Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Scott Chapin
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Mike Rivers
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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   Report Post  
Scott Chapin
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
Mike Rivers
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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   Report Post  
Scott Chapin
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
Scott Dorsey
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Scott Chapin
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
Scott Chapin
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
Ty Ford
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Ty Ford
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Ty Ford
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Scott Chapin
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
Scott Chapin
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
robin
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
Joe Kesselman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Ty Ford
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Professional" Marantz PMD325 CD Player Peter Audio Opinions 2 September 23rd 11 12:13 PM
At last the truth about Dahlquist & Saul Marantz Radioman390 High End Audio 1 October 6th 04 12:57 AM
info on Marantz PMD670 Daniel Houg Pro Audio 3 December 8th 03 03:42 AM
Marantz CDR300 CD Recorder john s Pro Audio 2 November 22nd 03 08:21 AM
Marantz "Professional" PMD325 CD Player Peter Pro Audio 2 November 19th 03 06:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:51 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"