Tech: Field Recording

Subject: RE: Tech: Field Recording
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 09:00 AM

ok.. I found it..

CORRECTION:

The Saranmonic Smartrig also provides 48v phantom power, so choice of mics is virtually unlimited...

Subject: RE: Tech: Field Recording
From: treewind
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 12:45 PM

"Sox, with Bash scripts for fancier editing and scaling"

Hurrah! That's my sort of computing :-)

Subject: RE: Tech: Field Recording
From: Harry Rivers
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 03:27 AM

Thanks, everyone, for your replies.

I have opted for the Zoom H2n - £140 on the "big river" site including accessory kit - and it should be delivered today.

I already have Audacity so I'll use that for editing but all comments have been noted and I'll make improvements where they're needed.

I'm planning on testing it tomorrow night (Thursday) at a small practice session I attend before taking it out to record the locals.

I'll report back with my impressions.

This was never a bootlegging venture and permissions will always be sought.


Kind regards,
Harry


P.S. This is my second attempt to reply but my first one disappeared. Apologies if it re-appears and there is duplication.

Subject: RE: Tech: Field Recording
From: DaveRo
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 03:52 AM

Harry Rivers wrote: Will an mp3 file be generally playable in 5; 10; 20 years time?

Almost certainly. It's much more likely you'll have lost the files, or cannot access whatever device you put them on, than that the mp3 format will not be decodable. mp3 is a proprietary format but its patents have now all expired. So there is negligible risk of somebody buying a patent and preventing people writing free software to access it. But it illustrates how old mp3 is - there are subjectively and objectively better formats.

If you're going to edit the recording it makes sense to take it off the recorder in uncompressed form - i.e. WAV. Otherwise you'll be uncompressing it, editing it, and re-compressing it again. Depends on having enough storage though.

And with storage much cheaper than it was when I started recording my vinyl onto mp3s, it's worth considering FLAC - which is an open (i.e. non-proprietary) format.

Harry Rivers wrote: This is my second attempt to reply but my first one disappeared.

My browser_tools might help there: it will recover a lost post - you don't have to use any other feature.

Subject: RE: Tech: Field Recording
From: Mr Red
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 06:14 AM

certainly record in WAV, unless you aim to have millions of files.
I prefer to remove the SD card and transfer to HDD. But a warning - transfer & replace as a habit. Every time. Or you will arrive without storage and won't be able to work out why it records and switches off willy-nilly. Have spare SD cards in case you forget (or fill the card). I think 32 Gb is possible. Get more than one!

The last time I had brainfade and left the card at home, I had two camers with SD cards with me, but not the spare cards. Sony do stupid things with the card so it won't work in the Zoom without re-formatting, and I forgot the Samsung camera was with me. However, I routinely record with two devices (and a third- the wrist recorder). So I had a very acceptable recording from the Galaxy miniS3. I tried to keep my arm still but............ if it was the only recorder I would have.

Oh & remember which way the recorder is pointing. In shotgun mode it is important, because of the spacial response, it is so good. One day I swamped the recording and the interviewee is barely discernable! Doh!

Table cloth &/or towel is a good wheeze.

Subject: RE: Tech: Field Recording
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 08:33 AM

Mp3 was only ever a transitory format developed to cope and make most of the at the time expensive low capacity drive storage,
and slow dial up internet.

It's time is long gone now, and mp3 should be allowed to die off and be forgotten.

... oh yes of course...imho... 😜

Subject: RE: Tech: Field Recording
From: Mr Red
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 10:26 AM

Vinyl is making a come-back in certain quarters. (don't get me started on aural habituation and the propensity for delusion).

reports of the death of MP3 are (will be) much exaggerated. No matter what is better, installed base and available software create de facto standards. Inertia is a powerful thing.

Only something like better access to "whatever sound" you seek will supplant MP3 - and even then it will be hidden in the system. If they can snap their fingers and conjure up the sound clip they want out of thin air will any given format matter - the system will deal with whatever, however, it is archived. Or it will not be visible! Predicting the future is a game, an entertainment but not a science. But it will give us more for less effort IMNSHO.

