omichalis
Date: Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:39 pm ((PDT))
I would suggest that as long as you only need to "record" memorabilia
and supplement your photographs=0D
to keep things simple... especially if you are not into audio =0D
technology..=0D
I guess portability should be an issue for you, you need sth you can =0D
have with you all the time, it' s not easy to carry tripods, =0D
windshield and expensive mics everytime you go to the beach.. =0D
Recording that way want give you what you need - a quick audio =0D
photograph of the soundscape - and all this fuzz will make things =0D
less discrete, more heavy, more difficult to control, etc..=0D
I would suggest to stick with a portable recorder with onboard mics, =0D
just buy a good windshield (like the dead kitten from rode) to cut up
wind noise.=0D
Good alternatives would be probably the sony, or the microtrack =0D
(which is cheaper, not that good for sure - but easy to use) or smth =0D
similar.. Both are really light and discrete and you carry them with =0D
you all the time. And if you want to invest more, there are even pro =0D
options on that size. I would not suggest the zooms, though - I =0D
simple don' t like the idea of a machine that has XLR inputs, pre- =0D
amps, on-boards effects, 24b/96hz ADC, etc and all for like 300-400 =0D
$... It simple can' t be good because with that money you don' t even
half of the necessary parts to do it yourself....=0D
Anyway, now if you want to go one step further you can just add a =0D
better microphone to the above set-up. A set of binaural mics would =0D
be a good choice for when there is no wind - and you can get really =0D
realistic recordings that way - another option would be a single- =0D
point stereo mic especially designed for use with portable recorders,
like the SONY ECM MS907, small and quite discrete - noisy enough, =0D
though - Audio technica has a model also and there are a lot of =0D
budget microphones for use with a camera that will suit you fine, =0D
like the rode videomic.=0D
Anyway, that' s it if you only plan to take sounds for a kind of =0D
personal phonographic album of your vacation.. Beyond that things are
more complicated..=0D
Personally, though I am a professional musician with access to loads =0D
of high-quality microphones and recorders, most of my recordings are =0D
from my minidiscs and other portable recorders because that' s simply
sth I can and do carry with me all the time.. There is a huge =0D
difference between "I am traveling TO RECORD sth thus I carry lots of
equipment with me since this is why I travel" and "I am traveling for
vacation but it would be also handy to have sth with me to record =0D
interesting sounds".. that' s why it is essential even for the pros =0D
to have a second ultra-portable and fast set-up at their disposal..=0D
On 17 =CE=99=CE=BF=CF=85=CE=BD 2009, at 10:17 =CE=9C=CE=9C, Rob Danielson w=
rote:=0D
>=0D
>=0D
> At 2:55 AM +0000 6/17/09, brucethehoon wrote:=0D
> >...what my options are for high quality audio recording... if I will=0D
> >need an external microphone for it... I'm expecting to pay around=0D
> >$600 for a reasonable setup....=0D
>=0D
> Hi Bruce--=0D
>=0D
> I'd suggest figuring-out your micing preference first. Recorder=0D
> choice will have a lot less bearing on quality, especially with a=0D
> $600 total budget.=0D
>=0D
> If by "high quality" would you like to be able to acquire wide,=0D
> stereo imaging of events like distant animal sounds in quiet,=0D
> natural, locations, room conversations and other delicate sounds=0D
> without a considerable amount of mic self-noise (which sounds like an=0D
> obscuring hiss)? If so, the internal mics of any recorder is not=0D
> going to help much in reaching these goals. If you want to mostly=0D
> record dictation, close-mic'd voice and robust sources like music,=0D
> you can use the internal mics with much less of a quality "hit." (The=0D
> stereo imaging is usually better when you mic the sources very close=0D
> with built-in mic arrays). A rule of thumb is, if you typically need=0D
> to turn up the record gain above 3/4's on the recorder's scale to get=0D
> sufficient record levels for subjects, your sound files will show a=0D
> significant reduction in noise by using mics with low self-noise.=0D
> Self-noise ratings are usually supplied by mic manufacturers. A=0D
> rating of 16dB(A) or lower is a popular reference point where better=0D
> noise performance starts. Here's a chart that can be useful:=0D
> http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-reports/MicSpecCharts/Mics_16dBA.htm=0D
> For reference, the built-in mics in the hand-held recorders seem to=0D
> be on the order of 22dB(A) self-noise or greater.=0D
>=0D
> Before we recordists suggest some mics to consider, can you tell us=0D
> about your mic mounting preferences? For example, are you interested=0D
> in a mic rig that is "low-profile"-- that you can wear on your body=0D
> or hold in your hands very easily? Would you be willing to use a=0D
> larger set of mics that are easier to accommodate on a small stand?=0D
> Do you _mostly_ want to be able to record "on the run" or do you want=0D
> document acoustic "spaces" and contained events over time?=0D
>=0D
> >My experience in audio is minimal but as a software developer I=0D
> >think I might have a bit of an edge at least in understanding the=0D
> >technology,=0D
>=0D
> That's great. What kind of software developing?=0D
>=0D
> Rob D.=0D
>=0D
> -- =0D
>=0D
> =0D
|