Hi,
I too just joined the group.
I do multitrack fieldrecording, nature, but also film post.
I've looked for the ideal solution for a long time: compact, as lightweight=
as possible but
no compromise with quality (that comes with a big pricetag).
My equipment weighs 13kg: recorder, 3 mics, cables, NP1's, other accessorie=
s and cabin
size luggage included. That might be a bit heavy for what I understand from=
the thread,
but I have the ability to record almost endlessly on up to 10 tracks (ambia=
nce + interview
+ underwater... i.e.). analog (phantom powered) and digital (AES). The reco=
rder fits in a
portabrace over the shoulder.
As for the the microphone: I just stumbled on a Sanken CUW 180. Not cheap b=
ut very
handy. But you to have an AES input on your recording device. The mic is un=
usual as it
posesses 2 cardio that you can orientate 180=B0 so you can record stereo a=
mbiances as well
as interviews without having to move, and that with a quality matching a pa=
ir of Neumann
Message: 184.
Subject: Here's the link: http://www.sanken-mic.com/english/.
Not sure I'm much of help, but if you have any questions........
regards
Frank Hinrichs
ToneDeafBunker Brussels Belgium
--- In Walter Knapp <> wrote:
>
> Posted by: "Molly Bentley"
> >
> > I just joined the naturerecording group on suggestion of
> > Bernie Krause. I'm a radio science reporter and thinking of
> > updating my recording equipment. I use a 7-year old
> > minidisc recorder, if you can believe it! I'm thinking of
> > investing in a flash recorder.
>
> I use a minidisc recorder, a HHB Portadisc I got when they were first
> introduced. Mine came from the first shipment of them to the US.
> Compared to that, many of the new flash recorders fall short. Depending
> on model, your minidisc can do pretty well.
>
> But if you have money burning a hole in your pocket there are newer
> recorders to buy. Personally if I was replacing my Portadisc it would
> probably be the Sound devices recorders I'd be looking at. If I wanted a=
> tiny recorder it might still be minidisc I'd choose. The newer himd type=
> is quite nice. The biggest problem there is no phantom power and the use=
> of tiny plugs. So, for the quality mics I use I'd have to cart along a
> mic preamp to take care of that, which negates the small size.
>
> > What I need it for: I don't do nature recording per se -
> > most of my recordings are with people (interviews), although
> > I often need to include ambient sound and action in various
> > locations (ie: dolphins (above water), a walk through a
> > forest, a demonstration on a boat...)
>
> I'd include asking in the ENG community. In some ways nature recording
> is similar, but not entirely.
>
> Simply put, getting both the interview and ambiance in one take is
> pretty tricky. More likely you will want to record the ambiance
> separately and mix it in. For really good ambiance you want to go stereo=
> if possible. For stereo that can mix back to mono well a M/S mic setup
> is generally the choice.
>
> > Ideally, the equipment would be be as light as possible - or
> > at least quite portable - since I'm often running around
> > (outdoors or at conferences).
>
> Generally ENG folks want fairly rugged recorders and the news business
> can be rough on equipment.
>
> By portable do you mean over the shoulder portable, or do you want the
> recorder small enough to be stealthy?
>
> > In addition, I'd love your thoughts on quality lavalier
> > mikes - the last ones I used were 10 years old so I have no
> > idea what's out now. But I'd like to do some interviews
> > without having to pass the microphone back and forth!
>
> Lavaliers have not changed much in a long time.
>
> Another idea for interviewing without passing the mic is a figure 8 mic.=
> It picks up from two sides so can be placed between yourself and the
> one you are interviewing. If the distances are near equal you can get
> quite a good recording. They are not cheap mics, however. They also have=
> the advantage of being one half of a stereo M/S setup.
>
> > These are very basic questions about equipment, I'm afraid -
> > I'm sure your discussions are much more advanced!
>
> It's debatable if our discussions are all that advanced. Nature
> recording is generally done at greater distances than most other
> recording and that's reflected in what we discuss.
>
> One thought, I know a lot of ENG is going to small video cameras these
> days for more capability. You should at least think if this is a good
> idea for you.
>
> Walt
>
|