SONY PCM-D1 is shipping - should I buy one?

[Magpel]

Originally posted by Brittanylips There's a theory that kitchen appliances have built-in obselescence so that customers will buy new ones every few years. Really old fridgerators, for example, never needed replacement. For the matter, it's not all that clear why GE can't make a light bulb that lasts forever, except that no one would buy another one.

 

 

Kerouac actually riffed on planned obsolescence in Dharma Bums , so the meme has been in circulation for quite a while. What I like about it is that it supports my "theory" that brand, as a concern, is secondary to market health. Any company that is "implementing" planned obsolescence is sacrificing some brand credibility in exchange for market stimulation. Of course, it only works if everyone is doing it, and this is how conspiracies happen without there ever having to be backroom collusion among corporate shades...

 

I've always felt that every Coke commercial is, first and foremost, a Pepsi commercial, but planned obsolescence is a pretty extreme testament to the idea that what marketers really want--more than brand loyalty or anything lese--is butts in stores, even if those butts are carrying grudges against their own faulty mini-jacks.

 

Of course it could just be paranoia.

 

Anyway, I would love that SONY device. I produce audio theater. For that, it could be a dre

 

carry on:freak:

[Anderton]

 

 

I don't know, and I don't have the unit here to check. But I can email someone at Sony and find out.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by MrKnobs I'll bet it's tough to be a magazine reviewer. Here you are, working for a publication that's completely dependent on ad revenue, just barely making it from month to month, and then some big manufacturer sends you some piece of hyped crap like an M-Audio Tampon to review. What do you do? How do you stay objective? My guess is you'd have to choose your words very carefully, erring toward the "do no harm" to the magazine/manufacturer side. Otherwise, well, you know. Even "damned by faint praise" might be too risky for some editors. Probably a fairly steep slope down into ad-less bankruptcy once a magazine gets a reputation for writing negative reviews.

Well in my experience and everyone else's I know who's written magazine reviews, none of this is really the case.

I've never been told by an editor to "keep things positive" or choose my words carefully, and neither has anyone else I know. A cardinal rule of journalism is to keep editorial and advertising in separate worlds, and never the twain shall meet, and I haven't yet seen that wall breached, although I've never written for PAR and I don't even read it, so can't comment on them specifically.

As for companies pulling ads because of negative reviews, sometimes they do (for awhile; they usually come back when they release a new product ), but most often they don't, because they do realize that a magazine earns a reputation and thereby gains readership by being honest. Most companies aren't really going to make good on their threats to stop advertising because they need to advertise somewhere, and there are only so many audio mags. Also, most companies make lots of different products and realize that some of those products will get positive reviews and others won't, or won't be reviewed at all.

Which leads me to my next point: "pro" audio has had an explosion over the past 10 years and is no longer quite the niche market that it was. There are always a zillion new products on the market, unlike in say the 70's when new products rarely came out, and magazines had long, detailed, often pungent reviews just to fill space. Now, there's usually a long list of products available for review, and reviewers can usually choose what they want to review based on whether they feel it's something they can personally use and give it enough real-world use to do it justice.

The upshot of all this is that most reviews are at least somewhat positive because the review process is self selecting; why would a reviewer deliberately want to review a product that they think will suck, or that they wouldn't enjoy working with (I don't think anybody would bother asking me to review a drum machine for instance )? We wanna play with toys we think will be cool. So usually, stuff that sucks doesn't get reviewed at all, and that says a lot.

Personally I think the purpose of a review should be to describe what it's like to work with a product. Writers should be thorough in describing the context of their work because it may or may not apply to somebody else. In the context of real-world use the strengths and weaknesses of a product (and most do have both) should become apparent. And really, most reviews that I read DO describe limitations and weaknesses even if the overall impression is positive.

Bottom line there is a lot of cool new gear on the market, which may or may not be the end-all for you personally because a lot of these things are subjective, but someone else may find it really useful. If a review does a good enough job of describing what the product does and doesn't do, it ought to at least help someone make the decision whether they want to try it or not. No doubt there's also some crap gear out there, but a lot of it doesn't get reviewed, or is reviewed poorly because its intended market or usage isn't stated. In any case, if I didn't feel free to speak my mind in an article I wouldn't continue writing for that publication, and I don't know anyone else who would either. But the issue has never come up anyway, so...

