Jeremy Martin wrote:
>
> To:
> Subject: best recording device?
>
> I'm just now getting into nature recording and have been reading away,
> researching shotgun/parabolic mics etc. I'm also still trying to decide
> between MD and DAT recorders, though I'm leaning towards MD pretty heavil=
y,
> as I live in a fairly humid area (and plan to travel all over recording
> things) which DATs don't like at all.
>
> I see that the current generation of MD recorders are all about $299 USD.
> Since I don't really care about NetMD -- besides the fact that it only
> transfers ATRAC compressed audio so supposedly you can get more accurate
> recordings by transferring "pure" 16 bit 44.1khz digital audio instead of
> pre-ATRAC-compress audio -- I mostly just want this to record with. I
> figured I might be able to save a little bit and get a MD recorder a
> generation or two older. Since the ATRAC compression seems to be improved
> fairly frequently though, if it the current $299 MD recorders would mean
> higher quality recordings I'll just buy one of them anyway. Compared to
> thousand dollars mics and $800 DAT recorders even $299 really isn't that
> bad. :-)
Another thing to be aware of in DAT vs MD, is that the only manufacturer
of DAT mechanisms has discontinued making them. Tascom said earlier in
the summer that they had enough stockpiled for only a couple more years.
Couple that with only one factory making the tape...
You are correct about NetMD. And it's adding yet another layer of copy
protection to what was already there. Not something of any value using
the MD as a audio recorder from a mic. There are other, standard type
portable MD recorders that can transfer to the computer digitally. They
are pro level, and much more money. I use the HHb Portadisc, probably
technically the best MD recorder for field work. Unless you are
absolutely certain you are into nature recording big and for the long
term, you probably should not spend that much for your first recorder.
Analog transfer into a computer works just fine if you do it properly.
I live in Georgia, got into MD many years ago because tape has lots of
problems here with the heat and humidity. Never regretted the decision.
> On a "Minidiscussion" web board some have said that Sharp MD-Rs would be
> better suited for outdoor recordings but I thought I had better check wit=
h
> everyone here first. As sound quality is what I am most concerned with
> (though I don't care *that* much as I'm going to be using my nature
> recordings to create my own electronic music, and many of the sounds I
> record will be processed with software plugins etc)... which MD recorder
> sounds the best? Sharp's $299 IM-MT880 (using Sharp's ATRAC 7 I think)?
> Sharp's slightly older $240 MT-770? Sony's new NS-10 (which is using Sony=
's
> new ATRAC Type-S), Sony's older MZ-707... ?
When you are listing a bunch of recorders, all of which record audio in
a manner indistinguishable from CD, Sound quality differs very, very
little. The oldest walkman MD I'd recommend is the Sony MZ-R30, which
was ATRAC 4. A excellent recorder. But from there up other things than
sound quality become more important. Note that the ATRAC version numbers
of Sharp and Sony don't relate. Sharp has been increasing it's numbers
faster than Sony, but for the most part come out with whatever
improvements Sony comes up with one generation later. They make their
own versions of the ATRAC encoder/decoder, don't buy them from Sony.
The reason Sharp MD recorders tend to get recommended is one particular
function. Except for some of the very most recent Sony models, you could
only change the gain setting on the input while the recorder was in
record/pause. Sharps you can set it while recording. I, personally,
never found this to be a disadvantage with the Sony's I used. And if you
plan on doing processing of the sound you might want to think long and
hard about how wise it is to be riding the gain in the middle of a
recording. You will have a situation where background noise you might
want to filter out is varying right along with the recording, making
application of adaptive type noise filters that work from a sample of
the noise difficult, for instance.
Sharps appear to be somewhat less durable than the Sony's. Though there
are those that get many years out of either. Primarily durability is a
issue of how you treat the recorder.
Carefully check features between various MD recorders. Be sure and check
how you would access all the settings. And what connectors they have.
Many newer models have made it very awkward to use the MD as a recorder
from a microphone. They are .mp3 alternatives in some cases, and record
is primarily to transfer the .mp3's into them. Ideal is if you can get a
actual example in your hands and run through the operations.
I think there are many who would agree that the best Sony MD's for field
recording were the MZ-R30, R50 or R55. Since then the push for longer
battery life, to compete with mp3, to be more stealthy (smaller) and so
on has not resulted in better recorders for nature recording. Those
models can be found in very good condition on Ebay, they are long out of pr=
oduction.
There is some variation between mic preamps on the walkman. In general
they are more likely to overload, and noisier than pro gear. These can
be problems, depending on what you plan on recording. I don't know if
anyone has done a real comparison as far as nature recording goes. What
this can translate into is the need for a separate low noise mic pre,
and a good one of those will cost nearly as much as two of the MD
recorders. You can do excellent recording within the limits of a walkman
MD (or cheap DAT) but need to use care in choice of mic and such like.
Choice of mic is as important if not more so than the recorder. And
likely to cost you more than the recorder. The cheap way in to nature
recording is to build a parabolic mic. Once a suitable reflector is
located (at least 20" in dia), a simple Sony tie tac mic will take care
of the pickup. A parabolic setup provides considerable gain before the
sound reaches the mic, so the quality of the mic is a bit less critical.
This combo will beat a great many commercial parabolics. I used one I
made for several years before I bought my Telinga. I consider the
Telinga to be about the ideal choice for a commercial parabolic.
The problem with shotgun mics is they provide no extra gain, they only
restrict the angle of acceptance of sound. While that will cut out
noises to the side somewhat, the often weak nature of the call we are
recording will require considerable amplification. And the amplification
will expose the noise of the mic pre and the noise of the mic if brought
up too much. This pretty much restricts the shotgun choice to a few mics
that are very quiet and have higher sensitivity. And this combo of specs
ramps up price quickly. Maximum gain for this type of mic is achieved
with a very low noise shotgun coupled to a very low noise mic pre. The
recorder becomes the cheap part on the back. It is possible to go low
budget with something like a Sennheiser ME series mic, though there have
been problems getting walkman MD's to match the output leading to low
signal levels. There is a transformer setup described in the
naturerecordist's binary site at http://www.naturesongs.com/.
The third alternative in mics is to get very good at stalking, or use
very long mic cords. Get the mic very close. It can work if your subject
is tolerant or has a standard spot they call from. And opens up your mic
choices a lot.
All of the above assumes you are recording calls. If you are recording
soundfields then you want to think stereo (it's good for calls too).
Close in something like a Sony ECM-MS957 is a reasonable lower cost mic.
As you try to reach out it can end up doubling your mic cost to be doing
stereo, and can get bulky. The Telinga I use has the DAT Stereo mic in
it most of the time, and that's a parabolic setup that records stereo.
For other types of mics you may want to investigate M/S stereo, it's a
more compact package.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|