portable solid state recorder with SPDIF input?

[Orlando Enrique Fiol]

Hi all. After exhausting research, it appears that M-Audio's Microtrack II is
the only reasonably priced digital recorder with an SPDIF input. In
addition to recording in the field, I'd like to use a portable unit to digitize
years of DAT tapes without occupying my computer's processing power and
soundcard during recording. Plenty of other recorders, such as the Sony and the
Ediroll R09HR sound like they'd make great field recorders, but only the
Microtrack appears to have a digital input. Am I missing something? The
Microtrack's disadvantage is its battery; I either use the built-in
rechargeable or hook into a USB battery pack.

Any thoughts?
Orlando

[soundhaspriority]

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
> Hi all. After exhausting research, it appears that M-Audio's Microtrack II
> is
> the only reasonably priced digital recorder with an SPDIF input. In
> addition to recording in the field, I'd like to use a portable unit to
> digitize
> years of DAT tapes without occupying my computer's processing power and
> soundcard during recording. Plenty of other recorders, such as the Sony
> and the
> Ediroll R09HR sound like they'd make great field recorders, but only the
> Microtrack appears to have a digital input. Am I missing something? The
> Microtrack's disadvantage is its battery; I either use the built-in
> rechargeable or hook into a USB battery pack.
>
> Any thoughts?
> Orlando

The Sony PCM-D50 has a digital input. However, it's optical. This is only a
problem for field use, where all equipment appears to be coax only. Of
course, you can use a coax to optical converter.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

[Arny Krueger]

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message


> Hi all. After exhausting research, it appears that
> M-Audio's Microtrack II is the only reasonably priced
> digital recorder with an SPDIF input. In
> addition to recording in the field, I'd like to use a
> portable unit to digitize years of DAT tapes without
> occupying my computer's processing power and soundcard
> during recording. Plenty of other recorders, such as the
> Sony and the Ediroll R09HR sound like they'd make great
> field recorders, but only the Microtrack appears to have
> a digital input. Am I missing something?


Interesting that there's just one. Oh well - I already own one! ;-)

> The Microtrack's
> disadvantage is its battery; I either use the built-in
> rechargeable or hook into a USB battery pack.

Are you missing the provided USB-connected AC power supply?

I often run mine off of the USB port on my laptop, just for convenience
sake.

[Orlando Enrique Fiol]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>Are you missing the provided USB-connected AC power supply?

I haven't bought the Microtrack II yet.

>I often run mine off of the USB port on my laptop, just for convenience
>sake.

How do you like the preamps? Do you do much digital transference?

Orlando

[JasonSobel]

The Marantz PMD-661 has an S/PDIF input (via coax), and is reasonably
priced. Other portable decks with S/PDIF inputs are the Tascam HD-P2
and the Edirol R-44. These two are a bit more expensive, but also
have many more features.

[The Immoral Mr Teas]

On Oct 2, 8:48*pm, Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote:
> The Microtrack's disadvantage is its battery

The microtrack's main disadvantage is it's unreliability (or rather
it's reliability to not work when you want it to!). The MT II is a
lot better. Compared to decent preamps, I wouldn't say the preamps are
'good' but they're what you pay for ... at least you're not paying for
rubbish mics on the thing! Sonically, from a decent mic and preamp
inputting line level, I have no problem whatsoever.

Jez

[Orlando Enrique Fiol]

JasonSobel > wrote:
>The Marantz PMD-661 has an S/PDIF input (via coax), and is reasonably
>priced. Other portable decks with S/PDIF inputs are the Tascam HD-P2
>and the Edirol R-44. These two are a bit more expensive, but also
>have many more features.

How noisy are their preamps? Do they use proprietary memory or take normal SD
cards? Also, being totally blind, I'm very concerned about accessibility. It
doesn't matter how many features a recorder has if I can't access them
reliably.

Thanks,
Orlando

[Orlando Enrique Fiol]

JasonSobel > wrote:
>The Marantz PMD-661 has an S/PDIF input (via coax), and is reasonably
>priced. Other portable decks with S/PDIF inputs are the Tascam HD-P2
>and the Edirol R-44. These two are a bit more expensive, but also
>have many more features.

Please bear in mind that I'll be using the DPA4061 binoral omni mics, which
only have an eighth-inch connector. How good does the Marantz sound? For now,
because of a limited budget, I can't afford a dedicated preamp. I would hate to
buy a recorder whose preamp is excessively noisy or prone to distortion. I'm
also very concerned about the Microtrack's internal battery going dead,
requiring me to send it back to M-Audio. At this point, any other unit with a
digital input and a more flexible battery capacity would suit me better.

Thanks,
Orlando

[JasonSobel]

On Oct 2, 10:43*pm, Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote:
> JasonSobel > wrote:
> >The Marantz PMD-661 has an S/PDIF input (via coax), and is reasonably
> >priced. *Other portable decks with S/PDIF inputs are the Tascam HD-P2
> >and the Edirol R-44. *These two are a bit more expensive, but also
> >have many more features.
>
>
>How noisy are their preamps? Do they use proprietary memory or take normal SD
> cards? Also, being totally blind, I'm very concerned about accessibility. It
> doesn't matter how many features a recorder has if I can't access them
> reliably.
>
>
> Please bear in mind that I'll be using the DPA4061 binoral omni mics, which
> only have an eighth-inch connector. How good does the Marantz sound? For now,
> because of a limited budget, I can't afford a dedicated preamp. I would hate to
> buy a recorder whose preamp is excessively noisy or prone to distortion. I'm
> also very concerned about the Microtrack's internal battery going dead,
> requiring me to send it back to M-Audio. At this point, any other unit with a
> digital input and a more flexible battery capacity would suit me better.
>
> Thanks,
> Orlando


Well, I'll hit on your items as best I can. The Marantz PMD-661 uses
standard SD cards (or SDHC cards), so nothing proprietary there. The
deck has two sets of inputs, a pair of XLR inputs that can be set to
line-in, mic-in, or mic-in with 48V phantom power. The second input
is a 1/8" inch line-in. However, no power is provided via the 1/8"
line-in. So if you are using a pair of DPA 4061 mics (or any other
mics that don't use phantom power), you'll need to provide a battery
box or external pre-amp to power the mics, as the PMD-661 will not
provide any power to mics (other than 48V phantom via the XLR's).

In regards to the quality PMD-661's internal pre-amp, I can't speak to
the quality of the stock unit, as the internal pre-amps on the deck
that I own have been modified by Doug Oade (ww.oade.com). I think the
unit sounds great, and I have never had it distort, even under the
high SPL environments that I typically record in. Doug has three
versions of mods for the internal pre-amps. Two of the mods are
geared for live concert recording (like what I do), and the third is
geared more towards lower SPL applications, where low-noise high-gain
is required.

In terms of being blind accessible, I haven't thought too much about
that aspect, but I would guess that its just as easy to operate as any
other small portable solid-state recorder. All the settings are
stored in memory, so you can set it up at home prior to going out in
the field, and when you're ready to record, just turn it on and press
record.

I hope this helps.

- Jason

[Mike Rivers]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message

>> Sony and the Ediroll R09HR sound like they'd make great
>> field recorders, but only the Microtrack appears to have
>> a digital input. Am I missing something?

> Interesting that there's just one. Oh well - I already own one! ;-)

Well, if people would quit expecting special purpose devices to be
universal, it wouldn't be such a surprise. Wanna digitally copy DAT
recordings (what's wrong with an analog copy, anyway?)? Hook it
up to a computer - it's easy to find computer interface hardware with
an S/PDIF coax port. I think Edirol has one for $40 or so that plugs
into a USB port. What good does transferring the DAT to a handheld
recorder memory card do when the only thing you can do with it then,
unless you're just going to put the card on the shelf, is transfer it to
a computer?

The only justification for a digital input on a handheld recorder that
I can see is if you want to use an outboard A/D converter that's better
than the built-in one, with external mics and preamp of course. But a
$200 mic preamp with a digital output is probably not going to have
any better A/D converters than what the recorder already has. The only
advantage to using the digital connection is to avoid the unbalanced
analog connection through a mini phone jack that's nearly the industry
standard on these gadgets, and that's only going to be a problem if
the plug doesn't fit right (often a real issue) or you're working in a high
EMI environment where the common mode rejection of a balanced input
could help.

[Mike Rivers]

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:

> Please bear in mind that I'll be using the DPA4061 binoral omni mics, which
> only have an eighth-inch connector.

You might have trouble powering the DPA 4061 with a handheld recorder. Since
it's designed primarily to work with a wireless transmitter, you'll need
to use an adapter
to connect and power it. It requires a minimum of 5V DC power, and most
of the
handheld recorders offer only "plug-in power" which is around 3V. The
Micro Track
does have balanced inputs and provides, I think, 30V (though this may
have been
raised to the standard 48V in the MT-2 version) phantom power.

The DPA 4061 is characterized as a "low sensitivity" mic so you're right
to be concerned
about preamp gain and noise, unless you're planning to record motorcycle
races or
fire engines. I have a Sony PCM-M10 in here for evaluation now and I'm
pleasantly
surprised with the gain and fairly low noise of its mic preamps, but it
only offers the
3V plug-in power typical of these devices. The mic inputs are a full 25
dB more sensitive
than my Zoom H2, on which I consider the mic inputs to be useless for
all but the loudest
sources or close work like an interview with a handheld mic.

I've had the PCM-M10 for a bit over a week and haven't exhausted the two
AA alkaline
batteries in it yet. The manual claims upwards of 24 hours recording
time (more than 30
if you don't have headphones plugged in) on a set of batteries in the
44.1 kHz WAV
record mode, though the wiggle statement is that the testing method is
"proprietary to
Sony." Still, for real people, even if it's half that, it's still
impressive battery life.

Oh, and once you have it set for the recording format you want, you'll
probably find that
you can do everything you need without seeing the screen as long as you
learn a couple
of button locations and sequences. Recording is as simple as pressing
the Record button
followed by the Pause or Play button. And you can probably set the
record level (it's a
real knob) by listening with headphones for distortion on peaks, then
backing it off a bit, since
audible distortion sets in at the monitor output when you reach full
scale record level.

