You know the laptop method is a great tool also but carrying a laptop into
the field and using it portable like a MD makes no sense to me, I have tried
it and I have used small picture books, there is no compensation for not
being able to see a screen when the light glares down and batteries are not
portable enough.
Most of my problems were with not being able to see the screen in high to
medium light. Granted, this is a great method but way off the advantages,
pound for pound, I can take a MD into the field and stay there for hours and
never run out of batteries, it's an expensive route to take with a laptop.
I'm sorry but I am not convinced with this way either.
Martyn
_____
From: Rich Peet
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 9:33 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] DAT, MD or similar recording equipment
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]
_____
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]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|