claudio chea wrote:
>
> i think i was reffering to professional sound work, the recording process,
> and how much more you can get by using good quality dat recorder and
> microphones....
The pros are abandoning DAT in their new recorder purchases, the ones
doing music and film anyway. The number of available models of portable
field dat recorders is dwindling, and what's left does not appear to be
the state of the art even for DAT. DAT is more and more just a format to
deal with old tapes recorded with it.
Do not think that using DAT is somehow more professional or even better.
It's just another old fashioned tape recorder. With all the problems of
tape reliability.
And you can use any mic you can use with DAT with MD, or cassette or any
other recorder for that matter.
The truth is DAT is used as much out of habit as for good sound reasons
compared to other choices.
The HHb Portadisc is certainly a pro recorder if that matters. And quite
a few pros are buying them. I've even seen quite a few mic reviews by
pros where the recorder used during the mic testing was a HHb Portadisc.
And as for how much more you can get, you are talking about the flea on
the elephants back, the very tiny flea, if it's even there. You get the
elephant. It helps to keep in perspective just how tiny a difference
something that people cannot pick out when they listen turns out to be.
Especially as you are ignoring the relatively huge variation even within
individual models of mics or recorders. To say nothing of between
different models. Or that Pros routinely mangle the sound they do record
with all kinds of filtration and other processing.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|