Terence--
On your budget and with ease of operation,.. there is no recorder
that I'm aware of. Those expensive recorders could be regarded as
over-matched for the mics used in the HD3 too.
Perhaps you could borrow a 4 track recorder or rent one and conduct
some experiments with it? I would think that one could extract <125
Hz content from one of the L or R Front mics in post without serious
quality loss and thus not have to record the "discrete LFE " channel.
What mic is that on top, facing up? Is it full bandwidth? So much of
the sound content in natural locations like forests comes from
overhead,.. I'd consider mounting a "center" speaker" overhead for
playback and record the LF, RF, Up and LR+RR (phase cancelled)
signals. If the top mic is currently LFE, you could swap that
capsule with the current, "center." Even if the full bandwidth "UP"
mic is played on a normally placed center speaker it could produce a
more interesting image than using the center mic.
These solutions may seem radical, but you might be surprised at how
similar or acceptable the results from a 4 channel recording can
sound. I assume there are ways to apply Ambisonics B-Format plugins
with your Holophone rig using 4 channels to generate 5.1 as well. Rob
D.
At 10:03 AM +0000 12/2/07, biv0uac61 wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I have an interesting dilemma. I have a Holophone HD3 which is capable
>of recording 5.1 channels. I have a semi-mobile rig that I use it with
>but it still needs a wall outlet to use.
>
>I am looking to purchase a totally mobile rig (battery powered) that
>can record at least 5.1 channels. I have looked at Fostex, Aaton, HHB,
>and Zaxcom but most of these are way out of my price range (around
>$5k) or not as 'mobile' (weight-wise) as they seem.
>
>My question is: Is there a 5.1 mobile rig that is around $5k and is
>lightweight to carry into the field?
>
>[The best option I can see so far is to purchase (3) SD 702's and use
>c.link to record simultaneously across all units. Does anyone have any
>experience with using c.link or is there another solution that is
>better than (3) 702's?]
>
>Thanks!
>
>Terence
>
>
--
|