jdutaillis Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 I'm looking to purchase a portable field recorder to keep on me at all times, in order to capture those golden sounds we all come across day to day. I'm well aware of the usual suspects (H4N, M10, etc.) but what would you consider the creme de la creme, the absolute god of the portable field recorders? Some more background info: I want a recorder with built in or small attachable microphones. External mics and pres are a no go for this one. Has to be a single handheld device. I currently have a beautiful location rig consisting of sound devices recorders and schoeps/dpa mics, etc. This would be purely for spur of the moment capturing, not planned recording sessions, something I can whip out at any moment and start recording. 24/96 is essential, 24/192 would be ideal. We'll pretend that price is no object just for arguments sake. Cheers! Jo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShubiSnax Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 Nagra has a few devices that might suit your needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundslikejustin Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 Nagra SD? I've never used one, though you would expect it to beat the quality of a Zoom etc. ANY of those recorders that use miniature electret mics are going to have higher noise floors than you'd typically want, especially if you're doing low-level atmos recordings. In fact, maximum dynamic range of a recorded file on the Nagra SD is 90dB, according to their spec sheet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ju Griz Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 Tascam DR-100mkII Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macrecorder Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 Sony are often considered to be one of the best, and have a new model out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Southern Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 The tricky part of your request is the 24/192. The only thing I've found is the SONY PCMD100, which I believe is about to be released. Otherwise I would imagine the Nagra would be your best best if price really isn't a consideration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Waelder Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 The Nagra SD is the obvious choice if you intend to use it for sound effects recording or other professional sound applications. But, it's a bit pricy at pretty nearly $1000. The new Nagra Mezzo, at $400, is more reasonably priced and meets all of your other specifications. It has a 90 dB signal-to-noise when using the built-in microphones (and up to 94 dB with external microphones), can do WAV files (as well as MP-3 and other formats), and has sample frequencies up to 96 kHz. I understand that there are plans to implement 192 kHz sampling but I can't be sure they will be implemented. Both are made in China rather than Switzerland but built to a Nagra design and their specs. Pricier than the Zoom or Tascam competition. And, while the quality is certainly better, I couldn't promise that the distinction is as wide as the gap between a Nagra IV-S and an ordinary reel-to-reel. It's sort of like the difference between a film Leica and a Nikon. But, if you can afford it, it's the best. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Visser Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 Sonosax MINIR82 (24/192KHz capable) with a pair of DPA4060 if omni pair is acceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdutaillis Posted October 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 It definitely seems that the Nagra SD and Sony PCM-D100 are the two main options here. Anyone have any experience with either or both? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_bollard Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 Not sure why you would want 24/192 with built in microphones. That spec is high res and any built in mic will pale when compared to an external mic; mic and Pre amp self noise will swamp added res Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdutaillis Posted October 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 Not sure why you would want 24/192 with built in microphones. That spec is high res and any built in mic will pale when compared to an external mic; mic and Pre amp self noise will swamp added res For recording SFX you plan on pitch shifting down, the added resolution gives better results. I understand the limitations of internal mics but why not still record them in the highest possible quality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karri Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 The added resolution might give better results when shifting down, yes, this however depends on two things: 1. Does the sound you are recording have any useful information past 24 kHz (the highest that a 48 kHz file can go)? 2. If yes, can the internal mics of your recorder capture anything past 24 kHz? Even the Nagra SD seems to be only specced up to 20 kHz, so if I were you I might save the vard drive space. However, I don't know whether or not a mic specced up to a certain frequency response might pick up information above that as well. edit: or does pitch shifting a 96 kHz sound give noticeably (subjective of course) better results than doing the same for a 48 kHz one, whether it has high frequency ino or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ju Griz Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 What about one of the aforementioned handheld recorders with a small mic attached? Bypass the crappy on-board mics and use a mic worth your time. Something small that can be secured to the body of the recorder without being obtrusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmahaAudio Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 You want the audio equivalent of a high quality point-and-shoot camera like the Canon S100. Get yourself a Zoom H-1 (it'll do 96/24) for about $100. