--- In Martyn Stewart <>
wrote:
> Would you take it to Papua New Guinea in a remote place for 16
days?
> What about the Arctic for 21 days?
If I felt it was the best choice for the job, of course I would...
>From a sonic point of view, if I was fortunate enough to be going to
PNG or the Arctic for an extended recording session, I'd want to make
sure I was taking the best-sounding equipment I could get my hands
on - I think nature deserves nothing less, especially when it comes
to sounds that may not exist in another decade or two. The Nagra VI
offers very high sound quality, so in that respect it would be a
contender.
I personally believe that we [nature recordists] have a collective
responsibility to capture and preserve those sounds as well as
possible, because one day they may not be there at all. If that day
came, it would be disappointing to find that the only known recording
of a certain species and/or location was made on a crappy-sounding or
failing bit of gear by some well-meaning nature recordist who spent
thousands of dollars getting to a remote location but skimped on the
equipment just because it was marginally easier to carry. In my
opinion, that approach sounds more like a recording holiday and is,
at the very least, under-achieving.
Considering the planning, expense and effort required to get to the
sorts of places you mentioned above from wherever you are, the
additional cost/size of the Nagra VI over other devices is not much
*if* it offers superior sound and ease of use, and the required
reliability. The latter is unknown for now, but it is a Nagra and
they've always made excellent and highly-regarded field recorders.
It is physically large but not at all heavy; in fact, without the
battery it feels as though the box is empty. So it makes your baggage
a bit larger but not much heavier than some competing products. Bulk
and weight are big problems, but bulk on its own is the lesser of the
two evils IMO. Some might disagree, but the Nagra VI is not
outrageously large in absolute terms, it is just relatively larger
than most of its competitors. Some of the pioneering nature
recordists were carrying much larger and heavier things than the
Nagra VI into remote places, and got the job done.
Certainly, in the Arctic, I'd appreciate the Nagra VI's larger size
when I needed to make gain adjustments or similar, because I probably
wouldn't have to take my gloves off! I doubt I could do that with
some of the ultra-small devices on the market. And if my experiences
with wind chill in the high mountain passes of Tibet are any
indication of what it might be like in the Arctic, the ability to
keep my gloves on would be highly appreciated.
> Would the machine cope with high
> humidity? Would the screen fill up with condensation?
These are good questions... It's a new machine, those things are yet
to be tested and humidity in the display is obviously a concern (as
it is for *all* devices with such displays). But Nagra have been
making professional field recorders for over 50 years now and they're
not a company to rush things to market. It would be reasonable to
assume they've tested it for those things. Time will tell, of
course...
> These are the questions that matter, you said you used it in
studios
> etc but what about extended use away from amenities?
> What would you do for battery life for the duration?
What would I do for extended battery duration? I'd solve the problem,
that's what I'd do. I enjoy such challenges.
For the reasons stated above, I personally put sound quality and
reliability ahead of ultra-portability and convenience. So no matter
what device I was using, if I have decided it provides the sound and
reliability that I want or need, then I figure out how to make it
work for me. Electrical power is an easy problem to solve...
When I do extended recording trips in the Himalaya, I take a solar
power system with me to recharge the batteries. It adds weight, but
so does carrying a pile of batteries, so it's a valid solution IMO.
Another solution would be to look *around* the battery. The Nagra VI
can be powered by the film industry standard +12V DC via a 4-pin XLR.
A 10 minute visit to your local electronic components supplier
followed by an hour with a soldering iron could produce a detachable
power source that used readily available and easily replaced D cells
to provide +12V DC through the 4-pin XLR. Then I'd have to weigh up
(sic) the pros and cons of taking a few dozen D cells against taking
my solar power rig in terms of cost, weight and environmental impact.
For a short trip, D cells might be the better option, but they are a
finite thing =96 they will go flat after use and become dead weight
that needs to be carried out and disposed of properly. The solar
power system will continue to be a viable power source for as long as
there is daylight =96 certainly for a lot longer than D cells at the
same weight.
> If I was comparing to a 4 channel recorder I would still pick the
> SD744 because its tried and tested in grueling environments.
As are all the Nagras preceding the VI, dating back over 50 years
now. Nagra know what they're doing, and they didn't get their
reputation by making junk.
> Nagra say this is a 6 channel recorder but in fact you DO need
extra
> pre-amps boosting the weight capacity!
There are six input channels and six tracks; that is an undeniable
fact. But only four of the input channels have microphone preamps.
That is an undeniable bummer if you want to use more than four
microphones at once.
I summarised this in the last two paragraphs of my post, Martyn,
where I wrote that most nature recordists would probably be better
off with one of the Sound Devices products, either the 744 if they
needed four tracks or the 788 if they needed more. I also pointed out
that you would need extra preamps if you wanted to use more than four
microphones on the Nagra VI. But thanks for repeating those
observations here, anyway. We finally agree on something.
- Greg Simmons
|