[Neil Gould]

Anyone have some hands-on time with the DR-40 yet, and if so, how does it
stack up against the Zoom H4n?

--
best regards,

Neil

[vdubreeze]

On Mar 14, 7:12*pm, "Neil Gould" wrote:
Anyone have some hands-on time with the DR-40 yet, and if so, how does it
stack up against the Zoom H4n?


This I don't know, but my friend, a pro video shooter who has his FCP
cubicle 10 feet from my ProTools cubicle here, had his newish H4 go
belly up in the middle of a shoot and wasn't too happy about it.
Doesn't plan to replace it with another.

[Gary Eickmeier]

vdubreeze wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:12 pm, "Neil Gould" wrote:
Anyone have some hands-on time with the DR-40 yet, and if so, how
does it stack up against the Zoom H4n?


This I don't know, but my friend, a pro video shooter who has his FCP
cubicle 10 feet from my ProTools cubicle here, had his newish H4 go
belly up in the middle of a shoot and wasn't too happy about it.
Doesn't plan to replace it with another.

My Zoom H2n has been terrific and I think it can do more functions than the
H4n, believe it or not, for less money. Can do MS, XY, or both in surround
sound. Can take external mike and remain in surround recording, using the
external to sub for the XY feed. Very flexible programming, very small, and
so far flawless.

Gary Eickmeier

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

vdubreeze wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:12 pm, "Neil Gould" wrote:
Anyone have some hands-on time with the DR-40 yet, and if so, how
does it stack up against the Zoom H4n?


This I don't know, but my friend, a pro video shooter who has his FCP
cubicle 10 feet from my ProTools cubicle here, had his newish H4 go
belly up in the middle of a shoot and wasn't too happy about it.
Doesn't plan to replace it with another.

My Zoom H2n has been terrific and I think it can do more functions than the
H4n, believe it or not, for less money. Can do MS, XY, or both in surround
sound. Can take external mike and remain in surround recording, using the
external to sub for the XY feed. Very flexible programming, very small, and
so far flawless.

They're quite handy little recorders. I've been using one for a few
years as a scratchpad for composition and to snag the odd boardmix from
a gig. Their mics are not always well-matched. I have found variances on
the order of 6 to 8 dB. The one I'm using is very well matched, on the
order of a dB difference all around. That's the thing about inexpensive
mass production - there's a big dose of random in the recipe.

There is very little headroom in the analog input section, so you must
be quite careful when using it with external mics or feeding it with
line inputs.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Gary Eickmeier]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:


My Zoom H2n has been terrific and I think it can do more functions than
the
H4n, believe it or not, for less money. Can do MS, XY, or both in
surround
sound. Can take external mike and remain in surround recording, using the
external to sub for the XY feed. Very flexible programming, very small,
and
so far flawless.

They're quite handy little recorders. I've been using one for a few
years as a scratchpad for composition and to snag the odd boardmix from
a gig. Their mics are not always well-matched. I have found variances on
the order of 6 to 8 dB. The one I'm using is very well matched, on the
order of a dB difference all around. That's the thing about inexpensive
mass production - there's a big dose of random in the recipe.

There is very little headroom in the analog input section, so you must
be quite careful when using it with external mics or feeding it with
line inputs.

I thought the H2n just came out a month or two ago. You may have the H2 - ?

Mine seems very smart about AGC. For example, it has three levels of AGC,
something like concert, conference, dictation. The concert records
relatively loud sounds at reasonable levels without pumping or going over
zero. The thing also has limiting rather than full AGC, which is nice. And
compression. Just a very flexible little studio in a box. Did I mention that
it mounts on a tripod?

Gary Eickmeier

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/15/2012 7:50 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Mine seems very smart about AGC. For example, it has three levels of AGC,
something like concert, conference, dictation. The concert records
relatively loud sounds at reasonable levels without pumping or going over
zero.

A big difference between the H2 and the H2n is that the H2
had a 3-position input attenuator switch for the mic input
(only - it doesn't work on the external line input). If you
keep the record level setting above 100 on the 0-128 scale
(I leave mine at 100) and use the attenuator to keep the
level meters on scale you'll avoid clipping. But if you have
the attenuator set too low and have to bring the level down
below 100 to keep the meters on scale, you'll get clipping
right at the analog input stage. This was a problem with
many first generation handheld recorders, not just the Zoom.

The record level control on the H2n (and the H4n as well)
reduces the analog input gain so that you can put any
reasonable level into the external mic or line inputs and
not have clipping as long as the meters stay off full scale.

I can't seem to get in touch with the marketing rep for the
Zoom recorders so I haven't had an H2n in here for review
yet, but I hope to shake one loose one of these days and
give it a shot. I'd like to see how the new mic arrangement
works out in practice.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:


My Zoom H2n has been terrific and I think it can do more functions than
the
H4n, believe it or not, for less money. Can do MS, XY, or both in
surround
sound. Can take external mike and remain in surround recording, using the
external to sub for the XY feed. Very flexible programming, very small,
and
so far flawless.

They're quite handy little recorders. I've been using one for a few
years as a scratchpad for composition and to snag the odd boardmix from
a gig. Their mics are not always well-matched. I have found variances on
the order of 6 to 8 dB. The one I'm using is very well matched, on the
order of a dB difference all around. That's the thing about inexpensive
mass production - there's a big dose of random in the recipe.

There is very little headroom in the analog input section, so you must
be quite careful when using it with external mics or feeding it with
line inputs.

I thought the H2n just came out a month or two ago. You may have the H2 - ?

Mine seems very smart about AGC. For example, it has three levels of AGC,
something like concert, conference, dictation. The concert records
relatively loud sounds at reasonable levels without pumping or going over
zero. The thing also has limiting rather than full AGC, which is nice. And
compression. Just a very flexible little studio in a box. Did I mention that
it mounts on a tripod?

Gary Eickmeier

Yes, I have the H-2.

AGC is not something I can use, nor is any of the limiting or
compression of use to me. I want to capture all the dynamics and then
deal with dynamic range in post. My approach is to leave loads of
headroom, so as not to clip the analog stage.

The other thing to realize is that all those "effects" happen in the
digital domain. The signal gets there through the analog sections, and
that's where one must take care to avoid overdriving the inputs.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:41:01 -0700, vdubreeze wrote
(in article
):

This I don't know, but my friend, a pro video shooter who has his FCP
cubicle 10 feet from my ProTools cubicle here, had his newish H4 go
belly up in the middle of a shoot...
------------------------------snip------------------------------

No "pro video shooter" should be relying on something like a Zoom H4 for
anything but a very casual backup, in my opinion.

--MFW

[Trevor]

"Marc Wielage" wrote in message
.com...
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:41:01 -0700, vdubreeze wrote
(in article
):

This I don't know, but my friend, a pro video shooter who has his FCP
cubicle 10 feet from my ProTools cubicle here, had his newish H4 go
belly up in the middle of a shoot...
------------------------------snip------------------------------

No "pro video shooter" should be relying on something like a Zoom H4 for
anything but a very casual backup, in my opinion.

Professional covers a very wide range from wedding video's to Hollywood
blockbusters. I wouldn't expect the latter to use a Zoom, but the former
might want to use it in conjuction with camera audio, and would be adequate
IMO.

Trevor.

[Mxsmanic]

Marc Wielage writes:

No "pro video shooter" should be relying on something like a Zoom H4 for
anything but a very casual backup, in my opinion.

Because?

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/16/2012 12:35 AM, Marc Wielage wrote:

No "pro video shooter" should be relying on something like a Zoom H4 for
anything but a very casual backup, in my opinion.

No "pro" should go out without a backup. But you'd be
surprised at how many pros are using the H4n. I ran into
Frank Fillipetti at the Zoom booth at the NAB show last year
or maybe the year before and he's done a lot of nature sound
work with his.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 3/16/2012 12:35 AM, Marc Wielage wrote:

No "pro video shooter" should be relying on something like a Zoom H4
for anything but a very casual backup, in my opinion.

No "pro" should go out without a backup. But you'd be
surprised at how many pros are using the H4n. I ran into
Frank Fillipetti at the Zoom booth at the NAB show last year
or maybe the year before and he's done a lot of nature sound
work with his.

One of the questions that I had about these is the quality of the mic pres
used with their internal mics, since doing nature sound work usually
requires a lot of gain. I like the feature set of the DR-40, but I was
wondering how its preamps compare to the H4n in this regard. Reviews of the
DR-40 are not all that enlightening, and it's curious that in all the
replies, no one here has anything to say about the DR-40!

--
best regards,

Neil

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/16/2012 9:14 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

One of the questions that I had about these is the quality of the mic pres
used with their internal mics, since doing nature sound work usually
requires a lot of gain. I like the feature set of the DR-40, but I was
wondering how its preamps compare to the H4n in this regard.

Why do they always ask about "the preamps?" Or are you
planning on using it with external microphones? In an
integrated device such as this, you can't separate the mics
from the preamps from the converters. The question to ask is
"how does it do for recording nature sounds?" And for the
answer you'll have to ask a nature lover.

Unless you're close to a lion, nature sounds are all quiet
stuff, and what you're going to find is that you simply
can't get the meters very far up scale when recording. The
important thing is how it sounds when amplified to the
playback level that you want, which will almost surely be
greater than the sound level in nature (because that's human
nature ).

I suppose that a good test would be to turn the record gain
all the way up, start recording, smother it with a pillow,
and play back the recording to see what the noise sounds
like, maybe with 40 dB of gain applied.

Reviews of the
DR-40 are not all that enlightening, and it's curious that in all the
replies, no one here has anything to say about the DR-40!

I've been expecting one to fall into my lap but the guy who
has it who wants me to write a review just hasn't gotten
together with me yet to hand it over. Looking it over, it
seems like a logical competitor to the H4n, though they use
the second pair of tracks differently. I don't think you can
do 4-track overdubbing on the DR-40, it just gives you the
option of recording a second pair of tracks 10 dB lower than
the primary pair so you'll have them as backup in case
there's an unexpected overload.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[hank alrich]

Mxsmanic wrote:

Marc Wielage writes:

No "pro video shooter" should be relying on something like a Zoom H4 for
anything but a very casual backup, in my opinion.

Because?

Because in comparison to the tools that are considered professional for
video and film sound capture it's not very capable. You're stuck with
what it hears from the position of the camera, which is often not what
one wishes to hear in relation to the image. You're stuck with the
configuration and pattern of the mics, which gives you nothing like the
flexibility of a good hyercard or shotgun mic on a boom.

You can shoot a wedding with all the ambient sound that will be
included, and if you get paid, you can call it "pro", though I doubt
that anyone actually makes a living that way. There's a rather large
difference between that work and professional audio for film and video.

MIke Rivers' comment about Frank Fillipetti using a Zoom for nature
sounds shows a genuine pro using it for a specific purpose, but I'd
wager Frank isn't using one to capture sound in conjunction with imagery
at a scene shooting.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 3/16/2012 9:14 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

One of the questions that I had about these is the quality of the
mic pres used with their internal mics, since doing nature sound
work usually requires a lot of gain. I like the feature set of the
DR-40, but I was wondering how its preamps compare to the H4n in
this regard.

Why do they always ask about "the preamps?"

Because that is a frequent source of noise in recorders.

Or are you
planning on using it with external microphones?

That, too, as I figure my mics are better than the built-ins, should the
need arise for better quality.

In an
integrated device such as this, you can't separate the mics
from the preamps from the converters. The question to ask is
"how does it do for recording nature sounds?" And for the
answer you'll have to ask a nature lover.

Well... I would rather know whether this unit records nature sounds as well
as or better than the H4n, so given that recording nature sounds with these
devices might be a common usage, I thought I'd ask here.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/16/2012 11:02 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

Well... I would rather know whether this unit records nature sounds as well
as or better than the H4n, so given that recording nature sounds with these
devices might be a common usage, I thought I'd ask here.

It's unlikely that you'll find anyone here who has tried
both of these recorders for nature sounds. But you could be
that person.

Why don't you buy one of each, take them out on a field trip
together, and return the one you like the least, or return
both of them if you aren't satisfied with either. Dealers
know that there are some things that you just can't evaluate
from the literature and the writings of others (mostly
unknown "reviewers") and you just have to try them for
yourself.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 3/16/2012 11:02 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

Well... I would rather know whether this unit records nature sounds
as well as or better than the H4n, so given that recording nature
sounds with these devices might be a common usage, I thought I'd ask
here.

It's unlikely that you'll find anyone here who has tried
both of these recorders for nature sounds.

I'd settle for somone who has tried both of these recorders! ;-)

Why don't you buy one of each, take them out on a field trip
together, and return the one you like the least, or return
both of them if you aren't satisfied with either. Dealers
know that there are some things that you just can't evaluate
from the literature and the writings of others (mostly
unknown "reviewers") and you just have to try them for
yourself.

I was hoping to benefit from the knowledge base that this group represents
on most audio topics. And, I really am surprised that this unit hasn't been
tried by anyone here, which makes me wonder whether Tascam's reputation has
declined.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 3/16/2012 9:14 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

One of the questions that I had about these is the quality of the mic
pres
used with their internal mics, since doing nature sound work usually
requires a lot of gain. I like the feature set of the DR-40, but I was
wondering how its preamps compare to the H4n in this regard.

Why do they always ask about "the preamps?" Or are you planning on using
it with external microphones? In an integrated device such as this, you
can't separate the mics from the preamps from the converters.

Don't the XLR mic connectors provide a means to separate the mics from the
preamps?

http://tascam.com/content/images/uni..._xy_bottom.jpg .

Don't the DR-40 separate TRS line input jacks bypass the preamps?

[hank alrich]

Neil Gould wrote:

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 3/16/2012 11:02 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

Well... I would rather know whether this unit records nature sounds
as well as or better than the H4n, so given that recording nature
sounds with these devices might be a common usage, I thought I'd ask
here.

It's unlikely that you'll find anyone here who has tried
both of these recorders for nature sounds.

I'd settle for somone who has tried both of these recorders! ;-)

Why don't you buy one of each, take them out on a field trip
together, and return the one you like the least, or return
both of them if you aren't satisfied with either. Dealers
know that there are some things that you just can't evaluate
from the literature and the writings of others (mostly
unknown "reviewers") and you just have to try them for
yourself.

I was hoping to benefit from the knowledge base that this group represents
on most audio topics. And, I really am surprised that this unit hasn't been
tried by anyone here, which makes me wonder whether Tascam's reputation has
declined.

I think not, really, Neil. I think it's more that once someone who isn't
a reviewer has one of any make and model that satisfies the requirement
for which it was purchased, that person won't pay much attention to
what's on the market until the orignial piece either fails or new
requirements render it inadequate.

I didn't get the H2 for "serious" use, so as long as it works I'll
ignore what's new and better, even from Zoom.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil Gould wrote:

I was hoping to benefit from the knowledge base that this group represents
on most audio topics. And, I really am surprised that this unit hasn't been
tried by anyone here, which makes me wonder whether Tascam's reputation has
declined.

How could it decline?


"Our customers for the 80-8 are mostly stoned-out guitar players, they would
not know what to do with a schematic if we provided it."
-- Vice president of TEAC America, 1978 or so

--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[PStamler]

On Mar 16, 8:29*am, Mike Rivers wrote:

Unless you're close to a lion, nature sounds are all quiet
stuff,

And if you're close to a lion, you shouldn't be thinking about mics
and preamps, you should be thinking about getting away.

Peace,
Paul

[PStamler]

On Mar 16, 12:00*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Don't the DR-40 separate TRS line input jacks bypass the preamps?

Probably not. Typically, in semi-pro (and some pro) equipment, the
line inputs are balanced pads which are connected to the mic inputs.

Peace,
Paul

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

[...]
Unless you're close to a lion, nature sounds are all quiet
stuff,...

