Considering the earlier issur:
Sharp MD's will automatically place all recordings at the end of the disc.
No risk for deleting.
Klas.
At 17:48 2002-09-14 -0400, you wrote:
>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 heavi=
ly,
>> 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 o=
f
>> 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 improve=
d
>> 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 wi=
th
>> 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 Son=
y'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
production.
>
>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
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/=
>
>
>
This outgoing e-mail is scanned for viruses with Norton 2002
Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
email:
org. no SE440130067001
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|