Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Sony ICD-UX560 series  (Read 3147 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jerryfreak

  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4350
  • high desert for life
Re: Sony ICD-UX560
« Reply #15 on: April 27, 2020, 12:35:25 AM »
Are the mics on the 570 movable? They look like miniature mics on the A10.

no, and i cant say they are the same as A10, they seem to be smaller diameter based on housing size
my facemask is a windscreen

People whose posts I wont see:
capnhook, daspyknows, Melanie, morst, Rob D., Scooter123, Sloan Simpson, Walstib62

Offline jerryfreak

  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4350
  • high desert for life
Re: Sony ICD-UX560
« Reply #16 on: April 27, 2020, 06:01:35 PM »
there are software settings on the 570 for 'narrow'/'wide'/etc type pickups. cant remember if thats on the 560 as well. not sure whats going on there, if its a sensitivity/noise cancellation thing or if its actually altering the pattern of the mics
my facemask is a windscreen

People whose posts I wont see:
capnhook, daspyknows, Melanie, morst, Rob D., Scooter123, Sloan Simpson, Walstib62

Offline jerryfreak

  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4350
  • high desert for life
Re: Sony ICD-UX560
« Reply #17 on: June 06, 2020, 10:45:33 PM »
my friend sent me back my 560, so now i have 560 and 570 in hand. ill do some side-by side testing soon. as far as a size comparison, the 570, while 3 g lighter than the 560 (48 vs 51g), is larger in all 3 dimensions. it has the lighter-weight plastic-y feel of the A10. the older 560 is more dense, and 'brick-like', just has a sturdier feel to me
my facemask is a windscreen

People whose posts I wont see:
capnhook, daspyknows, Melanie, morst, Rob D., Scooter123, Sloan Simpson, Walstib62

Offline jerryfreak

  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4350
  • high desert for life
Re: Sony ICD-UX560
« Reply #18 on: June 07, 2020, 07:29:27 AM »
ok so i did some more tests of UX560 vs UX570 vs A10 at 16 and 24 bit
all tests playing sine waves and program material out of a mytek brooklyn dac being fed 32bit/96K files from soundforge
beginning of file was a generated 1kHz sine wave at an amplitude of -0.5dBFS, followed by a portion of generated silence
after the silent portion, the following program material was used: 'Hey Nineteen' by Steely Dan Gaucho 24/96 allbum bounced into a 32/96 file and reduced by -20dB, -40dB, and -60dB to simulate low-level 'mic-level' program material

remember that both ICD-UX5x0 unis have no level control on line in, so i am feeding it the maximum signal level possible to peak between -1.0 dBFS and FSD. This corresponds to an input level of 12 (out of 30) on the PCM-A10. This corresponded to the volume control on the Mytek set to -20 dB. the resulting signal level was measured at -4dBU using my AD2K


The maximum input level the PCM-A10 can take (at input level 01) is 16 dB higher than the ICD units (-4dB on the Mytek volume control, +12dBU as measured by AD2K). This high-level signal was tested later to see if we gained any advantage in dynamic range with the hotter signal to the A10 (see next post)

by all intents and purposes UX560 and 570 appear to act identically on line-in
they have the same input sensititivity (+/- 0.2dB) - both correspond roughly to an input level setting of 12 on the A10
they have about the same noise floor in the silent portions in both cases , -74ish dB peak, -90.309 dB RMS
the A10 at 16/44, input level 12, had a noise floor of -76-78ish dB peak but the same -90.309 dB RMS*
the A10 at 24/44, input level 12,  had a noise floor of -75-76ish dB peak and a similar 90.2ish dB RMS**
when gain was applied to the A10 in 24-bit mode (by adjusting input level), the noise floor raised in a similar fashion. Adding 18dB of gain added about 17 dB of noise. Adding 27dB of gain (input level 30) added approximately 26dB of noise


*notice the 16 bit files all have RMS noise of -90.309. Is this a function of 16bit noise/dither? in other words is the RMS input noise lower than the LSB data? This seems to be the case, as when i go into the AD2K at 16/44.1, the peak noise is -inf, but the RMS is again -90.309 dB. since RMS noise is usually 15-20 dB below peak, obviously when the RMS noise gets below 90dB in a 16-bit file it is reported as -90.309 dB

