[[email protected]]

Hi... I'm looking for a compact audio recorder that I can give to an
author so they can read their book into it. I would then take the audio
files, edit them and burn them to a CD as an audio book. Is there a
thrifty device available that's suitable? I see the Olympus WS-100 at
BestBuy for $80. It says it offers 44mz quality at the HQ level. Is
that good enough? Thanks! --JP

[Richard Crowley]

JeffOYB wrote ...
Hi... I'm looking for a compact audio recorder that I can give to an
author so they can read their book into it. I would then take the audio
files, edit them and burn them to a CD as an audio book. Is there a
thrifty device available that's suitable? I see the Olympus WS-100 at
BestBuy for $80. It says it offers 44mz quality at the HQ level. Is
that good enough? Thanks! --JP

Does your author have a computer?
What kind of quality are you expecting?

[Jeff Findley]

wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi... I'm looking for a compact audio recorder that I can give to an
author so they can read their book into it. I would then take the audio
files, edit them and burn them to a CD as an audio book. Is there a
thrifty device available that's suitable? I see the Olympus WS-100 at
BestBuy for $80. It says it offers 44mz quality at the HQ level. Is
that good enough? Thanks! --JP

With only 64 MB of memory, and HQ Mode giving you approximately 4 hour, 20
minutes of recording time, I can't imagine that the quality would be very
good. If you go this route, I'd make sure you buy it from a place with a
good return policy.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

[Laurence Payne]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:55:04 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

Hi... I'm looking for a compact audio recorder that I can give to an
author so they can read their book into it. I would then take the audio
files, edit them and burn them to a CD as an audio book. Is there a
thrifty device available that's suitable? I see the Olympus WS-100 at
BestBuy for $80. It says it offers 44mz quality at the HQ level. Is
that good enough? Thanks! --JP

With only 64 MB of memory, and HQ Mode giving you approximately 4 hour, 20
minutes of recording time, I can't imagine that the quality would be very
good. If you go this route, I'd make sure you buy it from a place with a
good return policy.

Yeah. These are neat little devices that produce a perfectly
intelligible result. But I think you'd want better quality. A
MiniDisk recorder plus a reasonable quality external microphone would
do the job, though you'd have to up your budget a bit.

(BTW, people who buy devices such as the Olympus often discover that
their mobile 'phone offers the same functions at much the same quality
:-)

[[email protected]]

I thought when I saw that the Olympus WS used Flash memory that it was
removable but, no, I don't think it is---very limiting.

Also when I saw the 44mz quality rating I thought that was the same as
any CD.

But I don't really know---all this quality stuff is VERY confusing! An
audio pal now tells me of another number to look at: response. It
should be 20khz.

I wish these devices had numbers that were easy to use to compare!

I want good quality and to be able to edit on a computer. I'd prefer
digital upload, but I don't mind analog. People will listen to these
audio book CDs in their cars and at home, etc., in Walkmans. I want
them to sound good. At the same time, this project will be done
ambiently, on location, so there will be background sounds. I don't
mind some amount of "verite".

So far it seems like Hi-MD is the way to go. But maybe some other MD
format would work, too. I've also read that (Hi?) MD digital uploads
are VERY slow for high-quality files so that hardly any time is saved
compared to analog uploading. Ugh! So maybe I don't need to pay extra
for Hi-MD after all if it's not much better.

So, what's a handy MD recorder, ideally with a built-in mic to keep
things SIMPLE, that someone can read into so that the result sounds
clear and like "real life"?

THANKS SO MUCH!!! --JP

[[email protected]]

PS: I've also read that uploading Stereo-HQ files from a Hi-MD to a PC
thru USB takes about as long as analog line-in transfer to the PC.
Those are the kinds of files that I'll want. Right? If it's all going
to take a bunch of time, I might as well skip the Hi-MD and its pricey
$300 (MZ-RH100) and find another good, handy, cheap recorder and just
plug it into my PC and transfer the files analog-style. ??

