Topic: Sony PCM-M10 (Part 6)

[Ekib]

What aaronji means is, really, let's not go overboard on the microSD specs. Class 4 or class 6 should be more than sufficient if you are using a good brand like SanDisk. Unless you've figured out a way to record HD video with the PCM-M10.

Some people may make funny comments , but I wonder what people holds back from recording at the highest rate and buying the best and fastest card ? Does a class 10 card costs $500.00 or more ? It doesn't , and we've had people here at this board having trouble with cards less than class 10 . So why not advising the best card on the market ?
Same as the eternal discussion about 96/24 etc. Does storage costs a fortune also ?
I'm the proud owner of a PCM M10 , thanks to advice I followed from some people here . I was glad I bought a Lexar class 10 card . I am having NO problems whatsoever on my recordings ( knock on wood ) using 96 / 24 .

[aaronji]

Some people may make funny comments , but I wonder what people holds back from recording at the highest rate and buying the best and fastest card ? Does a class 10 card costs $500.00 or more ? It doesn't , and we've had people here at this board having trouble with cards less than class 10 . So why not advising the best card on the market ?
Same as the eternal discussion about 96/24 etc. Does storage costs a fortune also ?

Why not record at the highest rate?  Maybe because it doubles the storage requirement for a negligible benefit in audio quality.  Storage might not cost a fortune, but it costs enough, especially with redundancy.

As for the cards, why is class 10 "best"?  You're advocating buying a Ferrari to drive in the bike lane...How do you know the issues people faced were due to class?  The answer is you don't.  I have had two name brand class 10 cards fail, as well as cards in other speed classes.  Like everything, these cards just wear out over time and will all fail at some point.  Personally, I would rather have two quality cards at lower speed than one at higher speed.

I'm the proud owner of a PCM M10 , thanks to advice I followed from some people here . I was glad I bought a Lexar class 10 card . I am having NO problems whatsoever on my recordings ( knock on wood ) using 96 / 24 .

Anecdote, not evidence.  There are many individuals using a wide variety of cards that haven't failed.  That doesn't mean they won't eventually, or that someone else with the same card won't have issues.

The bottom line: buy and use whatever makes you happy.  The numbers really don't support the necessity of high speed cards, though.  A class 2 card (2 MB/s), operating at half it's rated speed, would still be almost double the requirement for stereo 24/96 (0.55 MB/s)... 

[it-goes-to-eleven]

I'd argue counterfeiters are more likely to target the higher rated cards.  Just as they're more likely to target sony batteries rather than aftermarket brands.

I think mine is a class 4. Never had problems at 24/96. Not really even worth discussing, imho.

Class 2 is 2 MB/sec MINIMUM performance.  Class 10 is 10 MB/sec.

24/96 at 2 channels is .55 MB/sec.

[StuStu]

I'd argue counterfeiters are more likely to target the higher rated cards.  Just as they're more likely to target sony batteries rather than aftermarket brands.

I think mine is a class 4. Never had problems at 24/96. Not really even worth discussing, imho.

Class 2 is 2 MB/sec MINIMUM performance.  Class 10 is 10 MB/sec.

24/96 at 2 channels is .55 MB/sec.

Mine are Sandisk Class 4 and I've never had an issue running 24/96.

[gmm6797]

I have run Class 4 16gb and 32gb with no problems at all

[Javier Cinakowski]

I have a bunch of microSD cards from broken droids at work. They are all sandisc brand rated 2, 4 and some don't even have a class stamp on them.  They all work fine at 24/96 in my m10.   (The non class stamped ones don't work in my cannon hd camera fwiw....). 

[Sebastian]

I've been using an extremely cheap no name class 6 card from eBay for the last few shows and haven't had any problems at all (24/96).

[fmaderjr]

Why not record at the highest rate?  Maybe because it doubles the storage requirement for a negligible benefit in audio quality.  Storage might not cost a fortune, but it costs enough, especially with redundancy.

