Jump to content

Who is the king of the portable field recorders?


jdutaillis

Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...