Tanya Nu wrote:
> Hi all-
>
> Thanks Walt, for your info. I have a basic question regarding consumer vs
> pro versions of minidisc recorders. I concur with Walt that it makes
> complete sense in this and any other recording endeavor to work within th=
e
> limitations of what finances will allow. A few sources off this list tha=
t I
> have asked about this topic have told me that consumer minidiscs are some=
how
> inadequate, while most people have said they are just fine. People agains=
t
> comsumer minidisc recorders have this fat not revelaed exactly what the
> problem with them is supposed to be, while those who use them seem to fee=
l
> they work "just fine" (though I am not sure how much field recording thye
> actually do with them- need to ask further).
>
>
> Keeping in mind Im not trying to go from newbie to Dan Gibson with a sing=
le
> purchase, is there any real reason to feel consumer mini discs are
> inadequate? I would rather think that features such as the ability to set
> gain levels during recording and the quality of mics used would be more o=
f a
> factor to consider at this stage then some inherent deficiciency of the
> consumer grade minisdisc format.
>
> Is there something specific I should look for in my minidisc player?
Keep in mind there are those with a belief system that does not allow
them to consider recorders that compress sound. They usually confine
this to just ones like minidisc, that says it compresses sound, as
compared to DAT, which also loses a lot of the original analog sound,
but does not say it does. A lot of the opinion about consumer minidisc
is colored by this.
The other one you get a lot of is comparisons to what's available in a
dedicated recording studio. That equipment is definitely not portable,
when those folks talk "field", they are talking about moving large
amounts of that to another building and plugging it in. It is much more
realistic to compare actual portable recorders.
And there are those that will pan any gear that's not their chosen and
blessed gear. Some will pan any gear, claiming only actual listening is
quality. So don't expect to find everyone agreeing on quality issues, it
does not matter what you use, someone is not going to like it.
Having used both consumer minidisc and pro minidisc recorders, I've got
some feel for the difference. Consumer minidisc does not have as good a
mic preamp as a pro minidisc does, nor does it have as many bells and
whistles when it comes to actual recording. As someone else said, it's
designed for simple, consumer level mics. But, the difference is such
that until you get into expensive, high quality mics you probably won't
notice much other than that it's easier to overload the consumer mic pre
with loud sounds or high output mics. Note that the low end DAT's are
more like consumer in their pre's than pro.
In other words it's a system, only as good as the weakest link. For
nature recording, where obtaining a lot of gain is often necessary, the
measure that makes the most difference is inherent noise. Every piece of
electronics has some noise it generates, the louder this is, the more
problem. Getting really low noise equipment is expensive. So, the mic
pre in the recorder has it's noise level which limits how much you can
turn up the gain. Turn the gain to full volume on a consumer pre and you
will probably hear the noise generated by the pre in the headphones.
But, at that gain, with consumer level mics, the noise they are
producing will probably be the same or greater. Compared to pro mics and
recorders, you can get less gain to use. This will limit you somewhat,
you will have to be closer for the same sound.
The portable pro minidisc recorders like the HHb Portadisc I use do also
have more I/O options when it comes to getting the sound back out. In
particular consumer level portable recorders have only analog outputs.
The pro recorders have digital outputs. Do not that does not get you
faster transfer, it's still realtime transfer. Except for one setup that
uses a obsolete minidisc computer disk drive, which can do faster. It
is, however, not a portable recorder.
The idea of adjusting gain during recording sounds attractive. Until you
get to processing the sound through filters and so on. You then have
this noise floor that keeps running up and down too. It is best to get
into the habit of studying your sound and choosing a good gain setting
to start with. It makes a big difference if you ever need to filter that
recording. It's not always possible to do this, but I found it better to
make discrete jumps, preferably starting a new track when I did so. That
can be done using pause, the way that works with the Sony's (one of the
newest Sonys does allow gain changing on the fly).
Quality of mics is going to be your limit at first. Unless you spend big
on them. It's surprising how often someone will spend a lot on recorder
and pre, and feed it with a low quality level mic. Or how often the
pre's in consumer recorders get blamed when the fault may very well be
the mic. Or a user who does not know how to get the best out of the
equipment.
As far as choosing a minidisc model, the warning is to check out what
connectors it has and how you access the functions. Many newer models
have combined or eliminated connectors, and put function changes in long
menus. Recording from a mic does not have high priority in the newer
stuff, which has primarily been designed around competing with mp3
players. This is why many like the MZ-R30 through MZ-R55 Sony's, or
Sharps of about the same period. When they were still designed with mic
recording being a important mode.
Also, for recording, you are really only interested in Standard ATRAC,
not the LP2 & LP4 modes, which produce longer times at the expense of
sound quality. They were rushed out to compete with mp3's.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
>From Tue Mar 8 18:22:48 2005
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 18:17:07 -0400
From: "Randolph S. Little" <>
Subject: Re: microphone arrays
Gianni et al.,
Two such systems come to mind: the JVC MU-6200E Super Beam
Microphone and the Bell Labs steerable array in their Arnold Audi-
torium at Murray Hill, NJ. Both were built in the 1970s, the former as
a product that sold for about $1500 and the latter as a one-of-a-kind
that may still be in use today.
The JVC product consisted of a linear array of back-electret condenser
microphones with a MU-A62E system adapter which provided 12v
battery and preamplification from -45 dBm to -20 dBm at 600 ohms.
The array, which was about 1m long and weighed several Kg, could be
hand held or tripod mounted. I found it uncomfortable to hand hold
with its commercial handgrip for very long because of its weight. Its
directivity could be electronically dialed from cardioid to
super-directional.
At the latter extreme its beam width was comparable to that of a 1m
parabolic reflector system; i.e., sharper than any shotgun mikes. Ob-
viously, the horizontal linear array gave no directionality in the
"vertical"
axis, but that may be fine in a planar soundscape.
The Bell Labs array has been, I believe, rather thoroughly described in
the literature, though I can't cite a reference. It was physically made b=
y
mounting a 2D array of inexpensive microphones on a large (~ 2m x
2m) square of plywood, such that each element acted as a boundary
zone microphone. The interesting aspect of that system was that its
beam could be steered electronically and automatically, such that the
ceiling-mounted array which "pointed" down at the seating area of the
auditorium could focus on any single sound source rather quickly, thereby
facilitating dialog between any member of the audience and the con-
ventionally miked principal at the podium. This worked great for Q&A
after a formal presentation.
Both systems were designed for the human hearing band. I see no
reason why wider bandwidth could not be achieved if necessary.
Good recording,
Randy
Randolph S. Little <>
|