Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Marantz PMD-671
Anyone used one of these yet? I was going to use it for video work and I
heard the preamps on the PMD-670 had a lot to be desired. They say the new preampss are nice, but are they? Thanks Scott Chapin |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Chapin wrote: Anyone used one of these yet? I was going to use it for video work and I heard the preamps on the PMD-670 had a lot to be desired. They say the new preampss are nice, but are they? No personal experience, but the October issue of Electronic Musician appeared in my mailbox today and there was a picture of one on the cover, together with a number of other portable recorders, for a survey article. There's bad news and potentially good (but untested) news about the preamps. The reviewer said: "I wanted to love the unit, but the mic preamps were disappointing. Their high self0noise made any recording that I gathered preactially unusable for professional applicaitons without using lowpass filtering to remove the hiss. I was using an MKH40 which is one of the quietest mics you can buy. It's a great machine for someone who already owns a high-suality portable mic pre. Othewise, this machine would be stellar if [Marantz] would improve this one problem. Since then [the reviewer] got his wish: according to Marantz, recent firmware and hardware updates have addressed such concerns." They liked the Edirol R4 a lot, and this is the one I've been attracted to. The reviewer made the point that I often have - that with a built-in hard disk, you can keep a month's worth of work on board without having to unload it or drop in a new and fairly expensive flash memory card. Based on this article (and I would never make a purchase of something like this without the opportunity to try it before committing) the R4 at $1900 sounds like a much better deal than the PMD671 at $1200. On the other hand, $700 can buy a few large flash memory cards (that you then have to manage). But you get four tracks with the R4. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message oups.com... Scott Chapin wrote: Anyone used one of these yet? I was going to use it for video work and I heard the preamps on the PMD-670 had a lot to be desired. They say the new preampss are nice, but are they? No personal experience, but the October issue of Electronic Musician appeared in my mailbox today and there was a picture of one on the cover, together with a number of other portable recorders, for a survey article. There's bad news and potentially good (but untested) news about the preamps. The reviewer said: "I wanted to love the unit, but the mic preamps were disappointing. Their high self0noise made any recording that I gathered preactially unusable for professional applicaitons without using lowpass filtering to remove the hiss. I was using an MKH40 which is one of the quietest mics you can buy. It's a great machine for someone who already owns a high-suality portable mic pre. Othewise, this machine would be stellar if [Marantz] would improve this one problem. Since then [the reviewer] got his wish: according to Marantz, recent firmware and hardware updates have addressed such concerns." They liked the Edirol R4 a lot, and this is the one I've been attracted to. The reviewer made the point that I often have - that with a built-in hard disk, you can keep a month's worth of work on board without having to unload it or drop in a new and fairly expensive flash memory card. Based on this article (and I would never make a purchase of something like this without the opportunity to try it before committing) the R4 at $1900 sounds like a much better deal than the PMD671 at $1200. On the other hand, $700 can buy a few large flash memory cards (that you then have to manage). But you get four tracks with the R4. Thanks Mike, I was going to get the Fostex, but it doe s not record to standard wave. That would mean buting extra software to handle the broadcast wave format. This sounds like the Marantz would have to be sent back to the shop to be modified. Oh well. I need to look at the Edirol. I was attracted to the Marantz due to the arrangement of the controls and prtability. Scott Chapin |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Chapin wrote: I was going to get the Fostex, but it doe s not record to standard wave. That would mean buting extra software to handle the broadcast wave format. I have no problems importing broadcast wave files from my Mackie HDR into Audacity, Fast Edit (an ancient 16-bit version) or Sequoia 7. Unless you're already committed to some special software that you know won't handle broadcast wave files, this shouldn't be a problem. The EM article does mention a rather disappointing battery life, however - barely an hour on eight AA cells. This sounds like the Marantz would have to be sent back to the shop to be modified. Oh well. I seem to recall that the previous model, the 670, had a "recall available" (if you learned that they had a fix for the noisy preamps) so I would have thought that it was fixed with the 671. Apparently it had to do with the gain structure and required changing some resistors. It might be worth a call to Marantz to see if the "fixed" version is in production yet, and if so, what serial number you should look for to know that you won't have to send it in for modification. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ups.com... Scott Chapin wrote: I was going to get the Fostex, but it doe s not record to standard wave. That would mean buting extra software to handle the broadcast wave format. I have no problems importing broadcast wave files from my Mackie HDR into Audacity, Fast Edit (an ancient 16-bit version) or Sequoia 7. Unless you're already committed to some special software that you know won't handle broadcast wave files, this shouldn't be a problem. The EM article does mention a rather disappointing battery life, however - barely an hour on eight AA cells. This sounds like the Marantz would have to be sent back to the shop to be modified. Oh well. I seem to recall that the previous model, the 670, had a "recall available" (if you learned that they had a fix for the noisy preamps) so I would have thought that it was fixed with the 671. Apparently it had to do with the gain structure and required changing some resistors. It might be worth a call to Marantz to see if the "fixed" version is in production yet, and if so, what serial number you should look for to know that you won't have to send it in for modification. Thanks again Mike. I use Sound Forge, CD Architect, and Audition (Cool Edit). I'll have to check Audition, but SF does not, as of Ver 7.0, support bmf files. Yes, I did notice that battery life on the Fostex rather sucked, not to mention its lack of portability. I record stereo, so the coaxial level controls on the Marantz, are more appealing than the Edirol R4. All be it, the four channels would appear to be nice. Oade Brothers mentions some mods available, if the Marantz is bought from them. They say the MOD unit is $975, but it is not clear, if that is the total price. If so, I might jump on it. A basic concert MOD is available now, and an Advanced Concert MOD available this month. Supposedly it will enable higher front end loading, and I would need that. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rivers wrote:
Scott Chapin wrote: I was going to get the Fostex, but it doe s not record to standard wave. That would mean buting extra software to handle the broadcast wave format. I have no problems importing broadcast wave files from my Mackie HDR into Audacity, Fast Edit (an ancient 16-bit version) or Sequoia 7. Unless you're already committed to some special software that you know won't handle broadcast wave files, this shouldn't be a problem. The EM article does mention a rather disappointing battery life, however - barely an hour on eight AA cells. The broadcast wave file is basically a standard wave file with additional information in the header. Any software that can read a standard wave file can read it, although it may not necessarily preserve the additional header information (which contains stuff like the title, for instance). The whole purpose of the broadcast wave format was compatibility with the older software. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Mike Rivers wrote: Scott Chapin wrote: I was going to get the Fostex, but it doe s not record to standard wave. That would mean buting extra software to handle the broadcast wave format. I have no problems importing broadcast wave files from my Mackie HDR into Audacity, Fast Edit (an ancient 16-bit version) or Sequoia 7. Unless you're already committed to some special software that you know won't handle broadcast wave files, this shouldn't be a problem. The EM article does mention a rather disappointing battery life, however - barely an hour on eight AA cells. The broadcast wave file is basically a standard wave file with additional information in the header. Any software that can read a standard wave file can read it, although it may not necessarily preserve the additional header information (which contains stuff like the title, for instance). The whole purpose of the broadcast wave format was compatibility with the older software. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Hmmm. I downloaded a sample bwf from the net and it had a .wav extension. Sound Forge would not open it, but Windows Media Player played it. Scott Chapin |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Segensreich Maschinerich" wrote in message ... Scott Chapin in : Anyone used one of these yet? Yes. I bought a PMD671 in April this year. I returned it meanwhile. I was going to use it for video work and I heard the preamps on the PMD-670 had a lot to be desired. They say the new preampss are nice, but are they? The data sheet tells you it's 65 dB Signal-to-Noise Ratio, which translates to a *really really* audible noise floor in real life. For comparison, I have a DAW with two 10,000 rpm SCSI disks, a 120mm fan, a CPU fan, a fan for the graphics card, and two fans in the power supply. When I sat directly in front of *that thing* and recorded my voice