Tech: Field Recording

Subject: RE: Tech: Field Recording
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 10:36 AM

Having already owned Zoom H1 and H2n..

I'll actually seriously recommend Olympus LS-14 [LS-12 is cheaper - but less memory]

High quality audio recordings comparable with Zoom, but a very simple easy user interface,
designed for non tech-geek musicians to get good fast results.

Occasionally selling on very reduced price offer on Amazon.

Olympus LS-14

Subject: RE: Tech: Field Recording
From: Will Fly
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 10:20 AM

Bonzo's mention of minidiscs reminds me that I have two Sony Discman recorders - one of them the original model - plus a Sony condenser mic somewhere. They gave excellent quality recording results - must get them out again and try them!

Subject: RE: Tech: Field Recording
From: Tootler
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 10:02 AM

I bought an Edirol R09 not long after they came out and it was expensive back in those days but an excellent device which I still use if I need to make a quick recording. They're discontinued now and if I was after replacing it, I would probably get a Tascam DR05. I use a Tascam DP006 multi track recorder for You Tube videos (with a video cam running in parallel or simply add stills in a video,editor to make a slide show). The DP006 is really just a digital version of their portastudio, 4 track; 2 mono, 2 stereo and is an excellent device.

At our choir's summer concert on Friday, I noticed that an audience member was recording with his phone - so if you just need "quick and dirty", your phone will do the job.

I use Audacity to edit recordings I make. Free download on all platforms; Windows, Mac & Linux with a good range of effects and with a reasonably shallow learning curve. Excellent software.

Subject: RE: Tech: Field Recording
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 09:32 AM

I find the most versatile and comprehensive sound editing software to be Adobe Audition - a little like Photoshop in that you can use the basics or enter the learning curve and add to your skills and knowledge as you see fit.
I've tried several versions but find myself returning to one of the very earliest - 1.5 - more than adequate for my needs as it is capable of editing to the microsecond
I've never checked but have been told that Adobe have more or less given up the ghost with sound editing and are allowing free downloads of earlier versions - a must, if that's the case.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Tech: Field Recording
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 09:14 AM

When we started our field recording sessions for the Yorkshire Garland Project in about 2006 we were recommended Edirol 9s so we purchased 3 at about £300 apiece and they have served us well. A wide variety of settings/levels for wav and MP3, easy to use with a little trial with handbook, Battery/mains, built in mike and mike port for more directional use. Small & compact. Usual ports to transfer to other media.

Subject: RE: Tech: Field Recording
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 08:51 AM

I'd agree on the Zoom H2, with a large SD card.
Audacity is the best free sound editing software.
Joe

Subject: RE: Tech: Field Recording
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 07:38 AM

I use a Tascam DR-05, which cost me £75 2 years ago, together with "bonzofessional" mics! These are nothing more than tiny Electret Mic Capsules bought from ebay - 20 for just under £3, which are wired to stereo airline headphone/earphone cable. I have these taped either through shirt collar button holes, or through holes in my camera bag. So total stealth if required and a nice stereo spread.

You would need a power source if this is not already provided in the recorder.

The DR-05 has a USB port allowing fast transfer to a PC.

Another option is a now discontinued Hi-MD minidisc which may be procured quite cheaply now.

Subject: RE: Tech: Field Recording
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 07:07 AM

Excellent!

Thanks for your replies . . . . and, the H2N looks affordable too!

Cheers,
Harry

Subject: RE: Tech: Field Recording
From: Will Fly
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 06:50 AM

Zoom H2 has been my recorder of choice (an earlier version of the H2n) for many years. In fact I have two.

Mine came with a screw-on handle for a mic stand fixing (or hand holding), and a little screw-on foot. I have a mini-tripod which is great for table-top recording.

Highly recommended. And, yes, buy a large card...

Subject: RE: Tech: Field Recording
From: GUEST,Eddie (Cookie lost forever)
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 06:41 AM

Just seen Jim's comments. Agree with the handle and the sound card!
Eddie

Subject: RE: Tech: Field Recording
From: GUEST,Eddie (Cookie lost forever)
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 06:39 AM

Hi Harry.
I use a Zoom H2N, primarily for radio interviews. It can be set to record in various formats and has several microphone configurations. My norm is to record and save as MP3 because the studio has cd players which also allow MP3 playback from a usb stick. I record using a 4-mike configuration, 2 on each side. On saving, it produces 2 stereo files which allows for volume adjustment between the 2 channels before merging for further editing. Files are saved automatically on switching off!
You can edit in the machine but the screen is very small and I find it much easier to use an editing programme. My usual is Adobe Edition although one can download Audacity for free.
There are other recorders but this does exactly what I want, very simply.
Hope this helps.
Eddie

Subject: RE: Tech: Field Recording
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 06:31 AM

Forgot to mention - you'll probably also need a larger capacity sound card
The one that comes with it is woefully inadequate - for my purposes anyway
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Tech: Field Recording
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 06:28 AM

Having used a reel-to-reel machine for forty years, after a great deal of research and advice seeking, bought a Zoom H2n 'Handy Recorder'
I've yet to test it fully, but it seems to suit me - especially its excellent recording quality, ridiculously small size and the fact that it is a microphone that records rather than a machine that needs a microphone
For my own purposes, I bought an extra kit - basically a stand, a handle and a mains unit.
Like all modern technology it needs getting used to before you use it seriously, but that's the case with all recording devices.
Pesonally, I miss the sense of satisfaction of seeing the reels go around, and I prefer the ambient quality of non-digital sound, but a half decent sound editing and choice of external microphone can correct that, if necessary
Good luck, and will be very interested in what you decide and how it turns out
Jim Carroll

Subject: Tech: Field Recording
From: Harry Rivers
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 04:50 AM

Can anyone recommend a decent, portable digital recorder for making field recordings?

It seems to me that the market place has a bewildering array on offer.

Ideally, as I'm too old to learn the multiple skills of a recording engineer, what I'd like is a small, simple-to-use device that could be placed on a table and, with one click, record what tunes are being played in a quality that will make them listenable and worth saving for posterity.

I know these things can be expensive but, although cost IS an issue for me, I'd be happy to pay as much as it takes to ensure the recording quality is high enough to make them worth preserving.

I am happy to buy secondhand.

As a secondary consideration: in which format(s) would mudcatters suggest recordings be preserved? Presumably, if the quality of the original is high enough, it should be a loss-less format?

Will an mp3 file be generally playable in 5; 10; 20 years time?

All advice and thoughts gratefully received,

Harry