qukza wrote:
> --- In Walter Knapp <> wrote:
>
>
>>Talk is cheap. I sure don't see many of the advocates buying and
>>using.
>
>
> Agreed but this is relatively new technology. There have been limited
> options available and many of the recorders that have been available
> have had some serious limitations. With this new "second generation"
> solid state recorder I think we'll see wider adoption.
If you notice Martyn's latest post there have been quality recorders
available for a while. There will always be something new, but I don't
go along with the "serious limitations". The current marantz does a good
job, is a quality recorder, Nagra has a good HD recorder and so on.
What I see is making the transfer speed the primary criterion. I've seen
very little interest in the sound quality these things may or may not
have. The primary thing about a recorder is that sound quality. Why do
we see endless posts eager about transfer speed, but far less on sound
quality, battery life, case and control durability, and so on? I don't
think I've seen a single one of these posts that talked about the
display metering.
With MD's, users talked of nothing but size, battery life and capacity.
So manufacturers responded with ever smaller recorders, removing
connectors like line outs to make them even smaller. And with greater
compression that turned out poorer sound, but recorded a longer length.
And energy conservation that made the drive louder. Continual clamor
about transfer speed may get all sorts of unwanted side effects. Right
now we are sending a message, intended or not, that sound quality is way
down our priority list. And metering is totally unimportant. It's not
way down mine.
>>Then we shall find out just how durable a Compact Flash card is
>>when dropped into a mudpuddle and all the other fun of field
>>recording.
>
>
> Others have already provided technical responses. I'll just add that
> CF cards have been around for a while. They are widely used by photo
> journalists and others who give them some pretty heavy abuse under
> extreme conditions. Here's a rather sad example, pretty much the only
> thing that survives is the CF card:
> http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/biggart_intro.htm
On the other hand I do have a fellow biologist who did just drop one in
a mudpuddle, a pretty clean mudpuddle of fresh rainwater. Cleaned and
dried according to all the advice it was dead, permanently. And some
very hard to replace documentation photos with it. I have no idea yet
how often they will die vs how often they will survive, and want to
know. The same for all kinds of other hazards. This will not be info we
will get out of company AD men. Nor will the experience with digital
cameras totally tell us.
I've been following them for some time. Eventually my digital camera
will be abandoned by the software and I'll have to replace it long
before it's worn out, only a few thousands of photos taken, moving from
a camera that I use PCMCIA Type III hard disks to the solid state ones,
seemingly all that's available now. I've paid particular attention to
the experiences of fellow field biologists. Let's just say that the
durability of this media is not absolute, it can and does fail.
Sometimes in simple ways that are hard to believe. Yes, the lifetime
warranty replaces them, but not what's on them.
I've been with computers for a long time. In that time I've lost lots of
money when what I was using was abandoned. That digital camera I mention
above cost over $5000 when I bought it, I have mechanical film cameras
that work fine and are 30-40 years old, which spreads the initial cost
over a much longer life. No way I'll get to spread the cost of the
digital over near as long a time period. Right now, the investment it
would take to replace it is also not trivial, this is a SLR digital with
interchangable lenses and flash equipment. I'd have to change brands,
compromise on functionality, buy a new set of lenses to replace it. The
closer you tie your equipment to computers the more vulnerable you are.
Part of the solid state equipment being very recent, or even not out is
that most of the info is straight from company publicity. They are going
to emphasize all that they can the good points, glossing over as much
else as they can. To jump in on the basis of company press releases and
believe that this equipment is the ultimate of perfection is very
unwise. Real use by real field recordists will tell us in time just
where these stand in our alternate equipment choices. It's well to look
beyond the press releases and messages from the company AD department at
some of the possible worst case scenarios and ask realistically just
what we will find. I certainly don't want to spend years looking for
Brimley's Chorus Frog as I did, only to find the only recording I will
have this year to document it has died. I'm very careful in my equipment
choices as a result of that. I know from the experience of other field
workers that solid state can die and am watching to work out my odds,
before I'm forced to use it. It's probably not as big a issue for
hobbiest recordists recording relatively easy to find stuff.
I'm not currently in any need of a new recorder. Others are. What would
various people buy if they had to get a new recorder today, not
tomorrow, today? You are getting on a plane, going on a long recording
journey to some ideal area, you are leaving immediately. Some of what
you record you will get one take. The area provides sound recording
opportunities of the highest quality. You have no recorder, what will
you buy? I constantly keep in the back of my mind on many types of
equipment this very question. It could occur if my current equipment was
damaged beyond repair. What I would get changes with time, it's rarely
something that's just out with entirely new technology for that use. For
me it would not yet be a solid state recorder, too many unknowns and
risks for this conservative old geezer.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|