Topic: Sony PCM-M10 (Part 4)

[su6oxone]

So far I really like the M10, it's a very nice little recorder.  A bit plasticky, but overall nicer than the R-09HR/R-09 that I owned in the past although it falls a bit short of the Olympus LS-10 in terms of materials and build quality IMO. 

One thing though, is there no adjustment of the backlight besides on/off?  I've never seen a LCD/OLED screen on a recorder that didn't let you adjust the backlight brightness, but I can't seem to find anything in the menus.  It's plenty readable in low light conditions and not too bright even in the dark, but I wonder how viewable it will be outdoors in the sunlight.

[willndmb]

not sure i want to deal with sending mine in for a refurb when setting the clock doesn't kill me and really is only now and then

[audBall]

I picked up at Lowepro Ridge 20 at Sport Chalet for $7.99 the other day.  It fits the M10 just barely and has room for a set of batteries and extra cards. 

[wmacky1]

I need a equipment case for this recorder, but I don't know if the Lowepro will work. I want to hang the M10 on/ off a tripod. So, The case needs to be a pouch with a small shoulder or hand strap of some kind. It also MUST have the ability to plug in a mike while it's in the case. A plus would to be able to plug in headphones too? I guess a Right angle adapter, along with a larger roomy case could better facilitate Headphone use? Thoughts? I also feel a top flap opening may be best? Something the unit could easily be slid in and out of while in use because, I don't think I could  ever find anything allowing "in case" button operation! I already have the "Zune" case mentioned earlier, and while it's great for storage, the unit's not usable while tucked inside!

This setup will be for outdoor / storm recording.

[rastasean]

Get a lunch bag. It meets all the requirements you want.

[wmacky1]

I was thinking for along the lines of a Tricorder case from Star Trek TOS     

[audBall]

The Lowepro mentioned above comes with a strap, has multiple loops on the back for clipping or attaching to a belt, and zips open over the top of the recorder giving access to the mic/line in.  It's definitely a solid little pouch.

[wmacky1]

The lowepro is close to my needs, However I could see that zipper srcatching the M10 screen as it's repeatedly slipped in and out to make adjustments, set levels. A top load with small flap, and no zipper would prove better for this use I think.


Edit:  I think I found it after looking at over 200 cases on Amazon!     http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/81Yotd-FLcL._AA1235_.jpg

[audBall]

What make/model is that case?

[wmacky1]

Here it is, but it's kinda pricey for what it is. If anyone knows of a cheaper way, let me know!         http://www.amazon.com/Tamrac-5689-Compact-Digital-Black/dp/B001E3XLZS/ref=sr_1_17?ie=UTF8&qid=1292784653&sr=8-17

[wmacky1]

And another question,

Has it been determined if the Line in completely bypasses the Mic pre stage, or if it only pads down the input? If it's the later, There would be no use adding an external pre for lowered noise levels.

[earmonger]

The Lowepro Ridge 30 is a little bigger than the 20, which leaves room at the side for the remote plug and at the top for mic/line in.  The slot in the front flap--which I don't think the Tamrac case has--is perfect for the PCM-M10 remote. That's mostly what you're going to be using to control the recorder anyway.  It's easy to let it hang open a little and see the green/red lights near the top if you're worried about levels, and you can reach in and turn the knob.

http://www.amazon.com/Lowepro-Ridge-Camera-Case-Black/dp/B000BH1GFK/ref=pd_cp_p_1

As for the zipper, put a screen protector on the PCM-M10 even if you do use a different case. Why take chances?

Here it is, but it's kinda pricey for what it is. If anyone knows of a cheaper way, let me know!         http://www.amazon.com/Tamrac-5689-Compact-Digital-Black/dp/B001E3XLZS/ref=sr_1_17?ie=UTF8&qid=1292784653&sr=8-17

[Mike Davis]

Hi everyone,

I'm brand new to this forum - just registered.

I'm also a new owner of the PCM-M10 - it's an amazing piece of hardware.

I have a question that some might say is off-topic for this forum because it involves using the PCM-M10 for playback of files obtained from other sources rather than files recorded on the deck itself, but here goes...

There are a couple of sites out there from which one can download 96-Khz/24-bit FLAC files of mostly classical or jazz recordings.

I have converted some of these purchased recordings from FLAC to WAV (decompressing them, but leaving them at 96/24) using dbPoweramp software.  Loading the WAVs to the PCM-M10, I then make use of its DAC for playback at 96/24 via the Line Out to feed a nice external headphone amp and headphones.  The whole idea, here, is to achieve high quaility portable audio.

Obviously, there's a whole lot more choice available in 44.1-kHz/16-bit CD format, which leads to my question (to anyone who cares to answer):

In your opinion, would it be best, in terms of sound quality, to just convert 44.1/16 content to WAV for playback on the PCM-M10, without upsampling or increasing the bit depth (to 96/16 or 96/24, for example)?

I'm eager to learn so feel free to correct me if I say something ignorant here, but at the moment, I believe that a bit depth of 24-bit offers nothing over 16-bit in terms of improved sound quality on playback, because the dynamic range supported by 16-bit is more than sufficient for both our ears and our audio hardware.  (I know, however, that even 32-bit can be of great benefit when recording.)

My question is more to the subject of sampling frequency - specifically, whether or not there's any benefit to be enjoyed (on playback), having upsampled a 44.1-kHz file to 88.2- or 96-kHz.

Which leads to another question:  The specs for the PCM-M10 make no mention (that I've seen) of support for 88.2 kHz sampling.  Does anyone know if it can play an 88.2 kHz WAV, even though it can't record at that frequency?  If so, does anyone believe that upsampling from 44.1-kHz to 88.2 kHz would provide superior results on playback vs. upsampling from 44.1 to 96?

Lastly, to save space on my microSDHC cards, I'm thinking of using dbPoweramp to reduce the bit depth of the 96/24 content purchased online to 96/16 (without changing the sampling frequency).   Does anyone think, again in terms of sound quality on playback, that I'd be better off leaving those files alone (as 96/24 WAVs)?  Not so much to preserve the 24-bit dynamics, which I contend cannot be appreciated, but rather to simply avoid a possible loss in playback quality caused by "over-processing" the files - adding one more step to the workflow.

Thank you everyone, in advance.  I'm looking forward to your responses.

Mike

[Ozpeter]

In my view any kind of upsampling isn't worthwhile as you can't magically extract something from the original audio which wasn't there in the first place.

[Artstar]

In your opinion, would it be best, in terms of sound quality, to just convert 44.1/16 content to WAV for playback on the PCM-M10, without upsampling or increasing the bit depth (to 96/16 or 96/24, for example)?

I'm eager to learn so feel free to correct me if I say something ignorant here, but at the moment, I believe that a bit depth of 24-bit offers nothing over 16-bit in terms of improved sound quality on playback, because the dynamic range supported by 16-bit is more than sufficient for both our ears and our audio hardware.  (I know, however, that even 32-bit can be of great benefit when recording.)

My question is more to the subject of sampling frequency - specifically, whether or not there's any benefit to be enjoyed (on playback), having upsampled a 44.1-kHz file to 88.2- or 96-kHz.

1) The fast rule is, leave it in its original format for absolute fidelity. Only convert if the equipment doesn't support the original format.
2) To my ears, 24 bit is of a great benefit when recording for the purposes of a lower noise floor, allowing for easier post-production work that may require the floor to be somewhat raised without hopefully raising too much noise with it as well. In playback, I have perceived a slight difference but I'd consider it to be insignificant. Again, that's to my ears. Everyone perceives sound and vision differently so there's no fast rule to that either.
3) Upsampling is a waste unless it's for equipment that doesn't support the existing format, which is extremely unlikely in itself. Point being, you can't gain any higher spectral definition than the lowest common denominator, simply because it was never sampled with such a resolution to begin with. There is no benefit to upsampling whatsoever in my professional opinion. If you want to achieve the highest possible playback quality, then whatever the original format is, leave it.