Kevin Colver wrote:

> What is the battery life of the PCM-M10?

It runs on 2 AA batteries and Sony rates the life as 24 hours (at 44.1/16) or 19
hours (at 96/24). Compare this to the PCM-D50 which requires 4 AA batteries to
get 14 hours (at 44.1/16) or 12 hours (at 96/24). Even if real life is somewhat
more conservative, that's some massive improvement in efficiency!

> And, how large of a card can be inserted?

The unit accepts MicroSDHC or MMC (Memory Stick Micro) cards of up to 16GB and
has 4 GB of built-in memory. It supports "cross-memory recording" in which
recording transparently switches from one medium to the other. Thus the total
capacity is 20GB.

> In other words, how long can this recorder be set
> out to continuously record on it's own before the
> battery or memory halts the session?

At 44.1/16, 20GB gives 31:20 of recording time. You'd run out of battery first,
so 24 hours would be the optimistic maximum.

At 96/24, 20GB gives 9:35 of recording time. You'd run out of memory first.

But consider the Olympus LS-11 which has 8 GB of internal memory and can support
up to 32 GB SDHC cards, though unfortunately it cannot do the "cross-memory
recording" trick.

At 44.1/16, battery life is 23 hours. 32GB of memory provides 50:40 of recording
time. You'd run out of battery first.

At 96/24, battery life is 13.5 hours. 32GB of memory provides 15:25 of recording
time. You'd run out of memory first.

The Olympus is your best option if you want to record at 96/24. The two units
are neck and neck at 44.1/16.

-- robin

Raimund,
What is the battery life of the PCM-M10?  And, how large of a card can
be inserted?  In other words, how long can this recorder be set out to
continuously record on it's own before the battery or memory halts the
session?

Thanks,
Kevin

PS,  I just posted a new podcast from Alaska for those of you that can
access the sounds.

www.7Loons.com



> . . . . Considering its exceptionally long battery life, it seems to
> me that the new SONY PCM-M10 is the winner in this class of
> inexpensive and compact pocket recorders.
>
> R


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thank you Raimund for this and all your other good work.

Yet another recorder to add to the list!

-- robin

Nathan Gorman wrote:

Shotgun mics may or may not be appropriate for you. They do gain isolation of
source from environment, but that depends on usage. For film work they are
properly held angled towards the ground above the speaker(s). Unless there's a
lot of wind (or noisy snakes!) in the grass, the only thing on axis is then the
subjects you're trying to capture. Even with a boom, you won't be doing this
from too far away.

The RØDE NTG-2 or Audio Technica AT897 are low-priced (less than $300) shotgun
mics that are nonetheless decent. The RØDE NTG-3 ($700) or the industry-standard
Sennheiser MKH-416 ($1100) are your best options.

I have not extensively used the H2 and never with a shotgun. You would need an
external phantom power box that couples the XLR of the mic to the minijack input
of the H2, while providing 48V.

Alternatively you could get the Sennheiser K6 System which can be battery
powered. The ME 66 "short gun" and ME 67 "long gun" are both good choices
depending on how directional you need to be. The K6 + ME66 combo is around $500.

However the poor -99dB(A) EIN of the recorder is not well matched to these
microphones. If you were spending this much on a capsule I'd be recommending the
Fostex FR-2LE.

-- robin

Hi folks,

I just received a SONY PCM-M10 and measured the EIN of its microphone input. The
figure of -122 dBu(A) that I got is very similar to that of the Olympus
LS-10/11. But in contrast to the Olympus recorders (which exhibit a unfortunate
increase of the noise below about 500 Hz), the frequency spectrum of the noise
floor is quite flat across the entire frequency range. Considering its
exceptionally long battery life, it seems to me that the new SONY PCM-M10 is the
winner in this class of inexpensive and compact pocket recorders.

Regards,
Raimund

http://www.avisoft.com/recordertests.htm

You cannot attach files to emails to this group. You must place the file
somewhere and post the  link to its URL.



Wil Hershberger
  <http://www.natureimagesandsounds.com/> Nature Images and Sounds, LLC
Hedgesville, WV
  <http://www.songsofinsects.com/> The Songs of Insects
  <http://cricketman.blogspot.com/> My Blog



From: naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com [mailto:naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of O Sea
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 2:43 PM
To: naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Unknown audio





I added a file to email to the group, but when I reveiw the email the attachment
is gone.