Not always: you should hear the wood pigeon that kept hooting down my
chimney when I was trying to do sound editing in the room below.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/16/2012 12:45 PM, Neil Gould wrote:

I was hoping to benefit from the knowledge base that this group represents
on most audio topics. And, I really am surprised that this unit hasn't been
tried by anyone here, which makes me wonder whether Tascam's reputation has
declined.

Oh, I doubt that their rep has declined, it's just those of
us who read this newsgroup and post regularly already have
our portable recorders and don't need any more at the
moment. I guess the last one I had in here was the Sony
PCM-M10, and that's been a couple of years ago now. If I get
my hands on a DR-40, I have a friend with an H4n that I can
compare it to, but I don't know if and when that will come
about.

Really , since you have a specific requirement, you'll be a
better judge than I as to whether it will meet your needs.

Have you read anything about it that suggests that it's not
a good unit?

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/16/2012 1:00 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:

Don't the XLR mic connectors provide a means to separate the mics from the
preamps?

Well, yeah, you can use it with alternate mics, and you can
measure quiescent noise, and sensitivity at the external
connections, but who knows what the sensitivity of the
built-in mics is? With the gain all the way up, what's the
peak level of a yellow bellied sapsucker at 20 yards?

Don't the DR-40 separate TRS line input jacks bypass the preamps?

l don't know. I don't have a schematic. Most line inputs on
devices that have mic inputs don't bypass the mic inputs.
But unless Neal is planning on using an outboard mic preamp
too, he's probably interested in the external XLR mic inputs.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/16/2012 2:27 PM, PStamler wrote:

And if you're close to a lion, you shouldn't be thinking about mics
and preamps, you should be thinking about getting away.

Sony has a story from a wildlife recordist about (I think) a
PCM-D50 that a giraffe swallowed. He wanted to rescue the
recordings that were in the memory of the recorder so he
followed the giraffe until it came out. It still worked.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mxsmanic]

hank alrich writes:

Because in comparison to the tools that are considered professional for
video and film sound capture it's not very capable.

Considered professional by whom?

How does one distinguish unambiguously and consistently between "professional"
and "non-professional" equipment?

You're stuck with what it hears from the position of the camera, which
is often not what one wishes to hear in relation to the image.

It is not a camera-mounted unit.

You're stuck with the
configuration and pattern of the mics, which gives you nothing like the
flexibility of a good hyercard or shotgun mic on a boom.

Why would a "professional" production unconditionally require that
flexibility?

You can shoot a wedding with all the ambient sound that will be
included, and if you get paid, you can call it "pro", though I doubt
that anyone actually makes a living that way. There's a rather large
difference between that work and professional audio for film and video.

So which is truly professional?

Over the years I've only been able to come up with one fully consistent
definition for "professional": Something is "professional" if it costs the
most you can afford to pay, or more. If it costs less, it's "consumer" or
"amateur" gear. Nothing else about the equipment matters.

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 3/16/2012 1:00 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:

Don't the DR-40 separate TRS line input jacks bypass the preamps?

l don't know. I don't have a schematic. Most line inputs on
devices that have mic inputs don't bypass the mic inputs.
But unless Neal is planning on using an outboard mic preamp
too, he's probably interested in the external XLR mic inputs.

I would presume that the line inputs don't pass the preamp on something at
this price point. If I were to use an external mic preamp with the DR-40,
I'd want it to have S/PDIF inputs, too...

--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:

I was hoping to benefit from the knowledge base that this group
represents on most audio topics. And, I really am surprised that
this unit hasn't been tried by anyone here, which makes me wonder
whether Tascam's reputation has declined.

How could it decline?


"Our customers for the 80-8 are mostly stoned-out guitar players,
they would not know what to do with a schematic if we provided it."
-- Vice president of TEAC America, 1978 or so

Good point, if the DR-40 was targetting ex 80-8 users... ;-)

--
Neil

[Neil Gould]

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:

[...]
Unless you're close to a lion, nature sounds are all quiet
stuff,...

Not always: you should hear the wood pigeon that kept hooting down my
chimney when I was trying to do sound editing in the room below.

Perhaps a reincarnated, unhappy ex-client? ;-)

--
Neil

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 3/16/2012 12:45 PM, Neil Gould wrote:

I was hoping to benefit from the knowledge base that this group
represents on most audio topics.

(...)
Really , since you have a specific requirement, you'll be a
better judge than I as to whether it will meet your needs.

Have you read anything about it that suggests that it's not
a good unit?

The reviews I've seen so far say things like, "At last! The recorder we've
been waiting for! Well, almost."
http://transom.org/?p=21768

Which, BTW, is also about the best review of the DR-40 that I've seen to
date Its feature set does seem to be aimed at H4n users, which is why I
asked here.

I think I'll just go ahead and get one. I've certainly spent more money on
things that turned out to be less useful.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

Mxsmanic wrote:
hank alrich writes:

Because in comparison to the tools that are considered professional for
video and film sound capture it's not very capable.

Considered professional by whom?

How does one distinguish unambiguously and consistently between "professional"
and "non-professional" equipment?

With the Nagra III, you could drop it off a building and it would keep
recording, and you could hear it hit and bounce several times on the tape
when you played it back afterward, and the tape would not have any audible
wow or speed change when this happened.

With the modern Nagra V you can do the same thing. It will bounce, and keep
going.

So which is truly professional?

Over the years I've only been able to come up with one fully consistent
definition for "professional": Something is "professional" if it costs the
most you can afford to pay, or more. If it costs less, it's "consumer" or
"amateur" gear. Nothing else about the equipment matters.

Professional gear keeps working in the worst possible circumstances, and
you don't lose a take because of the equipment.

Enough terrible things go wrong in this world without having to worry about
the equipment too.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Fri 2012-Mar-16 08:31, hank alrich writes:
No "pro video shooter" should be relying on something like a Zoom H4 for
anything but a very casual backup, in my opinion.
Because?

Because in comparison to the tools that are considered professional
ha for video and film sound capture it's not very capable. You're stuck
with what it hears from the position of the camera, which is often
not what one wishes to hear in relation to the image. You're stuck
with the configuration and pattern of the mics, which gives you
nothing like the flexibility of a good hypercard or shotgun mic on a
boom.

INdeed. Have read of a couple guys using them in the bag on a shoot as a backup, or for transcription. ONe use I saw
floated was feeding timecode to one input, audio to the
other, but don't know how successful that was in actual
practice, but did see some mention of it in
ramps a few months back.

You can shoot a wedding with all the ambient sound that will be
included, and if you get paid, you can call it "pro", though I doubt
that anyone actually makes a living that way. There's a rather large
difference between that work and professional audio for film and
video.

YEah I know, most guys I know doing wedding videos are
photographers just setting up a camera on a tripod and using the audio from the camcorder on the tripod wherever it is.
I tried to talk a photog friend back in the midwest into
upgrading his kit way back, but he says he got paid anyway
g.

MIke Rivers' comment about Frank Fillipetti using a Zoom for nature
sounds shows a genuine pro using it for a specific purpose, but I'd
wager Frank isn't using one to capture sound in conjunction with
imagery at a scene shooting.

Right, no timecode capability, etc. Again it comes down to
use the right tool for the job.


Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Neil Gould wrote:

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:

[...]
Unless you're close to a lion, nature sounds are all quiet
stuff,...

Not always: you should hear the wood pigeon that kept hooting down my
chimney when I was trying to do sound editing in the room below.

Perhaps a reincarnated, unhappy ex-client? ;-)

Probably the composer whose name was left of the artwork - it kept
shouting "Who-who ...whooo!".

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[[email protected]]

On Friday, March 16, 2012 7:31:36 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 3/16/2012 12:35 AM, Marc Wielage wrote:

No "pro video shooter" should be relying on something like a Zoom H4 for
anything but a very casual backup, in my opinion.

No "pro" should go out without a backup. But you'd be
surprised at how many pros are using the H4n. I ran into
Frank Fillipetti at the Zoom booth at the NAB show last year
or maybe the year before and he's done a lot of nature sound
work with his.



