From: Rob Danielson <>
> Has 1/8' aliminum lids on both sides. Unfortunately, I tried the
> impact crash test: 12 feet onto concrete while inside a canvas
> backpack. It survived, still recording to the Int HD..
That sounds much more reasonable, 1/8" is about the same thickness as
they used on things like the MP2.
I'd not do that crash test too often.
> One tip I would caution users about is heat build-up. It generates
> too much heat to leave to running in a closed case unless its very
> cold outside. I haven't done summer recording yet but I'll err on the
> side of good ventilation.
I wonder how PortaBrace is handling that with their case? They are very
good at designing cases that are intended to never be removed from the
equipment.
It's easy enough to figure out how much heat you are generating. You
know the battery capacity and how long it lasts.
> Right, its not a great "deal" but I do think its a really fine
> recorder. We'll know in 5-10 years whether its a good investment. If
> short takes and 16 bits are adquate, I'd definitely recommend a
> NH-900/MP-2 combo and if there's extra money, to spend it on mics.
That is exactly my thought about it, it's a good recorder, but not a
great deal as far as price. If you pop that case open (figuratively),
lay out all the components on a table and go off and price them on the
wholesale market, and then reflect on just how little of this recorder
is truly new, as opposed to a follow on to their experience in preamps
and mixers, it's overpriced. That does not mean it's a bad recorder. But
it is a aspect of this recorder I don't like.
Some think I'm comparing the SD recorders to the Portadisc. In some ways
I am, I own a Portadisc and am very familiar with it's capabilities and
use. But in commenting on the price of the SD recorders, I'm really
comparing them with themselves. What they could have been, what's possible.
Here's a comparison:
I just bought a high quality SLR digital camera. It carries within it
the processing power to do the cleanup of a photo that we might do in
photoshop. It can do that with each frame in about 1/3 of a second. The
camera contains more menu options than the SD recorder. It also at the
same time is sensing how much you are shaking the camera, and moving the
CCD appropriately to compensate for that shake. And much, much more. Add
some lenses, with their own circuitry to interact with not only the
camera's processing but also the flash unit. The flash has it's own
processing that takes the info on the current lens focus distance that
the lens sends and fires just the right amount of light for the shot.
And, of course each lens contains many optical and mechanical elements
that must work very precisely together. With three of these new lenses,
their largest flash unit, and the camera you are still well below the
price of the SD 722. There's far, far more technology going on in that
camera setup. The sound recorder is a relatively simple device by
comparison.
> I assure you that SD employees are not running off to their
> northwoods cottages with surplus income from sales. They have taken a
> lot of risks and very big upfront costs to make two fine portable
> recorders that do 95% of what we ask. Its been stated many times that
> we represent a tiny, tiny niche,.. It will be a miracle if
> manufacturers continue to respect our needs if ALL we do is complain.
It's rarely the employees who get most of the money. For a small company
it's a relatively large upfront cost. But let's be a bit realistic, it's
just a small development change to go from a excellent line of pre's and
mixers to a good recorder. You have the hard job done with the pre's.
They already had digital conversion with their USB pre's.
Don't think that Sound Devices built for or is depending on nature
recordists for their product's success. They built that product for
location recording in ENG, movies and such like. We are not on the radar
screen.
> If I have to buy 5 recorders in my lifetime and end up paying $5000
> more for gear that was made by employees who were paid
> "appropriately" -- I'll be fine with that. Rob D.
>
I'm of the same philosophy. I spend the money I have to for quality.
Yes, I'll somehow buy the overpriced equipment if that's what I have to do.
Roughly forty years ago I was a lot like your students that I met when I
was up there, I was a student then, though in biology and education. I
got to do a small amount of nature recording during the time I was
taking a couple of graduate level classes. Those gave me access to the
biology department's recording equipment and their sonograph. But, once
the courses were done I no longer had such access. If I wished to
continue nature recording, and I did, it was up to me to foot the bill
for a quality recorder and mics. There was simply no way I could afford
even a Uher recorder, the cheap option of the day. So, my nature
recording was mostly shelved for a very long time. Really only getting
going again with the advent of the minidisc, though I did record some
with cassette recorders and cheap mics.
So the question of the day is what will your students be able to afford
when minidisc is gone? I don't see it lasting much longer. Will they be
in the same boat I was in 40 years ago? It sure looks like they will.
Only their professors will have equipment. Nature recording will be back
to those willing and able to spend thousands on a recorder.
That's what I'm looking at here. And also noting how the discussions of
mics in this group always seem to come down to we must discuss only
cheap diy options. Are we also saying it's ok to spend a pile on a
recorder and then buy the cheapest mic to record with it? Do you think a
cheap diy mic is the best choice for recording with your recorder? Is it
just possible that right along with discussing this expensive recorder
we should be discussing the mics that will be appropriate for it? Or is
this a place like movie productions where the set, actors, and so on get
all the money and the sound is recorded on the cheapest mic that is
bought as a afterthought? That's the picture being painted by this group.
Most of the 50 plus years since I first tried nature recording in a
small way I've been frozen out of quality recording by costs. Even now I
find it very hard to afford to be involved. I don't see the future being
any better. Buying the new camera gear reminded me just how much I've
shortchanged my photography to afford sound recording. Eventually I'll
have to choose between those two. My new camera cost 1/3 the price of
the camera it replaced, and is much more capable. If photography is
going to continue to be more affordable, and sound recording less
affordable, then I think that choice is already made.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|