--- On Tue, 11/10/09, Dave Bird <davidjohnbird@...
<mailto:davidjohnbird%40yahoo.co.uk> > wrote:

From: Dave Bird <davidjohnbird@... <mailto:davidjohnbird%40yahoo.co.uk>
>
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Unknown audio
To: naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com <mailto:naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 2:18 PM



>I am not able to files to emails, why?

Not sure why you can't attach the file..

You could upload it here: http://www.sendspac e.com/

then post the URL so we can download it?

____________ _________ _________ __

From: O Sea <varge30@yahoo. com>

To: naturerecordists@ yahoogroups. com

Sent: Tue, 10 November, 2009 18:56:39

Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Unknown audio

try this again.

--- On Tue, 11/10/09, O Sea <varge30@yahoo. com> wrote:

From: O Sea <varge30@yahoo. com>

Subject: [Nature Recordists] Unknown audio

To: naturerecordists@ yahoogroups. com

Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 1:22 PM

Can anyone a identify this sound, this was recorded around 0300.

O. Seaman

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I added a file to email to the group, but when I reveiw the email the attachment
is gone.

--- On Tue, 11/10/09, Dave Bird <davidjohnbird@...> wrote:

From: Dave Bird <davidjohnbird@...>
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Unknown audio
To: naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 2:18 PM







 









       >I am not able to files to emails, why?



Not sure why you can't attach the file..

You could upload it here: http://www.sendspac e.com/

then post the URL so we can download it?



____________ _________ _________ __

From: O Sea <varge30@yahoo. com>

To: naturerecordists@ yahoogroups. com

Sent: Tue, 10 November, 2009 18:56:39

Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Unknown audio



try this again.



--- On Tue, 11/10/09, O Sea <varge30@yahoo. com> wrote:



From: O Sea <varge30@yahoo. com>

Subject: [Nature Recordists] Unknown audio

To: naturerecordists@ yahoogroups. com

Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 1:22 PM



Can anyone a identify this sound, this was recorded around 0300.



O. Seaman



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

O Sea,

The list is setup to block email attachments - which is a very, very good thing
on a list like this.

You'll have to upload to the files section on the list home page or to a
webserver you have access to, or use sendspace as Dave suggests.

It also helpful if you give the location (place and country)  you made the
recording - it will improve your chances the sound will be identified.

regards
Paul

On 11/11/2009, at 6:00 AM, O Sea wrote:

> I am not able to files to emails, why?
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> "While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
> sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

>I am not able to files to emails, why?


Not sure why you can't attach the file..
You could upload it here: http://www.sendspace.com/
then post the URL so we can download it?



________________________________
From: O Sea <varge30@...>
To: naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 10 November, 2009 18:56:39
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Unknown audio


try this again.

--- On Tue, 11/10/09, O Sea <varge30@yahoo. com> wrote:

From: O Sea <varge30@yahoo. com>
Subject: [Nature Recordists] Unknown audio
To: naturerecordists@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 1:22 PM



Can anyone a identify this sound, this was recorded around 0300.

O. Seaman

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I am not able to files to emails, why?





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

try this again.

--- On Tue, 11/10/09, O Sea <varge30@...> wrote:

From: O Sea <varge30@...>
Subject: [Nature Recordists] Unknown audio
To: naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 1:22 PM







 









       Can anyone a identify this sound, this was recorded around 0300.

O. Seaman



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Can anyone a identify this sound, this was recorded around 0300.
O. Seaman





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi,

Interesting, this is the second person selling similar set (or maybe
it's the same one?). I've always wondered about SonicStudios products,
which to me seem overpriced... $250 for the headband? Looking at the
pictures it seems that the materials aren't worth that much (maybe
$50?). Are there any sample recordings of nature sounds available done
with this mics and headband? Are the mics quiet enough? I would be
interested in buying a set like this if the sound quality is really
worth the price.

