> Or am I reading this wrong? A lot of this is over my head.
Much of it is technobabble. The sole criterion for our use is simple, what
do the recordings sound like? I can't hear any degradation using my "toy"
pocket recorders.
For that money I would want more than two channels.
My take from the specs and other web info is that it will make very high
standard recordings, but built-in mics have immediate limitations like
handling noise and wind. They are cardioid and as such will be very
sensitive to any movement however high their quality. The mics are electret
and inherently noisier than the best external mics, let alone dedicated
stereo arrays.
Anything you can put in your pocket I classify as in the "toy" category.
This is no criticism of the record quality, but what input signal do you
supply it with? I would want at least XLR input jacks and a high quality
balanced low noise impedance matched mic input. You can get that at a much
lower price.
> "Because of the nature of sigma-delta converters, one cannot make a direct
> comparison between DSD and PCM. An approximation is possible, though, and
> would place DSD in some aspects comparable to a PCM format that has a bit
> depth of 20 bits and a sampling frequency of 96 kHz.[3] PCM sampled at 24
> bits provides a (theoretical) additional 24 dB of dynamic range."
Wonderful writing. High sampling frequencies are fine for studio use where
storage is not a problem, but they give quite severe recording length
limitations when recording on a removable cards. Field recordings have a
limited dynamic range, so we have to be sensible when it comes to recording
them.
> " DSD makes use of noise shaping techniques in order to push quantization
> noise up to inaudible ultrasonic frequencies."
>
> So it sounds like the DSD doesn't really give that much more data per se, but
> may remove some of the inherent noise in the system.
It is difficult to hear quantisation noise plus the added masking dither,
but you can see it on a sound editor. On 16 bit recordings it takes up the
lower 2 bits and occasionally the third. That's a dynamic range of 84dB
which leaves plenty of elbow room to fit in a 50dB signal/noise range from a
quiet exterior location.
I assume that Sony have retained the overload buffer from earlier
recordings. I can't see the benefit of this over a sensible lower level
setting of input gain which gives ample headroom with recording noise way
below natural background noise. The danger is that users will rely on the
extra overload margin and then overload that. This is a hangover from hissy
tape recording.
I regard 24 bit recording and oversampling speeds as overkill with
inherently noisy natural location recording. I'd rather have more economical
but still perfectly acceptable file sizes.
The lack of XLR inputs (unless I missed that spec) suggests that external
mics have to be input through a 3.5mm unbalanced jack. I use a pro mixer and
Message: 3.
Subject: 5mm jacks and I can't fault that system into a Tascam "toy" recorder
at a
much lower cost.
I have used Sony gear extensively and they are a high quality manufacturer.
To sum up my quibbles, is this entry into the amateur market over
specification?
David Brinicombe
|