I suspect that I am one of the people that Rob refers to.
It is a very difficult decision again this winter, and the same as it
was last. Do I wait for an affordable 24 bit recorder or do I go
laptop.
Rob was right last year to have gone the laptop route.
I will sit on hold for the next 30 days but am not going into the
2004 migration without 24 bit. I don't expect everyone to follow
this and this is not my advise as a general thing. What I wish to do
does not cover what most are doing, but it is similar to what Rob has
done and is doing, and it needs the added bit depth.
Rich
--- In "Martyn Stewart"
<> wrote:
> <<<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.adver
tising
> .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:
>
> <
subject=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]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|