Howard, I think I wrote you a long time ago about my experience with "portable" tape recorders. In 1951, I worked for the only recording studio in Boston that had Ampex recorders. They had bought their first Ampex before I began working there. The high speed for recording music was 30 inches per second (ips); the speed for recording voice was 15 ips. By time I got there, their second recorder had come dowon to 15/7.5 ips. We advertised that we had portable Ampexes for location recording. What that meant was that handles had been put on two sides of one of the recorders and two of us picked it up, placed it in a station wagon (no minivans yet) took it out of the car, carried into the site (sometimes up flights of stairs and set it up. Those of us who had to carry the Ampex for location recording privately substituted the word "transportable" for "portable." but our advertising continued to use the second word. I'm sure you remember these monsters. But they made great recordings, esp ecially when used with what was then called the new Telefunken condenser microphone. (It was made by Neumann and I think that sometime after that they were sold as "Neumanns." Am I right about that?)
Ed Glick -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Howard Sanner Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 4:56 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Hornlist] About recorders... I wrote an article about this that you can read at: http://www.ampexguy.com/horn/rectips/rectips.html As for recorders per se, once you get past a certain point--and everything mentioned at the URL above is past that point--the storage device doesn't matter. (This was true in the analog days, too.) The improvement comes from the transducers (microphones and speakers). The hand held recorders have pretty decent mikes built in--not DPA or Schoeps quality, but good--and good enough that if I were in upper management at these two companies I wouldn't be sleeping that well these days. My suggestion would be to get whichever of the recorders listed in the section "The Simplest Approach" fits your budget and otherwise seems best suited to what you want to do. I also strongly urge you (and I can't emphasize this enough) to record to WAV files at some multiple of 44.1 KHz, and, if possible, at 24 bit resolution (e.g., 24 bit, 88.2 KHz, or 16 bit, 44.1 KHz). If you want mp3 files, you can always dumb the WAV files down. mp3 is a lossy compression algorithm; once the information is gone, you can't get it back. The CD standard is 16 bit, 44.1 KHz, but 24 bit, 88.2 KHz WAV files can be down converted easily (e.g., in Audacity, which has already been mentioned in this thread). IMHO, 24 bits gives you more "bang for the buck" than a higher sample rate. That is because the number of bits determines the dynamic range. Using 24 bits makes setting the levels less critical; you don't have to worry about setting them as high as possible to keep the soft passages out of the crud. Really, it's astounding the quality available today for the price of dinner at a nice restaurant. I can remember when getting sound this good would cost as much as a new car. And in those days the recorders came in two large road cases weighing about 75 lbs. each. I don't miss schlepping that stuff around! HTH. Howard Sanner [email protected] "Pessimists are surprised as often as optimists, but always pleasantly"--The Giant Rat of Sumatra, by Richard L. Boyer, p. 61. _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/glick%40unt.edu _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
