean]

I see Dave. Please excuse my ignorance but how is this done in practice - attaching 2 mics to a single stereo mic input? I gather these would need to be individually powered by battery. Does one use 2 x mono mics spliced into the stereo input? Can anyone provide details of suitable but not overly expensive external mics for this function? I'm pretty new to this entire field and know very little. Any help is appreciated.

there are plenty of advantages of using external mics.

There are mics made by chris church. i'll use his ca-1s as an example. they are two mono microphones that terminate to a 1/8" plug that goes in the line-in on the m10. essentially one is left audio and one is right audio. there are single point stereo mics. that means one mic has a capsule for left and a capsule for right audio that plugs into a 1/8" adapter.

what kind of music are you interested in recording? the ca-1 i mentioned does not require a battery box and will run on the plug in power provided by the m10.

[Carrera2]

The main reason I am interested in the M10 (and D50 to some degree) is for recording ambient soundscapes - waterfalls, babbling brooks, wind, rain, ocean waves, thunder, etc.

You might head over to groups.yahoo.com and review messages on the naturerecordists forum. There's been some traffic about using the M10 for ambient nature sounds. Historically, the Audio Technica AT3032 were regarded as the lowest noise, best value omni mics for nature recording. They would require a preamp, however. I used my Church Audio omnis (CA-11?) that terminate into a stereo mini plug, split about 3 feet  the other day to record a chamber music concert and the results were just fine.

[visibility]

I could mention another H2 sample but as this is a PCM-M10 thread I won't.  Oh well, as you begged, see http://www.2090.org/zoom/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=11501

That's a nice recording, thanks for the link.