through a Mackie 1202 into my computer, I got actually *less* background noise than with the PMD671 recording in a quiet room. Other observations: 24 bit recording didn't work due to a firmware bug causing a wrong byte order in the generated files. Marantz's email support didn't reply at all to various emails, notwithstanding their promise to reply within 48 hours. The tech support guy on the phone kept asking whether the power supply was plugged in properly. He couldn't answer the question whether the firmware can be updated via the USB port, or whether I must send it physically to Marantz to have it fixed. He had not heard of any problems with the unit's 24 bit recording mode either. Precisely matching the levels of the left vs. the right channel is something I found impossible due to the less-than-perfectly-smooth operation of the associated knobs. The VU meter was pessimistic BTW, signalling overload even when the peaks were some 6dB below 0. My unit's quarz frequencies seemed a little off, so that simultaneous recordings through other digital devices (i.e., RME ADI-8 AE) drifted apart audibly after a couple minutes. [Subsequent investigation revealed that it was indeed the PMD671 which was to blame.] I guess you'll have to expect the same from your video camera. My item was, let's say: fastidious when it comes to CF cards. It wouldn't work with a 45x Transcend card (which works perfectly with my digital cameras), causing the recorder to hang on bootup after transferring the files to the computer. BTW, there were reports of corrupted recordings with the PMD670 (this item's predecessor), which is apparently why Marantz introduced a read-after-write "Virtual Third Head" for confidence monitoring. I understand this feature wouldn't prevent corrupted recordings, it's only that you realize it faster. Hence, if you can repeat the take, it's fine, but if you, say, record live music, you're screwed. It is perfectly possible that some of the above issues were solved in the meantime. However, nonetheless I cannot recommend this item (nor the company that makes it) in good conscience, not least because of what I experienced with what Marantz chose to call "customer support". SM -- reply-to works, even if it doesn't look as if it did. Wow...bummer. What a glowing review! Thanks for the heads up. Guess I need to deal with broadcast wave files. Vielen Dank! Scott Chapin |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 14:13:39 -0400, Scott Chapin wrote
(in article ): "Mike Rivers" wrote in message oups.com... Scott Chapin wrote: Anyone used one of these yet? I was going to use it for video work and I heard the preamps on the PMD-670 had a lot to be desired. They say the new preampss are nice, but are they? No personal experience, but the October issue of Electronic Musician appeared in my mailbox today and there was a picture of one on the cover, together with a number of other portable recorders, for a survey article. There's bad news and potentially good (but untested) news about the preamps. The reviewer said: "I wanted to love the unit, but the mic preamps were disappointing. Their high self0noise made any recording that I gathered preactially unusable for professional applicaitons without using lowpass filtering to remove the hiss. I was using an MKH40 which is one of the quietest mics you can buy. It's a great machine for someone who already owns a high-suality portable mic pre. Othewise, this machine would be stellar if [Marantz] would improve this one problem. Since then [the reviewer] got his wish: according to Marantz, recent firmware and hardware updates have addressed such concerns." They liked the Edirol R4 a lot, and this is the one I've been attracted to. The reviewer made the point that I often have - that with a built-in hard disk, you can keep a month's worth of work on board without having to unload it or drop in a new and fairly expensive flash memory card. Based on this article (and I would never make a purchase of something like this without the opportunity to try it before committing) the R4 at $1900 sounds like a much better deal than the PMD671 at $1200. On the other hand, $700 can buy a few large flash memory cards (that you then have to manage). But you get four tracks with the R4. Thanks Mike, I was going to get the Fostex, but it doe s not record to standard wave. That would mean buting extra software to handle the broadcast wave format. This sounds like the Marantz would have to be sent back to the shop to be modified. Oh well. I need to look at the Edirol. I was attracted to the Marantz due to the arrangement of the controls and prtability. Scott Chapin Scott, I was pulling .wav files off the FR-2 and importing them into Pro Tools with no problem. Is there something about the other data that you need? Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 20:48:59 -0400, Scott Chapin wrote