What about using a digital video cam with a lens-cap on? My author
already has one of those. Are those audio files of decent quality for
burning a CD?

Also, do any of these compact recorders or MD's come with decent built
in mics? It looks like you have to buy an extra mic for the MZ-RH100.
My authors are going to want the SIMPLEST set-ups with the least to
break. (My first author is a ski coach who's going to be recording his
book on the run...I'm hoping the ambient sounds are a Good Thing.)

I see the Sony-MZ-M100 comes with a mic---but is it built-in? --No
clear pic at Amazon.

Thanks for helping me thru the forest, you guys! : )

Whew! --JP

[Laurence Payne]

On 12 Sep 2006 06:24:33 -0700, wrote:

So, what's a handy MD recorder, ideally with a built-in mic to keep
things SIMPLE, that someone can read into so that the result sounds
clear and like "real life"?

A built-in mic probably won't be good enough. Both in quality, and in
picking up mechanical noise.

[Laurence Payne]

On 12 Sep 2006 07:23:23 -0700, wrote:

What about using a digital video cam with a lens-cap on? My author
already has one of those. Are those audio files of decent quality for
burning a CD?

No.


Also, do any of these compact recorders or MD's come with decent built
in mics? It looks like you have to buy an extra mic for the MZ-RH100.
My authors are going to want the SIMPLEST set-ups with the least to
break. (My first author is a ski coach who's going to be recording his
book on the run...I'm hoping the ambient sounds are a Good Thing.)

You're getting silly now :-)

[Jeff Findley]

wrote in message
oups.com...
PS: I've also read that uploading Stereo-HQ files from a Hi-MD to a PC
thru USB takes about as long as analog line-in transfer to the PC.
Those are the kinds of files that I'll want. Right? If it's all going
to take a bunch of time, I might as well skip the Hi-MD and its pricey
$300 (MZ-RH100) and find another good, handy, cheap recorder and just
plug it into my PC and transfer the files analog-style. ??

Except that it will sound like a cheap recorder when you're done.

I'd still go for HiMD due to the higher quality. You can choose your
quality setting, which determines your recording time per MD or HiMD, and
even if the transfer to PC takes a while, you won't lose any quality like
you will with an "analog style" transfer.

What about using a digital video cam with a lens-cap on? My author
already has one of those. Are those audio files of decent quality for
burning a CD?

Likely better than a cheap cassette recorder, but surely not as good as a
HiMD with a good mic.

Also, do any of these compact recorders or MD's come with decent built
in mics? It looks like you have to buy an extra mic for the MZ-RH100.
My authors are going to want the SIMPLEST set-ups with the least to
break. (My first author is a ski coach who's going to be recording his
book on the run...I'm hoping the ambient sounds are a Good Thing.)

I see the Sony-MZ-M100 comes with a mic---but is it built-in? --No
clear pic at Amazon.

None are built in. Sony does sell mics that plug into the jack and don't
have a cord. These may be a bit easier to use, but you'll pick up the MD
mechanism's noise on the mic. A simple 1/8" stereo extension cord can be
added to one of these so you don't get the noise (likely $5 at Radio Shack
for the cord). Not sure if the one that comes with the Sony-MZ-M100 has a
cord or not.

MD media is pretty cheap these days (about $2 each for an "80 minute" MD
that you can actually record for longer times if you format in HiMD mode and
use better compression). The portable units are just that, very portable.
Much easier than having to sit in front of a PC and talk into its mic.


You're going to have to decide on the quality/price issue yourself. If
these are going to be sold as audio books to customers, what kind of quality
do they expect? If they're going to be sold as Audio CD's, I'd spend the
extra money on decent recording equipment.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)



Thanks for helping me thru the forest, you guys! : )

Whew! --JP

[[email protected]]

Thanks, Jeff and Laurence... I'm getting closer! Maybe! : )

I see now that a separate mic might be best. --Altho, yet again, I
suppose I can edit out mechanism clunks. ? Simplicity of device really
is VERY important.

