Hi Mark--
There are some very useful observations made in some of the Transom
reviews, but I'd be very careful trying to apply their conclusions to
nature recording. Their conclusions often only to the recording of
robust sounds.
Here's one clue: We have been discussing the drawbacks that accompany
recorders with noisy mic preamps. In the review of the PMD 620, its
mic pre amp is evaluated with two very low output dynamic mics
designed for extremely close-micing of voice and the Rode NTG-2 which
has a self noise of 18 dB(A) and a sensitivity of 15 mV/Pa. These
numbers compute to -111 dBu using Table 3
http://rane.com/note148.html. -111dBu is equivalent to the noisiest
recorder/mic pre tested on Raimund's list:
http://www.avisoft.com/recordertests.htm. If all of the numbers are
correct and we plugged an NTG-2 mic into this recorder and turned-up
the gain, one-half of the noise would be produced by the recorder's
preamps and one-half would be produced from the "self-noise" of the
mic itself. If we used the NTG-2 mic with a recorder with a less
noisy mic preamp like the Olympus LS-10, _all_ of the noise heard
would be generated by the mic, none by the recorder. Its not really
feasible to test a recorder's mic preamps with this mic. The dynamic
mics the reviewer used might have revealed the pre noise, but, as was
mentioned, the PMD 620's low gain in conjunction with the mics's very
low output rendered the combination inappropriate for low level
sounds.
These clues, together with statements like., "Most importantly, audio
quality is very good, even when using external microphones," can tell
us that the applications have little in common. Rob D.
At 11:41 PM +0000 3/31/08, Mark Forry wrote:
>Bill,
>I will let you know what I experience after the Marantz arrives. It
>is due to arrive between 4/3-4/8/08.
>If you are interested, this web site provided some information on
>several recorders including the Edirol and Marantz. The web site is:
>
><http://www.transom.org/tools/recording_interviewing/200703_recorder_revie=
ws/>http://www.transom.org/tools/recording_interviewing/200703_recorder_\
>reviews/
>Mark
>--- In
><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>=
m,
>"William Ruscher Jr."
><> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> I have been reading about the Marantz PMD 620 with great
>> interest, myself. It looks like it is built solid, and has less
>> preamp noise than any of the small pocket sized recorders out there
>> at the moment. I would certainly be interested in hearing your
>> recording and opinions on the PMD 620, in the future. I checked the
>> dimensions, and it measures the same as my Edirol R-09 , and would
>> probably fit into the carry case that I am using in the field. I am
>> hoping for some reviews on the internet that compare the 2 recorders.
>> On the shotgun mics, I purchased a used Sennheiser ME66/K6 combo for
>> $325.00 on Ebay. It is more than you mentioned in your budget, but
>> may be better for your long term needs. It is a highly recommended
>> mic for mono bird recording. This system should be mounted on some
>> form of a shock mount and be used with a windscreen, that would
>> probably add $150-$200 more to the setup.
>> If you need to stick to a usable setup for under $200(as I did)to
>> start out, than I can recommend the Sennheiser MKE300 mic, which is
>> designed for use on a camcorder, but can be mounted on a standard
>> tripod. I heard about this mic on various birding forums. I used it
>> also on an ultrapod mini tripod, that I wrapped with pipe insulation
>> (legs folded), to hand hold the mic. You can also remove the foam and
>> strap the minipod on a tree branch, if you don't want to carry a
>> tripod. It worked very well for me in the field, and gave me decent
>> results. I will still use it as a backup. The built in lead is a bit
>> short on the mic, and you would need to get a mini jack 3.5
>> extension. Also, I got a fake fur windscreen on Ebay that slipped
> > over the foam one (that is almost worthless) that comes with the mic.
>> Still at or close to the $200 budget. If you are interested to see
>> how this mic sounds with the Edirol R-O9, you can use this link to
>> listen to my recordings at:
>>
>>
>><http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/packsViewSingle.php?id=3D3095>http://freeso=
und.iua.upf.edu/packsViewSingle.php?id=3D3095
>>
>> Note: I had the Edirol on the highest recording level on all of these
>> recordings. Alot of the background noise you hear on the mono bird
>> recordings is the ocean tide that was less than a kilometer away.
>>
>> Your Marantz PMD 620 should do better, with less preamp noise.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>> --- In
>><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>=
om,
>>"Mark Forry" mark4e@
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > After much internet reviewing, I chose the Marantz PMD 620
>> recorder. I am looking to make
>> > bird song recordings to help identify birds in the field that I
>> cannot see, but hear only. I have
>> > Thrayer's birding software that provides excellent song recordings
>> for comparison.
>> >
>> > I made my field recorder selection based on 2 sources: oryoki's
>> recent naturerecordist review
>> > and the transom.org review. Considering what I was looking for it
>> seemed to be the best
>> > compromise.
>> >
>> > I am now looking for an external shotgun microphone in the $50-200
>> range. This area is
>> > more troublesome for me to sort out. I have read I should get the
>> best microphone I can
>> > afford. However, I want to start out with little in it until I
>> understand how I am using the field
>> > recorder better and know more about what is needed.
>> >
>> > Your recommendations are welcome. My understanding is that this
>> recorder does not have
>> > phantom power so keep this in mind when making your
>> recommendations. My 2 primary
>> > uses for the field recorder will be for birding in the field and
>> doing podcasts. I am new to
>> > the audio field so bear with me as I get acquainted with what is
>> required. Plus, I am new to
>> > naturerecordists.
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance....
>> >
>>
>
>
>
--
|