I am not sure what your point is (more than some discussion why you=20
are satisfied what you have but at the same time would buy more=20
expensive gear if you could afford it).
While I have not measured the Sony MD model Rob is discussing I did=20
at one time put my old HP Audio Analyzer and some other tools to good=20
use measuring a few other consumer MD:s in hope I could use them=20
instead of some heavier recorder. And there is a big difference. Not=20
so much noise level as in various forms of distortion that is=20
especially apparent when you feed in short stereo bursts (probably=20
the powersupply lines in a consumer MD is not stiff enough - or its a=20
multo-op-amp chip sharing a single supply-source) and I also looked=20
at the noise characteristic of some key components in the circuits=20
(which usually end up matching the actual sonic character og the=20
preamp pretty well).
Now this may not be important at all when you want to record a=20
specific object with a highly directional mic. Noise matters more=20
than anything and you are not listening to the end result in a way=20
(and on replay equipment) that you would notice most of the=20
shortcomings.
But in other types of recording capturing as much as possible of the=20
beauty and impact of a natural soundscape makes a real diff. And here=20
you probably need any help good quality equipment may give you.
The internet is always so full of opinions and "advice".=20
Fieldrecordings are made for different purposes and with different=20
scope and one simply cannot generalize equipment advice like often=20
done ... there is no perfect (or "best") mic, pre or recorder on the=20
market - you simply have to balance your choice to your own personal=20
preferences, budget and demand. You cannot always rely on the=20
equipment choice of others - I have heard some really fascinating=20
fieldrecordings made on portable analog audio cassette recorders, but=20
that does not make me rush out looking to buy one.
27 jul 2005 kl. 17.25 skrev Curt Olson:
> Rob Danielson wrote:
>
>
>> No doubt people who can afford 722's and Lunatecs will tend to hear
>> the improvement in quality they're dollars are paying for.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> The common belief is that "premiere," low noise, high gain, good
>> sound mic preamplification comes only at a cost either in a great
>> recorder or a great outboard pre.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Klas Strandberg insisted for years that the chips used in the=20
>> consumer
>> grade pres shouldn't be the source of this low performance--that
>> indeed they are high quality in themselves and that the the noise and
>> output performance of th mics _should_ be the limiting factor.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>
> Klas Stromberg clarified:
>
>
>> Just like to add and remind:
>>
>> A costly preamp is needed when you want low noise, low distortion and
>> good headroom!
>> All three.
>>
>
> Prior to last week I would have kept quiet on this to avoid a=20
> firestorm
> of controversy. But the atmosphere has improved, so I'll toss out an
> overall perspective I've arrived at over the course of 30 years as an
> audio engineer/producer.
>
> In my career, I've made thousands upon thousands of nationally
> syndicated network radio broadcasts, engineered hundreds of live
> concert broadcasts for network radio (most of them very large and
> complex), recorded & mixed scores of studio albums and jingle packages
> for local, regional and national clients. On only three or four
> occasions have I ever gotten my hands on the most serious high-end=20
> gear
> that's available. I say this not to pump myself up, but rather to make
> the point that it is absolutely possible to achieve excellent results
> with lower-to-mid-level equipment. I've had little choice in the
> matter, and it has forced me to understand the whole process inside=20
> and
> out and to develop good working practices and techniques. By contrast,
> a studio owner I know rather well proudly promotes his collection of
> exotic microphones (including a number of rare ancient Telefunken and
> Neumann models) and preamps, but routinely puts out poor=20
> recordings. Go
> figure.
>
> Again, I say this is only to offer a perspective. If you don't think
> you can afford a Sound Devices 722 or a Lunatec mic pre or a set of
> Sennheiser MKH mics right now, don't despair. As Klas has insisted and
> Rob has confirmed, the Sony MD mic pres are not the weak link in the
> chain that many have thought them to be. Dan Dugan, who is very
> familiar with high-end audio gear, called our attention to the
> inexpensive Shure 183 as a fine mic for nature recordists. I totally
> agree. (But I've discovered that *HOW* you deploy them makes all the
> difference in the world. Again, it comes down to working practices and
> techniques.)
>
> I don't despise anyone who has made a commitment to top-line gear.
> Believe me, I have a long wish list of my own. But for now, I've
> decided to do the best I can with stuff I could afford to replace=20
> if it
> ever gets lost, stolen or damaged in the field. There. Now you have my
> $.02.
>
> I'm anxious to see if the new M-Audio recorder lives up to its=20
> promise.
> If so, it'll definitely shoot to the top of my short list.
>
> Curt Olson
>
>
>
> "Microphones are not ears,
> Loudspeakers are not birds,
> A listening room is not nature."
> Klas Strandberg
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|