[BLAblablah]

Originally posted by Lee Flier The upshot of all this is that most reviews are at least somewhat positive because the review process is self selecting; why would a reviewer deliberately want to review a product that they think will suck, or that they wouldn't enjoy working with (I don't think anybody would bother asking me to review a drum machine for instance )? We wanna play with toys we think will be cool. So usually, stuff that sucks doesn't get reviewed at all, and that says a lot.

Maybe this why we almost never see reviews of new Behringer gear...

[Brittanylips]

Originally posted by Anderton > I don't know, and I don't have the unit here to check. But I can email someone at Sony and find out.

 

Thanks very much. A friend of mine was also very interested in buying this thing and raised this issue in a convo the other day. His thinking was that if the unit could not only be used for field recording but also as a stereo mic in the studio, then that would make it doubly useful, and help justify the cost.

 

It does seem a shame if the mics were restricted to use only when recording to the unit itself. If they're really that good, it would be great to be able to use them in in a studio context, particularly in a project studio with a limited cabinet.

 

Thanks very much. I appreciate it (and I will pass on the info to my friend).

 

-blp

[ViLo]

Originally posted by BLAblablah Maybe this why we almost never see reviews of new Behringer gear...

http://www.tweakheadz.com/review_of_the_V-Amp2.htm
http://www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/product/reviews?base_pid=631236&g=live&rpp=10&src=3SOSWXXA
http://www.musictechmag.co.uk/mtm/reviews/v-verb-pro-rev2496
http://www.tcmagazine.info/articles.php?action=show&showarticle=50
http://onstagemag.com/ar/performance_behringer_ultrawave/

Oh! And threre are more :D:D:D :p

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by ViLo http://www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/product/reviews?base_pid=631236&g=live&rpp=10&src=3SOSWXXA

LOL oh man this is classic. Here's one of the "reviews" of the Eurorack:

this little piece of doo got me nowere, i tried recording but it wouldnt filter right i would have to turn it up all the way to even get it to make 1/2 the sound i would want, along with a cup of feedback. i hooked this piece of junk up to my marshall halfstack and all it did wass buzz and make a horrible sound it has no power switch on it which makes it a hassle to turn on and off,,, with me being played with the stones on 2 of there tours, id say dont buy this piece of junk

:D

[Brittanylips]

Originally posted by Lee Flier In any case, if I didn't feel free to speak my mind in an article I wouldn't continue writing for that publication, and I don't know anyone else who would either. But the issue has never come up anyway, so...

Everything Lee said.

There's also, actually, another issue that comes into play that is rarely discussed. Most writers care about their reputation. with all the talk about checks and balances vs. sponsorship in the Pro Review, on a very real level, the thing that keeps it fair and balanced is Craig himself. Craig has established a reputation over many years that is worth more to him than any external influence. Craig is virtually a brand, and he obviously has an interest in protecting (and developing) that. He would never in a million years sabotage what he has spent so much time and effort developing. So if he writes something, we know we can trust that that's his genuine, honest-to-god opinion. He says what he thinks, and his reputation really transcends any of these issues.

And the same thing is true with other widely-published writers who, over a number of years and reviews, the public comes to trust.

Personally, when I write something for publication, my reputation is more important to me than the gig. Maybe it's also my personality to be as straightfoward as possible regardless of the outcome. (Even in this forum, I sometimes say things that rub others the wrong way - who knows? this might be one of them - but I prefer honesty over trying to be friends with everyone). So if I write something and it offends a manufacturer, an editor, or the "magazine," and as a consequence I never write for them again, that's fine with me.

I guess what I'm saying is that in the murky waters of audio review, a system that is patently incestuous, for me, it's the honor and reputation of the individual writers that keeps things honest.

And for the rest, {censored}'em!

-plb

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Brittanylips Craig has established a reputation over many years that is worth more to him than any external influence. Craig is virtually a brand, and he obviously has an interest in protecting (and developing) that. He would never in a million years sabotage what he has spent so much time and effort developing. So if he writes something, we know we can trust that that's his genuine, honest-to-god opinion. He says what he thinks, and his reputation really transcends any of these issues.

