From: "geoffjcarey" <>
> --- In Walter Knapp <>
>>> Ummm, hate to sound like a broken record, but my MD recorder is
>>> portable, has optical, SPDIF Coax, and USB for digital audio
>>> There are at least two MD portables that have digital outs, the
>>> Portadisc I use and the Marantz one.
> What are the differences in using these various options (optical,
> SPDIF Coax, USB) with regard to how the recording is transferred to
> the computer. Do they all provide the same digital information? Are
> any of the superior in any way?
In all cases you are transferring a digital audio stream. The systems
were designed to transfer real time audio. The optical and coax were
designed for interconnecting high end audio equipment, nothing to do
with computers. USB, of course, is intel's computer serial protocol, and
the part used is it's realtime audio transfer protocols. As far as the
accuracy of the transfer, I've seen no difference. And I can do all three.
Optical is using the SPDIF protocol in it's coding, so is equivalent to
coax. USB has a slightly different protocol, but still based on the
digital coding of CD. So, as far as I know there's not difference in the
digital information you get. That is assuming your interface does not do
something, like the soundcards that internally process digital at 48kHz
and thus do two conversions of the 44kHz info. But that's not a problem
of the transfer protocol.
I prefer the optical. This insures the two pieces of equipment are
electrically isolated from each other. No chance of passing
interference, or mismatched grounds. In actuality my pathway is optical
from the Portadisc into a Roland UA-30 which then passes it on into the
computer via the USB bus based on my system settings. Then internally
the USB gets converted into the internal data protocol by the USB
controller, run through the processor under the control of the sound
editor, sent out to disk, converted to it's storage protocol, etc. etc.
Copies of copies of copies is what you get in the world of computers.
>From Tue Mar 8 18:27:57 2005
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 13:38:12 -0400
From: Walter Knapp <>
Subject: Re: Edmund Parabolic Reflectors
From: Gregory Kunkel <>
> In my experience no. Any microphone that I have used is affected by
Probably the most neglected part of nature recording is wind protection
for our mics. There are pretty effective wind protection systems
available. They tend to be costly, but can be duplicated fairly well for
less, if you understand how they work.
> In windy conditions I take refuge behind trees, sand dunes, or other
> large objects, getting upwind of the subject using my body. Avoid
> being close to large flat surfaces (e.g. houses). They create echoes
> that produce interference patterns that blur the recording.
In my experience trying to shield a parabolic with objects is not that
successful. The objects create eddies that cause variable wind speeds
and directions to hit the dish. Very hard to find a way to hold it to
avoid those and also maintain aim. I do this sort of thing when I have
to, particularly in my scientific recording where sound quality is less
of a issue. But, I've found it's better to put on the wind cover and get
out in the open most of the time.
> Some recordists in this group have recommended fuzzy fabric covers
> over the dish. I have not tried that and defer to others to give
I use the rycote cover sold for the Telinga. It does work very well at
keeping problems at the mic down. But does nothing for the extra sound
in the environment due to wind.