Exactly! I wouldn't dream of recording at 24/96. Can't hear any difference in audio quality plus there's probably a better chance of getting glitches in the recording at 24/96 if you happen to be using a card that can't keep up.

[gmm6797]

Why not record at the highest rate?  Maybe because it doubles the storage requirement for a negligible benefit in audio quality.  Storage might not cost a fortune, but it costs enough, especially with redundancy.

Exactly! I wouldn't dream of recording at 24/96. Can't hear any difference in audio quality plus there's probably a better chance of getting glitches in the recording at 24/96 if you happen to be using a card that can't keep up.

As someone who tapes EVERYTHING (M10 and 722) at 24/96, I would like some technical proof of the above... "better chance", please back that up with technical proof not just assumptions.

And considering that all decks record at "real-time" there is no difference (when recording) of a class 2 or a class 10... not to mention, that the class ratings are manufacturer specific and dont follow the SD industry standards.  You are more likely to see better ratings from the bigger names (not not always, A-Data is notorious for over rating by big chunks)

[Ekib]

Why not record at the highest rate?  Maybe because it doubles the storage requirement for a negligible benefit in audio quality.  Storage might not cost a fortune, but it costs enough, especially with redundancy.

Exactly! I wouldn't dream of recording at 24/96. Can't hear any difference in audio quality plus there's probably a better chance of getting glitches in the recording at 24/96 if you happen to be using a card that can't keep up.

As I've said before , when I used DAT for a while I recorded everything on LP. I couldn't hear the difference between LP and SP . But now , 20 years later , tapes recorded on LP have more drop outs and digital noise than the ones I recorded on SP . Most of these are still great . Those are facts for me. Same as cassette's I recorded in the 80's on more expensive tapes over cheaper tapes. The chrome tapes ( like TDK SA etc. ) are holding up much better than the cheap tapes ( which I didn't use much , lucky enough ).

Who knows how recordings hold up when recorded in a lower bit rate . I'm not taking a chance . It's not only about what you can hear . There must be a difference , why would Sony add 96 / 24 on the recorder anyway ?

And if there's something inexpensive it's data storage these days . It's almost next to nothing ...

2 TB goes for $ 150.00 . 1 hour on 96 / 24 takes 2 GB ...so you can store  aprox 1000 hours on a 2 TB hard drive . That's 0,15 cents per hour . To store a 3 hour concert would cost about $ 0,45 . That's what we're talking about . You can't get a beer for that , or park your car for that . Let alone , you couldn't buy any media in the past for that price ( DAT tapes , MD blanks or even cassette's ).

plus there's probably a better chance of getting glitches in the recording at 24/96 if you happen to be using a card that can't keep up.

That's why you need a class 10 card !

[gmm6797]

That's why you need a class 10 card !

Again, why? for what technical research has proved this?

I record 100+ bands a year, and used class 2 or 4 cards, and never seen a glitch... and I have some 70gb+ of 24/96 music from 1/1/12 to last night's show (not including the 2 years before of M10 or 722 recordings)

[aaronji]

There must be a difference , why would Sony add 96 / 24 on the recorder anyway ?

Marketing...

And if there's something inexpensive it's data storage these days . It's almost next to nothing ...

2 TB goes for $ 150.00 . 1 hour on 96 / 24 takes 2 GB ...so you can store  aprox 1000 hours on a 2 TB hard drive . That's 0,15 cents per hour . To store a 3 hour concert would cost about $ 0,45 . That's what we're talking about . You can't get a beer for that , or park your car for that . Let alone , you couldn't buy any media in the past for that price ( DAT tapes , MD blanks or even cassette's ).

Plus the backup drive at home.  Plus the offsite backup.  Plus the multiple copies of each recording (raw, edited, downsampled for CD/portable).  Plus all of the other files you need to store (other's recordings, commercial music, photos, videos, etc.)...

The gain from getting better mics will far outweigh whatever advantage (you think) 96 kHz sampling is giving you.