Cheers,

Hector


On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:42 AM, Raffa Jaffa <dub0777@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> hello there
>
> i am new to the group..
> i hope it is ok to post it here
> so here it goes :
>
> i would like to sell my Sonic Studios equipment
> i have bought it about a year ago and just do not have time to use it
> it is :
>
> DSM 6S MIC (most versatile multipurpose mic) worth 550 $
> PA 3SX PREAMP worth 450 $
> the WHB WINDSCREEN HEADBAND worth 250 $
>
> it is in great condition and i would like to sell it all together for 625 $
> please contact me for details, photos, any questions
>
> thank you very much
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

At 11:09 AM -0500 11/10/09, Nathan Gorman wrote:
>Hello Robin,
>Thank you for your work on comparing recorders. In working with the H2, is
>there any external shotgun mic set up that worked? I would love to be able
>to use my H2, but I cannot seem to pin point the sounds I am looking for
>while excluding the sounds I do not want.

Hi Nathan--
Shotgun mics still need to be quite close in
order to get desirable isolation between
foreground and background sounds.  No real magic
in them.  Parabolic dishes are quite a bit better
but if you are addressing your project of
recording natural sounds in an urban park,
recording early Sunday mornings and on holidays
will probably help more.

Pocket recorders can make great recordings if the
built-in mics are really close, I'd securely
attach H2's in popular perches and make long
duration takes-- in other words-- let the
subjects come to the mics. A technical advantage
an attentive birder has.

You can buy a light weight ladder and several
H2's and to spot around the park for a fraction
of the cost of a good dish. Make some
bark-colored jackets to make the H2's slightly
less conspicuous?

The H2 is a good choice for long duration
recording as it seems to handle sequential files
and power shut-downs reliably. I'd start-off
using medium sensitivity at the default setting
of "100" an record at 24 bits.  Rob D.


>  Everything I read about the H2 said external
>equipment created too much noise from the body
>of the recorder. Would the H2 have any ability
>to pinpoint specific sounds in
>nature and if so how? Thank you in advance for any feed back.
>
>Have a great day!
>Nathan Gorman
>nbg1909@...
>4040-408-2527
>
>On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Robin <robin@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>  The articles have been updated to make the criteria even clearer. As Rob
>>  pointed out, the consideration of EIN in the second article was out of
>>  context, since the main criterion there is portability and the use of the
>>  internal microphones.
>>
>>  A fuller treatment of the M-Audio MicroTrack II and Zoom H2 has been added.
>>
>>  The third article will consider sound quality as the primary criterion.
>>
>>  -- robin
>>
>> 
>>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
>sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--

Hello Robin,
Thank you for your work on comparing recorders. In working with the H2, is
there any external shotgun mic set up that worked? I would love to be able
to use my H2, but I cannot seem to pin point the sounds I am looking for
while excluding the sounds I do not want. Everything I read about the H2
said external equipment created too much noise from the body of the
recorder. Would the H2 have any ability to pinpoint specific sounds in
nature and if so how? Thank you in advance for any feed back.

Have a great day!
Nathan Gorman
nbg1909@...
4040-408-2527

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Robin <robin@...> wrote:

>
>
> The articles have been updated to make the criteria even clearer. As Rob
> pointed out, the consideration of EIN in the second article was out of
> context, since the main criterion there is portability and the use of the
> internal microphones.
>
> A fuller treatment of the M-Audio MicroTrack II and Zoom H2 has been added.
>
> The third article will consider sound quality as the primary criterion.
>
> -- robin
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The articles have been updated to make the criteria even clearer. As Rob pointed
out, the consideration of EIN in the second article was out of context, since
the main criterion there is portability and the use of the internal microphones.

A fuller treatment of the M-Audio MicroTrack II and Zoom H2 has been added.

The third article will consider sound quality as the primary criterion.

-- robin

Interesting, any idea how much a laser vibrometer would cost?

-Mike.


--- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com, "jtudor2005" <john@...> wrote:
>
> I came across these two clips via the 'Music of Sound' site
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et--lFINQOM
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMa9FdNM5io
>
> The second one has some interesting technical set up info
>

hello there

i am new to the group..
i hope it is ok to post it here
so here it goes :

i would like to sell my Sonic Studios equipment
i have bought it about a year ago and just do not have time to use it
it is :

DSM 6S MIC (most versatile multipurpose mic) worth 550 $
PA 3SX PREAMP worth 450 $
the WHB WINDSCREEN HEADBAND  worth 250 $

it is in great condition and i would like to sell it all together for 625 $
please contact me for details, photos, any questions

thank you very much


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Following the suggestions here, I have edited the first article. Better yet, I
have completed the second in the series, which looks at the criteria in details
and makes some suggestions.

It's here:
http://www.theatreofnoise.com/2009/11/which-portable-digital-audio-recorder.html

Three important pieces of information I am lacking:

1. The EIN for the Zoom H4n. I am assuming the same as its predecessor, -114dB.

2. The EIN for the Olympus LS-11. Again I am assuming -122dB.

3. Does anyone know if the frequency response has been improved to eliminate the
low-end roll-off issue in the LS-10?

A third and final article yet to come.

-- robin

IMO, it's 100% post sync / layed Fx + some adr, great stuff -thanks
JL

Jim Morgan wrote
Subject: [Nature Recordists] The Cougar & Bear


|
| This is an excerpt from the film "The Bear" a 1988 film.
|
| http://www.flixxy.com/wildlife-adventure-cougar-bear.htm
|
| I would like to know more about how this film was made especially the
sound track and what kind training of the animals was required.
|
| See the weklapedia article:
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bear_%281988_film%29
| for more information.
|
| Jim Morgan
| Prescott AZ
|
|
| [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
|


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.56/2491 - Release Date: 11/09/09
07:39:00

oryoki, I've cleaned up the article by removing paragraphs that were better
placed in the second installment. Plus I've added a few more words about the
technical terms.

Thanks for the good advice!

(P.S. I've always wondered why you chose that alias?)

-- robin

At 5:46 PM +0000 11/9/09, escalation746 wrote:
>
>
>Rob Danielson wrote:
>
>>  I've tried to incorporate sensitivity into the EIN
>>  ranges. I feel that the role of mic self-noise has
>>  to be in there centrally if the recommendations are
>>  going to address noise performance quality.
>
>I agree and like these specific classes. My own personal list is
>ordered by EIN and your classes accord with how I think about the
>devices. I will present this perspective in a future article. I
>thought it more important to most of my readers to look at form
>factor first of all. The article was in part written to answer some
>specific questions people have asked me face-to-face.
>
>It would be good to have some idea what the self-noise of the
>built-in mics is, apart from the external pre-amp stage. But I can't
>see any way of measuring that short of surgery on the electronics.
>
>-- robin

Hi Robin--
There may be a few exceptions, but its likely the mic capsules used
in pocket recorders have self-noise ratings of 20 dB(A) and higher.
One exception might be the Sony D-1's capsules which recordists have
commented upon favorably.

Let me know if I can be of assistance. Rob D.



--

This is an excerpt from the film "The Bear" a 1988 film.

http://www.flixxy.com/wildlife-adventure-cougar-bear.htm

I would like to know more about how this film was made especially the sound
track and what kind training of the animals was required.

See the weklapedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bear_%281988_film%29
for more information.

Jim Morgan
Prescott AZ


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Saw this today

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=129080.0;topicseen

Hi Paul and group,

I was also impressed by the recordings made with my iPhone.
After your post i started looking into the possibilities.

1.What do i want?
2.Buy an audio input add-on
3.DIY an audio input add-on
4.Software for iPhone recordings

1. I want an affordable stereo recorder option which i can use in conjuntion
with
a field mixer (SQN4 in my case). Wav 16 bit 48 khz minimum with the flattest
response possible and not a lot of noise added.

2.
I found a nice line up of affordable input units at Faber Acoustical:
http://tinyurl.com/yber57j
They recommend the Stereo recorder add-on from tunewear.com priced at a
reasonable $70 (Australian). All the other tested options (tunetalk stereo etc.)
were not really good options (sound wise).
But unfortunately the tunewear product is "end of life". However, and i quote,
"We will announced a new model before Christmas. Once it is ready, I will let
you know. Steven Siu (Sales Manager @ tunewear)"
So this is good news, i hope :)

I also found another interesting thing, but quite expensive compared to the
tunewear product. Oh and it doesn't do stereo.
iAudiointerface by studiossixdigital http://tinyurl.com/yhuxdyq
They've already created a bundle of audio measurement applications and
are going to start selling them december 2009. Interesting but at a price tag of
approximately $250 (American) a bit expensive.


