Okay for my first field recording rig, it's come down to two choices:

MK012's Denecke PS2 Denecke AD-20 NJB3

OR

R1, PMD660 or Microtrack2496 with MK012's

My main concern is overall sound quality. I'd like to get the best
possible sound with the least noise. Intuition would say that the first
setup, with more dedicated (and more expensive) components would sound
the best, and would be capable of doing broadcast quality recordings.

But would all these seperate components and cables actually increase the
overall noise compared to the dedicated CF recorders? Also, would the
added headroom of 24/96 recordings actually make for a better S/N ratio?
If you had the choice, which would you choose? Thanks a ton!

Jonny Durango

Jonny Durango wrote:
Okay for my first field recording rig, it's come down to two choices:

MK012's Denecke PS2 Denecke AD-20 NJB3

OR

R1, PMD660 or Microtrack2496 with MK012's

My main concern is overall sound quality. I'd like to get the best
possible sound with the least noise. Intuition would say that the first
setup, with more dedicated (and more expensive) components would sound
the best, and would be capable of doing broadcast quality recordings.

I have never even heard of the Microtrack 2496, and I have never used the
PMD660. But I was not all that impressed with the AD-20.... the mike
preamps could have been a lot better, and the gain controls were very
fiddly and difficult to match.

But would all these seperate components and cables actually increase the
overall noise compared to the dedicated CF recorders? Also, would the
added headroom of 24/96 recordings actually make for a better S/N ratio?
If you had the choice, which would you choose? Thanks a ton!

If it were my choice, I'd spend all my money on the best possible microphones
and borrow a cheap DAT deck like the old DA P-20 until I could get better.

The converters in the DA P-20 stink for the most part and the mike preamps
are just godawful. But listen to the stuff I made on them for the RAP CD set.
Money spent on mikes will buy you more than on anything else, I think.
--scott

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

Jonny Durango wrote:
Okay for my first field recording rig, it's come down to two choices:

MK012's Denecke PS2 Denecke AD-20 NJB3

OR

R1, PMD660 or Microtrack2496 with MK012's

My main concern is overall sound quality. I'd like to get the best
possible sound with the least noise. Intuition would say that the first
setup, with more dedicated (and more expensive) components would sound
the best, and would be capable of doing broadcast quality recordings.

But would all these seperate components and cables actually increase the
overall noise compared to the dedicated CF recorders?

Only if the cables and connectors are poor. One can argue that the
20-bit output of the Denecke InBox will be truncated to 16 bits at the
input of the Jukebox, but given that you're using this for live
recordings, a lot of technological sins can be forgiven because of all
the other crap you'll have coming in to the input that's beyond your
control. The worst thing about the Jukebox is the input connector. I
don't have any experience actually using the optical input other than
to try it once to verify that it works, but I always say a few extra
prayers when using the analog input with its mini phone jack. Your
other choices (except the Edirol R1) have more robust input connectors.

Also, would the
added headroom of 24/96 recordings actually make for a better S/N ratio?

In theory, yes, but you don't need it because you can't use it. Your
ambient noise will be well above the noise floor of a 16-bit recording.
What it does allow (at the expense of faster media burn rate) is for
you to record at a lower level, which will give you a better chance of
not having any overloads due to unexpected peaks. But it also means
that you'll probalby want to boost the level in playback (and
"mastering") and you'll have to get over any fear you may have about
that.

Of course nobody has heard a Microtrack yet because it's not on the
market yet.

If you had the choice, which would you choose? Thanks a ton!

For what it's worth, I've been using a Jukebox 3 for a couple of years
and it's never let me down yet. I wouldn't hesitatate, on the basis of
audio quality, to broadcast any of my recordings with it. I would, on
the other hand, hesitate to broadcast most of my recordings with it
based on performance and content. Welcome to the world of live
recording.

"Jonny Durango"
wrote in message

Okay for my first field recording rig, it's come down to
two choices:

Please refresh my memory, exactly what do you mean by field
recording?

Is it more like recording live concerts?

Or is it more like recording bird calls in a farmer's field?

Scott Dorsey wrote:

snip

Money spent on mikes will buy you more than on anything else, I think.

The possible exception is music education.

--
================================================== ======================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at comcast dot net | - The Who, Bargain

gracias amigo

Scott Dorsey wrote:
I have never even heard of the Microtrack 2496

http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_u...2496-main.html

On paper, it looks like a dream come true for budget tapers. But it's
anyone's guess what it sounds like until it's released in September.


If it were my choice, I'd spend all my money on the best possible microphones
and borrow a cheap DAT deck like the old DA P-20 until I could get better.


Thanks for the advice....it's well regarded. I think my next mic will be
the AT4060 and/or MKH 60.

Jonny Durango