This whole quality thing, though, as you mention, is relative. But I
don't really need a totally pro result. Yet I don't want it sounding
bad, noisy, tinny, whatever. You audio guys obviously know sound like I
never will. So I suppose I need a "medium" quality result. : )

By "cheap" I meant something like a $100 MD device---not an actual
cheapy dimestore tape device. $300 is steep seeming for slow Stereo-HQ
upload. I can perhaps find an MD device that records Stereo-HQ but
can't do file-transwer. Well, fine, I'll do line-in to my computer in
live time. How much does the sound degrade?

Oh well, maybe I should bite the bullet and buy a schweet MZ-RH10 and
$65 mic. I sure hope my author doesn't bust the thing. I would like to
GIVE it to him, but that's a lot of book royalty...

Again, I wonder how much worse the audio file is on a digi-vid than
Stereo-HQ...

--JP

[[email protected]]

PS: My local "live in the field" radio pal says that MZ-RH10 is the
industry standard, with an $80 add-on mic.

But he said if I'm going to be working remotely with a non-expert pal
who may be rough with equipment that I should just send him a good ol'
high-end tape recorder and mic and feed the results in live thru a
line-in to my computer in real-time. The record system would be of good
quality and cheap/expendable and relatively easy to use. My author
should be careful with mic position and then read a bit then listen to
himself thru any kind of headset, verify quality, then do a session.

He also said that recording audio via a digi-vid cam (with lens-cap on)
and doing live feed into computer might also work and be simple if the
author already has said digi-vid. But why would it have to be digi-vid?
Maybe any decent vid would work?

OK, I'm getting closer...to what, I don't know!

--JP

[Laurence Payne]

On 12 Sep 2006 17:09:40 -0700, wrote:

He also said that recording audio via a digi-vid cam (with lens-cap on)
and doing live feed into computer might also work and be simple if the
author already has said digi-vid. But why would it have to be digi-vid?
Maybe any decent vid would work?

Would taking the lens cap off ruin it? :-)

Test this idea if you want. But be prepared for a LOT of motor noise.

[Richard Crowley]

wrote ...
I want good quality and to be able to edit on a computer. I'd prefer
digital upload, but I don't mind analog. People will listen to these
audio book CDs in their cars and at home, etc., in Walkmans. I want
them to sound good. At the same time, this project will be done
ambiently, on location, so there will be background sounds. I don't
mind some amount of "verite".

Be done by whom? People recording themselves?
Do these people have any experience doing this?
What does "on location" mean? In a quiet hotel
room, out on a park bench, or on a bicycle?

Are these "motivated" customers who are eager to
listen to anything their grandchildren say, or is this
intended to compete with commercial products?

So far it seems like Hi-MD is the way to go. But maybe some other MD
format would work, too. I've also read that (Hi?) MD digital uploads
are VERY slow for high-quality files so that hardly any time is saved
compared to analog uploading. Ugh! So maybe I don't need to pay extra
for Hi-MD after all if it's not much better.

What is important here? Quality or speed of production?

So, what's a handy MD recorder, ideally with a built-in mic to keep
things SIMPLE, that someone can read into so that the result sounds
clear and like "real life"?

It is highly unlikely that you will get quality decent enough
for others to want to listen with a built-in microphone on
ANY kind of equipment.

[jeff potter]

Richard Crowley wrote:
wrote ...
I want good quality and to be able to edit on a computer. I'd prefer
digital upload, but I don't mind analog. People will listen to these
audio book CDs in their cars and at home, etc., in Walkmans. I want
them to sound good. At the same time, this project will be done
ambiently, on location, so there will be background sounds. I don't
mind some amount of "verite".

Be done by whom? People recording themselves?
Do these people have any experience doing this?
What does "on location" mean? In a quiet hotel
room, out on a park bench, or on a bicycle?

