naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: moles and atrac

Subject: Re: moles and atrac
From: Walter Knapp <>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 14:28:48 -0500
Klas Strandberg wrote:

> I'm not complaining at all really, more trying to say that a
> naturesoundrecordist perhaps should focus on other parameters than possible
> ATRAC errors. 
> Yannick worked with music (?) otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up.

I certainly agree here, ATRAC is on the very bottom of my sound quality 
worries. Really does not exist as a worry. For nearly everyone 
improvements in their input end will be far more important than the 
recorder as far as equipment.

> By "crispy" I mean "broken, scratchy" but in a way which I cannot describe.
> First time I experienced this was with my first Sony TCD-D10, first
> generation portable D/A converters. I had recorded a choire, and when I
> listened to it I wanted some kind of non-existant equalizer or compressor to
> do something which I couldn't define. The recording just made me nervous,
> and no conventional filtering could help. Replayed through an external D/A
> converter it came out fine. After that I have become sort of allergic to a
> special kind of errors, or whatever it is.

I don't see that with the Portadisc, at least as far as I listen 
critically to it's analog output, which leads me to believe it's 
probably more a function of the quality of the D/A in other minidiscs. I 
don't really even use the Portadisc's D/A that much since I transfer 
digitally. The analog quality I hear is from the D/A in the Roland UA-30 
most of the time. And that's a pretty good one.

And, at best all digital is broken up, that's what that word sampling is 
all about. It's part of why some still like the analog methods. There is 
a difference that's hard to eliminate. I noticed it more when digital 
first arrived than I do now. It sounds more "normal" now.

> I still favour MD, though, because of all the practical advantages. And
> whatever we discuss on the topic, the sound quality coming out of it is
> better than the loudspeakers.

My number one sound quality problems are there before it gets to the 
mic, the environment itself. And second is my technique. I'm now 
reaching a level with my mics that they are not as much a problem as 
they used to be, (once I develop the techniques to use them well). Note 
how the entire recorder is not on that list. It just works well, I push 
the record button and it records whatever I feed it extremely 
accurately. Again, as long as my technique set it's settings right.

Every recording system is a compromise. This is particularily true in 
field recording. I choose MD for the overall advantages. In that regard 
it's real hard to beat. And the sound quality is well above the quality 
of nearly everyone's speakers or headphones.

Walt




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU