Re: [microsound] solid portable audio recording

[Aaron Ximm <ghede@xxxxxxxx>]

> Goldwin Carlin wrote:
> > Any recommendations for an inexpensive yet solid (stereo, good freq.
> > response, etc.) portable audio (field) recording device?

This will be a function of your particular requirements. The biggest
considerations are what kind of mics you will be using, how stealthy/light
wieght you have to be, and how long you expect to be off the grid at any
time. Also, what your intended subject matter is ~ documenting shows and
installations (or concerts) is a very different world from ambiance and
nature recording.

My $.02 is that for applications like mine Sony's HiMD is far and away the
best of many imperfect solutions. Increasingly people think is a luddite's
position but it is very highly motivated. To wit:

Met requirements: very quiet preamps, uncompressed (16/44) recording (90
minutes to a disk, or 7 hours at contemporary ATRAC compression, which IMO
is virtually indistinguishable from PCM for most people except in specific
conditions), direct digital transfer to PC/Mac without DRM, extreme
battery efficiency, ability to use conventional batteries/rechargeables
for long-term field use, extreme portability/lightness, small archival
hardy cheap removable medium, and good metering.

Unmet requirements: high resolution recording, professional connectors,
phantom power, nice interface touches (eg physical gain knob). Some people
find the small buttons annoying. Have to use proprietary software to
transfer recordings (but once transfered they're just WAV files).

Incidentally a recommended comb recently in the budget nature recording
world for people with professional mics is to record to HiMD via a
portable phantom powering unit like a Rolls PB224. Total cost for two
battery powered boxes: < $300. (One of these days I will make rigorous
side-by-side tests of this combo vs my several thousand dollar
professional HD recorder at the same resolution.)

NB: this area is currently full of landmines and partially met promises.

Eg the PMD6xx recorders are notorious for inexplicably (often
unacceptably) noisy preamps -- not an issue for concert taping, but
definitely for location sound and soundscape recording. The 671 is
supposed to be somewhat better than the 660 or 670. The M-Audio Microtrack
has relatively noisy preamps, nonstandard phantom powering, reported
problems with its digital inputs and monitoring, etc. The Edirol R1 has
poor metering.

Even my (IMO best-of-breed) professional device, a Sound Devices 722, has
limitations I find troubling: high power consumption, somewhat esoteric
batteries (thank god at least not proprietary), and the SERIOUS achilles
heel for all backwoods/bush use, a single point of failure (its HD). There
are inelegant and inconvenient workarounds to these issues but for some
trips MD will still win.

My #1 piece of advice: really do your homework if you need to make your
money count. Search the archives in the phonography and naturerecordists
Yahoo groups for any device you are considering; most have been picked
over and their pros and cons exposed by actual field users. These groups
are a goldmine ~ especially compared to the advice of the people selling
the various options ~ really.

 best
 aaron

  ghede@xxxxxxxx
  http://www.quietamerican.org

  |  quod omne animal post   |
  |  cogitum est triste...   |


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org