[Orlando Enrique Fiol]

JasonSobel > wrote:
>Well, I'll hit on your items as best I can. The Marantz PMD-661 uses
>standard SD cards (or SDHC cards), so nothing proprietary there.

Great.

>The deck has two sets of inputs, a pair of XLR inputs that can be set to
>line-in, mic-in, or mic-in with 48V phantom power. The second input
>is a 1/8" inch line-in. However, no power is provided via the 1/8"
>line-in. So if you are using a pair of DPA 4061 mics (or any other
>mics that don't use phantom power), you'll need to provide a battery
>box or external pre-amp to power the mics, as the PMD-661 will not
>provide any power to mics (other than 48V phantom via the XLR's).

I've got that covered.

>In regards to the quality PMD-661's internal pre-amp, I can't speak to
>the quality of the stock unit, as the internal pre-amps on the deck
>that I own have been modified by Doug Oade (ww.oade.com). I think the
>unit sounds great, and I have never had it distort, even under the
>high SPL environments that I typically record in. Doug has three
>versions of mods for the internal pre-amps. Two of the mods are
>geared for live concert recording (like what I do), and the third is
>geared more towards lower SPL applications, where low-noise high-gain
>is required.

I would generally be more inclined toward the latter modification. Do I first
purchase the recorder and then send it for modification or can I purchase it
already modified from Doug?

>In terms of being blind accessible, I haven't thought too much about
>that aspect, but I would guess that its just as easy to operate as any
>other small portable solid-state recorder. All the settings are
>stored in memory, so you can set it up at home prior to going out in
>the field, and when you're ready to record, just turn it on and press
>record.

That's what I need.

>I hope this helps.

Yes, it helps a great deal. Thanks.

Orlando

[Orlando Enrique Fiol]

Mike Rivers > wrote:
>Well, if people would quit expecting special purpose devices to be
>universal, it wouldn't be such a surprise. Wanna digitally copy DAT
>recordings (what's wrong with an analog copy, anyway?)?

I don't want extra analog noise or other preamps coloring the recordings. I'd
also rather not set transfer levels when I already did that while recording the
original DATs.

>Hook it up to a computer - it's easy to find computer interface hardware with
>an S/PDIF coax port. I think Edirol has one for $40 or so that plugs
>into a USB port.

Good idea.

>What good does transferring the DAT to a handheld
>recorder memory card do when the only thing you can do with it then,
>unless you're just going to put the card on the shelf, is transfer it to
>a computer?

It keeps the computer's hard drive free from having to capture tons of data on
a daily basis.

>The only justification for a digital input on a handheld recorder that
>I can see is if you want to use an outboard A/D converter that's better
>than the built-in one, with external mics and preamp of course.

I have the external mics and will eventually buy a preamp. I would like a unit
that will not limit me to its internal preamp.

>But a $200 mic preamp with a digital output is probably not going to have
>any better A/D converters than what the recorder already has.

I know that, which is why I'm saving up.

>The only advantage to using the digital connection is to avoid the unbalanced
>analog connection through a mini phone jack that's nearly the industry
>standard on these gadgets, and that's only going to be a problem if
>the plug doesn't fit right (often a real issue) or you're working in a high
>EMI environment where the common mode rejection of a balanced input
>could help.


Too true.

Orlando

[Orlando Enrique Fiol]

Mike Rivers > wrote:
>You might have trouble powering the DPA 4061 with a handheld recorder. Since
>it's designed primarily to work with a wireless transmitter, you'll need
>to use an adapter
>to connect and power it. It requires a minimum of 5V DC power, and most
>of the handheld recorders offer only "plug-in power" which is around 3V. The
>Micro Track does have balanced inputs and provides, I think, 30V (though this
may have been raised to the standard 48V in the MT-2 version) phantom power.

I have a 9-volt box that powers them, which is what I've used for DAT
recording.

>The DPA 4061 is characterized as a "low sensitivity" mic so you're right
>to be concerned about preamp gain and noise, unless you're planning to record
motorcycle races or fire engines.

I doubt those will be coming down my pike any time soon.

>I have a Sony PCM-M10 in here for evaluation now and I'm pleasantly
>surprised with the gain and fairly low noise of its mic preamps, but it
>only offers the 3V plug-in power typical of these devices. The mic inputs are
a full 25 dB more sensitive
>than my Zoom H2, on which I consider the mic inputs to be useless for
>all but the loudest sources or close work like an interview with a handheld
mic.

But, the Sony uses proprietary memory. What if you have a friend with an SD
card full of recordings that you want to download or edit? It's easier to slip
their SD card into your unit than have them wait around while you transfer
their data to an internal or external hard drive.

>I've had the PCM-M10 for a bit over a week and haven't exhausted the two
>AA alkaline batteries in it yet. The manual claims upwards of 24 hours
recording time (more than 30 if you don't have headphones plugged in) on a set
of batteries in the 44.1 kHz WAV
>record mode, though the wiggle statement is that the testing method is
>"proprietary to Sony." Still, for real people, even if it's half that, it's
still impressive battery life.

Does that hold true for 24 96 modes?

>Oh, and once you have it set for the recording format you want, you'll
>probably find that
>you can do everything you need without seeing the screen as long as you
>learn a couple of button locations and sequences. Recording is as simple as
pressing the Record button
>followed by the Pause or Play button. And you can probably set the
>record level (it's a
>real knob) by listening with headphones for distortion on peaks, then
>backing it off a bit, since
>audible distortion sets in at the monitor output when you reach full
>scale record level.


That's exactly what I'd want to happen so that I can monitor it aurally.

Thanks,
Orlando

[Arny Krueger]

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>> Are you missing the provided USB-connected AC power
>> supply?
>
> I haven't bought the Microtrack II yet.

>> I often run mine off of the USB port on my laptop, just
>> for convenience sake.

> How do you like the preamps? Do you do much digital
> transference?

Yes, the preamps are OK for live recording. The range of gains that are
available on most portable units are less than what you'd find on a good
stand-alone mic preamps, quality audio interfaces with preamps (e.g. eMu)
or console.

I do my digital transfers with a desktop computer.

[JasonSobel]

>
> >In regards to the quality PMD-661's internal pre-amp, I can't speak to
> >the quality of the stock unit, as the internal pre-amps on the deck
> >that I own have been modified by Doug Oade (ww.oade.com). *I think the
> >unit sounds great, and I have never had it distort, even under the
> >high SPL environments that I typically record in. *Doug has three
> >versions of mods for the internal pre-amps. *Two of the mods are
> >geared for live concert recording (like what I do), and the third is
> >geared more towards lower SPL applications, where low-noise high-gain
> >is required.
>
> I would generally be more inclined toward the latter modification. Do I first
> purchase the recorder and then send it for modification or can I purchase it
> already modified from Doug?

Yes, typically Doug only does mods on decks bought directly from him.
I would also email Doug directly, as he's very knowledgeable and
helpful and can answer specific questions (gain ranges after the deck
has been mod, maximum input levels, etc, etc)

I'll also add to the conversation by saying that I also use my PMD-661
to digitally transfer old DAT recordings. I really like having a
dedicated deck to use for the transfers to free up my computer during
that time. Furthermore, I think an S/PDIF input is a great feature
that most portable decks lack. In an earlier post, Mike Rivers
mentioned that a $200 external pre/AD probably isn't any better than
the internal pre-amp on the deck. While that's true, there are also
some much higher quality portable equipment available (though of
course, it'll cost you more than $200). Units like the Grace Design
V3, the Mytek Stereo192, the Benchmark AD2402-96, and the Apogee Mini-
Me (the last two are no longer being produced, but still easy to
purchase on the used market). These are just some examples of pre-
amps and or A/D converters that will far surpass the quality of any
small portable deck on the market today.

In terms of battery life for the PMD-661, with phantom power on, and a
set of 4 NiMH AA batteries, I can get ~5 hours of battery life. when
using the S/PDIF input, or with phantom power turned off, the battery
life is much longer. and of course, an external battery pack can
power the deck for much longer periods of time.

- Jason

[Mike Rivers]

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
> Mike Rivers > wrote:

>> What good does transferring the DAT to a handheld
>> recorder memory card do when the only thing you can do with it then,
>> unless you're just going to put the card on the shelf, is transfer it to
>> a computer?

> It keeps the computer's hard drive free from having to capture tons of data on
> a daily basis.

Well, that's what disk drives are SUPPOSED to do. So are you proposing the
flash memory cards being the media on the shelf? I actually approve of
that except
for a couple of things. One is that we don't know yet how long those
things will
retain their data. Another is that they're so small that you can't write
anything
more than an index number on them. You surely can't write anything about the
contents. Also, there's no really good storage system for those cards
since people
don't usually store them, they just use them as "permanent" removable
media. I
have a couple of cases that look like DVD cases with cutout foam that holds
nine SD cards or six CF cards, but that's about it.

I figure that you're eventually going to put that "tons of data" on your
computer
anyway.

>> The only justification for a digital input on a handheld recorder that
>> I can see is if you want to use an outboard A/D converter that's better
>> than the built-in one, with external mics and preamp of course.
>
> I have the external mics and will eventually buy a preamp. I would like a unit
> that will not limit me to its internal preamp.

Pehaps what you mean is that you don't want to be limited by the
internal A/D
converter. A nobel concept, but they really aren't so bad. There are
more things
limiting the fidelity of the system than an analog connection. You can
connect
a $5,000 mic preamp to a $200 recorder and get better recordings than
you can
using the built-in preamp, but you have to know what you're doing.

I'm not trying to talk you out of anything other than letting your
biases overtake
practicality and the remarkable performance of some of this modern
equipment.

[Orlando Enrique Fiol]

JasonSobel > wrote:
>Yes, typically Doug only does mods on decks bought directly from him.

I'd be happy to do that.

>I would also email Doug directly, as he's very knowledgeable and
>helpful and can answer specific questions (gain ranges after the deck
>has been mod, maximum input levels, etc, etc)

Can you email me privately with Doug's email address?

