looking for high quality but small audio recorder

"I've never had a problem with the LINE level from the XLR sockets of my Sound Devices MixPre-D mixer or with my Mackie mixers. ( as far as I know these are +4dBv outputs ) All of my Olympus recorders have handled these signals with no problems at all."
- I have no experience with the Olympus recorders.. feeding a (nominal) +4dB signal with in a Sound Deices (XLR) front-end can have peaks to +20dBu... even higher with the Mackie. This is NOT an good practice despite Dingo's "I've never had a problem"claim. 3rd grade math and physics say otherwise
 
Throwback said:
it sounds as if he plans to use the Rode lav direct into the recorder - which makes sense given the lav self noise and the impedances of his planned kit - in which case the M10 analogue gain knob sounds useful
Click to expand...

I agree, it's possible to ride the levels with the Sony PCM-M10 with it's manual level control, something that can't be done with the Olympus LS-12, but the Olympus MIC pre-amps are 20 dB quieter at maximum gain. ( the Sony PCM-M10 MIC pre-amps become very noisy once you pass the half-way mark in it's gain range )
 
Rick R said:
- I have no experience with the Olympus recorders.. feeding a (nominal) +4dB signal with in a Sound Deices (XLR) front-end can have peaks to +20dBu... even higher with the Mackie. This is NOT an good practice despite Dingo's "I've never had a problem"claim. 3rd grade math and physics say otherwise
Click to expand...

I used my Olympus LS-10 recorder for 4 years, most of the time recording LINE level signal from sound system mixers, and over those 4 years I never had an issue with audio distortion or damage to my recorder.

...I don't put a lot of faith in the manufacturer specs of low cost audio gear. You look at the specs of most of the low-cost recorders and on paper they look like they've got a very low noise floor, but then you try using them and find out that those paper specs don't mean squat. The Sony PCM-M10 recorder is perfect example, where it looks like a great recorder on paper and it has a large following in the boot-leg recording world, but then you try using one and find that it has some of the noisiest mic pre-amps of all the low-cost portable recorders on the market. While the Olympus recorders starting with the LS-11 recorder, have been the opposite, where their recorders look like nothing special on paper, but they perform better than most of their competition in the field.

Though I admit that Olympus is a bit of an odd company when it comes to their audio gear, as I don't think their marketing department know what they are selling much of the time. The prime example was the introduction of the LS-11 recorder, which from an audio perspective was a nice upgrade from the LS-10 model ( double the battery life, 10 dB quietier mic pre-amps, built-in mics with better low end, etc... ), but Olympus marketing did not mention any of these things, so the LS-11 model gets discontinued less than 2 years after it's introduction, but the similarly priced older and crappier LS-10 model is still being made today.
 
ade4all said:
Hi - am looking for a smallish audio recorder to use as a bit bucket using line in from SD mix pre-d. I would also like to use it connected to my Rode lav mic, sometimes as a poor mans radio mic ( i know I wont be able to monitor sound this way but when I'm filming on my own this can be really handy)
I've been using Zoom h1 for this - have been reasonably happy with the results connected to the mix pre-d using its version of 'line' in - but using the zoom and rode lav has given me quite noisey hissy audio.
Is there a decent recorder out there that can handle true line in from the mix pre and has a low enough noise floor to create hiss free recordings when tethered to the Rode lav and can easily fit into someones pocket?
The Sony PCM-M10 has fairly good reviews and is my top choice at the moment, just wondered if there was something same size or possibly slightly smaller that has similar audio quality ? it would need to be a decent step up in quality from the Zoom h1
Any help would be gratefully received.....
Click to expand...

If you want a small recorder as a bit bucket, there are only 2 on the market that will do the job:-

The Tascam DR 100-II and the Marantz PMD660 - the Sony PCM-D50 will also do this, but has recently been discontinued.

There are no other pocket recorders on the market that have a digital input to be used as a bit bucket.

Using the analogue input of a recorder will bring the quality down to the level of the analogue circuit in the recorder. Using the digital input of the above recorders you keep the high quality of the analogue circuits of the MixPreD.
 
yes sorry showing my ignorance of audio technical stuff - I thought a bit bucket just meant a recorder tethered to line in from a mixer - thats all Im really after, as i say it needs to be small enough to fit in a pocket on occasions.
The olympus seems to offer the best chance of improving sound from the lav with its quieter pre amps, and I doubt I'll be riding the levels directly on the recorder to be honest, just set and pray when using with the lav - its just the discrepancy over true line in that makes me slightly hesitate although 99% of the time it would be used with the mix pre=d which does have tape out.....anyway think Im going to check the Olympus out - thankyou all for your great advice and patience
 
ade4all said:
yes sorry showing my ignorance of audio technical stuff - I thought a bit bucket just meant a recorder tethered to line in from a mixer - thats all Im really after, as i say it needs to be small enough to fit in a pocket on occasions.
The olympus seems to offer the best chance of improving sound from the lav with its quieter pre amps, and I doubt I'll be riding the levels directly on the recorder to be honest, just set and pray when using with the lav - its just the discrepancy over true line in that makes me slightly hesitate although 99% of the time it would be used with the mix pre=d which does have tape out.....anyway think Im going to check the Olympus out - thankyou all for your great advice and patience
Click to expand...