Until then - its MP3 all the way down.

Subject: RE: Tech: Field Recording
From: DaveRo
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 11:35 AM

There was once an 'improved' version of MP3 called MP3Pro which included something called 'spectral band replication - SBR' (don't ask!). Ages ago I spent some time getting an MP3Pro decoder to work because there was an online radio station called Whole Wheat Radio which used it.

The key line in the MP3Pro_wikipedia_entry is

Thomson Multimedia licensed the technology and used it to extend the MP3 format, for which they held patents, hoping to also extend its profitable lifetime.

SBR is used in AAC, a more modern and 'better' compression method (which is also proprietary - and whose patents have not yet expired). AAC is favoured by Apple. M4A files usually contain AAC-compressed audio.

Non-proprietary formats are good if you want to be able to access your recordings in the future. So you'd think I'd have digitised my vinyl into the open, free, ogg-vorbis format. But I didn't because most of my portable devices couldn't play it.

Not all MP3 encoders will be equally good. You're likely to get better results, and have more choice of output quality, from an encoder on a computer such as LAME than one in a small device.

Subject: RE: Tech: Field Recording
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 12:01 PM

...again.. imho... and I'll use the 'should' word..

We can now take it as given that near 'Pro' level recording gear has never been more easily accessible and affordable.

Any folks like us involved in music creation and performance, players or audience members, who want to record music for posterity;
should strive for best possible audio quality.

At least lossless non compressed CD quality wav 16-bit 44.1Khz.

Ok.. our own ears might be so old and knackered we can't hear any difference.
But if anything we record is of any future value to anyone else,
for instance - field recording / social history archives,
we owe it to them to provide good lossless source audio material they can make best use of...

Subject: RE: Tech: Field Recording
From: Mr Red
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 03:29 PM

I come back to my mantra

zero recording has zero quality.

Get it recorded. Prat around with formats all you want, the future will value any document, over zilch, they value social history more. They will moan about quality, maybe, but wail about lost opportunities. Go for WAV - but unless you up the sampling rate you won't notice the differences.
The problem is all in the high frequencies and the Nyquist frequency (think 1/2 sampling rate), as frequencies approach it they suffer progressively. And those frequencies are small in volume so receive greater quantizing errors (rounding). Go for greater sample size. Storage will increase but it gets cheaper.

Trust me I am a member of several history socs, and in the business of grabbing the moment before the momentees snuff it.
Field recordings are not pristine, ambience is what you get, and that ain't nothing to do with quality. Its the information contained therein that has value.

Subject: RE: Tech: Field Recording
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 03:57 PM

errr... yes .. agreeish.... to some of that..

But it don't do any harm to make an effort to be prepared to record as best quality as feasible..

Better audio standards are fractionally more work to aim for and achieve that distorted muffled excrutiating to listen recordings

Trust me.. I used to train volunteers to record for social history audio visual projects..

There are fewer excuses these days for crap recordings...

Subject: RE: Tech: Field Recording
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 04:57 PM

oops... "Better audio standards are fractionally more work to aim for and achieve than distorted muffled excruciating to listen to recordings"

Subject: RE: Tech: Field Recording
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 06:09 PM

"Let the Hammer Down means to do the best you can with what you have, and do it with your maximum effort." Jerry Clower

OP: Both the Zoom & the Tascam products will have 80% more features than you will ever use on a regular basis (same as Audacity; your mobile phone &c.) Hard to go wrong with the Zoom. Happy recording.

The recording device is just a tool. The media only the material. It's no use comparing notes on "hammer" & "wood" for a violin and a tent peg.

Recording live "on location" is not the same as "field recording" and most of both are done by appointment, schedule or prior intent of some kind. Let the hammer down no matter the five Ws.

Subject: RE: Tech: Field Recording
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 06:11 PM

Case in point - Lyr/Tune Req: Oh Happy Day (Hawkins)

Oh Happy Day -The Edwin Hawkins Singers

A little rough around the edges… sure, but priceless in terms of American pop-gospel.

OP's Zoom would blow the Century Dimension 70 kit's doors off.