>I'll also add to the conversation by saying that I also use my PMD-661
>to digitally transfer old DAT recordings. I really like having a
>dedicated deck to use for the transfers to free up my computer during
>that time.

See? I'm not crazy.

>In terms of battery life for the PMD-661, with phantom power on, and a
>set of 4 NiMH AA batteries, I can get ~5 hours of battery life. when
>using the S/PDIF input, or with phantom power turned off, the battery
>life is much longer. and of course, an external battery pack can
>power the deck for much longer periods of time.

How much does the battery life decrease when recording at 24 96?

Thanks,
Orlando

[Mike Rivers]

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
> Mike Rivers > wrote:
>> You might have trouble powering the DPA 4061 with a handheld recorder. Since
>> it's designed primarily to work with a wireless transmitter, you'll need
>> to use an adapter
>> to connect and power it. It requires a minimum of 5V DC power, and most
>> of the handheld recorders offer only "plug-in power" which is around 3V. The
>> Micro Track does have balanced inputs and provides, I think, 30V (though this
> may have been raised to the standard 48V in the MT-2 version) phantom power.
>
> I have a 9-volt box that powers them, which is what I've used for DAT
> recording.
>
>> The DPA 4061 is characterized as a "low sensitivity" mic so you're right
>> to be concerned about preamp gain and noise, unless you're planning to record
> motorcycle races or fire engines.
>
> I doubt those will be coming down my pike any time soon.
>
>> I have a Sony PCM-M10 in here for evaluation now and I'm pleasantly
>> surprised with the gain and fairly low noise of its mic preamps

> But, the Sony uses proprietary memory.

A lot of people think that. It (as well as their other higher priced
models) has
fixed 4 GB memory and a slot for a removable memory card. The earlier
models used the Sony Memory Stick which may be what makes you think
it's proprietary. It isn't. There are several alternate sources to Sony.
But Sony
realized that this perception existed despite all good intentions. The
PCM-M10
external memory slot will accept either a Memory Stick Mini or a Micro
SD card,
a more common format.

> What if you have a friend with an SD
> card full of recordings that you want to download or edit?

Media interchangeability has always been an issue in audio (and lots of
other fields as well). What if you have a friend with a 1/2" analog tape and
you have a DAT? "Download or edit" suggests a computer, not a recorder,
and there are inexpensive USB-connected card readers for every memory
card format. And all of these recorders have a USB port so you can use the
recorder itself as a card reader.

Any kind of data transfer is an inconvenience and time sink. Get used to
it. It's
one of the complications of modern life.

> It's easier to slip
> their SD card into your unit than have them wait around while you transfer
> their data to an internal or external hard drive.

And time is money, right?

>> I've had the PCM-M10 for a bit over a week and haven't exhausted the two
>> AA alkaline batteries in it yet. The manual claims upwards of 24 hours
> recording time (more than 30 if you don't have headphones plugged in) on a set
> of batteries in the 44.1 kHz WAV

> Does that hold true for 24 96 modes?
A bit less at 96 kHz, but still pretty good.

From the manual:

These are the recording times without monitoring and with headphone
monitoring
when using Sony LR6 (SG) (size AA) alkaline batteries:

LPCM 96.00kHz/24bit 28 hr., 19hr.
LPCM 96.00kHz/16bit 28 hr., 19hr.
LPCM 48.00kHz/24bit 39 hr., 23hr.
LPCM 48.00kHz/16bit 39 hr., 24hr.
LPCM 44.10kHz/24bit 41 hr., 24hr.
LPCM 44.10kHz/16bit 46 hr., 24 hr.
LPCM 22.05kHz/16bit 45 hr., 24hr.
MP3 44.10kHz/320kbps 40 hr., 26 hr.
MP3 44.10kHz/128kbps 40 hr., 26 hr.
MP3 44.10kHz/64kbps 43 hr., 26 hr.

[JasonSobel]

On Oct 3, 2:33*pm, Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote:
> >In terms of battery life for the PMD-661, with phantom power on, and a
> >set of 4 NiMH AA batteries, I can get ~5 hours of battery life. *when
> >using the S/PDIF input, or with phantom power turned off, the battery
> >life is much longer. *and of course, an external battery pack can
> >power the deck for much longer periods of time.
>
> How much does the battery life decrease when recording at 24 96?
>
> Thanks,
> Orlando

All of my recording is at 24/96, and my battery life tests were done
at 24/96. Though in my experience, choice of bit depth and sample
rate does not have much impact on battery life.

- Jason

[Mike Rivers]

JasonSobel wrote:

> In an earlier post, Mike Rivers
> mentioned that a $200 external pre/AD probably isn't any better than
> the internal pre-amp on the deck. While that's true, there are also
> some much higher quality portable equipment available (though of
> course, it'll cost you more than $200). Units like the Grace Design
> V3, the Mytek Stereo192, the Benchmark AD2402-96, and the Apogee Mini-
> Me (the last two are no longer being produced, but still easy to
> purchase on the used market).