The person I mentioned bought it for the convenience and quality and just wanted to use it as part of a whole. Wasn't without second option. It sounded more like a quality control issue than anything specific to the model.

[hank alrich]

Mxsmanic wrote:

hank alrich writes:

Because in comparison to the tools that are considered professional for
video and film sound capture it's not very capable.

Considered professional by whom?

People who make their eintire living doing film and video sound work.

How does one distinguish unambiguously and consistently between "professional"
and "non-professional" equipment?

You're stuck with what it hears from the position of the camera, which
is often not what one wishes to hear in relation to the image.

It is not a camera-mounted unit.

Makes no differencem, because if you get close enough to tighten what
it's hearing you're in the picture. That, too, is unprofessional.

You're stuck with the
configuration and pattern of the mics, which gives you nothing like the
flexibility of a good hyercard or shotgun mic on a boom.

Why would a "professional" production unconditionally require that
flexibility?

You either know about that kind of work or you don't.

You can shoot a wedding with all the ambient sound that will be
included, and if you get paid, you can call it "pro", though I doubt
that anyone actually makes a living that way. There's a rather large
difference between that work and professional audio for film and video.

So which is truly professional?

Over the years I've only been able to come up with one fully consistent
definition for "professional": Something is "professional" if it costs the
most you can afford to pay, or more. If it costs less, it's "consumer" or
"amateur" gear. Nothing else about the equipment matters.

Yor're not talking about what the rest of us are talking about.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/16/2012 4:00 PM, Neil Gould wrote:

The reviews I've seen so far say things like, "At last! The recorder we've
been waiting for! Well, almost."
http://transom.org/?p=21768

That's a pretty comprehensive review. It seems that the
reviewer considers the input gain and noise to be pretty
significant, and I would think that if it's truly out of the
ordinary, it could pose a problem for nature recording.

I've found that with most of these recorders, while there's
a lot of stuff on the menu, in actual use, you don't need to
make changes very often. I've seen that "Peak reduction"
mode on another recorder that I reviewed, maybe it was
another TASCAM, and I didn't care for it. It's useful if the
band (or the woodpecker) continually gets louder, but I
think I'd rather live with a momentary overload that doesn't
repeat than have my recording level lowered and have it stay
there.

Give it a try. Buy it from a dealer who will let you return
it if it doesn't meet your needs.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[vdubreeze]

On Mar 16, 2:53*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

Over the years I've only been able to come up with one fully consistent
definition for "professional": Something is "professional" if it costs the
most you can afford to pay, or more. If it costs less, it's "consumer" or
"amateur" gear. Nothing else about the equipment matters.

If it feels in your hands like if the first time it slid off the chair
onto the floor it wouldn't survive, it's consumer. And if it costs
$100 more to make the same widget sturdy enough to not have to handle
like it's made of eggshells no pro is going to think that's $100
stupidly charged.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott Dorsey writes:

With the Nagra III, you could drop it off a building and it would keep
recording, and you could hear it hit and bounce several times on the tape
when you played it back afterward, and the tape would not have any audible
wow or speed change when this happened.

Nevertheless, I'm sure there are people around who have paid even more for
something else and thus consider the Nagra to be "non-professional" equipment.

With the modern Nagra V you can do the same thing. It will bounce, and keep
going.

I like sturdy equipment, although it tends to be expensive (and often
overpriced).

Professional gear keeps working in the worst possible circumstances, and
you don't lose a take because of the equipment.

But that's a sliding scale, since "the worse possible circumstances" could be
all sorts of things.

Maybe the Nagra can tolerate a fall from a building--but does equipment have
to be able to tolerate such a fall in order to be "professional"?

[Mxsmanic]

hank alrich writes:

People who make their eintire living doing film and video sound work.

There is no consensus among these people.

You either know about that kind of work or you don't.

You haven't answered the question.

Yor're not talking about what the rest of us are talking about.

You haven't answered the question.

I've explained what "professional" really means: it's the best you can afford,
or anything beyond what you can afford. Anything less expensive is "amateur"
or "consumer." There are no other standards.