Apologies for any lack of info in previous posts! I wanted to enable an
author to record himself reading his book. He would be out and about
while doing so. I thought I mentioned that he is a ski coach, so he
will be outside sometimes or riding in a van sometimes.

Are these "motivated" customers who are eager to
listen to anything their grandchildren say, or is this
intended to compete with commercial products?

It's the only XC ski culture book and the only audio of same. Skiers
listen to CDs on roadtrips and wear Walkmans when training. It will be
a tolerant market. Relatively so. Obviously I don't want to hurt
anyone's ears!

So far it seems like Hi-MD is the way to go. But maybe some other MD
format would work, too. I've also read that (Hi?) MD digital uploads
are VERY slow for high-quality files so that hardly any time is saved
compared to analog uploading. Ugh! So maybe I don't need to pay extra
for Hi-MD after all if it's not much better.

What is important here? Quality or speed of production?

Again, it's relative. I have no need to please audiophiles. But it
should sound "good." Or at least "pretty good." EASE of production is
important. This coach will be able to follow some basics for making a
good recording.

So, what's a handy MD recorder, ideally with a built-in mic to keep
things SIMPLE, that someone can read into so that the result sounds
clear and like "real life"?

It is highly unlikely that you will get quality decent enough
for others to want to listen with a built-in microphone on
ANY kind of equipment.

OK, so we get a separate mic. Next?

Is there an affordable recorder that I can plug a mic into and get a
decent result? (Maybe we could just plug a mic into a vidicam.) I need
to be able to line-in or upload files or live audio to my computer so I
can burn a CD. I have MPEGGER so I can make MP3's out of live audio.

As regards methods for getting decent results, I was hoping I could get
a $100 recorder and a $50 mic and that the set-up won't be too fragile
or tangly. (I'd like to avoid a fragile $300 solution.) I'm thinking my
reader could hold the mic about a foot away and just read and record.
He would have a simple headset to check an initial result then start
reading again. I'm hoping that the ambient sounds coming from him not
being in a quiet room will not be such a terrible thing. Doable? Is
recording while riding in a van just a non-starter? Well, if so I guess
he can just not do that. If he can find a "pretty quiet" place, even
outside, I'm hoping that would be good enough and that some ambient
sound might even be a positive---verite recordings are common on the
radio, right?

A concern was that I read that quality uploading of Stereo-HQ files
takes about as much time as recording from a live feed-in. Is this
true? If so, I could just skip the file-transfer route and do live
recording into my computer from any source that has a line-out.

--Jeff Potter
outyourbackdoor.com

[Jeff Findley]

wrote in message
oups.com...
Thanks, Jeff and Laurence... I'm getting closer! Maybe! : )

I see now that a separate mic might be best. --Altho, yet again, I
suppose I can edit out mechanism clunks. ? Simplicity of device really
is VERY important.

In my opinion, it's harder to remove such noises after the fact than it is
to prevent them from getting into the recording in the first place.

This whole quality thing, though, as you mention, is relative. But I
don't really need a totally pro result. Yet I don't want it sounding
bad, noisy, tinny, whatever. You audio guys obviously know sound like I
never will. So I suppose I need a "medium" quality result. : )

By "cheap" I meant something like a $100 MD device---not an actual
cheapy dimestore tape device.

If you go this route, and have a decent PC sound card, you can do the
transfer the old "analog" way. You'll have to be careful with your levels
going into the PC sound card. I've done this before and it does work. Any
old MD recorder with a mic input would work in this case. Since you don't
need stereo, units that let you record in mono would double your recording
time to 160 minutes on an "80 minute" MD. Even a NetMD with a mic input
would work, but you're still stuck with an analog transfer with a NetMD
(only HiMD can do USB transfer from MD to PC).

