#83

you might look on this forum:
http://taperssection.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=1f5e54cbe510b9fadcaab2c84846d16f&board=4.0
I see that they often mention the Naiant preamps, etc. I’ve never used one but they are more affordable than some of the pro mixers and preamps:
http://naiant.com/studio-electronics-products/inline-devices/ipa-flexible-power-inline-amplifier/

2 Likes
#84

+1 on the MixPre if you can stretch to the cost. They’re really solid and fine to buy secondhand as a result.

Loads of really useful comparisons here:
http://www.avisoft.com/recordertests.htm

and here:

and here!:
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/type/www/audio-reports/MicSpecCharts/Mics_16dBA.htm

The MixPre preamps are the same as those in the 722 btw.

Just bear in mind that if you go with a low sensitivity mic (like the NTG2) you will need more gain as @ermina suggests.

1 Like
#85

thanks, next up is diy blimps! anyone made one? I found a decent looking 3d printed one and I’m going to try that route. They cost more than some semi decent mics!

#86

but is it decent sounding ?

don’t forget about suspension also.

#87

Would anyone like to share desired specifications of a hypothetical, affordable, high-end field recorder?

#88

Four channels. Not two. Not eight.

Four.

24/96 minimum.

Can record to cards but MUST have USB at minimum, possibly TB, Dante supported Ethernet would be sweet.

Limiters could be nice but not necessary.

Good headphone amp with simple channel routing for monitoring; does NOT require a fancy mixer.

XLR line ins.

What I REALLY want is such a recorder without mic pres; I’d prefer that maximum effort be poured in to highest quality A/D converion, and let me decide what mic pres to pair it with.

I know this puts me in the niche of niche recordists, but that’s what I want.

6 Likes
#89

Thank you. Design stages of a ‘something’ and these opinions are very valuable.

2 Likes
#90

If it has to perform AD conversion, then it needs high quality analog inputs. A professional recorder with high quality A/D will indeed have excellent mic preamps.

If you have 4 input channels, then you need some “fancy mixer” to monitor them (what would be the point of such a recorder if it couldn’t monitor multichannel setups). Then actually 4 tracks is a bit awkward if you want to record surround.
Everything you want can be done with non affordable recorders :]

1 Like
#91

You make a great point, but there’s also a lot to be said for the modular nature of the idea.
For example, I started computer music with a PCI-based audio interface. There were no pre-amps on the card but the converters were very transparent, the digital mixer extremely useful, and most importantly it was inexpensive (equal part being older equipment and a lesser-featured device). Because it was inexpensive it fit my budget, allowed me to experiment with amplification options, and scale up my options proportionate to my cash-flow. Replace the PCI interface with I2S and the computer with an ARM processor and you might have similar situation for a field recorder (without preamps)!

What would your ideal, minimum specifications be for a similar device?

#92

I don’t care about surround personally.

[quote=“ermina, post:90, topic:4644”]Everything you want can be done with non affordable recorders :]
[/quote]

Of course, can be done, but I don’t want to pay for features I don’t need. Nagra VI has twice as many channels as I need, and additional costs invested in mic pres none of which I need. A ~$10,000 recorder could thusly be issued for under half that, at the SAME level of quality, and I’d be glad to pay that.

The closest there is is the SD 744, which still has the pres, and has that ridiculous dinosaur Firewire interface. But it looks like SD is going to let the 700 series quietly ride off in to the sunset.

I may yet buy a used 744…but it just feels so…backwards.

FWIW, I do have an SD USB Pre-2 and I think it’s a wonderful, delightful device.

A Nagra SD is in my future as well. For super light, easily deployed stereo recording in very difficult situations, I don’t see anything beating it. I finally got to handle one a few weeks ago and it’s just wonderful.

2 Likes
#93

well, that is a very narrow niche (people with high end preamps that only want a 4 tracks portable high-end A/D + Dante-enabled USB interface) i don’t think it would be easy to fill with an affordable product.
The Zaxcom maxx is just under 3000USD, and the specs are…, well, can any AD be better and cheaper than that ?
To be honest i would think that a better AD would cost much more, not less (law of diminishing returns), even without any mic pre.
I understand the idea of having a product with just the necessary features, but apart from an entirely custom device, i don’t see how it can exist.

