is the 90 dB s/n ratio of the korg mr-1 sufficient?

Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:26 am

larsfarm wrote:

How is Logic for the purposes most often presented in this forum...

I have never operated it before, but this is what I can say:

1) I have worked on multitrack projects alongside other engineers who have used Logic (typically, I do the miking and so on, and they do the recording, overdubbing and editing), and have always been impressed with what it could do and how it sounded.

2) I know of two engineers who use Logic with Digidesign hardware, claiming that it sounds much better than Protools (hence the change to Logic software - they already had the Protools software, of course, because it came with the hardware).

3) There used to be a lot of very loyal Logic fans, before Apple bought it from Emagic. I can remember some of them, PC users, expressing utter outrage when they learnt that Apple had purchased the program and future releases would only run on Macintosh. Some of these guys were devastated, and felt that Emagic had betrayed them and Apple was forcing them to move to the Macintosh platform. That's business, of course, but it's hard to convince a loyal PC-based Logic user of that. It's interesting that a program could inspire such devotion.

4) I don't know if this is applicable to the latest versions, but the earlier versions had some kind of programmable user interface, which allowed you to design your own interface depending on what you did: direct-to-stereo, multitrack, mastering, etc. The learning curve was steeper, but the end result was something highly customised to your needs. One of the guys mentioned in point (1) above is/was a master of programming Logic, and created (what looked like) entirely different programs for his multitrack and mastering work.

That's about all I can tell you. It's not much, but I hope it will be enough to draw any Logic users out there into the conversation - even if it's just to correct and/or contradict me. I have no problem with that...

Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:52 pm

Jeremy,

What do you mean by "PCM bounce down?" Is this a Korg internal process, or are you able to edit DSD?

srs

Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:46 am

Cucco wrote:

The marvelous thing is that much to all of this is translated into the PCM bounce down (though sadly not MP3 which happily mangles the signal no matter what the source).

So, a good way to perform AD-conversion is to do it in two steps. 1) One-bit DSD followed by 2) DSD-PCM-conversion. If this is sonically superior to what ordinary, or for that matter quite expensive AD-converters do, why don't they do that directly in the box in order to achieve this better quality PCM?

L

Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:46 pm

srs wrote:

Jeremy,

What do you mean by "PCM bounce down?" Is this a Korg internal process, or are you able to edit DSD?

srs

Yes and no. In a different post (the one about micing an orchestra) I went into a little detail. I've written some software which will allow me to perform edits that "appear" and are monitored via the PCM track but take place on the DSD track (allowing me to do basic crossfades and trims without having to upgrade to all DSD converters but still avoids downsampling to edit and then re-upsampling and re-downsampling again).

If I can get all of the bugs worked out, I'll share as freeware, but I'm having a b*tch of a time right now getting it to be stable. However, in the example of the Beethoven, yes, I've done just that.

I use the Korg software to perform the downsampling from DSD to PCM though as I'm not even about to try to get that to work! What kills me is that the AudioGate software actually does have a DSD editing function, but they don't capitalize on its abilities. It can already split and combine DSD files, therefore, it should be able to do this editing.

larsfarm wrote:

So, a good way to perform AD-conversion is to do it in two steps. 1) One-bit DSD followed by 2) DSD-PCM-conversion. If this is sonically superior to what ordinary, or for that matter quite expensive AD-converters do, why don't they do that directly in the box in order to achieve this better quality PCM?

Yes and no.

You'd have to compensate for the extra latency if doing it live. Also, you'd have to build in some kind of filter which people would get all uppity about. I don't think manufacturers would touch this with a ten foot pole.

Although, many folks do use a 1 bit Delta Sigma converter anyway, so it's not too far of a stretch to imagine keeping it in the single bit domain until the very end...I suppose.

Part of the problem is, there's some demystifying which needs to take place before the manufacturers and the general public would buy into it. Also, even if conditions allowed DSD for everyone, it certainly isn't the best choice for every project. I'd shutter to think of 64 tracks of DSD with comps/limiters/EQ/reverb all going at the same time to record a crappy garage band. I'd think that CPUs would begin contributing to global warming then...

Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:10 am

Forget about the MR-1 and go straight to the MR-1000.

The MR-1 has no functionality with its 1/8" inch inputs and it's compromised analog section.

I have found that the MR-1000 is suitable for high quality work and the DSD sounds very good. It does show a high "pleasant-ness quotient" in its sound.

I would not describe it as more "analog-like," but edges and harshness are shown less than in cheap digital pcm. There is very little difference, however, between the MR-1000 and high quality pcm digital.
(+$6000-8000 a/d cost.)

The MR-1000 is a great machine.

Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 5:30 pm

Plush wrote:

There is very little difference, however, between the MR-1000 and high quality pcm digital. (+$6000-8000 a/d cost.) The MR-1000 is a great machine.

I'll take that as high praise indeed...

Do you know how much recording time it offers when running from batteries?

Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:25 pm

I have received about 4 hours running time on batteriesin the MR-1000.

Continuous running time is under 3 hours.

It uses rather inexpensive AA batteries, so it's no big deal.

At Costco, I can buy 48 AA batteries for $9.50.

I run the MR-1000 alongside my Nagra V and then I compare which I like better. It's not always the Nagra and it's not always the Korg.

Both are high quality.

Thumbs Up

Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:28 pm

Plush wrote:

I run the MR-1000 alongside my Nagra V and then I compare which I like better. It's not always the Nagra and it's not always the Korg.

Very interesting, thanks!

Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:45 pm

Plush, what is your take on the quality of the MR-1000's preamps as compared to the Nagra V?

Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 5:08 pm

Duckman wrote:

Plush, what is your take on the quality of the MR-1000's preamps as compared to the Nagra V?

And continuing the Plush 'Mr One Thousand' questions:

When you run the Korg MR1000 and the Nagra V together, how do you feed signals into them to ensure they're both getting the same signal to make a valid comparison? Are you using mic splitters? Or driving both from a mixer, line level?

Are you able to do a side-by-side comparison of their preamps?

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:44 am

The recording to both units is made from the line output of a Neve console. The same analog out signal is going to both recorders. Then the comparison and judgement about fidelity is made two ways. I listen on headphones switching back and forth between the Nagra and the Korg. Nagra is 24/96 and the Korg is the 5.8Mhz. DSD format. Often the two units sound about the same. Sometimes I prefer the Nagra and sometimes the Korg.

I have also compared the Korg to the Nagra at 24/44.1.
I play both through our SADiE here. The DSD files from the Korg are converted to 24/44.1 by the Audiogate soft. Then I switch back and forth from the Nagra and the Korg file.
The 5.8 Mhz. DSD file converted to 24/44.1 performs very well indeed. The DSD format is particularly well suited to string ensemble recordings.

The mic amps on the two machines are totally non comparable. The Nagra has Nagra mic amps and the Korg has Korg mic amps. The Nagra V mic amps are very good indeed---in the tradition of Kudelski.

The Korg mic amps are somewhat limited in their dynamic range and are noisier than the Nagra by a good margin. I feel that the Korg box is made to be used line in. There is nothing more to say. You get what you pay for.

The Nagra V remains our main two track machine. That will not be changing here. However, a laudable DSD machine for
$1200 is a no brainer!

Run it along side your set-up and send in your comparisons.

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:56 pm

Plush wrote:

The recording to both units is made from the line output of a Neve console. The same analog out signal is going to both recorders.

Thanks for that information, Plush. It answers all of my questions while also confirming my suspicions about the mic preamps. The world is round again!

If I get a chance to play with Mr One Thousand, I'll report here...

This topic sponsored by: