The only currently available product that I'm aware of that comes
remotely close to your requirements is the Alesis Masterlink CD
recorder. Still probably double your intended budget though. It
does however meet your requirements in that it does not use lossy
compression.
The only other thought is that you might find a used Tascam 24-bit
RDAT machine - only 48kHz though.
Can you delay your project for a few months, saving some pennies in
the meantime perhaps? Then see the reply from Oryoki re Sound
Devices 722.
What microphone/s do you have?
Finally, to branch into another topic, one person's "ugly" might have
appeal for others, so I'm wondering what less subjective terminolgy
might be apt?
John
>Dear list,
>
>I am new to this list, and probably won't be long on this list, once
>I have bought my equipment. I hope you won't mind my selfish
>information sucking attitude.
>
>I am not a "naturerecordist". I am an experimental psychologist,
>focussing on hearing. I do most of my research with lab sounds
>(sinusoids, white noise, and the like... see http://periodic-noise.de
>for a typical project of mine). However, sometimes I need ecological
>sounds.
>
>My present project is on ugly sounds. Sounds that make you goose
>pimples. Finger nails on the blackboard, cutting styrofoam, etc. We
>want to have good samples of such sounds before we start looking into
>the stimulus properties that make them this ugly.
>
>My present question is on a cheap solution to record uncompressed 24
>bit 96 kHz sounds. Why these specifications?
> * 96 kHz because it is supposed that high frequencies play an
>important part in generating these goose pimples. High levels of near
>ultrasound might contribute to the effect.
> * 24 bits because that would make things easier. One would not
>need to adjust the gain control very varefully in order to have a
>16-bit version that makes use of the full dynamic range. Also, with
>equal SPL high frequencies have much less amplitude. In order to
>capture them with some precision, 24 bits would be good.
> * uncompressed because we just don't know whether a compression
>algorithm (e.g. ATRAC) would change anything of importance to those
>sounds. While one might not be able to tell the difference between
>compressed and uncompressed bird songs, music, speech, ... it might
>just make the difference between a GPS (goose pimple sound) and other
>sounds.
>
>I have studied the offer of Raimund Specht,
> http://www.ultrasoundgate.com/usg124.htm
>which comes to 2552 EURO (#31242 + #10212, incl. 16% VAT). O.k., it
>would be nice to have a hand-held device like that (and even nicer if
>it had some own recording technology, say solid state). But let's
>suppose I had much less funding available, say 500 EUR or so. Is
>there any solution that would allow to do uncompressed 24/96
>recordings at this price? It needs not to be a handheld solution,
>though laptop-based would be nice.
>
>[Well, I am aware that the next thing to consider would be the
>microphone. I have a nice one here, I'll have to look up its
>specifications, but I suppose that an appropriate microphone would
>not cost thousands of USD/EUR.]
>
>Thank you in advance,
>and best regards,
>Christian
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|