In article writes:

And no digital in, so you're stuck with the onboard analog electronics & ADC.

That's acceptable, if it's acceptable. The analog electronics of the
Jukebox 3 don't sound bad enough not to use (in fact it sounds better
than the TASCAM portable DAT that it replaced) but I worry about that
input jack every time.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

I design and build,for CBC Radio, minidisk mounting plates---a small
metal plate (with XLR-F and DC blocking cap on a linking cable) is glued
to the back of the recorder. The input jack is then safe from stress....

------------

Mike Rivers wrote:

In article writes:


And no digital in, so you're stuck with the onboard analog electronics & ADC.


That's acceptable, if it's acceptable. The analog electronics of the
Jukebox 3 don't sound bad enough not to use (in fact it sounds better
than the TASCAM portable DAT that it replaced) but I worry about that
input jack every time.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

I design and build,for CBC Radio, minidisk mounting plates---a small
metal plate (with XLR-F and DC blocking cap on a linking cable) is glued
to the back of the recorder. The input jack is then safe from stress....

------------

Mike Rivers wrote:

In article writes:


And no digital in, so you're stuck with the onboard analog electronics & ADC.


That's acceptable, if it's acceptable. The analog electronics of the
Jukebox 3 don't sound bad enough not to use (in fact it sounds better
than the TASCAM portable DAT that it replaced) but I worry about that
input jack every time.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

Haven't seen any specs on it yet so we dunno.

Oh, you've seen the specs. They're just like specs for any other of
this sort of device - lots of features, no numbers other than
recording times. What we don't know yet is how good it sounds.

The 60 dB S/N for the mic input quoted on the Marantz recorder that
someone mentioned in this thread is consistent with their portable CD
recorder, which surprised me. In practice, is this as bad as it sounds
like it would be? That's on par with barefoot (no noise reduction)
analog tape which many people today consider too noisy.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

Haven't seen any specs on it yet so we dunno.

Oh, you've seen the specs. They're just like specs for any other of
this sort of device - lots of features, no numbers other than
recording times. What we don't know yet is how good it sounds.

The 60 dB S/N for the mic input quoted on the Marantz recorder that
someone mentioned in this thread is consistent with their portable CD
recorder, which surprised me. In practice, is this as bad as it sounds
like it would be? That's on par with barefoot (no noise reduction)
analog tape which many people today consider too noisy.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1102077971k@trad
In article
writes:

Haven't seen any specs on it yet so we dunno.

Oh, you've seen the specs. They're just like specs for any other of
this sort of device - lots of features, no numbers other than
recording times. What we don't know yet is how good it sounds.

The 60 dB S/N for the mic input quoted on the Marantz recorder that
someone mentioned in this thread is consistent with their portable CD
recorder, which surprised me. In practice, is this as bad as it sounds
like it would be? That's on par with barefoot (no noise reduction)
analog tape which many people today consider too noisy.

Actually, http://www.d-mpro.com/users/getdownl...DownloadID=193 says
65 dB. IME 5 dB at this point could make an audible difference.

IME, 65 dB is in the same range of the kinds of SNRs you get with live
recording unless you can make things really pristine.

The actual SNR could be dependent on gain settings, etc.

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1102077971k@trad
In article
writes:

Haven't seen any specs on it yet so we dunno.

Oh, you've seen the specs. They're just like specs for any other of
this sort of device - lots of features, no numbers other than
recording times. What we don't know yet is how good it sounds.

The 60 dB S/N for the mic input quoted on the Marantz recorder that
someone mentioned in this thread is consistent with their portable CD
recorder, which surprised me. In practice, is this as bad as it sounds
like it would be? That's on par with barefoot (no noise reduction)
analog tape which many people today consider too noisy.

Actually, http://www.d-mpro.com/users/getdownl...DownloadID=193 says
65 dB. IME 5 dB at this point could make an audible difference.

IME, 65 dB is in the same range of the kinds of SNRs you get with live
recording unless you can make things really pristine.

The actual SNR could be dependent on gain settings, etc.

Oh, you've seen the specs. They're just like specs for any other of
this sort of device - lots of features, no numbers other than
recording times. What we don't know yet is how good it sounds. The 60 dB S/N
for the mic input quoted on the Marantz recorder that
someone mentioned in this thread is consistent with their portable CD
recorder, which surprised me. In practice, is this as bad as it sounds
like it would be? That's on par with barefoot (no noise reduction)
analog tape which many people today consider too noisy.

Too noisy for me, especially since I'd primarily want a portable device like
this for recording really quiet nature sounds, distant birds, etc. I've yet to
find any that weren't too noisy for this sort of thing, although there are a
bunch of newer devices I have yet to hear. Since the analog input electronics
have been the noisiest part of the portable DATs I've used, I was hoping the
Edirol would have a digital in so that stuff could be bypassed with something
better. Oh well, maybe the next generation Edirol.

Scott Fraser

Oh, you've seen the specs. They're just like specs for any other of
this sort of device - lots of features, no numbers other than
recording times. What we don't know yet is how good it sounds. The 60 dB S/N
for the mic input quoted on the Marantz recorder that
someone mentioned in this thread is consistent with their portable CD
recorder, which surprised me. In practice, is this as bad as it sounds
like it would be? That's on par with barefoot (no noise reduction)
analog tape which many people today consider too noisy.