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harris K Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 does pitch shifting a 96 kHz sound give noticeably (subjective of course) better results than doing the same for a 48 kHz one, whether it has high frequency ino or not? I believe in this case, he means actually slowing down, not pitching down. A high sample rate file played back at a lower sample rate will deliver a better sounding result than a digital time shift, because there's real information there. Same idea as filming at 48fps to playback at 24fps. Or I'm mistaken. Edit: nope he specifically said pitching. I'm a charlatan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfisk Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 I believe in this case, he means actually slowing down, not pitching down. A high sample rate file played back at a lower sample rate will deliver a better sounding result than a digital time shift, because there's real information there. Same idea as filming at 48fps to playback at 24fps. Or I'm mistaken. Edit: nope he specifically said pitching. I'm a charlatan. No. I think this is correct. I've had the "why record at 192?" debate with many people from the production world that don't quite understand what happens on the post side of things. I've recorded lots of stuff at 192 with the intent of slowing them down drastically, and 192 is crucial for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdutaillis Posted October 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 No. I think this is correct. I've had the "why record at 192?" debate with many people from the production world that don't quite understand what happens on the post side of things. I've recorded lots of stuff at 192 with the intent of slowing them down drastically, and 192 is crucial for this. Exactly. You get added information (provided you're using a mic that can capture over 20kHz) and you get more detailed information in the regular higher frequencies (20kHz and below). When slowing down these recordings you get a better result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seth Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 If Budweiser is king of beers wouldn't that make the h4n king of recorders? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 Exactly. You get added information (provided you're using a mic that can capture over 20kHz) and you get more detailed information in the regular higher frequencies (20kHz and below). When slowing down these recordings you get a better result. It's not just about actual audible content above 20kHz, but also the computer needs to fill the blanks somehow. The slower and lower you go the more the software has to make up gor stuff that wasn't originally there. This is particularly true if you want to pitch audio down while maintaining speed. With higher resolution there is more info per second for the computer to work with before artifacts become audible. I would suggest stuffing your SD recorder into a backpack and go handheld with a small stereo mic. You can remote control the REC button and you have a much better quality than any handheld recorder will ever provide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackHenry Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 Jo spent 6 weeks carrying the SD in a backpack around India and Nepal using Schoeps CCM Series in M/S. He's after something pocket sized for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Visser Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 I guess the Korg MR-2 since it can do 24/192, but it would be a shame to use such poor mics as the source. I still think that you could do some great work with the SONOSAX MINIR, which would definitely fit in the pocket. It's just the mics that you attach that will dictate the overall size of the rig. Neumann SM69 or Royer SF12 for something nice, or maybe a Sanken COS-22 or pair of CUBs for ultra-compactness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdutaillis Posted October 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 It's not just about actual audible content above 20kHz, but also the computer needs to fill the blanks somehow. The slower and lower you go the more the software has to make up gor stuff that wasn't originally there. This is particularly true if you want to pitch audio down while maintaining speed. With higher resolution there is more info per second for the computer to work with before artifacts become audible. I would suggest stuffing your SD recorder into a backpack and go handheld with a small stereo mic. You can remote control the REC button and you have a much better quality than any handheld recorder will ever provide. That's what I meant by "more detailed information" above. You've explained it much more eloquently though. As JackHenry reiterated, I really just want something to thrown in a bag and carry with me all the time. A point and shoot device if you will. If I'm actually out recording I take my SD and Schoeps MS rig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkautzsch Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 There's also the Olympus LS series which might be considered instead of a H4n. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundtrane Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 LS100 sounds much better than the h4n... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 Sonosax MINIR82 (24/192KHz capable) with a pair of DPA4060 if omni pair is acceptable. +1. lovely recorder. a pair of schoeps ccms. it also has 8 aes inputs so would make a great tracker for any wireless with aes o/p. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.