**notice that the A10 at this input level sees essentially no advantage in dynamic range at 16 vs 24 bit

raw data of noise floors from test files 'peak level' in each test is the recorded level of the -0.5dB sine wave in the test file

icd-ux560, peak at -0.9 dBFS
                                                    Left Channel           Right Channel       
Maximum sample value (dB)                       -74.746                -73.407           
RMS level (dB)                                      -90.309                -90.309           
Integrated Loudness (LUFS)      -Inf.
Loudness Range (LU)          0.00
Maximum True Peak Loudness (dBTP)   -71.22
Maximum Short-Term Loudness (LUFS)   -81.48
Maximum Momentary Loudness (LUFS)   -81.42

-----------------
icd-ux570, peak at -0.8 and -0.7dBFS (L/R)

                                                    Left Channel           Right Channel     
Maximum sample value (dB)                       -74.746                -74.746           
RMS level (dB)                                      -90.309                -90.309           
Integrated Loudness (LUFS)      -Inf.
Loudness Range (LU)          0.00
Maximum True Peak Loudness (dBTP)   -73.41
Maximum Short-Term Loudness (LUFS)   -81.50
Maximum Momentary Loudness (LUFS)   -81.44

----------------------
pcm-A10 , 16/44 line in level 12, peak -0.4, -0.6dBFS (L/R)

                                                    Left Channel           Right Channel     
Maximum sample value (dB)                       -78.268                -76.330           
RMS level (dB)                                      -90.309                -90.309           
   
Integrated Loudness (LUFS)      -Inf.
Loudness Range (LU)          0.00
Maximum True Peak Loudness (dBTP)   -74.75
Maximum Short-Term Loudness (LUFS)   -85.21
Maximum Momentary Loudness (LUFS)   -85.15


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

pcm-A10 , 24/44 line in level 12, peak -0.4, -0.6dBFS (L/R)
                                                    Left Channel           Right Channel     
Maximum sample value (dB)                       -75.570                -76.336           
RMS level (dB)                                      -90.141                -90.275           
Integrated Loudness (LUFS)      -Inf.
Loudness Range (LU)          0.00
Maximum True Peak Loudness (dBTP)   -75.44
Maximum Short-Term Loudness (LUFS)   -85.62
Maximum Momentary Loudness (LUFS)   -85.53

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

pcm-A10 , 24/44 line in - input level 24, about +18dB of gain more than original test at input level 12

                                                    Left Channel           Right Channel     
Maximum sample value (dB)                       -59.417                -58.953           
RMS level (dB)                                      -73.051                -73.263           
Integrated Loudness (LUFS)      -69.24
Loudness Range (LU)          0.10
Maximum True Peak Loudness (dBTP)   -58.88
Maximum Short-Term Loudness (LUFS)   -69.22
Maximum Momentary Loudness (LUFS)   -69.04


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

pcm-A10 , 24/44 line in - input level 30 (max), about 27dB of gain more than original test at input level 12

                                                    Left Channel           Right Channel     
   
Maximum sample value (dB)                       -50.915                -50.675           
RMS level (dB)                                      -64.137                -64.164           
Integrated Loudness (LUFS)      -60.27
Loudness Range (LU)          0.10
Maximum True Peak Loudness (dBTP)   -50.12
Maximum Short-Term Loudness (LUFS)   -60.21
Maximum Momentary Loudness (LUFS)   -60.11
« Last Edit: June 07, 2020, 11:12:09 AM by jerryfreak »
my facemask is a windscreen

People whose posts I wont see:
capnhook, daspyknows, Melanie, morst, Rob D., Scooter123, Sloan Simpson, Walstib62

Offline Ozpeter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1169
Re: Sony ICD-UX560
« Reply #19 on: June 07, 2020, 08:24:09 AM »
i just got this back after leaving it behind at TXR (thanks Jon Hart!)

that evening i set it on a table a few feet behind where my mics were set up at stage lip. recording via the internal mics. id call it almost passable and a better-than-nothing EQ-able backup in event of a catastrophic failure. it may not be the most hi-fi ever, but the internal mics didnt overload..... sounds ok on the quieter parts. might fly for an acoustic gig

https://soundcloud.com/aurorabluevalentine/damn-skippy-icd-ux560

for comparison, heres the 4011s a few feet in front (and a few feet farther from the crowd)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RQwkmZAuN_d8JQyX68j8g9DDl6bNse3D/view

Just checked this out - chief problem I hear with the sound is that it's effectively mono - there seems to be no separation between the mics and I imagine that they are closely spaced omnis, M10 style, which is hardly the best way to capture a stereo image.  So I wonder whether the 570 with its width control attempts to do something about that, maybe by a simple XY to MS to XY matrix?  With the M10 that could help with the higher frequencies but the low frequencies were always clumped in the middle (due to the laws of physics!).  Of course at the price you have to temper expectations.

Offline jerryfreak

  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4350
  • high desert for life
Re: Sony ICD-UX560
« Reply #20 on: June 07, 2020, 09:29:23 AM »
yeah that was more of a test of overload. i didnt expect a real stereo image from (presumably) omnis a few inches apart, but the 'width' is something i can experiment with on the 570
my facemask is a windscreen

People whose posts I wont see:
capnhook, daspyknows, Melanie, morst, Rob D., Scooter123, Sloan Simpson, Walstib62

Offline jerryfreak

  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4350
  • high desert for life
Re: Sony ICD-UX560
« Reply #21 on: June 07, 2020, 10:07:28 AM »
the next test was a control on the PCM-A10 to see if the tests above (which showed the ICD-UX voice recorders to not be that far off the A10 at the maximum input level of the voice recorders), actually had the A10 operating it at its maximum dynamic range. Since the A10 can actually take a 16dB higher line in than the  voice recorders at its least sensitive setting (input level 01 , 0dBFS = +12dBU), tests were conducted in both 16 and 24-bit with the same program material, and the mytek volume adjusted 16dB higher

+12 dBU is a pretty hot level for an unbalanced signal... lets see if it clips.

lookin good!:


the statistics on the noise floor at this level were improved quite a bit

pcm-A10 , 24/44 line in level 01 (+11 dBU), peak -0.9, -1.1 dBFS (L/R)


                                                    Left Channel           Right Channel     
Maximum sample value (dB)                       -82.969                -82.473             
RMS level (dB)                                      -96.128                -96.398             

Integrated Loudness (LUFS)      -Inf.
Loudness Range (LU)          0.00
Maximum True Peak Loudness (dBTP)   -82.16
Maximum Short-Term Loudness (LUFS)   -90.84
Maximum Momentary Loudness (LUFS)   -90.79

-------------------------
pcm-A10 , 16/44 line in level 01 (+11 dBU), peak -0.9, -1.1 dBFS (L/R)

                                                    Left Channel           Right Channel       
Maximum sample value (dB)                       -84.288                -84.288             
RMS level (dB)                                      -90.309                -90.309             

Integrated Loudness (LUFS)      -Inf.
Loudness Range (LU)          0.00
Maximum True Peak Loudness (dBTP)   -80.77
Maximum Short-Term Loudness (LUFS)   -89.32
Maximum Momentary Loudness (LUFS)   -89.26

---------

again we see the RMS noise measured below the limit of the 16-bit container
again we see the 16-bit file with a slightly lower peak noise floor than the 24-bit file (!) odd....

the hotter levels into the A10 definitely seemed to pay off.... we gained 5-7dB of headroom.
Impressive that the A10's input couldn't be brickwalled at its lowest input sensitivity . Its best performance apparently will always be seen with an input hot enough to get high levels with the input level set in the single digits.

since I was using the AD2K as a reference level meter i ran the same +11.5 dBU signal into the AD2K at 24/44 to see what the noise floor looked like there. Highest sensitivit yof the AD2K is 14dBU=0dBFS, so we see the peaks bout 2dBFS lower:

