<<<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>>>
You just don't know this, the 722 has all the hype that most recorders out
there pre it's release.
To say that the 722 will meet the demands Walt spells out is rubbish, this
recorder is totally untested in the field and can end up like a lot of the
solid state recorders, great but not reliable yet.
If I had money to start all over again and even in the current market, I
would go out and by the Portadisk for all the reasons Walt spells out, it is
reliable and TESTED. It has gone through very rigorous testing and come out
smelling of roses. To have a machine like the 722 with 40gig hard drive
spells danger to me, especially with nature recording.
It is not the same as studio work where you cue the artist and make several
takes, you really only get one chance out there in the field (depending on
what you record) and often I will leave a recorder on for many mins, to have
40 gigs of recording is a hell of a lot of work to edit say one single call
from a bird!
Let the 722 take the test before spending the $2000 they claim it will cost.
How many Recordists use the solid state recorders? I think you will find MD
& in some instances DAT to be the predominant tool still in the field.
Martyn
http://www.naturesound.org <http://www.naturesound.org/>
_____
From: Rob D.
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 6:02 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] DAT, MD or similar recording equipment
>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.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12c3ccvqa/M=243273.4326031.5516772.1261774/D=egroup
web/S=1705083663:HM/EXP=1072749771/A=1750744/R=0/*http:/servedby.advertising
.com/click/site=552006/bnum=1072663371288389> Click to learn more...
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=243273.4326031.5516772.1261774/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=1750744/rand=335781461>
_____
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<=Unsubscribe>
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|