3.
Unfortunately there is not a lot of information available in the wild.
I did find some posts about mono recordings with a standard 3 ringed mini-jack
but i want stereo(!). However,if you sign up to the "Made for apple/ipod"
production group (owned and moderated by apple.com) you should be able to find
some schematics. At least that is what i read somewhere (sorry lost the url to
both post and group).

4.
I found the FiRE software also has a free version released by Blue, which
collaborated on the software, i think. It is a nice piee
of software and it works fine. Although is a navigational/ergonomical quirk to
get used to...
If you start the app you first see the recordings page. Only after touching the
+ symbol you get to record a new file. Strange for a recording app. Oh and it
records only 44.1 16bit... You have to buy FiRE for $7,99 to record for up to
24bit and 48khz

So these are my findings, if anyone else has more info, please share!

Greetings,

Arnoud


--- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com, Paul Jacobson <pj@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 06/11/2009, at 4:05 PM, jtudor2005 wrote:
>
> >
> >> It's probably not that surprising as the factory default template is
> >> called "Default"
> >
> > I was aware of that but thought it may let you overwrite it with a
> > new version.  The marker function in the SD Recorders was a bit
> > useless to me before as they aren't usable in the recorder or any of
> > the Mac software other than perhaps the big DAWs. I record
> > orchestras in one long take and it is nice to hit a marker at each
> > piece for later tracking. But they were not usable in any of my
> > software. I've been using WE for a long time now and they always
> > seem open to suggestions for improvement. So I got this rolling
> > without any trouble. They are very helpful and it's a good
> > indication as to why we should pay for these smaller developers
> > software.
>
>
> Hi John
>
> The default layout appears to be hard coded into the app, so there
> isn't really any way to replace it. I've also found the WE developers
> to be very responsive to bug reports and requests - although my
> feature request for spectral editing doesn't ever seem to move off
> their "to-do in a future version" list ;)
>
> Their iPhone recorder app - FiRE - is really nice. I'm trying to find
> a diy solution to getting line level audio in via the doc connector as
> the AD converter specs on the iPhone don't seem too bad.  At very
> least it should be worth the effort of hooking up an external preamp
> to see what results can be obtained.  WE 1.4.6b2 has introduced a FiRE
> browser which allows direct access to recordings on the iPhone.
>
> cheers
> Paul
>

oryoki2000 wrote:

Thank you for your suggestions! You are right that I need to explain some of the
jargon. I have done so in previous articles and so will copy and paste so it is
all centralised here.

I do in fact link to Raimund Specht's site.

The remainder of your concerns will hopefully be answered by the follow-up
article, where I apply the criteria and make some recommendations.

-- robin

Rob Danielson wrote:

> I've tried to incorporate sensitivity into the EIN
> ranges. I feel that the role of mic self-noise has
> to be in there centrally if the recommendations are
> going to address noise performance quality.

I agree and like these specific classes. My own personal list is ordered by EIN
and your classes accord with how I think about the devices. I will present this
perspective in a future article. I thought it more important to most of my
readers to look at form factor first of all. The article was in part written to
answer some specific questions people have asked me face-to-face.

It would be good to have some idea what the self-noise of the built-in mics is,
apart from the external pre-amp stage. But I can't see any way of measuring that
short of surgery on the electronics.

-- robin

At 1:28 PM +0000 11/9/09, oryoki2000 wrote:
>  Robin,
>
>Thanks for this well-written, non-technical presentation.
>
>Here are four suggestions to make a good article more useful.
>
>First, be sure to explain the tech jargon. Terms like SPL and
>phantom power will be unfamiliar to a reader who is new to audio
>recording.
>
>Second, since you point to EIN as an important criterion, it should
>be explained more fully. At least tell people how to interpret the
>EIN values in the table. I'm thinking of statements like, "EIN
>higher than -100 means pre-amp noise easily will be heard in your
>recordings."
>
>If this seems to complicated for your audience, then I would not
>present the actual EIN numbers, and substitute a rating of preamp
>noise, such as "high, moderate, low, very low."


Categories might be easier for beginners to understand and could be
tied to our consensus that mics with 16dB(A) self-noise or lower will
provide more or less acceptable noise performance with high gain
settings in quiet locations. Do people think something like the three
performance classes below would help?