$300 is steep seeming for slow Stereo-HQ
upload. I can perhaps find an MD device that records Stereo-HQ but
can't do file-transwer. Well, fine, I'll do line-in to my computer in
live time. How much does the sound degrade?

You really think you need stereo?

The degradation may not be noticable, since SP or mono recording modes are
very good. Again, it depends on how good your sound card is and how careful
you are with the levels when you do the transfer, since it is really
re-recording on the PC. The nice thing is, once you find levels that work
for the transfer (both volume on the MD for playback and line level record
level on the PC), you shouldn't have to mess with it after that.

Since you're doing this "on the cheap", I'd recommend CD Wave and/or
Audacity for recording and editing.

Oh well, maybe I should bite the bullet and buy a schweet MZ-RH10 and
$65 mic. I sure hope my author doesn't bust the thing. I would like to
GIVE it to him, but that's a lot of book royalty...

Again, I wonder how much worse the audio file is on a digi-vid than
Stereo-HQ...

You could have the author do a 30 minute test recording with the digi-vid
and see how it goes.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

[Jeff Findley]

wrote in message
ups.com...
PS: My local "live in the field" radio pal says that MZ-RH10 is the
industry standard, with an $80 add-on mic.

There are definately reaons people prefer these for "live in the field"
types of recording.

But he said if I'm going to be working remotely with a non-expert pal
who may be rough with equipment that I should just send him a good ol'
high-end tape recorder and mic and feed the results in live thru a
line-in to my computer in real-time. The record system would be of good
quality and cheap/expendable and relatively easy to use. My author
should be careful with mic position and then read a bit then listen to
himself thru any kind of headset, verify quality, then do a session.

If you go this route, don't use cheap cassette tapes. Even with a very good
tape deck, I've found that cheap cassette tapes are still absolute crap.
Spend the extra money for the highest quality cassette tapes you can get.

He also said that recording audio via a digi-vid cam (with lens-cap on)
and doing live feed into computer might also work and be simple if the
author already has said digi-vid. But why would it have to be digi-vid?
Maybe any decent vid would work?

OK, I'm getting closer...to what, I don't know!

If it doesn't have to be super portable, recording directly into a PC's mic
input would work (laptop or desktop should not matter here).

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

[Richard Crowley]

"jeff potter" wrote ...
Again, it's relative. I have no need to please audiophiles. But it
should sound "good." Or at least "pretty good." EASE of production is
important. This coach will be able to follow some basics for making a
good recording.

IMHO, average people (even XC skiers) have some expectation
of "quality", at least relative absense of background noises,
particularly music or other speech.

As regards methods for getting decent results, I was hoping I could
get
a $100 recorder and a $50 mic and that the set-up won't be too fragile
or tangly. (I'd like to avoid a fragile $300 solution.)

I think your expectations and your budget still have a
substantial gap. Are you giving away these recordings?
If it isn't worth some decent investment in equipment,
maybe its time hasn't come yet?

I'm thinking my reader could hold the mic about a foot
away and just read and record. He would have a simple
headset to check an initial result then start reading again.

Do you have any experience doing this? I would be very
dubious of getting distribution-worthy recordings by this
method. At the very least, I would have them use a pair
of headphones with attached mic so that it could be kept
at a constant distance, particularly if they are reading out
in ambient conditions.

I'm hoping that the ambient sounds coming from him not
being in a quiet room will not be such a terrible thing. Doable? Is
recording while riding in a van just a non-starter? Well, if so I
guess
he can just not do that. If he can find a "pretty quiet" place, even
outside, I'm hoping that would be good enough and that some ambient
sound might even be a positive---verite recordings are common on the
radio, right?

Maybe I'm just an old fuddy-duddy but this sounds significantly
below people's expectations of "audio books". Unless you can
market it as some sort of desirable featu "Recorded live on
the slopes of Aspen" or something?

A concern was that I read that quality uploading of Stereo-HQ files
takes about as much time as recording from a live feed-in. Is this
true? If so, I could just skip the file-transfer route and do live
recording into my computer from any source that has a line-out.

