This was an exchange from a list focused on moving image archive
concerns. i thought some people here might be interested in the info
that came up.
————————————–
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:03:21 -0400
Subject: Field Recording Equipment
Hello all,
This is not my area of expertise, so I thought I'd toss this question
out to the collective brain:
Are there models or brands that are better than others as far as
recording equipment for fieldwork / recording oral histories? The
recordings would eventually become part of our Special Collections Unit,
but the primary purpose for now is research. We may be making
suggestions to a student on what to purchase, so affordability is a
concern.
Thanks in advance,
——————————
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:37:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Field Recording Equipment
There are a lot of good resources on line. Check out
Radio College at:
http://www.radiocollege.org/
You should also check out the tools page at Transom.org:
http://www.transom.org/tools/index.php
If you have some specific questions about what to buy given your needs,
I'll
be happy to try and answer them.
————————————–
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 17:32:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Field Recording Equipment
Meghann,
Our company uses the Marantz PMD-222 for Audio Cassette field
recording.
The PMD-222 has an XLR input, a line input and a telephone jack input.
It is very durable and can be run on batteries or A/C. You can go to
www.martelelectronics.com or call 1-800-553-5536 to look at one or
to ask questions. According to their website, the PMD-222 is retailing
for $395.00 which is not bad considering that we have had ours for 7
years now and other than cleaning the heads every now and then, it has
never had a problem. I also believe that NPR's "This American Life"
uses the Marantz for their field recordings.
————————————–
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 19:54:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Field Recording Equipment
Marantz, among others, make no-moving-parts recorders. I don't know
how much more expensive they are than a $400 cassette recorder, but I
would be tempted to get one of those and then load the compact flash
cards into an IT store and be done with it.
Remember as you create more cassettes, you're ensuring that people
like me will make a healthy living down the road…and, down that
same road, excellent playback machines (e.g. Dragons) won't be
maintainable.
I just bought a pair of 1GB CF cards for $120 CDN each - if you use
some mild compression, they will hold a lot of audio. I bought mine
for photos…
The CBC is using 4:1 compression in their massive archive project –
for voice work.
The workflow is one I can relate to, as I've been doing this for
almost three years now with a digital camera. I keep three copies of
the images on three different drives, one of which will shortly be at
my neighbour's.
If you don't want to properly archive files, then burn them into
audio CDs on gold disks, but I think it's a real bad idea to invest
more in the submerging technology of audio cassettes.
——————————
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 19:06:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Field Recording Equipment
The Edirol R-1 is another portable solid state recorder along the
lines noted by Richard below. It's fairly new but there are already a
few lengthy user reviews. I think recall seeing one on
www.macintouch.com.
——————————
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 17:03:51 -0700
Subject: Re: Field Recording Equipment
Someone already mentioned Transom as a resource, but I would second
Transom's claim that the minidisc is the radio producer's best friend.
Easy to use, and a passed over technology that is now quite affordable.
Their microphone suggestions are also top-notch as far as affordability
vs. performance.
——————————
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 19:17:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Field Recording Equipment
On Jul 19, 2005, at 6:54 PM, Richard L. Hess wrote:
> If you don't want to properly archive files, then burn them into
> audio CDs on gold disks, but I think it's a real bad idea to invest
> more in the submerging technology of audio cassettes.
I agree. I've always hated analog audio cassettes. CF, hard drive,
or even MiniDisk, is cheap, small, and clonable.
——————————
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 17:15:27 -0700
Subject: Re: Field Recording Equipment
I like the R-1. It is like having a portable DAT, but it's cheaper and
offers .wav and .mp3 recording options at different bitrates. It's
been criticized by some pros because it has only mini phone plug
inputs, not XLR, and because it eats batteries. Otherwise it is very
easy to use and has a built-in mic for those situations when an
external mic isn't practical.
If you are recording in .mp3 at 192kbps (I know, that isn't good
archival practice), a 2GB card will give you about 35 hours of storage.
Great for traveling light.
Prelinger Archives http://www.prelinger.com
Prelinger Library: http://www.prelingerlibrary.org
Online film collection at Internet Archive:
http://www.archive.org/details/prelinger
——————————
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:20:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Field Recording Equipment
Cameron and others,
PROMISE ME that you'll NOT archive the MDs and will transfer them to
an IT file system or gold audio CD-Rs.
Yes, the MD is a great field tool (I have two–do I have one of
anything–other than a wife?), but the transfer for all practical
applications today is real time (didn't have to be, but it is). Here
is where the CF card excels over the MD…and at the price of
individual CF cards, you won't be tempted to archive individual CF
cards <smile>.
The MD is an audio technology, the CF card is a computer technology.
I can get CF readers for $20 that plug into the USB port of any handy
PC. For "back at the ranch" with MD, you need a home component unit.
Many of the portables (at least the ones I have and I don't think
other models were different a few years ago) have optical inputs, but
no digital outputs. Interestingly, I have a pair of portable CD
players that have optical outputs. You need a "home" or pro unit to
get a digital output. And now that we're seeing fewer CD-writers of
the caliber of the CDR-W33 (gone away, sadly) the digital transfer
from MD to CD will be harder. Of course, you can plug the MD player
into the computer and ingest it, but wouldn't it be easier to drag
the files from the CF to the hard drive?
Oh, and if you're worried about CF files being compressed, don't
forget that MD is also compressed.
Since you already acknowledge that MD is a passed-over technology,
how long do you think it will be supported?
With my glowing negativity above, I also have to say that right now
when I need to record something I grab the MD recorder and the Audio
Technica AT-822 and immediately either ingest it to the PC or burn it
to a CD (or both).
——————————
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 21:29:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Field Recording Equipment
I can't figure out why a few people have railed against analog
cassettes, I don't see you mentioning them below! But I would, of
course, agree. There are so many options in digital recording available
now, especially for voice-only work.
Then, of course, there's the Nagra SN, which my pals at the Secret
Service say is still being used and makes the best-sounding recordings
(while concealed in someone's pants)…
Field Recording Equipment Discussion
-
Type: discussion