At 4:36 PM +1100 11/26/07, Peter Nielsen wrote:
>Thank you for your reply. I will try to address the key issues you
>raised in order.
>
>MD recorders seem to present an irresistably cost-effective option.
>They are very cheap on eBay. Unfortunately, good secondhand mics are
>not as common. I am hoping for a pair that will run off the voltage
>supplied by the MD mic socket (no phantom), are moderately
>directional, and priced below $50 each. I suppose I would like to
>visualize a graph showing where sound quality drops off most sharply
>with descending price.
Here's a test comparing some better known electret mics:
http://www.uwm.edu/%7Etype/audio-art-tech-gallery/pages/EMKS-23-WL183-WM-61A-EM158-NT4-35-0190-MicsComp.html
All of these mics are inexpensive except for the WL-183's and the
EMKS-23's. Only the later are considered, low-noise.
If you are traveling to distant places to record sound, you might
consider good mics as part of the ticket price.
>
>I am interested more in gobal ambient sounds, not specific or
>isolated bird calls, etc. I will be continually on the move and would
>like to be able to set the equipment up within 5-10 minutes. Most MD
>recorders will accept "AA" cells, so I would carry an adequate supply
>for the time away.
>
>Given the overall acquisition cost of the above, I am also wondering
>if a flash memory recorder with built-in mics might be a preferred
>solution.
The most important advantage of a "flash" recorder might be the
ability to upload the recordings in the digital format whereas the MD
recorder requires a deck for a digital transfer. You might find a
used Hi-MD recorder. The first models of Hi-MD recorders enable
digital transfers using a PC computers, Macs are supported in later
models. The recording medium itself (if its digital) makes no
difference in the sound files you create. Lowly MD is very much
digital.
>Some of the newer ones, such as the Zoom H2 and Marrantz
>660 seem enticing. What kind of results are nature recordists
>achieving with these devices and how does the sound quality compare
>with MD and cassette?
Any possible differences in (mic pre amp) quality between an H2 or MD
will be inaudible unless you use low-noise mics, or more
specifically, mics with a self noise of 16dBA and preferably lower.
If you invest in lower-noise mics, you can power them with a Rolls
PB224 or Art Phantom III on a used MD or Hi-MD recorder and come out
ahead (noise performance-wise) of an H2 and its internal mics.
Here's a movie that includes a Sharp MT-90 MD recorder in the
comparisons to get an idea of the noise performance differences:
http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-art-tech-gallery/pages/SD722_Rolls%3EHiMD_D7_MD_TRVmov.html
Rob D.
>
>I know this is a bit subjective, but I hope you can see enough to
>offer some specific advice, perhaps on the simpler and cheaper end of
>acceptability. Then I can learn more with experience upgrade, if necessary.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Peter Nielsen
--
|