I think you are obsessing on transfer/produciton time at the
expense of other more important production elements. Is
this a one-time thing for a single book, or is this some kind
of weekly skiing podcast or something?

[jeff potter]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"jeff potter" wrote ...
Again, it's relative. I have no need to please audiophiles. But it
should sound "good." Or at least "pretty good." EASE of production is
important. This coach will be able to follow some basics for making a
good recording.

IMHO, average people (even XC skiers) have some expectation
of "quality", at least relative absense of background noises,
particularly music or other speech.

What about the common method of radio interviewing in a live setting
with "real life" sounds in background? I consider those sounds to be a
positive and that they don't interfere with listening. Or is there lots
more to it than that?

[ ]
Do you have any experience doing this? I would be very
dubious of getting distribution-worthy recordings by this
method. At the very least, I would have them use a pair
of headphones with attached mic so that it could be kept
at a constant distance, particularly if they are reading out
in ambient conditions.

I was going to have him check with whatever headset he has on hand his
initial sound during a recording session then continue recording if all
sounds OK. Then also to hold the mic at a steady gap from mouth.
Doesn't seem to tough. An OK method? Or maybe if the mic wanders by
even an inch listeners will plug their ears at the awful wandering
sound... : ) ?

[ ]
Maybe I'm just an old fuddy-duddy but this sounds significantly
below people's expectations of "audio books". Unless you can
market it as some sort of desirable featu "Recorded live on
the slopes of Aspen" or something?

Yeah, a bit like that! : ) It'll be a unique verite' book.. Not a
studio reading. But of course if our tests sound lame we'll give up
that approach.

A concern was that I read that quality uploading of Stereo-HQ files
takes about as much time as recording from a live feed-in. Is this
true? If so, I could just skip the file-transfer route and do live
recording into my computer from any source that has a line-out.

I think you are obsessing on transfer/produciton time at the
expense of other more important production elements. Is
this a one-time thing for a single book, or is this some kind
of weekly skiing podcast or something?

It's basically a one-time thing, but I have other authors/books. I'd
like to make it easy for an author to give me something worth listening
to. Ideally I'd like to be able to just give each of them a recorder
and have them send me disks, but at $300 for the set-up I'll want them
to rebox it up and send it back and hopefully to not bang it up too
much in use.

For ongoing web media, I'd like to have more video than audio, offhand.

Thanks again for your expert views! I'm getting closer to getting a
feel for what to do. But it's still not an easy decision. I figure I
might sell 200 of these ski CDs this winter, but ya never know! So for
a, say, $2K gross project, $300 is a good bit of overhead. This is the
small-time. : ) --JP

[Laurence Payne]

On 14 Sep 2006 12:17:49 -0700, "jeff potter"
wrote:

I was going to have him check with whatever headset he has on hand his
initial sound during a recording session then continue recording if all
sounds OK. Then also to hold the mic at a steady gap from mouth.
Doesn't seem to tough

While skiing? :-)

[Richard Crowley]

"jeff potter" wrote ...
What about the common method of radio interviewing in a live setting
with "real life" sounds in background? I consider those sounds to be a
positive and that they don't interfere with listening. Or is there
lots
more to it than that?

Even the "long form" interviews/actualities/SFX on
NPR, etc. aren't even 30 seconds long. Very different
from listening to somebody read a book for hours.
Background sounds can ADD to the immediacy and
authenticity of a news report or even sound-byte
interview. But you don't see long-form interviews
in those kinds of ambients.

And audio books are typically done in completely
silent, neutral ambients to maximize voice inelligibility
and minimize any distractions even from acoustics, much
less from ambient noises. At least that is MY view
of the industry. Others may have differing views?

I was going to have him check with whatever headset he has on hand his
initial sound during a recording session then continue recording if
all
sounds OK. Then also to hold the mic at a steady gap from mouth.
Doesn't seem to tough. An OK method?