Too noisy for me, especially since I'd primarily want a portable device like
this for recording really quiet nature sounds, distant birds, etc. I've yet to
find any that weren't too noisy for this sort of thing, although there are a
bunch of newer devices I have yet to hear. Since the analog input electronics
have been the noisiest part of the portable DATs I've used, I was hoping the
Edirol would have a digital in so that stuff could be bypassed with something
better. Oh well, maybe the next generation Edirol.

Scott Fraser

In article writes:


I design and build,for CBC Radio, minidisk mounting plates---a small
metal plate (with XLR-F and DC blocking cap on a linking cable) is glued
to the back of the recorder. The input jack is then safe from stress....

A few years ago, PMI (the Studio Projects / Joemeek people) were
selling a couple of variations on a mounting rig for a minidisk or a
Walkman DAT that provided XLR mic inputs (though I don't think phantom
power), RCA line output jacks (ho hum, but not a big deal) and a
larger battery pack. It all made for a nice carrying rig, but at about
double the area of the original unit, which was still not bad. The
recorder was attached with Velcro so it could be removed easily. But
they didn't sell enough of them and are no longer selling them. I
don't remember who the original manufacturer was.

I once made a board with Velcro to attach the recorder and Velcro
straps to secure the cables, but it was just too much trouble and
didn't look very professional. I'm waiting for them to build the
machine that enough of us want to warrant it. The Edirol R-4 would be
ideal for me if it was two channels rather than four, but when it
becomes available, I'll investigate it and see how it does, with
particular consideration to the media. I can live with 2 extra
channels. It isn't that much bigger because of it.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:


I design and build,for CBC Radio, minidisk mounting plates---a small
metal plate (with XLR-F and DC blocking cap on a linking cable) is glued
to the back of the recorder. The input jack is then safe from stress....

A few years ago, PMI (the Studio Projects / Joemeek people) were
selling a couple of variations on a mounting rig for a minidisk or a
Walkman DAT that provided XLR mic inputs (though I don't think phantom
power), RCA line output jacks (ho hum, but not a big deal) and a
larger battery pack. It all made for a nice carrying rig, but at about
double the area of the original unit, which was still not bad. The
recorder was attached with Velcro so it could be removed easily. But
they didn't sell enough of them and are no longer selling them. I
don't remember who the original manufacturer was.

I once made a board with Velcro to attach the recorder and Velcro
straps to secure the cables, but it was just too much trouble and
didn't look very professional. I'm waiting for them to build the
machine that enough of us want to warrant it. The Edirol R-4 would be
ideal for me if it was two channels rather than four, but when it
becomes available, I'll investigate it and see how it does, with
particular consideration to the media. I can live with 2 extra
channels. It isn't that much bigger because of it.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

IME, 65 dB is in the same range of the kinds of SNRs you get with live
recording unless you can make things really pristine.

Except that it leaves you no headroom.

I typically record with known peaks about -12 dBFS. That only leaves 53 dB
to the quietest signal, not always below the noise floor of the room.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

IME, 65 dB is in the same range of the kinds of SNRs you get with live
recording unless you can make things really pristine.

Except that it leaves you no headroom.

I typically record with known peaks about -12 dBFS. That only leaves 53 dB
to the quietest signal, not always below the noise floor of the room.

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:znr1102087755k@trad...
In article writes:


I design and build,for CBC Radio, minidisk mounting plates---a small
metal plate (with XLR-F and DC blocking cap on a linking cable) is glued
to the back of the recorder. The input jack is then safe from stress....

A few years ago, PMI (the Studio Projects / Joemeek people) were
selling a couple of variations on a mounting rig for a minidisk or a
Walkman DAT that provided XLR mic inputs (though I don't think phantom
power), RCA line output jacks (ho hum, but not a big deal) and a
larger battery pack. It all made for a nice carrying rig, but at about
double the area of the original unit, which was still not bad. The
recorder was attached with Velcro so it could be removed easily. But
they didn't sell enough of them and are no longer selling them. I
don't remember who the original manufacturer was.

Pass Audio (UK, no relation to Nelson.)

There was also a Jr. version without the mounting cutout and variable gain controls.

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:znr1102087755k@trad...
In article writes:


I design and build,for CBC Radio, minidisk mounting plates---a small
metal plate (with XLR-F and DC blocking cap on a linking cable) is glued
to the back of the recorder. The input jack is then safe from stress....

A few years ago, PMI (the Studio Projects / Joemeek people) were
selling a couple of variations on a mounting rig for a minidisk or a
Walkman DAT that provided XLR mic inputs (though I don't think phantom
power), RCA line output jacks (ho hum, but not a big deal) and a
larger battery pack. It all made for a nice carrying rig, but at about
double the area of the original unit, which was still not bad. The
recorder was attached with Velcro so it could be removed easily. But
they didn't sell enough of them and are no longer selling them. I
don't remember who the original manufacturer was.

Pass Audio (UK, no relation to Nelson.)

There was also a Jr. version without the mounting cutout and variable gain controls.

"Carey Carlan" wrote in message
. 191
"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

IME, 65 dB is in the same range of the kinds of SNRs you get with
live recording unless you can make things really pristine.

Except that it leaves you no headroom.

I typically record with known peaks about -12 dBFS. That only leaves
53 dB to the quietest signal, not always below the noise floor of the
room.

Good point.

"Carey Carlan" wrote in message
. 191
"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

IME, 65 dB is in the same range of the kinds of SNRs you get with
live recording unless you can make things really pristine.

Except that it leaves you no headroom.

I typically record with known peaks about -12 dBFS. That only leaves
53 dB to the quietest signal, not always below the noise floor of the
room.

Good point.