Field Recorders: What's a girl to do?

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by busman

The R4 and R4pro with modifications are much better sound than the sound devices units and at least half the cost. The Sound Devices products are much more rugged but as long as you keep the R4s in a soft case they will fair just fine.

You can get the R4 on ebay for 895 then the mod is $300 from me.

Go to the live music archive and type in Busman and you will find plenty of examples of sound quality with many different microphones.
Internet Archive: Audio Archive

please give references-

The Roland machines sound like cheap recorders- the Sound Devices are professional industry standards-

Do you have some end users you could refer us to to get their opinions?

You know that axiom of "you get what you pay for"? I have yet to hear a Sound Devices owner feel that they didn't get their moneys worth...

[bgalizio]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

please give references-

The Roland machines sound like cheap recorders- the Sound Devices are professional industry standards-

Do you have some end users you could refer us to to get their opinions?

You know that axiom of "you get what you pay for"? I have yet to hear a Sound Devices owner feel that they didn't get their moneys worth...

Many people on taperssection.com use products with busman's mods. I can tell you that most everyone who has his mods prefers them over the stock sound.

Disclaimer - I used to own a busman modded Edirol UA-5, but no longer own or use any of his stuff. Chris is very good to deal with, though!

[HarrisKarlin]

Just as a follow up, way back when I did purchase the 302. I've always been very happy with it, but I do generally feel like I have to push the mic gain a little more than I should. I swear it's a touch more gain and hiss heavy then the 442 or 552, but I still love the unit, and can't really imagine selling it even if it's just taking up space.

[panatrope]

I occasionally get the same feeling but I have never been caught out by it (only by the cable that came from camera out to the H2 line - which someone at assembly time had thoughtfully shorted left and right together to make it mono compatible). Schoeps on the inputs sound good. M-S pair plus centre for commentary/solo spot. Has also been used for outside broadcast - 3 presenters' mics plus a music feed on "4" and "5". A very versatile and reliable bit of kit!

The 302 also gets used as extra channels for the Nagra V via line in - for spotters or outriggers. Limited (same as the Nagra) panning - L/C/R - but with mains on the mic ins setting the quality, the 302 does not deliver a noticeably inferior result.

I know the tendency is to re-inforce one's own previous buying decisions, but like you, the 302 will never be replaced in the kit. Highly recommended in its field.

[BigBadJohn]

Originally Posted by sonare

The one time I used the TASCAM HD-P2 I was SHOCKED how good is sounded. No noise from the micamps, and the A/D wasn't shabby either. This was a classical gig with a ridiculous dynamic range, BTW. Records to a flashcard rather than HD.

If only it had 4 channels!

Rich

I rented the HD-P2 for a week of sound gathering. The sound really is amazing, my only hesitation is that when it comes to hard-core field work, where you are breaking down and setting up a lot, the HD-P2 is made of plastic. I started getting a little nervous about damaging the unit. If I were buying, I'd buy one made of metal.

John

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by HarrisKarlin

Just as a follow up, way back when I did purchase the 302. I've always been very happy with it, but I do generally feel like I have to push the mic gain a little more than I should. I swear it's a touch more gain and hiss heavy then the 442 or 552, but I still love the unit, and can't really imagine selling it even if it's just taking up space.

Originally Posted by panatrope

I occasionally get the same feeling but I have never been caught out by it (only by the cable that came from camera out to the H2 line - which someone at assembly time had thoughtfully shorted left and right together to make it mono compatible). Schoeps on the inputs sound good. M-S pair plus centre for commentary/solo spot. Has also been used for outside broadcast - 3 presenters' mics plus a music feed on "4" and "5". A very versatile and reliable bit of kit!

The 302 also gets used as extra channels for the Nagra V via line in - for spotters or outriggers. Limited (same as the Nagra) panning - L/C/R - but with mains on the mic ins setting the quality, the 302 does not deliver a noticeably inferior result.

I know the tendency is to re-inforce one's own previous buying decisions, but like you, the 302 will never be replaced in the kit. Highly recommended in its field.

SD are excellent devices - but just to let you know. Nagra re bringing out a stand-alone mic. pre. later this year. Same quality mic. pres as are in the Nagra VI (and will make the VI a true 6-channel recorder with 6 mics. in one go. But, obviously can be used with loads of other things as well (including SD). I was having a look at an early prototype at the AES in London this week.

Originally Posted by BigBadJohn

I rented the HD-P2 for a week of sound gathering. The sound really is amazing, my only hesitation is that when it comes to hard-core field work, where you are breaking down and setting up a lot, the HD-P2 is made of plastic. I started getting a little nervous about damaging the unit. If I were buying, I'd buy one made of metal.

The HD-P2 is no better, maybe slightly worse, than the Fostex FR-2 the OP had originally.

The next step up, of course, is the SD 702 and Nagra LB.