Hi Grant,
I do get it. Not all nature recordists care about the intricacies in a rec=
orded soundscape. Acoustic ecologists and biologists may use recordings sim=
ply as analytic tools to quantify specific information about their subject,=
like how many planes flew over or what species of bird were calling close =
by, and any detail beyond what they need is just noise in the data. Their f=
inal product is not a recording.
Other folks are on just on a tight budget.
There are some of us that have been waiting years for something affordable =
with comparable input quality to the mini-disc recorders of yesterday - exc=
ept solid state, with drag and drop. Nonetheless Zoom recorders have not h=
ad a very good track record for quiet nature recording, and it is still too=
soon to tell with this new one: I need to hear quiet setting comparisons, =
plus see an input comparison on Raimund's list, before I am willing to plac=
e it comparable to the Sony D-50.
John Hartog
rockscallop.org
--- In "Grant Finlay" <> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In "Max" <maxcatterwell@> wrote:
> >Certainly not intended for nature recordists.
> > Max
>
>
> I don't get this whole "check out a $200 recorder, does it sound as good =
as a nagra/sounddevices/marantz etc.. " mentality.
> Seriously, if I want a pro sounding recorder/preamp/mic I go out and buy =
one. Not one unit but the best sounding recorder & preamp & mic.
> Put it this way, my Toyota Corolla will still get me to work but not with=
the comfort of a Rolls Royce but hey, I like the ride!
>
> Grant.
>
|