Digital Audio Recorders
Posted 09 June 2007 - 10:23 PM
Posted 09 June 2007 - 10:41 PM
Posted 10 June 2007 - 12:35 AM
A step up, we used an HHB PortaDisc MiniDisc recorder that has the two XLR jacks right on the unit and has a USB output so you can keep the audio digital as you send it into a computer for editing.
I really liked the MiniDiscs, though they are getting harder to find these days.
Posted 10 June 2007 - 03:05 AM
The edirol is kind of like that, but it records to a hard drive instead of a mini disc
Posted 10 June 2007 - 06:46 AM
I've used a Fostex FR-2 with excellent results - it records to compactflash.
Posted 10 June 2007 - 08:47 AM
I would avoid minidisc if at all possible - it's OKish, but compressed as hell.
You bring up an interesting point. Not being an audiophile, I never gave that ATRAC 4.5 compression (that the HHB uses) much thought. I read reviews that said it sounded just as good as linear PCM to the human ear and I figured for just recording dialog it was fine. And I loved the fact that it transferred the audio digitally into my editing computer.
But when it came time for audio sweetening, I think some of the issues we ran in to were a result of the ATRAC 4.5 compression. When using noise reduction software and even lengthening the tracks by 1% to match the 23.98 fps pulled down film speed, we started noticing artifacts. It never dawned on me that they could be from the original compression scheme of the MiniDisc.
Posted 10 June 2007 - 09:54 AM
This is why we don't like compression - not because it sounds (or, for images, looks) bad when you listen to the original recording, but because it stuffs you when you come to try and postproduce your material. I'd expect you to have severe problems trying to noise-reduce ATRAC'd recordings.
ATRAC is a pretty reasonable codec, but remember that the baseline minidisc version was first released in the early 90s and optimised for implementation on hardware with goals of portability and low power consumption. Comparing it to things like MP3 and AAC is therefore a little unfair, but it is generally felt to be quite considerably less good than either. And you wouldn't want to record your production audio as a 192Kbps MP3, which, with a good encoder, is probably better than what you're getting off a minidisc.
Compression is for distribution formats, not acquisition.
Posted 10 June 2007 - 05:18 PM
Posted 11 June 2007 - 07:24 PM
Posted 01 August 2007 - 02:28 AM
Hope this is helpful
Edited by Christopher Kennedy Alpiar, 01 August 2007 - 02:30 AM.
Posted 01 August 2007 - 11:31 AM
I'm suspicious of ranking brand names. For instance, the Fostex unit I've used is certainly not a high end piece of equipment; it's largely plastic, so it wouldn't survive long in rental, and the noise on the microphone inputs is high until you have the post mod done. On the other hand, the Fostex PD-6 is a truly high-end piece of kit with a lot of capability. You're also overlooking people like Sound Devcies, whose 722 and 744 flash recorders are, I think it's safe to generalise, a staple of film and TV production all over the world right now.
It's related to but not quite the same world as the music production business.
Posted 01 August 2007 - 01:40 PM
Posted 03 October 2007 - 08:25 PM
Tascam HDP2 and Edirol R4, i find both bang for the bucks kind of recorders ,
i live in the tropics , so the weather is pretty humid and rainy... actually we only have 2 stations summer and rainy seasson ,(Panama City, Latin America)
i find Edirol a little stronger in that aspect Vs the HDP2, the Edirol its a little more rugged and it has 4 channels, of course i have both living inside Porta braces with portabrace raincoats included for both machines.
Tascam is a little touchy about conecting phantom mics with the phantom on ,, you could blow one of the channels (like i did with my first HDP2), but the operating system is more dedicated and it feels actually like a decent recorder for a production mixer.
VS edirol "Synth" Type of operating system, (the whole thing looks like a JV Roland Synth module). and some times get very obtuse chopping takes while you press pause and the record again it would give you a whole file (even if you press pause and start recording again) but it does record hifi audio
if you use the right mics. 96Khz
unlikely the HDP2, whenever you hit pause, the takes actually change while you do it,
that way you dont end with a 262M file with all your takes on it.
and then have to chop it in your laptop.
i feed them input from Schoepps,Sennheiser and Lectrosonics Lavs
i always take both to wherever im recording
and both had given me good results
within Film production or XDCam video, or pure
raw 192 Khz
bat recognition fidelity for freaks like myself.