 AD2K, 24/44 line in (+11.5 dBU), peak -2.5, -2.4 dBFS (L/R)
                                                    Left Channel           Right Channel       
Maximum sample value (dB)                       -97.567                -96.890             
RMS level (dB)                                      -111.239               -110.870           
       

Integrated Loudness (LUFS)      -Inf.
Loudness Range (LU)          0.00
Maximum True Peak Loudness (dBTP)   -96.26
Maximum Short-Term Loudness (LUFS)   -Inf.
Maximum Momentary Loudness (LUFS)   -Inf.

of course the AD2K beats the A10 handily on noise level, by about 15 dB, but its a good reference by which to measure the line-in noise of the A10

« Last Edit: June 07, 2020, 11:16:16 AM by jerryfreak »
my facemask is a windscreen

People whose posts I wont see:
capnhook, daspyknows, Melanie, morst, Rob D., Scooter123, Sloan Simpson, Walstib62

Offline jerryfreak

  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4350
  • high desert for life
Re: Sony ICD-UX560
« Reply #22 on: June 07, 2020, 10:54:26 AM »
and of course, the comp. just a simple 2 files this time

one of these is the ICD-UX560 with source signal peaking around -16 dBU
one of these is the PCM-A10 with source signal peaking around 0 dBU with input level set to minimum (01)

peaks on both recorders were at a conservative -12dBFS, plenty of room for headroom.

both files were then normalized. can you tell them apart? if so, which do you prefer?

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1fIlaMWwA2NWWKqdZpj9YMJEFk22ERCFj?usp=sharing

is it even a fair fight? assuming youd probably be adding a bit of noise when boosting gain 16dB to feed the A10 at its optimum, in most field situations (nothings free!)
« Last Edit: June 07, 2020, 10:57:25 AM by jerryfreak »
my facemask is a windscreen

People whose posts I wont see:
capnhook, daspyknows, Melanie, morst, Rob D., Scooter123, Sloan Simpson, Walstib62

Offline jerryfreak

  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4350
  • high desert for life
Re: Sony ICD-UX560
« Reply #23 on: June 08, 2020, 01:56:19 AM »
my bad on that shared link,i had the settings wrong. is fully shareable now
my facemask is a windscreen

People whose posts I wont see:
capnhook, daspyknows, Melanie, morst, Rob D., Scooter123, Sloan Simpson, Walstib62

Offline Ozpeter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1169
Re: Sony ICD-UX560
« Reply #24 on: June 08, 2020, 03:56:35 AM »
Maybe the A sample has a tiny bit more weight in the bass.  But really, comparing either of these to a version playing from Google Play Music, there's not much in it.  My ears are old and shot but I can't picture someone taking exception to either in terms of overall sound quality. 

Offline Hexacore300

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Sony ICD-UX560
« Reply #25 on: June 08, 2020, 04:58:44 AM »
I could hardly tell them apart. But I did notice a clicking sound in the hey19-B recording on the left channel at about 0:49. Any idea what could have caused this?

Offline jerryfreak

  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4350
  • high desert for life
Re: Sony ICD-UX560
« Reply #26 on: June 08, 2020, 07:53:21 AM »
dropped sample, good catch!

https://i.imgur.com/dOtMFUD.png

further testing is in order

the samples are identified in the hidden text below, roll over to see

A = A10
B = ICD-UX560


------------------------------------------
« Last Edit: June 10, 2020, 06:17:08 AM by jerryfreak »
my facemask is a windscreen

People whose posts I wont see:
capnhook, daspyknows, Melanie, morst, Rob D., Scooter123, Sloan Simpson, Walstib62

Offline jerryfreak

  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4350
  • high desert for life
Re: Sony ICD-UX560
« Reply #27 on: July 15, 2020, 11:11:27 PM »
i was thinking of unloading the 570 as i like the 560 better for field recording due to peak margin and the slightly slimmer feel

however, the three extra nav buttons on the 570 add a lot of playback functionality when listening to long form stuff like audiobooks, podcasts, etc
my facemask is a windscreen

People whose posts I wont see:
capnhook, daspyknows, Melanie, morst, Rob D., Scooter123, Sloan Simpson, Walstib62

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.053 seconds with 54 queries.
© 2002-2020 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF