Marianos and Bruce--
If the criteria Marianos has assumed are correct,
I feel these goals could be met with a Zoom H2
for $180USD and a couple of different, DIY,
wind-protected stereo arrays made with $40
Panasonic WM-61A electret mic capsules.
To me, it appears quite easy for beginners to
_over-spend_ thinking that $100 or $200 more
towards the recorder should somehow improve the
recordings when they are using built-in mics or
mics on the level of an MS907 or AT822. Its not a
recorder, but a recording _system_ that one
invests in. I think "high quality" is an
respectable goal and such a system always starts
with the mics. Without mics capable of low-noise
output, recordings made by MD recorders will be
indistinguishable from those made by the newer
recorders costing $300-$400.
As best as I can tell, there are a hand full of
slightly more expensive recorders that one can
buy that would support "quality recordings" in
the long term should a recordist want to invest
in low noise mics eventually. They are the Fostex
FR-2LE , SONY PCM-D50, Marantz 661; Marantz
PMD671 and SONY Hi-MD's. Bruce, you can buy one
of these within your $600 budget, use low cost
electrets externally for better stereo imaging
and keep the "high quality" doors open.
However, if Bruce can see that he will definitely
NOT become obsessed with making low noise field
recordings as many readers on this list are, it
may be useful for him to know that it can be
equally as fulfilling to spend as little as
possible and focus on the key skills like
studying micing techniques, mic options, making
mic rigs and making impressive stereo recordings.
Quality-wise, there's nothing inferior about a
$50 used Sony or Sharp MD recorder with manual
gain and $50 worth of Panasonic WM-61A electret
mic capsules and fake fur to experiment with. Rob
D.
=3D =3D =3D =3D
At 12:35 AM +0300 6/18/09, Marinos Koutsomichalis wrote:
>I would suggest that as long as you only need to "record" memorabilia
>and supplement your photographs
>to keep things simple... especially if you are not into audio
>technology..
>
>I guess portability should be an issue for you, you need sth you can
>have with you all the time, it' s not easy to carry tripods,
>windshield and expensive mics everytime you go to the beach..
>Recording that way want give you what you need - a quick audio
>photograph of the soundscape - and all this fuzz will make things
>less discrete, more heavy, more difficult to control, etc..
>
>I would suggest to stick with a portable recorder with onboard mics,
>just buy a good windshield (like the dead kitten from rode) to cut up
>wind noise.
>Good alternatives would be probably the sony, or the microtrack
>(which is cheaper, not that good for sure - but easy to use) or smth
>similar.. Both are really light and discrete and you carry them with
>you all the time. And if you want to invest more, there are even pro
>options on that size. I would not suggest the zooms, though - I
>simple don' t like the idea of a machine that has XLR inputs, pre-
>amps, on-boards effects, 24b/96hz ADC, etc and all for like 300-400
>$... It simple can' t be good because with that money you don' t even
>half of the necessary parts to do it yourself....
>
>Anyway, now if you want to go one step further you can just add a
>better microphone to the above set-up. A set of binaural mics would
>be a good choice for when there is no wind - and you can get really
>realistic recordings that way - another option would be a single-
>point stereo mic especially designed for use with portable recorders,
>like the SONY ECM MS907, small and quite discrete - noisy enough,
>though - Audio technica has a model also and there are a lot of
>budget microphones for use with a camera that will suit you fine,
>like the rode videomic.
>
>Anyway, that' s it if you only plan to take sounds for a kind of
>personal phonographic album of your vacation.. Beyond that things are
>more complicated..
>
>Personally, though I am a professional musician with access to loads
>of high-quality microphones and recorders, most of my recordings are
>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
>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
>interesting sounds".. that' s why it is essential even for the pros
>to have a second ultra-portable and fast set-up at their disposal..
>
>On 17 =C3=89=C3=9F=C3=89=C3=95=C3=89"=C3=89=C3=80 2009, at 10:17 =C3=89=C2=
=81=C3=89=C2=81, Rob Danielson wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> At 2:55 AM +0000 6/17/09, brucethehoon wrote:
>> >...what my options are for high quality audio recording... if I will
>> >need an external microphone for it... I'm expecting to pay around
>> >$600 for a reasonable setup....
>>
>> Hi Bruce--
>>
>> I'd suggest figuring-out your micing preference first. Recorder
>> choice will have a lot less bearing on quality, especially with a
>> $600 total budget.
>>
>> If by "high quality" would you like to be able to acquire wide,
>> stereo imaging of events like distant animal sounds in quiet,
>> natural, locations, room conversations and other delicate sounds
>> without a considerable amount of mic self-noise (which sounds like an
>> obscuring hiss)? If so, the internal mics of any recorder is not
>> going to help much in reaching these goals. If you want to mostly
>> record dictation, close-mic'd voice and robust sources like music,
>> you can use the internal mics with much less of a quality "hit." (The
>> stereo imaging is usually better when you mic the sources very close
>> with built-in mic arrays). A rule of thumb is, if you typically need
>> to turn up the record gain above 3/4's on the recorder's scale to get
>> sufficient record levels for subjects, your sound files will show a
>> significant reduction in noise by using mics with low self-noise.
>> Self-noise ratings are usually supplied by mic manufacturers. A
>> rating of 16dB(A) or lower is a popular reference point where better
>> noise performance starts. Here's a chart that can be useful:
>>
>><http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-reports/MicSpecCharts/Mics_16dBA.htm>http=
://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-reports/MicSpecCharts/Mics_16dBA.htm
>> For reference, the built-in mics in the hand-held recorders seem to
>> be on the order of 22dB(A) self-noise or greater.
>>
>> Before we recordists suggest some mics to consider, can you tell us
>> about your mic mounting preferences? For example, are you interested
>> in a mic rig that is "low-profile"-- that you can wear on your body
>> or hold in your hands very easily? Would you be willing to use a
>> larger set of mics that are easier to accommodate on a small stand?
>> Do you _mostly_ want to be able to record "on the run" or do you want
>> document acoustic "spaces" and contained events over time?
>>
>> >My experience in audio is minimal but as a software developer I
>> >think I might have a bit of an edge at least in understanding the
>> >technology,
>>
>> That's great. What kind of software developing?
>>
>> Rob D.
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
|