Very true. Craig sincerely does love a whole lot of stuff that really sucks. :D

But in all seriousness, you're so right about not wanting to destroy trust - which is so easy to do in this business. And most reviewers don't make their living doing reviews, they're musicians and engineers who do reviews on the side. If say an engineer refuses to use a particular product in the studio because they think it sucks, and then they go and write a glowing review of it, what does that say to that engineer's clients? If I write a great review of something I'd damn well better be prepared to pick it up and use it in the real world.

Personally, when I write something for publication, my reputation is more important to me than the gig. Maybe it's also my personality to be as straightfoward as possible regardless of the outcome. (Even in this forum, I sometimes say things that rub others the wrong way - who knows? this might be one of them - but I prefer honesty over trying to be friends with everyone). So if I write something and it offends a manufacturer, an editor, or the "magazine," and as a consequence I never write for them again, that's fine with me. I guess what I'm saying is that in the murky waters of audio review, a system that is patently incestuous, for me, it's the honor and reputation of the individual writers that keeps things honest. And for the rest, {censored}'em!

What you said.

[amplayer]

Originally posted by Brittanylips I guess what I'm saying is that in the murky waters of audio review, a system that is patently incestuous, for me, it's the honor and reputation of the individual writers that keeps things honest. And for the rest, {censored}'em! -plb

I'm not sure whether your inferred family is the gear, the writers, or the "system" itself. But with the last comment, I ASSuME it is all the above and also "the rest".

[Anderton]

>

 

I appreciate those comments, that's exactly how I feel. But I also feel compelled to add one more thing: As weird as this may sound, manufacturers want to know if their gear has problems. They actually count on reviewers to find bugs before a product makes it out into the world in huge quantities. More than once I've sent a review in for fact-check that mentioned particular problems or bugs, and the manufacturer was able to fix them before the review went into print.

 

I wish I could tell you the name of the manufacturer who stopped advertising in a magazine because they felt all the reviews, including of their own gear, were too positive. They felt the magazine lacked credibility, and this would reflect poorly on them if they appeared in it!

 

If there's one thing I've learned over my time in this industry, it's that manufacturers and users are not in an adversarial position -- the two are often interchangeable. The guy who designs products for company "A" plays gigs on weekends and uses products made by company "B," and calls up people from company "C" to get copies of programs to make sure their products are compatible. It really IS an incestuous scene, but in this particular case, it has some tangible benefits -- like MIDI, VST, ASIO, the REX file format, etc.

[MrKnobs]

Originally posted by Anderton As weird as this may sound, manufacturers want to know if their gear has problems. They actually count on reviewers to find bugs before a product makes it out into the world in huge quantities. More than once I've sent a review in for fact-check that mentioned particular problems or bugs, and the manufacturer was able to fix them before the review went into print.

 

 

Which is a tactful way of saying that the manufacturers don't want to see a bad review in print.

 

And who can blame them?

 

Terry D.

[Anderton]

>

 

I think it partly has something to do with the review process, but let's not overstate the importance of reviews. What I think they're REALLY concerned about is the word of mouth when products start moving off the shelves.

 

I'm convinced that if I said "look, I found these problems with your unit, but we decided not to run the review because we're short on space this month," they'd still fix the problems. A negative magazine review might slow down sales, but bad word of mouth kills sales.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

Originally posted by Anderton ..... I wish I could tell you the name of the manufacturer who stopped advertising in a magazine because they felt all the reviews, including of their own gear, were too positive.

 

 

That's fiction, isn't it? That manufacturer doesn't exist, or the reason why he stopped advertising is another.... ???

 

.

[Magpel]

Perspective of a non-super consumer who is fatigued to the point of capitulation by the tone and content of EQ and the like:

The problem I see with magazine reviews is one of dynamics, essentially. When the tenor of the average "good review" is set to such an ecstatic pitch, there's no room to "go up" when a genuinely great product is reviewed. Distinguishing actual astonishment from routine hyperbole is pretty hard.

So for me it's not a problem of a dearth of bad reviews. I'm fine with leaving the bad products alone; and I am not impressed by a "token pan." The islolated bad review just proves that the industry is "aware of the problem..."

it's a subtle thing. I don't think reviewers ever have to be told how to review in a way that's healthy for the industry--the prevailing practices and standard tone of the publications--not to mention simple self-interest--will communicate those values to them without ever directly challenging their autonomy or integrity.

edit: I feel that I should add, out of respect for my community, that Craig's ubiquitous reviews have always stuck me as even handed and use-based. In fact, MOST of the individual reviews in, let's say, EQ, seem fairly balanced when isolated. The problem is a collective thing, an ambient thing.