For your application the best option is the Tascam DR 100-II - this is small and portable and you go in digitally so as not to degrade the quality coming out of the MixPreD.

Yes, I *do* like the Olympus recorders - but for you the Tascam is the best option or there is not much point in getting the MixPreD.
 
John Willett said:
Using the digital input of the above recorders you keep the high quality of the analogue circuits of the MixPreD.
Click to expand...

Does the recorder still produce a standard WAV file from the digital input ? ( I've never used the digital output on my MixPre-D, and I'm wondering if the post processing of a digitally recorded file is any different than an analog file )
 
TheDingo said:
Does the recorder still produce a standard WAV file from the digital input ? ( I've never used the digital output on my MixPre-D, and I'm wondering if the post processing of a digitally recorded file is any different than an analog file )
Click to expand...

Yes the recorder will record a standard wav file at whatever you have set the MixPreD to.

There is no processing in the recoder at all from the digital input it just records the bits as the MixPreD has set them.

This is why it's called a "bit bucket", it's just storing the digits without changing them in any way.

Analogue is totally different - you will go through a DAC in the MixPreD to get a high quality analogue signal - you then go through a low-cost analogue stage in the recorder and then into a cheap ADC to get it back into digits again - this will really compromise the quality in comparison to going directly in with digits.

If you then take the digital recording directly into the computer without going through the analogue output of the recorder, you will end up with a high quality recording where the only limitation is the MixPreD itself.
 
John, I agree with you about the benefits of using the mixpre-d with digital out, but are you really sure that to get an analogue line-level from the mixpre-d it uses a DAC to convert a digital signal to analogue? Surely the Mixpre-d is analogue throughout (i.e. similar to the non-digital Mixpre) unless you take a digital output, in which case the analogue output passes through an ADC: the manual doesn't set this out clearly but it is implied (not least by the fact that there is a spec for the ADC and not for a DAC). In which case the path is rather less complex than you describe, but, of course, an analogue line level from the mixpre-d is still vulnerable to the quality of the recorder's analogue stage and ADC as you say. Cheers,Roland
 
have done a bit of delving into the tascam with the mix pre-d and it seems they have different digital connectors, and i can't find one example of someone actually getting that combination to work....John on another thread you mentioned Tascam have the correct lead on their website for the 2 devices to communicate - could you give me a link to it, cant seem to find it? cheers
 
Throwback said:
John, I agree with you about the benefits of using the mixpre-d with digital out, but are you really sure that to get an analogue line-level from the mixpre-d it uses a DAC to convert a digital signal to analogue? Surely the Mixpre-d is analogue throughout (i.e. similar to the non-digital Mixpre) unless you take a digital output, in which case the analogue output passes through an ADC: the manual doesn't set this out clearly but it is implied (not least by the fact that there is a spec for the ADC and not for a DAC). In which case the path is rather less complex than you describe, but, of course, an analogue line level from the mixpre-d is still vulnerable to the quality of the recorder's analogue stage and ADC as you say. Cheers,Roland
Click to expand...

Sorry, my error, the analogue out would be the direct analogue out without going through a converter.

However - the ADC in the SD would be much better than the ADC in the recorder, and the analogue circuitry in the SD would be much better than the analogue circuitry in a small and inexpensive recorder - it is far better to use the ADC in the MixPreD and go into the recorder digitally.
 
ade4all said:
have done a bit of delving into the tascam with the mix pre-d and it seems they have different digital connectors, and i can't find one example of someone actually getting that combination to work....John on another thread you mentioned Tascam have the correct lead on their website for the 2 devices to communicate - could you give me a link to it, cant seem to find it? cheers
Click to expand...

What I meant is that Tascam do a special cable to input digital audio the the DR 100-II and you are likely to have to change the connector at the other end - though teh dealer/Tascam may do this for you.

The alternative Marantz 661-II has a standard phono (cinch in the US) connector for the digital in.

These are the only two pocket recorders on the market with a digital in.
 
thanks for getting back to me John, have just got off the phone to the UKs one and only Tascam techie support guy and he said I would need to get a lead made up from somewhere like HHB - but was concerned that the 2 connectors had different signal level, aes is 5v and spdif .5v
i am interested in using the mix pre-d digitally in this way but as I say cant find any examples of people getting the 2 devices to play nice together- this makes me hesitant to be my own guinea pig. Do you know of any, or any other places I can get cables made up?
 
