Are pocket-size recorders "real" recorders,
worthy of discussion here? I think they are.
Like any other tool, small recorders have their
strengths and weaknesses, and appropriate uses.
Here's what I wrote in March about "point and
shoot" recorders (message 32207).
"In my way of thinking, the "point and shoot" recorder should be small
enough that you will always be willing to carry it along. The
recorder should have built-in mics, or some very small external mic
setup that allows you to carry your gear in a pocket, and start
recording almost instantaneously. You should be able to operate a
"point and shoot" recorder with one hand, without a lot of navigating
through menus for important settings.
My purpose for the "point and shoot" recorder is to capture
serendipitous moments in the field with enough clarity that I can
identify and enjoy the sound source once I get home. A "point and
shoot" recorder is also great for making voice notes about the day's
outing."
Point and shoot recorders also are good choices
when size and weight need to be carefully controlled.
A small, handheld recorder is less intimidating to
your subject, and is less likely to draw unwelcome
attention in public.
Are small recorders the first choice when very
high quality is desired? No, of course not. But
that doesn't mean that small recorders can't make
serviceable recordings.
There's fieldcraft appropriate for "point and
shoot" recorders, just like there is with
"full size" models.
Also note that "small" does not necessarily mean
"inexpensive." Sony and Nagra, for example, make
compact models that have excellent performance
characteristics, with prices to match.
So let's agree to consider "point and shoot"
recorders as valuable tools for particular
circumstances and goals.
--oryoki
|