(in article ): barely an hour on eight AA cells. The broadcast wave file is basically a standard wave file with additional information in the header. Any software that can read a standard wave file can read it, although it may not necessarily preserve the additional header information (which contains stuff like the title, for instance). The whole purpose of the broadcast wave format was compatibility with the older software. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Hmmm. I downloaded a sample bwf from the net and it had a .wav extension. Sound Forge would not open it, but Windows Media Player played it. Scott Chapin Was it 24-bit or of a higher sample rate than SF could handle? Ty -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
BTW, the Sony Hi-MD M100 recorder/player, while dinky, records 44.1, 16-bit
stereo wav files. I have one here for a review at the moment. It uses 1 GB cards ($7). I recorded with a Rode VideoMic yesterday and found I quite liked the results after importing them into my Mac. The little Sony stereo mic that comes with, not so much. The review process continues.... Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Ty Ford" wrote in message news On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 20:48:59 -0400, Scott Chapin wrote (in article ): barely an hour on eight AA cells. The broadcast wave file is basically a standard wave file with additional information in the header. Any software that can read a standard wave file can read it, although it may not necessarily preserve the additional header information (which contains stuff like the title, for instance). The whole purpose of the broadcast wave format was compatibility with the older software. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Hmmm. I downloaded a sample bwf from the net and it had a .wav extension. Sound Forge would not open it, but Windows Media Player played it. Scott Chapin Was it 24-bit or of a higher sample rate than SF could handle? Ty -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com No it turned out to be an MPEG1 file. Further browsing educated me to the fact that there are linear versions. Thanks, Scott Chapin |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Ty Ford" wrote in message news BTW, the Sony Hi-MD M100 recorder/player, while dinky, records 44.1, 16-bit stereo wav files. I have one here for a review at the moment. It uses 1 GB cards ($7). I recorded with a Rode VideoMic yesterday and found I quite liked the results after importing them into my Mac. The little Sony stereo mic that comes with, not so much. The review process continues.... Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com Cool Ty. Is it limited to 44.1KHz? Converting wouldn't be a big issue though. Scott Chapin |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Chapin" wrote:
Is it limited to 44.1KHz? Converting wouldn't be a big issue though. Yes, Sony MD is limited to 16-bit 44.1KHz which is fine considering the mics typically plugged into them. PCM (uncompressed) gets you 94 minute capacity on a single 1GB disk. I use this mode when going straight into the line inputs from a mixer or whatever. The ATRAC compressed Hi-SP mode sounds very good to my ears and gets 475 minutes per disk. Very handy for most mic applications, where the mics themselves or the preamps will be the limiting factor on audio quality. Eight hours on one disk: nice! ----- robin noisetheatre.blogspot.com |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
robin wrote:
Eight hours on one disk: nice! Mine only goes to five hours or so, but it's still nice. And a fringe benefit is that because it only spins up the motor once it's got a buffer-block ready to save from memory to disk, this also extends bettery life -- so I can get the full five hours off one charged battery. It isn't a replacement for DAT. But as a replacement for cassettes, it's a HUGE improvement. The problem is finding a minidisk unit that will record from a mike. The big market right now seems to be ones that can be recorded via USB and used strictly as personal music players, and that's driven some of the more versitile units off the shelves. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 20:43:04 -0400, Joe Kesselman wrote
(in article ): robin wrote: Eight hours on one disk: nice! Mine only goes to five hours or so, but it's still nice. And a fringe benefit is that because it only spins up the motor once it's got a buffer-block ready to save from memory to disk, this also extends bettery life -- so I can get the full five hours off one charged battery. It isn't a replacement for DAT. But as a replacement for cassettes, it's a HUGE improvement. The problem is finding a minidisk unit that will record from a mike. The big market right now seems to be ones that can be recorded via USB and used strictly as personal music players, and that's driven some of the more versitile units off the shelves. The Rode VideoMic sounds quite nice through the Sony Hi-MD recorder. Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
"Professional" Marantz PMD325 CD Player | Audio Opinions | |||
At last the truth about Dahlquist & Saul Marantz | High End Audio | |||
info on Marantz PMD670 | Pro Audio | |||
Marantz CDR300 CD Recorder | Pro Audio | |||
Marantz "Professional" PMD325 CD Player | Pro Audio |