It would not be a huge disadvantage to just feed line level from the MixPre to the Tascam. I do this all the time with a 302 to a 744 or DR40 and my standards are rather high.
 
thankyou - good to know that the line level is good, though it is the digital feed that makes the Tascam attractive - otherwise would the line level be any better than say the Sony m10 or even the Olympus ls-12? If not I'd prefer to get something small with good battery life that can also easily be concealed on someone

have sent the query to Sound Devices and await their reply

emailed HHB an audio specialist in the UK and the response was
" I believe the best solution to go from AES to SPDIF is to use a 110Ω-75Ω Transformer. There is a product from Neutrik which is a small transformer that can take the 110Ω AES output signal and convert it to a 75Q signal on a BNC connector. You would then require a BNC-RCA (phono) cable which would connect to the RCA-2.5mm Jack adapter cable which is supplied with the DR100 mkII."
His other suggestion was
"You also have the option of using the adapter supplied with the unit (RCA to 2.5mm jack) and try an XLR-Phono cable (as short as possible). If the cable length is small enough, it may work. The only problem with this is that the balanced signal may reflect back up the cable and cause signal degradation if the cable length is too long."
this sounds almost too simple but maybe worth a go - but need to get my hands on a Tascam to try it - no local shops supply them

Anyway will await Sound devices response and make some decision......

 
Last edited:
ok Sound Devices got back to me and this is what they said

"We do not have any accessory cables like that.

I would guess the XLR- RCA adapter would work, but I don't know much about the DR-100.

I think the improvement in the sound by using a digital connection vs and line level signal would be incremental at best"

So it sounds like line level would probably be good enough for my purposes - if the Tascam was a bit smaller and cheaper then I can see the benefits of getting the best possible quality from the mix pre-d, but if it is a very minor step up from line level then I think size and price and battery efficiency come into play, for me anyway. Although I do like the idea of only having to worry about the levels on the mix pre-d by going digital

Sorry if it seems like I'm going round in circles but I guess my last (and initial) query is whether the smaller recorders that have been discussed offer the same quality line level recording as the Tascam? And also if any of them offer better quality recording directly from my Rode LAv than the Zoom H1 I currently own?
 
yes (OP), we've taken you round the houses. To come back to your latest (and, sort of, your original question), I doubt if you will be able to hear much - if any difference - between the ADC and analogue circuitry of a line-level input on any of these cheaper recorders: I would, tho', personally use one that can take the +4dB line level (XLR) output of the Sound Devices mixpre-d rather than the -10dB tape out (I'd want this extra gain to come from the SD preamps), so, as I suggested before, I'd go for the M10 if you need a very small recorder. I know TheDingo made a good case for the extra mic-in gain on the Olympus recorders, but I have not found this an issue using the Rode lav as intended direct into the M10 (as it will typically be set around 3-4 on the analogue gain) and, indeed, I usually cut the SD preamps out of the equation when using the Rode lav and go straight to the M10. As for whether this would be much better than using the Rode lav to your current Zoom H1, I don't know as I don't have the H1: what is not clear, tho', is whether you have established what is reasonable to expect noisewise from the Rode lav (or any other lav). Do you find the Rode lav via your mixpre-d to be fine, but unacceptable direct into your H1 (I'm not certain, from your posts, whether this is the case)? Cheers, Roland
 
Last edited:
Throwback said:
yes (OP), we've taken you round the houses. To come back to your latest (and, sort of, your original question), I doubt if you will be able to hear much - if any difference - between the ADC and analogue circuitry of a line-level input on any of these cheaper recorders: I would, tho', personally use one that can take the +4dB line level (XLR) output of the Sound Devices mixpre-d rather than the -10dB tape out (I'd want this extra gain to come from the SD preamps), so, as I suggested before, I'd go for the M10 if you need a very small recorder. I know TheDingo made a good case for the extra mic-in gain on the Olympus recorders, but I have not found this an issue using the Rode lav as intended direct into the M10 (as it will typically be set around 3-4 on the analogue gain) and, indeed, I usually cut the SD preamps out of the equation when using the Rode lav and go straight to the M10. As for whether this would be much better than using the Rode lav to your current Zoom H1, I don't know as I don't have the H1: what is not clear, tho', is whether you have established what is reasonable to expect noisewise from the Rode lav (or any other lav). Do you find the Rode lav via your mixpre-d to be fine, but unacceptable direct into your H1 (I'm not certain, from your posts, whether this is the case)? Cheers, Rolan
Click to expand...

Maybe - but you would certainly hear the difference between that and the ADC and analogue circuitry in the MixPreD - which is why I suggested using a Tascam DR 100-II or a Marantz 661 II, both of which have a digital in and can be used as a "bit bucket" - otherwise, why bother with the MixPreD in the first place?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top