Maybe its just that too much space is devoted to gear reviews! And the rest to celebrity sycophancy! There is so precious little space for great ideas like the app-specific "power user" features.

Yes, that's exactly it. It's not the quality of gear reviews that's the problem for me. It's the quantity, the preponderance, that creates the aura of a perpetual, gear-induced rapture.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by MrKnobs Which is a tactful way of saying that the manufacturers don't want to see a bad review in print.

Well of course they don't. But how is what Craig said "just a tactful way of saying" that? If they fix problems in advance that are pointed out to them by a reviewer, so that what would have been a negative no longer applies, then why should the bad review go to print? And isn't it better for end users that the problem is fixed? Or should reviewers just not give anybody a chance to resolve any issues we find, just so we can experience the joy of printing a bad review?

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Magpel Maybe its just that too much space is devoted to gear reviews! And the rest to celebrity sycophancy! There is so precious little space for great ideas like the app-specific "power user" features. Yes, that's exactly it. It's not the quality of gear reviews that's the problem for me. It's the quantity, the preponderance, that creates the aura of a perpetual, gear-induced rapture.

 

 

Yeah, I have to agree with you to be honest. I'd much rather read (and write) real world stories about how people make recordings, than gear reviews. And I like to see a mix of famous and not so famous people's techniques.

 

It really is crazy how much stuff is on the market now though, and I guess it has to be reviewed at some point! Hard to strike the right balance the way the print magazine biz is today.

[Magpel]

Originally posted by Lee Flier Yeah, I have to agree with you to be honest. I'd much rather read (and write) real world stories about how people make recordings, than gear reviews. And I like to see a mix of famous and not so famous people's techniques. It really is crazy how much stuff is on the market now though, and I guess it has to be reviewed at some point! Hard to strike the right balance the way the print magazine biz is today.

 

 

And yet I feel a subtle charge and even a little pride when I read reviews by Lee or Phil O'Keefe, or Steve Fortner at keyboard, and I know that the mags are giving air time to the hardcore user community, so it's not a simple issue for me...

[Anderton]

Back to the PCM-D1...

 

According to Sony, the PCM-D1 line level output is active while in Record or Rec-Pause Mode.

[MrKnobs]

Originally posted by Lee Flier Well of course they don't. But how is what Craig said "just a tactful way of saying" that? If they fix problems in advance that are pointed out to them by a reviewer, so that what would have been a negative no longer applies, then why should the bad review go to print? And isn't it better for end users that the problem is fixed? Or should reviewers just not give anybody a chance to resolve any issues we find, just so we can experience the joy of printing a bad review?

I don't have any argument with what you said above.

All I'm saying is that there will be no bad reviews in a magazine, only positive reviews with maybe the occasional small caveat so that the reviewer can maintain the appearance of objectivity.

Therefore, other than nuts 'n bolts info on features, the net value of a magazine review is zero, or binary at best. One might conclude that if no major magazine reviews a product, it might be because everyone thinks it's crap. Then again, there might also be politics involved.

So, all things considered, a place for uncensored user reviews like here at Harmony Central is invaluable. It's all there, the good, the bad, and the dumb, for the reader to sort out.

But now the giant retailer has purchased HC, and put the magazine folks in charge. Hmm.......

Terry D.

P.S. This is not to question either of you guys integrity. I'm just raising the point because I'm a researcher for a living, and I understand this problem all too well. There's the work, which we all love, and then there's the politics.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by MrKnobs All I'm saying is that there will be no bad reviews in a magazine, only positive reviews with maybe the occasional small caveat so that the reviewer can maintain the appearance of objectivity.

I would say this is a very unfair characterization. "Maintaining the appearance of objectivity" is still implying that the reviewer isn't being honest and is bowing to politics, and that simply isn't the case that I've ever seen.

And it's still possible that there will be bad reviews, just unlikely for all the reasons stated above. Certainly there is still the chance that, even if a reviewer generally feels the company is reputable, has an interest in the product and is pretty sure it won't suck, it will anyway. If so, there's no reason to avoid writing a bad review. And I think there are more than "occasional small caveats" in reviews that are generally positive.

Therefore, other than nuts 'n bolts info on features, the net value of a magazine review is zero, or binary at best.

Again, an unfair characterization IMO. Just because you won't read about products that suck means the review is useless? Again, only if the reviewer is dishonestly withholding negative information in a review - and I've just not seen that.

One might conclude that if no major magazine reviews a product, it might be because everyone thinks it's crap. Then again, there might also be politics involved.

What kind of politics and how exactly would they manifest themselves? An editor "censoring" negative stuff out of a review? Or telling a writer to tone down the negative stuff for fear of jeopardizing a relationship with a manufacturer? That doesn't happen, period, at least not that I nor any of the many other folks I know who write for the various zines have ever experienced.

So, all things considered, a place for uncensored user reviews like here at Harmony Central is invaluable. It's all there, the good, the bad, and the dumb, for the reader to sort out.

Well I do like Craig's Pro Review concept a lot, in that it allows users and, in some cases, manufacturers to comment and have their questions answered. A lot of times a user review will be negative because someone doesn't know how to use the product, or it's the wrong application for them, and the reader would have no way of knowing that. But by the same token, different users will have different uses for a product and it may be better for some than others. So the Pro Review thing is cool - it allows lots of different points of view to be aired while still maintaining some accountability.

Anyhow I do think you're way overestimating the degree of politics involved. Like I said, if I felt for one second that I wasn't free to speak my mind, I wouldn't bother. It's just not worth it - that's why I have another job where I'll do whatever the people paying me tell me to.

[Anderton]

>

 

I'll say it one last time: You won't see bad reviews in a magazine because no reviewer in their right mind wants to put a huge amount of time and effort into something they don't like.

 

Occasional "small caveat"? Well, I often say that a product is unsuited for some applications, and well-suited to others. So is that a positive review with a "small caveat," or a negative review with a "small anti-caveat?"

 

>

 

Actually, the usual reason has nothing to do with either, but with available space. Magazines want to review hot, fun products, because there isn't even enough room for those.

 

 

 

But now the giant retailer has purchased HC, and put the magazine folks in charge. Hmm.......>>

 

'Scuse me, but the reason why I'm here is because of what I've done on the web in various incarnations over the past 10 years. And that's why I WANT to be here, because I see a lot of things I can do on the web that can't be done with magazines.

 

User reviews remain unmodified, and my Pro Reviews have been opened to comments from all comers. It's really very different from the magazine model.

[Brittanylips]

Originally posted by Anderton Back to the PCM-D1... According to Sony, the PCM-D1 line level output is active while in Record or Rec-Pause Mode.

 

Thanks very much for finding this out. I really appreciate it.

 

That's good to know. In a pinch, that means this thing could also be used as an extra stereo mic in the studio.

 

-plb

[aosone]

I've never owned any portable gear that feels as robust as this new Sony. The titanium case has the sensation of being bulletproof. Several test recordings walking around the house sound exactly like what you hear in the cans prior to recording. The built-in mics are excellent and they have tilt-stops forward and back at 30 degrees.

The recorder also has a camera-type tripod socket on the back. I don't know how I feel about running it up 15 feet in the air on my stand, but at least I know I can -- a great way to get above the snifflers and nose-blowers.

For stealth, it's chunkier than a PCM-M1 and taller, but it could be concealed without much trouble. The miniplugs for mic and line are on the sides and would work best with right angle connectors. They feel much tighter and stronger than other miniplugs.

It has built-in SBM for 16 bit recordings and you can get 6.5 hours of 44k1@16bit on the built-in 4GB memory. Battery life is rated at 5 hours with the 4 x AA NiMH @2500mAH batteries.

The menu system is very straightforward and intuitive and the analog meters combined with the dgital peak metering is very welcome. There is also a 20db mic pad as well as a 20db soft-limiter to catch peaks prior to digital dstortion. In other words, with the limiter set, you have 20db of headroom you don't get with DAT.

I tell ya, I can't wait to get out and record some music with this thing.

[MrKnobs]

Originally posted by aosone I tell ya, I can't wait to get out and record some music with this thing.

 

 

OK, but how?

 

Meaning will you record a band at a club, or at a studio? Where will you put the device?

 

Terry D.