Recorders with Excellent Mic Input Noise Performance:
Recorders with measured EIN of -127 dB or lower (A weighted).
Excellent input noise performance is appreciable only when the
recorder is used with very low-noise mics such as those with a
self-noise rating of 10dB(A) or lower and when used at high gain.

Recorders with Good Mic Input Noise Performance:
Recorders with measured EIN between -125 dB and -120 dB (A weighted).
Good input noise performance is obtained with mics with self-noise
ratings of 16dB(A) or lower and when used at high gain in quiet
settings. Note that the recorder's mic preamp will add noise to high
gain recordings when used with mics with low self-noise (around 12
dB(A) or lower).

Recorders with Compromised Mic Input Noise Performance:
Recorders with measured EIN of -119 dB and noisier (A weighted). The
compromised input noise performance of these recorders will not
become audible unless one uses mics with self-noise ratings of about
20 dB(A) or higher when recording in quieter settings with moderate
to high gain. Note that the recorder's mic preamp will add
considerable noise to these recordings when used with mics with lower
than 16 dB(A) self-noise.

I've tried to incorporate sensitivity into the EIN ranges. I feel
that the role of mic self-noise has to be in there centrally if the
recommendations are going to address noise performance quality. Rob D.

   = = =

>Speaking of EIN, I would provide greater credit to Raimund Specht
>for his work that provides insight into the EIN of portable
>recorders. Perhaps you could include a footnote, as well as a
>hyperlink to his web page.
>
>Third, you describe several criteria you think are important in the
>process of choosing a recorder. But then you don't provide any notes
>about how well the 20 recorders in your list meet most of those
>criteria.
>
>For example, you write (and I certainly agree) that ease of use in
>the field is important. You could add a column to the table that
>rates ease of use using a scale of 1 to 4 (1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 =
>good, 4 = excellent).
>
>Fourth, your table includes lots of information about recorder size,
>but the article text doesn't mention size as an important criterion.
>You could leave out all the dimensional data, and just keep the
>three categories, "pocket-size," "hand-held," and "shoulder." That
>would make room for ratings on the criteria you do say are
>important, such as ease of use, speed of boot up, pre-roll buffer,
>battery life, build quality and so on.
>
>--oryoki


--

Robin,

Thanks for this well-written, non-technical presentation.

Here are four suggestions to make a good article more useful.

First, be sure to explain the tech jargon.  Terms like SPL and phantom power
will be unfamiliar to a reader who is new to audio recording.

Second, since you point to EIN as an important criterion, it should be explained
more fully.  At least tell people how to interpret the EIN values in the table. 
I'm thinking of statements like, "EIN higher than -100 means pre-amp noise
easily will be heard in your recordings."

If this seems to complicated for your audience, then I would not present the
actual EIN numbers, and substitute a rating of preamp noise, such as "high,
moderate, low, very low."

Speaking of EIN, I would provide greater credit to Raimund Specht for his work
that provides insight into the EIN of portable recorders.  Perhaps you could
include a footnote, as well as a hyperlink to his web page.

Third, you describe several criteria you think are important in the process of
choosing a recorder.  But then you don't provide any notes about how well the 20
recorders in your list meet most of those criteria.

For example, you write (and I certainly agree) that ease of use in the field is
important.  You could add a column to the table that rates ease of use using a
scale of 1 to 4 (1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good, 4 = excellent).

Fourth, your table includes lots of information about recorder size, but the
article text doesn't mention size as an important criterion.  You could leave
out all the dimensional data, and just keep the three categories, "pocket-size,"
"hand-held," and "shoulder."  That would make room for ratings on the criteria
you do say are important, such as ease of use, speed of boot up, pre-roll
buffer, battery life, build quality and so on.

--oryoki

After many years I've finally found the time to put together an introduction to
the portable digital recorder field, with an emphasis on nature recording. Of
course the target was always moving, making things difficult.

It's on my blog here:
http://www.theatreofnoise.com/2009/11/summary-of-portable-digital-audio.html

It's non-technical and hopefully useful to beginners. It doesn't include all the
products on the Recorder List (which I reference BTW), just the most important.

-- robin