Date:Wed, 12 Oct 2005 09:49:05 -0400
Reply-To:Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender:Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]>
From:andy kolovos <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:Re: Seen at AES NYC
Comments:To: [log in to unmask]In-Reply-To:<000301c5cf17$e938ac10$f47fea48@david1c6a71e12>
Content-Type:text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
David Lewiston wrote:
> I've read negative comments about the quality of the preamps in this
> recorder, giving the impression that while it might be perfectly
> adequate for non-critical recordings (interviews and the like) it isn't
> suitable for serious music recording.
>
> Salutations, David L
>
Since when is an interview "non-critical", pal?
Note: I'm just joking. As a cranky folklorist I just couldn't resist,
though.
For us the issue has been the flat-out low quality preamps on the
Marantz CF machines. And from all accounts I've heard/read the FR2
preamps are much cleaner in comparison. This, of course, is purely
second hand, anecdotal info though.
After working with the PMD660 with both a 421 II and a EV RE50 N/DB I'm
amazed that radio people can use them at all. Hissy. I'm waiting on a
new mic, an AT813a (inexpensive self-powered condenser), to see if that
makes things any better. To date though, in many respects our Sharp MD
recorders sound cleaner. And while our DAT machines (TCD-D10ProIIs)
have wonderful micpres, we've pretty much stepped away from the format.
I hold out hope of a professional-spec CF recorder with clean preamps.
Otherwise we're going to have to switch to an external micpre, which
will cost as much as the FR2 (I imagine) and force us to haul around one
more expensive and fragile thing!
andy
--
*********************************
Andy Kolovos
Archivist/Folklorist
Vermont Folklife Center
P.O. Box 442
Middlebury, VT 05753
(802) 388-4964
akolovos @ vermontfolklifecenter.org
http://www.vermontfolklifecenter.org