Sure, you can do that, but then you no longer have a highly portable
recording setup. Also, there's the thing (this bothers me a lot) about
using expensive and high quality outboard eqiupment along with a $200-$400
complete recorder. If you were talking about a Sound Devices recorder, sure
use your Grace V3. I used a Creative Labs Nomad Jukebox 3 as my DAT
replacement for several years, usually using it with a small mixer. But
I just
didn't feel right doing a "pro" job with what was clearly a consumer
recorder.
It never failed me, but I always expected it to.

When I decided to replace the Jukebox with a more modern portable
recorder, I couldn't find one with which I was completely happy. I ended up
buying two, a Zoom H2 to carry in my pocket or guitar case for casual
recordings, and a Korg MR-1000 (I just couldn't justify a Sound Devices
for the volume of work I do) for the "pro" jobs. The Korg has real mic
preamps with real XLRs and real phantom power, and a hard drive so I
don't have to fool with memory cards, runs on batteries if I need it, it's
big enough so it won't slide off the table, it looks "professional" and it
sounds good.

But bear in mind that this was two years ago, and we've gone through
another revolution since then. I wanted the 40 GB hard drive so I could
record a weekend's worth of material without having to manage a handful
of memory cards. At the time a 1 GB card was considered large and was
fairly expensive. Now 8 GB cards are a commodity and 32 GB cards are
available. Also, having used the little Zoom for a couple of years now, I
know what I want to use it for (sound grabbing) and what I don't (concert
recording, particularly when I'm getting paid to do it). Not that it won't
record a concert when fed a good signal, but I just don't feel good about
doing an important job with a $200 plastic recorder that I wouldn't try
to fix if it broke.

[Orlando Enrique Fiol]

Mike Rivers > wrote:
>Well, that's what disk drives are SUPPOSED to do. So are you proposing the
>flash memory cards being the media on the shelf? I actually approve of
>that except for a couple of things. One is that we don't know yet how long
those things will retain their data. Another is that they're so small that you
can't write anything more than an index number on them. You surely can't write
anything about the contents.

I'm not planning to store data permanently on flash cards. I just want to keep
my computer free from having to take in digital transfers in real time.
Transferring files from a flash card on to my hard drive will use up fewer
resources and take less time than recording directly to the computer.

>Perhaps what you mean is that you don't want to be limited by the
>internal A/D converter. A nobel concept, but they really aren't so bad. There
are more things limiting the fidelity of the system than an analog connection.
You can connect a $5,000 mic preamp to a $200 recorder and get better
recordings than you can
>using the built-in preamp, but you have to know what you're doing.

It is unlikely that I will ever be able to afford a $5,000 preamp unless I win
the lottery's. I have to record in the meantime, plain and simple. I want it to
sound as good for my budget as possible. It is ultimately better to get this
music recorded in some form than wait for a $5,000 mic preamp.

>I'm not trying to talk you out of anything other than letting your
>biases overtake
>practicality and the remarkable performance of some of this modern
>equipment.


I have many concerns at play here. Remember that I am totally blind. Not only
does this affect my assessment of any equipment's usability, but I also cannot
pound the pavement to work my ass off and afford $5,000 preamps.

Orlando

[Orlando Enrique Fiol]

Mike Rivers > wrote:
>A lot of people think that. It (as well as their other higher priced
>models) has fixed 4 GB memory and a slot for a removable memory card. The
earlier models used the Sony Memory Stick which may be what makes you think
>it's proprietary. It isn't. There are several alternate sources to Sony.
>But Sony realized that this perception existed despite all good intentions.
The PCM-M10 external memory slot will accept either a Memory Stick Mini or a
Micro SD card,
>a more common format.

I didn't know that. thanks.

>Any kind of data transfer is an inconvenience and time sink. Get used to
>it. It's
>one of the complications of modern life.

No need to be caustic.

>And time is money, right?

With graduate students, time can mean research getting done and papers gettin
written.

Orlando

[Orlando Enrique Fiol]

Mike Rivers > wrote:
>But bear in mind that this was two years ago, and we've gone through
>another revolution since then. I wanted the 40 GB hard drive so I could
>record a weekend's worth of material without having to manage a handful
>of memory cards. At the time a 1 GB card was considered large and was
>fairly expensive. Now 8 GB cards are a commodity and 32 GB cards are
>available. Also, having used the little Zoom for a couple of years now, I
>know what I want to use it for (sound grabbing) and what I don't (concert
>recording, particularly when I'm getting paid to do it). Not that it won't
>record a concert when fed a good signal, but I just don't feel good about
>doing an important job with a $200 plastic recorder that I wouldn't try
>to fix if it broke.

If I receive a multitude of offers to get paid to record on site, I'll buy an
expensive solid state recorder with its own hard drive rather than a flash
memory card, with the best preamps and A to D converters on the market. In the
meantime, music is being made that I must record, analyze and research.

Orlando

[Mike Rivers]

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:

> I'm not planning to store data permanently on flash cards. I just want to keep
> my computer free from having to take in digital transfers in real time.

You're free to make that choice, of course, but I don't understand what
that's
a problem. Is your computer so busy that you can't do this as well as
whatever
else you have to do?

> Transferring files from a flash card on to my hard drive will use up fewer
> resources and take less time than recording directly to the computer.

