brucethehoon wrote:
> I have taken it into my head that photos are
> not good enough for recording memories of my
> vacations, and I'd like to know what my options
> are for high quality audio recording.
A lot of it comes down to convenience versus audio quality.
I have a Fostex FR-2LE which is an over-the-shoulder unit with phantom powe=
r. This rig includes two very quiet AT3032 omni mics, mic cables, mic stand=
and some jury-rigged wind protection. Up-side: sound quality, recording fo=
rmats, pre-record buffer. Down-side: not exactly minimal and not exactly di=
screet. Plus it does not have the build quality to stand up to adverse cond=
itions. (The Fostex is plastic versus the sealed metal bodies of recorders =
costing 2x, 3x or more.) So I wouldn't take it to a desert or the arctic.
I also have a Sony Hi-MD unit. The preamps are as good as anything out ther=
e, all the way up to a Sound Devices. It is very portable and very discreet=
. Since it looks like a MD player (it is!) no-one thinks you're recording. =
But it only supports 16-bit, is not large enough to have phantom power, req=
uires transfer software and takes proprietary batteries.
My third unit is the Olympus LS-10. Advantages include built-in mics, excel=
lent build quality, wide range of recording formats and quality settings, A=
A batteries, built-in memory and seamless recording of any (reasonable) len=
gth. Again it is too small to provide phantom power and has compromises in =
the recording quality (bass roll-off, handling noise).
The biggest advantage of the LS-10? Ergonomics. It is dead easy to operate =
and the screen is excellent. Though I am a trained audio engineer I am will=
ing to compromise sound quality (a bit) for this! I always have the Fostex =
if I need it.
So, the question is: What are you willing to compromise? What are your prio=
rities?
-- robin
|