S=E9bastien Boulanger-Gagnon, you wrote,
>I am frequently doing field recording for my
>electroacoustic music compositions (acousmatic
>music). I usually borrow or rent a Tascam DA-P1,
>which I think gives a very good sound (not too
>crisp or clean/cold).
With any digital recorder, the tonal quality of
your recording will depend almost entirely on the
microphone.
>I am now thinking about buying a Minidisc which
>would be easy to carry and not costly (probably
>a used one).
>I saw one with a line input the other day and
>tried to find the most information about doing
>field recording with it.
That would work with an external mic preamp, but
it's more convenient to get one that has mic
inputs.
>Some of you probably use this kind of equipement, so:
>
>- Is it true that it's better to use a battery
>pack for the mic and record trough the line
>input ? If so almost any low-cost Minidisc can
>be used ... ?
Putting the mic into the line input is only
practical for loud sources, like rock concert
taping. Nature sounds are quiet and you need a
mic preamp, either external or in the recorder.
>- Knowing that some nature recordists have said
>that Minidisc should not be used for nature
>recordings (that even a cassette recorder would
>be better),
Minidisc gives a higher-fidelity recording than
cassette, more reliability in the field than DAT,
and longer archival life than DAT or cassette.
>do you consider this kind of equipement being
>more gadget-type or being a low-cost solution ?
Definitely a low-cost solution, one that enables
you to put more money into the mics, where it
makes the most difference. I use the Sharp MD
recorders.
-Dan Dugan
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|