[Sebastian]

The gain from getting better mics will far outweigh whatever advantage (you think) 96 kHz sampling is giving you.

This point is somewhat invalid. The goal is to make the best out of whatever gear you have. And this is achieved by using the biggest possible bit depth and sampling rate.

Let me try an analogy here. You're a photographer and you have the choice of taking pictures with a 5 megapixel camera or a 20 megapixel camera. Which one would you use? For me, that decision would be a no-brainer, even though nobody can see a difference between the two on their computer screens. However, if you zoom in to the pictures far enough, you will eventually see a difference. The 20 mp camera simply stores more image information, hence a better representation of the picture.

Of course we're not photographers, but audio recordists. We are capturing sound waves. These audio signals are converted to digital information by the recorder's a/d converter. A higher sampling rate produces a more accurate representation of the analog sound wave than a lower sampling rate will. It's as simple as that. And I'll always go with the best possible representation of the original signal.

When you look at a sound wave like a graph, it's as simple as that:
bit depth = accuracy of the vertical part of the sound wave (y axis)
sampling rate = accuracy of the horizontal part of the sound wave (x axis)

I don't see a point in increasing the accuracy of just one axis. I max out the accuracy of both

[Todd R]

And it isn't just about storage either. For those of us who do post processing, the additional time post processing can really add up. For a 90 minute set, every time I either do an analysis step to find out what my max and RMS levels are or do a processing step, it takes 2-3 minutes on a 24/48 file. And I'll easily have 10-12 of those steps, so 25-30 minutes of processing time per set, include file saves, file transfers and the time it takes to open the file into my DAW software, it is easily over an hour of computing time just for a teo set show.  Make that 24/96 and it just doubled to take 2 hours for processing time alone to transfer my shows.

I have a backlog of hundreds of shows I need to transfer. That is a whole lot of my time for very dubious benefit, if any.

There are lots of threads on this topic. There is no evidence whatsoever that for any piece of gear that given the necessary filters or whatever that need to be implemented that 96 will be better than 48. Yep, it isn't even that you might not hear the difference, it is simply that without serious, rigorous testing, you will never know if you may be making significantly worse recordings with your particular gear by recording at 96 insteadmof 48. And then add in playback. With my playback, I can only listen at up to 24/48 natively. So if I record at 96, I will need to do post processing to get back to 24/48 to listen to it, and others may need it processed down to 16/44 to listen to it.  Again, the DAW software might make the signal far worse to start at 24/96 and re-sample back to 24/48 than it would have been if you just recorded at 24/48 to begin with.

Which is all to say, everyone can do whatever they feel is best, but there is no absolute right and wrong -- it is just a personal choice.

[Todd R]

The gain from getting better mics will far outweigh whatever advantage (you think) 96 kHz sampling is giving you.

This point is somewhat invalid. The goal is to make the best out of whatever gear you have. And this is achieved by using the biggest possible bit depth and sampling rate.

Actually, I don't think the point is invalid. If as I say above, the amount of processing time matters to me, if I want to record at 24/96 instead of my current 24/48, then I need to buy a new computer that is twice as fast. Or I could keep the computer I have, record at 24/48, and spend the money I would have spent on a new computer and get better mics.  i think my recordings sound better recorded at 24/48 when I keep my 4 year old computer and put my available funds into better mics. Others choose newer and faster computers, I choose to put more of my available money into taping gear.

And the analogy to photography just really doesn't hold. Again, there are numerous threads on this topic already.

A higher sampling rate produces a more accurate representation of the analog sound wave than a lower sampling rate will. It's as simple as that. And I'll always go with the best possible representation of the original signal.

 It isn't just about the bit depth or sampling frequency, it is also about the brickwall filters that need to be implemented, and whether implementing those filters at higher frequencies degrade the signal more than they would have been at lesser frequencies. For any given gear, recording at 96 could actually be worse than recording at 48, and you won't know without rigorous testing. And manufacturers don't necessarily want to do that testing, since they want market their gear as 24/96 gear.