The only resource is your time. But then you can start the transfer and
go off
to eat dinner or have a cup of tea. That's what multitasking is all about.

> It is unlikely that I will ever be able to afford a $5,000 preamp unless I win
> the lottery's.

Then why are you agonizing over interfacing? Use what you can afford, and
improve it when you can. You CAN connect the analog output of a better mic
preamp to the analog input of a recorder without harm. Really. You can.

> It is ultimately better to get this
> music recorded in some form than wait for a $5,000 mic preamp.

Agreed. That's why these recorders have built-in mics, and external
inputs if you
have better mics for the job than the built-in ones (which apparently
you do).

> I have many concerns at play here. Remember that I am totally blind. Not only
> does this affect my assessment of any equipment's usability, but I also cannot
> pound the pavement to work my ass off and afford $5,000 preamps.

Nor am I suggesting that you need a $5,000 preamp. You need a recorder
that you
can operate without an assistant when you need to record something. They
make
those. You can buy one. And I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but it won't
sound better
at 96 kHz than 44.1 kHz, though 24-bit can be an advantage, particularly
when you
can't see the record level meter and have to judge level by listening
for distortion.
You can be more conservative with 24-bit recording, which is the safe
thing to do.

[Orlando Enrique Fiol]

Mike Rivers > wrote:
>You're free to make that choice, of course, but I don't understand what
>that's a problem. Is your computer so busy that you can't do this as well as
>whatever else you have to do?

For one, I use my soundcard to run software speech that is also very memory and
processor intensive.

>The only resource is your time. But then you can start the transfer and
>go off to eat dinner or have a cup of tea. That's what multitasking is all
about.

Right on!

>Then why are you agonizing over interfacing? Use what you can afford, and
>improve it when you can. You CAN connect the analog output of a better mic
>preamp to the analog input of a recorder without harm. Really. You can.

Why would I want to do that, silly goose? Why would I want an inferior preamp
coloring the sound from an expensive preamp when I could get a clean sound
through a digital input? That makes no sense.

>Agreed. That's why these recorders have built-in mics, and external
>inputs if you have better mics for the job than the built-in ones (which
apparently you do).

I at least have that covered.

>Nor am I suggesting that you need a $5,000 preamp. You need a recorder
>that you can operate without an assistant when you need to record something.
They make those. You can buy one. And I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but it
won't sound better at 96 kHz than 44.1 kHz, though 24-bit can be an advantage,
particularly when you can't see the record level meter and have to judge level
by listening for distortion.
>You can be more conservative with 24-bit recording, which is the safe
>thing to do.

Either way I record, I'll ultimately dither and downsample my recordings to 16
bit 44.1K using DBPoweramp to convert the enormous wave files to mp3. I'll do
all my editing and processing on the original files before conversion.

Orlando

[Arny Krueger]

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message

> Good idea.

>> What good does transferring the DAT to a handheld
>> recorder memory card do when the only thing you can do
>> with it then,
>> unless you're just going to put the card on the shelf,
>> is transfer it to
>> a computer?

> It keeps the computer's hard drive free from having to
> capture tons of data on a daily basis.

That's what computer hard drives are designed to do - capture tons of data
on a daily basis.

Protect a computer's hard drive free from having to capture tons of data on
a daily basis is like protecting a glass of water from having to be drunk.
;-)

[Orlando Enrique Fiol]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>That's what computer hard drives are designed to do - capture tons of data
>on a daily basis.
>Protect a computer's hard drive free from having to capture tons of data on
>a daily basis is like protecting a glass of water from having to be drunk.

Did you not read the bit about me using software speech and an OCR program that
are very memory and processor intensive? Why does it bother you and others so
much that I'd rather not go directly from my DAT to my computer?

Orlando

[Arny Krueger]

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger > wrote:

>> That's what computer hard drives are designed to do -
>> capture tons of data on a daily basis.


>> Protect a computer's hard drive free from having to
>> capture tons of data on a daily basis is like protecting
>> a glass of water from having to be drunk.

> Did you not read the bit about me using software speech
> and an OCR program that are very memory and processor
> intensive?

So you do OCR and speech recognition while you are recording audio?

???????????????

Or is the software just installed, and you sensibly don't use it while
recording?

If its just installed and you don't use it while recording, then where's the
beef?

Besides, digitizing a stereo digital input is hardly stressful for a modern
computer, even if it is multitasking.

> Why does it bother you and others so much that
> I'd rather not go directly from my DAT to my computer?

It doesn't bother me at all that you don't use a good resource for what it
is designed for. It's your money, your time.

[Scott Dorsey]

Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote:
>Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>That's what computer hard drives are designed to do - capture tons of data
>>on a daily basis.
>>Protect a computer's hard drive free from having to capture tons of data on
>>a daily basis is like protecting a glass of water from having to be drunk.
>
>Did you not read the bit about me using software speech and an OCR program that
>are very memory and processor intensive? Why does it bother you and others so
>much that I'd rather not go directly from my DAT to my computer?

Because it's outrageously more convenient to do so.