We may have very different things in mind and expectations/needs when saying “portable”, “field”, or “high quality”.

#94

[quote=“Larrea, post:92, topic:4644, full:true”]

All a good A/D converter needs is an analog in, which I will provide it with whatever external pre I choose (in the realm of Millennia, Pueblo, Rens Heijnis, AEA, Forssell, etc.). All I want are four XLR line level inputs. Every pro studio device has these. Most pro mobile recorders have them too, but they also have the pre, which I don’t want.[/quote]

It sounds as though you’d like Merging or DAD to make a battery powered AD box. That would be very cool. I guess the Hapi has a DC battery option, but it’s not terribly portable.

I have the SD and run it with a Rens Heijnis pre with very good results. The SD has solid AD conversion, a simple interface and a headphone out that can power low impedance cans like the HD 25 ii. I also like that its mikes are removable, decreasing its footprint. The cabling solution they provide is smart and secure.

I’m far from an expert in the latest AD/DA technologies, but I get the feeling that we’re at the point where the chip technology is very good, excellent even, and that the differences between boxes have a lot to do with and analogue side and its design around the chip.

In other words, I feel comfortable putting money in to the current AD options and not worrying about some huge breakthrough coming around the corner. It’s this feeling that puts me in your camp, if I understand it properly, which would like to decouple conversion and the mike front ends, allowing us to play around with different preamps.

My one concern with conversion boxes is the connection to the computer. For example, if one wants to buy a high end box today, I’m sure the conversion will be excellent for many years – perhaps a decade. But what about USB, toslink, et al.? This is why I like the network audio approach. No one’s going to get rid of ethernet anytime soon, right? Apple’s offerings yesterday had me worried at first, but it appears there is a USB C to ethernet adapter.

#95

I’ve thought a lot about this as well… physically it is absolutely my preferred standard, but a lot of the more premium products using layer 3 AoE(Audio over Ethernet) involve proprietary implementations (Dante, Livewire, Q-Lan). Is it useful for this kind of device to interact with these larger systems or is it enough to simply possess the ability talk to an external computer (like it were an audio interface) and handle anything further from that second device?

#96

Ever heard of Ambisonic B-Format? record 4 channels from a suitable b-format microphone (soundfield, tetramic, DIY) and you can decide later whether you want stereo, mono, 5.1, 8 channel 3d, binaural, etc. Soundfield mics have line outputs so you don’t need mic pre’s. Bloody expensive though. x gus

#97

How do you all process your recordings? Do you have any workflows/software/methods/hierarchies you like? My collection is getting unwieldy and didn’t find the right way to catalog/store.

1 Like
#98

Me too. Currently just folders for certain events or days.

I really need to add metadata to everything - I think that’s the only real way to go.

#99

All raw sounds have a date+take_number in their filenames and are stored into one large folder.
I primarily rely on my memory of the location/day.

Being a Linux only user solutions like soundminer are out of scope for me, so i recently began a spreadsheet to associate metadata to filenames.
For some specific projects i use a separate folder with a plain text file to characterize sounds.

#100

I still have a cupboard full of cassettes and dat tapes. On a tape I can write the date, a title, have a track listing, paint it a nice colour, include a photo or drawing… And now, I agree, files are unwieldy! At least most of them have a date stamp. When I’m recording I make lists of what I’m doing so that I can remember, then this usually gets distilled into a file name. I make nested folders: year / month / day / sometimes different locations. I just hope I can remember where I was when… that’s the most difficult. I did use AudioFinder for a while to add metadata but I would always rather be out in the rain with a microphone or playing in the studio than behind the computer doing data entry.
xgus

#101

I’ve started describing what the recording is at the start of the actual recording. When using osx finder I just tap space bar and the preview pops up.

5 Likes
#102

I’m very interested in the Jecklin/OSS technique. Can you confirm that the cabling on the DPA 4060s support the mikes at the correct spacing? I’ve had good luck throwing the 4060s straight up in an AB setup. But that was only 10cm of cabling between the clip and the microphone. I worry that the bodies will cause the cabling to sag.