Even radio reporters who do this every day for years
aren't that good. I think you are vastly overestimating
the ability of content providers to get this right. Unless
they have some other technical background that we
don't know about.

Or maybe if the mic wanders by
even an inch listeners will plug their ears at the awful wandering
sound... : ) ?

I think there is a big difference between a short interview
and hours of audio-book.

It's basically a one-time thing, but I have other authors/books. I'd
like to make it easy for an author to give me something worth
listening
to. Ideally I'd like to be able to just give each of them a recorder
and have them send me disks, but at $300 for the set-up I'll want them
to rebox it up and send it back and hopefully to not bang it up too
much in use.

It is an interesting concept, but I have serious doubts
that 1) you can get authors to do it "right", and 2) the
production quality would be sufficient for commercial
distribution.

For ongoing web media, I'd like to have more video than audio,
offhand.

Thanks again for your expert views! I'm getting closer to getting a
feel for what to do. But it's still not an easy decision. I figure I
might sell 200 of these ski CDs this winter, but ya never know! So for
a, say, $2K gross project, $300 is a good bit of overhead. This is the
small-time. : )

Maybe you need an XC ski audio and or video podcast
sponsored by (or at least supported by ads from) equipment
makers and destination venues, etc.

[jeff potter]

Thanks for the feedback!

I don't mind exploring the frontier of small and on-the-fly, but I
don't want to try something that's just not going to work. Well, I
don't mind trying and testing...

I think what I'll do for now is to provide my author with a basic mic
and maybe a USB intermediate "puck" converter thingy (a Griffon i-mic,
maybe it's called---a friend suggested this as a helpful thing) and see
what he can do with plugging into his vid-cam and/or his computer. He
probably even has a laptop around. Hopefully he can rig up a stand of
some kind.

I suppose he'll need some software to help him record and see his
levels. I think some previous posts mention some basic programs.

I want to make it possible for an amateur to have the best chance of
getting a decent result.

--JP

[Richard Crowley]

"jeff potter" wrote ...
Thanks for the feedback!

I don't mind exploring the frontier of small and on-the-fly, but I
don't want to try something that's just not going to work. Well, I
don't mind trying and testing...

I think what I'll do for now is to provide my author with a basic mic
and maybe a USB intermediate "puck" converter thingy (a Griffon i-mic,
maybe it's called---a friend suggested this as a helpful thing) and
see
what he can do with plugging into his vid-cam and/or his computer. He
probably even has a laptop around. Hopefully he can rig up a stand of
some kind.

Yikes. Don't expect much. If I were you, I'd try a $15
headset mic of the kind intended to plug directly into the
mic input of a computer. They will also work in typical
consumer camcorders, and likely on MD recorders, etc.

I suppose he'll need some software to help him record
and see his levels. I think some previous posts mention
some basic programs.

Audacity is a popular free audio recording applicaiton.
You could also look at Total Recorder which may have
significantly better usability for your amateur/casual
users.

I want to make it possible for an amateur to have the
best chance of getting a decent result.

I'd go for an MD recorder. No fooling around with
software. Much more portable than any kind of
computer, even a laptop, etc. And with inexpensive,
removable media which can be mailed back to you,
etc. No fooling around with downloading, etc.

Running auto-level, so your authors/readers can
concentrate on performance rather than setting
levels wich can sometimes be tricky even for
experienced recording engineers. Whether auto-
level will provide acceptable quality is something
you will need to determine for yourself.

And a headset mic to keep a uniform distance and
maximize the direct-to-ambient sound ratio pickup.
Expecting them to come up with a suitable way to
support the mic is just asking for trouble. And
expecting them to do this with a hand-held mic is
just beyond any kind of reason for a long-form
recording. At least IMHO.

There are several low-budget headset-mics that
would likely be suitable to try for your project
on this page....
http://www.geeks.com/products.asp?cat=SPK