You might consider a standalone CD-R recorder instead, which will free your
computer up. You can then load the CD-Rs in faster than realtime should you
need them.
--scott

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

[Richard Crowley]

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote:
>> You're free to make that choice, of course, but I don't understand
>> what that's a problem. Is your computer so busy that you can't do
>> this as well as whatever else you have to do?
>
> For one, I use my soundcard to run software speech that is also very
> memory and processor intensive.

At the same time? Why? Perhaps if you explained the whole
picture here we would understand your real question and you
won't have to call us juvenile names.

[Orlando Enrique Fiol]

Richard Crowley > wrote:
>At the same time? Why? Perhaps if you explained the whole
>picture here we would understand your real question and you
>won't have to call us juvenile names.

If I disable my screen reader and software speech during DAT transfers, my
computer becomes useless to me. It would be like a sighted person trying to use
a computer without a monitor.

Orlando

[Mike Rivers]

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:

>> You CAN connect the analog output of a better mic
>> preamp to the analog input of a recorder without harm. Really. You can.

> Why would I want to do that, silly goose? Why would I want an inferior preamp
> coloring the sound from an expensive preamp when I could get a clean sound
> through a digital input? That makes no sense.

Well, for one thing, the "inferior" mic preamp doesn't color the sound
of the better
one. Most of the coloration of a preamp comes from the interface between
the mic and
the preamp, not from inside the preamp itself. If you connect the line
output of a lovely
preamp to the line input of a reasonable recorder, it will still sound
like a lovely preamp.

Don't knock it if you haven't tried it. But if you can get what you want
for the price you
can afford, go for it. I'm just trying to explain that there are
alternatives out there.

> Either way I record, I'll ultimately dither and downsample my recordings to 16
> bit 44.1K using DBPoweramp to convert the enormous wave files to mp3.

Then just do it. Anything you gain with a better preamp or A/D converter
will go byebye
when you expoert it as an MP3. And worse!

[Mike Rivers]

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:

> If I disable my screen reader and software speech during DAT transfers, my
> computer becomes useless to me. It would be like a sighted person trying to use
> a computer without a monitor.

Does it really? There are a lot of blind folks using screen reading
software along
with DAW programs.

Of course you could get a more powerful computer, or just do something
that doesn't
require your computer while the audio is transferring from your DAT. Or
you could
give your DAT to a friend and ask him to make WAV files for you.

[Mike Rivers]

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:

> Did you not read the bit about me using software speech and an OCR program that
> are very memory and processor intensive?

Yes. So just what CAN you do with your computer when you have your
speech and OCR
software running? If it can't run a simple stereo audio recording
program as well, then it
probably can't do much else but talk to you. Now what you might have
trouble learning is
how to operate a computer-based recording program, but blind people do it.

> Why does it bother you and others so
> much that I'd rather not go directly from my DAT to my computer?

What bothers us, or at least me, is that everything that you want in a
portable recorder isn't
available in a single unit, at least not at a rational price. My
experience is that they all have
some features that I want, some features that I don't want, and some
features that really want
but I can't get and have to find an alternative approach. Going from DAT
to the computer is
one alternate approach, and a straightforward one, for most of us. Your
disability may make
that difficult enough that you'd rather look for yet a nother alternative.

One thing that might help us understand your whole picture more is if we
knew what you
were going to do with the recordings that you make. Not what like you're
going to make
CDs and sell them, but are you going to eventually going to work on them
with a computer?
Or do you have plans that avoid computer work entirely?

[Orlando Enrique Fiol]

Mike Rivers > wrote:
>One thing that might help us understand your whole picture more is if we
>knew what you were going to do with the recordings that you make. Not what
like you're going to make
>CDs and sell them, but are you going to eventually work on them
>with a computer?
>Or do you have plans that avoid computer work entirely?

I'll do some signal processing and editing in Sound Forge after getting them on
to the computer. If my idea of first transferring DATs to a portable recorder's
SD card and then to a computer ultimately turns out to be more trouble than
it's worth, I'll still value a digital input on a portable recorder for those
times when I want to bypass its internal preamp with a digital signal.

Orlando

[Mike Rivers]

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:

> I'll do some signal processing and editing in Sound Forge after getting them on
> to the computer.

Can you do this with your speech software running? If so, there's no
reason why
you can't record with your speech software running. I think you may
rightfully be
concerned that, because of some unexpected load on your computer while
recording
audio in the background might cause a momentary glitch, but you won't
really know
that until you test it, and you SHOULD always test your system to
determine what
works and what doesn't.

> I'll still value a digital input on a portable recorder for those
> times when I want to bypass its internal preamp with a digital signal.

There's nothing wrong with that, but understand these two things:

1. You're not using the internal preamp in the same way when using the
analog
line level input on the recorder as when you're connecting a mic to the
mic input.

2. When you go into the digital input, you're not just bypassing the
recorder's analog
circuitry, you're bypassing its A/D converter and substituting whatever
one you
provide, either built into a preamp or a separate box. That means it's
up to you to
choose an A/D converter that's better than what's built into the
recorder. Clearly
that's possible, but it's not so clear as to how much difference it
would make in the
final product. It all depends on what you're recording, and that's
something that you'll
only discover with much more experience.