rikc Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 Hi all, I m currently using a DAT recorder for back up the entire session of performance ( sometimes back up for the hirer's sound feed as well) I m looking for a substitution for replacing the DAT recorder. and I ve found a Marantz PMD560 which can record the .wav file directly to a compact flash memory, does anyone here had tried it before? how does it perform? and does it possible replacing the DAT recording..... Prehaps, the quality of a .wav file might not be as good as a DAT quality, but does it quality bearable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackerr Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 and I ve found a Marantz PMD560 which can record the .wav file directly to a compact flash memory, does anyone here had tried it before? how does it perform? and does it possible replacing the DAT recording..... Prehaps, the quality of a .wav file might not be as good as a DAT quality, but does it quality bearable?The .wav file should be as good as the DAT, it is a 16 bit 48kHz PCM recording. If you got the PDM671, you could have 24 bit 96K recording. I have used the portable version of that recorder, and found it fantastic. If you hit the record button during a recording it will start a new file with no break. That will let you separate tracks on a CD easily. I would recommend it over DAT any time. Mac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundo26 Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 We have the Marantz unit here, it's brilliant, records 12 hours at CD quality on a 1gig CF Card, you can select balance or unbalanced inputs and just dump the results onto a laptop as an MP3 at the end of the day. I'd recommend it to anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_hate_fisicks Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 We have the Marantz unit here, it's brilliant, records 12 hours at CD quality on a 1gig CF Card,How exactly does it do that? 1 GB is only 114 minutes of CD quality audio (stereo). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbsy Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 We have the Marantz unit here, it's brilliant, records 12 hours at CD quality on a 1gig CF Card, you can select balance or unbalanced inputs and just dump the results onto a laptop as an MP3 at the end of the day. I'd recommend it to anyone.Reality check time. The Marantz is a fine unit, but it can EITHER record CD quality .WAV files and store about 90 minutes on a 1gig card, OR it can record MP3 and do 17 hours at 128kb recording. I assume the 12 hour recording is 192kb MP3. Let's put this to bed in the Blue Room once and for all. Audio files bit rate reduced using MP3 coding are not and never will be "CD Quality". Your ears and your application will decide whether the quality trade-off is acceptable (I rarely find it so and certainly don't for professional applications) but, whatever your view, it ain't "CD quality". Have a quick look through here for lots of spectrum analyser shots of MP3 files vs. wave. Onto the original poster's question, so long as you stick to uncompressed recording, the quality of the .wav files done on the Marantz should be every bit as good as your DAT tapes. However, avoid MP3 recording if quality is your goal. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick S Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 For something of a comparison, I use both the Marantz and DAT for field recording (it's a departmental thing, I work with film/animation. The animation department use the marantz for quick integration into Final Cut, the video/film department still use DAT for a number of reasons). We obviously deal entirely with uncompressed audio - we are unable to tell the difference between the DAT recorders and the Marantz. We'll hopefully switch entirely over to flash memory / HD based recorder systems. However, we have had some problems with CompactFlash cards being corrupted, rejected by the unit, etc. To be fair, the units I use are out being used pretty much every day of the year. I think some of these problems have been corrected in a later revision by Marantz. I'd also advise going for a high quality brand of flash memory, and keeping a backup with the unit at all times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronHorn Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Wav/AIFF can be as good a recording as you want (you can record 24bit/192KHz audio if you want - not that 192KHz is much use). How many tracks are you looking at, if it's stereo have you considered looking at a laptop and interface based solution with ProTools or the like? I'd be weary of replacing a DAT though.... Maybe use both since if the software crashes (get a Mac, you lower your chances) then you would lose your session. If you want it on the cheap take a look at the M-Audio CF recorder (takes digital input so you could use your DATs presumably better converters) but you really want to avoid crappy mp3 compression and stick to wav, but this of course uses much more space, unless you have an interval you would be hard pushed to fit a show on a 1GB card. Re-reading your original post, out of interest what DAT do you have since there should be no difference between your DAT and digital wav capture systems, it's all dependent on you A-D converters... In some cases digital recorders accept S/PDIF input so you could use your DAT converters with a cheap wav recorder to get wav data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rikc Posted June 16, 2006 Author Share Posted June 16, 2006 I m planning to use a protool software for a later-on converting and use a harddisk for the final storage; after I recorded the entire performance in a maybe CF card. could it be possible that Marantz PMD560 USB port can transfer its record to a mac's protoolLE directly w/o using a MBox or Digi002? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueShift Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 AFAIK, the marantz's USB port merely presents the installed CF card as a mass storage device - it doesnt in any way stream the incoming audio or act as an audio interface. In which case, it cant transfer directly in that sense. Not to mention that you cant use protools LE without having a piece of digidesign hardware (you could use protools M-powered with some m-audio hardware). However, you can hook the marantz up to your PC to copy the completed wav recording. although this is no different from just reading it off the CF card. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon MFR Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 No-one has mentioned the Fostex D160/D24? :( Both provide you with 24 bit 96 k multi-track recording with a really easy to use (and removable) interface! However, one thing I noticed about the D160 in particular, is the inputs. The D160 only provides eight simultaneous inputs (rca) meaning that your tracks need to be bussed down. It does however give you sixteen outs. The D24 on the other hand is 24 I/o 1/4" which is fab, but the price reflects this.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_korman Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 And you should look at the Tascam HDP2 which received a very good review in Sound on Sound this month. It has decent mic preamps with phantom power Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hambone Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 Besides audio pros/geeks with built-in 1Hz-100kHz hearing, I doubt if anyone will hear the difference (or care) between an uncompressed AIFF/WAV and a 320kbps (or better) MP3. And nobody I know listens to their music with spectrum analyzers. They use their ears, not their eyes! If you simply need to capture a stereo mix, here's another option. With SPDIF input, if you've got a digital output on tap. 4GB CompactFlash cards are now under £100, and there's the Hitachi 6GB MicroDrive, if you need more. 4GB is 6+ hours of 44.1kHz, 16-bit uncompressed stereo WAV, or 2+ hours 96kHz 24-bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 Besides audio pros/geeks with built-in 1Hz-100kHz hearing, I doubt if anyone will hear the difference (or care) between an uncompressed AIFF/WAV and a 320kbps (or better) MP3.Ah, but they will. I know a lot of people who really, really hate MP3 compression, mostly because of the low-pass at 16-17KHz which is there are all bitrates. OGG is much better as the low-pass depends on bitrate, but it's not supported by as much software. The general rule of content creation:Record and create at the highest quality you can, and downgrade the quality at the last possible moment. This applies to every single kind of content - audio, video, still images, computer graphics, dream recorders... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hambone Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 The general rule of content creation:Record and create at the highest quality you can, and downgrade the quality at the last possible moment. This applies to every single kind of content - audio, video, still images, computer graphics, dream recorders... Within reason, IMO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbsy Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 Disk space is cheap now. Why compromise? Don't forget, we're talking content creation here. The trouble with BRR techniques like MP3 is that the effects are cumlative. Each time you re-encode a file, you're losing a bit more and very quickly it becomes audible even to the "cloth ears" brigade. (Yes, I know there are tools that will do basic editing and processing in native MP3, but these are far from professional tools.) Far from using bit rate reduced files for production, I record, edit an mix at bit depths and sample rates significantly higher than "CD quality". Once I have a finished product, THEN I consider what this product will be used for and may use bit rate reduction (like MP3) where appropriate. However, I still keep the original source material in the the high quality files. You never know what you may need to do in the future! I'm far from rolling in cash, but with 300GB external hard drives selling for about £80 now, what reason is there to compromise on quality at the production stage? Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.