>From: "branchlinesplus" <>
>>
>> I want to branch out into specialist recording of nature to use in
>> conjunction with video editing. I use Final Cut pro for this and want
>> to buy a good quality sound recording device and a reasonable
>> microphone. I did a fair bit of this many years ago, but am out of
>> touch with the technology (although I am still in touch with
>> computing technology.) The HHB Portadisc sounds quite good, but I
>> have read a review that background noise on low level recordings is
>> not too good. Is this the best thing to buy or is there better?
>> Should I go DAT or solid state. Don't want to spend more than about
>> 1000 GBP. Also what type of microphone?
>
>I've heard occasional references like this about the Portadisc. But, I
>use one extensively. And my mics are the Telinga Pro 5 with DAT Stereo
>Element, or various stereo setups using Sennheiser MKH mics. All top
>end, very low noise mics, which will expose any noise from your pre. The
>Portadisc matches them well as far as self noise, I generally will hear
>the self noise of these quiet mics before any from the Portadisc. Which
>makes me wonder if the reports are from people who don't understand that
>all components have self noise and are using noisy mics. Or trying to
>push mics outside their design parameters. This is common with shotgun
>mics where folks will apply excessive gain trying to pick up sound from
>farther away than the mics can do well. That combo almost always results
>in lots of unwanted background noise. A lot of it simply sounds that are
>in the environment. If you crank the Portadisc's gain to the top peg
>doing this sort of thing you can find some self noise from it. But it
>will be mixed with the mic self noise and all kinds of environmental noises.
>
>Note that the Portadisc is a portable field recorder, it can be beaten
>by studio equipment easily. But if you limit yourself to what's
>available in field recorders, it's stands up very well indeed. A real
>recordist's recorder, in my opinion the best MD field recorder. A lot of
>studio types seem to never get the distinction that the demands on a
>field recorder are different.
>
>I don't think the currently available portable DATs are near as good as
>the Portadisc. You are much more likely to need a add on pre with them.
>DAT is going away fairly quickly. They have the disadvantage for nature
>recording of being very sensitive to environmental conditions,
>especially heat or humidity. The recording is not archival, must be
>backed up right away to be safe, while MD is a MO optical disk, and very
>safe and durable.
>
>Solid state is new, and when you look at media costs can be considerably
>more expensive. Many people get starry eyed about it, but the test of a
>recorder is not in how fast you can transfer the recording when you get
>back. I've not seen a lot of serious testing of the front ends of these
>recorders. I have seen reports that the newer models are plastic and
>look lightly built. I'd like to see a lot more actual field use reports
>on them. Taking the same look, things like how's the pre doing, how
>reliable they are under field conditions.
>
>The Portadisc would do a really good job for you, but with your money
>limitations it's not going to leave a lot for mics. It's a little hard
>to advise about mics without knowing what you plan to record. The
>primary division in nature recording is between call recording and
>ambiance recording, and those two ways result in quite different mic
>demands. And if you are worrying about the self noise of a Portadisc you
>are into going with the quietest mics, which are not cheap. I happen to
>like the Sennheiser MKH series used either with a modified SASS housing
>or in M/S configurations. Or, for distance and call recording, the
>Telinga stereo parabolic. I only record in stereo. But MKH are very
>expensive mics, even if you get them used off ebay as I do.
>
>You can get some idea of the Portadisc's and my mic's capabilities and
>what they look like from some samples I have up:
>http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.com/docs/mic_samples.html
>http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.com/docs/my_mod_sass.html
>http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.com/docs/my_ms_setups.html
>Those are mostly samples done just after I started using the SASS & M/S
>mics. Probably don't represent the ultimate best from them.
>
>Walt
>
>
Hi--
I know several recordists who are on hold because they don't want to
spend ~$1200 on a MD recorder or $600 DAT+$650 recorder/mic pre
combination when there's a chance that something like the 722 will
happen and will meet the demands Walt spells out. High quality mics
may be a safer, long term investment at the moment. One can add a
$200 MD recorder and modify an $80 Audio Buddy mic preamp for
portable powering (which has phantom power for the better mics) and
make great recordings while the dust settles.. Rob D.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|