evertveldhuis wrote:
>
> --- In "Jeremy Martin" <> wrote:
> > Performing my test might still be a good (and easy) way for us to
> >look at any effects ATRAC has on the DAT's output, if no one is able
> >to perform the ideal test you listed above.
> >
> > All the best,
> > Jeremy Martin;
> > http://www.carrollsweb.com/sadus
>
> Yes, but how interesting and practical is that?
> In real life what you do is: you take a microphone, a recorder and
> perhaps transfer it to a PC.
> Differences between various recording systems are easy to measure but
> tell you no usefull information that makes you a better recordist.
>
> It is far more interesting to know what the combination of you mic,
> you recorder and your PC can do. Know what it can, know its
> limitations and go recording. Do not waste too much of your time
> testing, go out there while you have the chance (and while the
> soundscapes are still available).
This is also the best way to test if you are into testing as a hobby. To
me it's a tool, once it's in my hands the question switches to getting
the most out of it. In a contest between someone completely at ease and
experienced with their equipment, but using low quality equipment and
someone who has tested a expensive high end batch of gear but not used
them in the field, I'll bet on the guy with the cheap stuff to come back
with the best recording.
Agonize all you want over something before you buy. But once you have it
take it out and use it. It will quickly teach you it's values and
faults. They will only remotely resemble what you got in testing. And at
the same time, with practically any recorder, you will start
accumulating recordings you find good to listen to. And start learning
how to get the best out of what you have. There is a reason why it's
often called the craft of nature recording.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|