naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Experiences recording with a Zoom H4N & Senn ME66/67 in the bush

Subject: Re: Experiences recording with a Zoom H4N & Senn ME66/67 in the bush
From: bwanakomba
Date: Fri Nov 29, 2013 9:28 pm ((PST))
Using the prerecord does not save power, it uses it, so I utilise this feat=
ure in only certain situations when I feel an animal is about to call.  Nor=
mally I only let this go on for a few minutes. Its main use is to prevent r=
ecording lots of 'blank' time so you have less recording to process until y=
ou find your call. As Peter says with advances in technology I think its on=
ly really consumer demand that is not pushing the buffer time issue. We wil=
dlife sound recordists don't constitute a big enough market to drive improv=
ement in this area, its only processing power after all.=0D
=0D
 =0D
=0D
---In  <> wrote:=0D
=0D
 Dan Dugan wrote=0D
 > =0D
 >> When buffering came out as an option on digital recorders =0D
 >> it was for me one of the most important recording advances. I =0D
 >> had pressed record 1/2 sec too late and lost the beginnings =0D
 >> of calls too many times as tried to conserve battery power. =0D
 =0D
 Does using the prerecord buffer actually save any power? It still has to d=
igitise the sound and buffer it, even if it's then discarding it. I use it =
to save having to go through so much audio to find the call I intended capt=
uring, and to save memory, although that's not such an issue now that large=
 memory cards are so cheap. $1 an hour, and it'll last me for days of inter=
mittent recording.=0D
 =0D
 >> For me 2 sec is just about enough. I would like to see the =0D
 >> manufacturers at the affordable end of the market offer a =0D
 >> menu of say 2, 4,6 & 10sec buffering. It cant be technically =0D
 >> too difficult these days.=0D
 > =0D
 > It requires a large buffer memory, costing $$ and power. You =0D
 > won't find it in consumer-level products because consumers =0D
 > aren't asking for it. =0D
 =0D
 Surely with the price of memory dropping yearly, a couple of extra MB for =
the buffer wouldn't cost much. I've no idea about its power consumption. Bu=
t if the Sony PCM-M10 can have a 5 second buffer for a reasonable cost and =
still have good battery life, there's no reason why the others can't too. L=
ots of the lower cost recorders have either no prerecord buffer or only a c=
ouple of seconds.=0D
 =0D
 Maybe consumer choice is the main reason it's not so common.=0D
 =0D
 Peter Shute=0D
 =0D








"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/

<*> Your email settings:
    Digest Email  | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    
    

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    

<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
    http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/

------------------------------------------------------------------------

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU