At 11:49 PM +0000 9/18/05, oryoki2000 wrote:
<snip>.
>
>Does this extra expense result in better recordings? Since few
>field recordings will be distributed in DVD format, won't most
>of the advantages of high bit rate digitizing be lost when
>converted to CD format? Recording under field conditions
>often dulls the technical advantage of fancy equipment.
Maybe its fair to say that the 722 can make better recordings under
some conditions and indistinguishable ones under others. If you
record robust foreground sounds and your end-products are compressed
files for web uploading or for personal use CD's, the Portadisc is
clearly up to this task. If you're into recording ambience in quiet
locations for 24 bit play back through expensive reference amps and
monitor speakers, you might want to avoid listening to 722 recordings
until you have $2400 in the bank. Rob D.
>
>To answer these questions, it would be helpful to review
>cuts recorded on both Portadisc and 722 under the same
>conditions. Can anyone provide samples? Who among us
>has access to both recorders?
>
>--oryoki
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|