I can testify that recordings I made using the original mini-disc machines,=
the Net MD machines and now the Hi-MD can be downloaded using the MZ RH1 o=
nto my computer with no problems, and that these files have been converted =
to wav's by Sonic Stage. If I attempt to do the same using my MZ NH900 it w=
on't allow it and on the only occasion I did try this I had to remove Sonic=
Stage from the PC I was using and remove all references to Sonic Stage and=
its file formats from the Registry and then and only then reinstall Sonic =
Stage. If you just went through the normal un-install reinstall procedure S=
onic Stage would not work.
I often still use the NH900 as my main record device but use the RH1 to dow=
nload to the computer as it is faster and encounter no problems.
Some of these old mini-discs were originally recorded using an 'ancient' MZ=
R3 by the way.
Even tracks which had been recorded 'digitally' onto the MZ R3 and later mo=
dels I have transferred using the RH1.
I think for that alone if anyone has material on mini-disc that they would =
like to preserve then buy the MZ RH1.
Phil
----- Original Message ----
From: Rob Danielson <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 9 April, 2008 4:24:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Re: Digital recording device
At 1:17 PM +0000 4/9/08, Philip Tyler wrote:
> Now the models before they introduced the Hi-MD range of machines
>did not have that brilliant a mic amp in them. That all changed when
>they brought out the Hi-MD which saw Sony go from pretty mediocre
>mic-amps to quite amazing ones by comparison/
I didn't compare too many of the older consumer MD and DAT recorders.
Here is one test:
http://www.uwm. edu/~type/ audio-art- tech-gallery/ pages/SD722_ Rolls%3EHi=
MD_ D7_MD_TRVmov. html
Some qualifying info about my "high gain" comparison tests.
They are aimed at very demanding applications such as recording
ambience in quiet locations-- not general fare. The tests use mics
with very low self and maximum record levels on the recorders.
If one is recording loud sounds and louder environments, the
"self-noise" of the mics one is using might "mask" or cover-up all or
most of the noise generated by the recorder's mic pre.
So, what one is recording and with what kind of mics makes a big
difference. An older MD recorder can work great with no audible
quality loss under many conditions (as we have heard many times).
This could apply to Dave's situation depending on what he means by
"birds." He's okay with that gear and voice. Micing
location/placement is almost always the biggest quality factor.
re:
>The MZ RH1 will also allow you to download recordings made on
>previous MD machines and convert these into wav files for you as
>well.
Are folks doing this? I don't have an RH-1 to test this.
>Of course if you go down the Sony MZ RH1 or Fostex FR2 LE route you
>will then need to think about microphones as well and you will need
>to add these into your budget.
Researching gear options often works out smoother to start with the mics:
(1) stereo or mono?
(2) for what types of sound subjects,
(3) for what recording conditions such as high humidity,
(4) what kind of mic profile (size, portability, visibility) can I live wit=
h?
(5) what type of stereo array one prefers
Folks often end-up with several mic rigs to meet all of thier needs.
That said, in terms on safe, long term investment, its hard to not
justify a FR2-LE if one's budget can bend that far.
Thanks for all of the kind references, Phil. I need to do some site
updating. Rob D.
--
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=09=09=09=09=09=09=09=09=09=09
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! For Good helps you make a difference
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/
|