Portable recorder advice for scientific research

[joljols]

Hi,
I am a scientist studying wild corvids and use audio recorders for a number of projects. One project is recording the parental calls and playing them back to their young to see if they can recognize their parents calls over unknown other adult jackdaws calls. A second project is to record the vocalizations in a corvid roost to determine if they perhaps leave the roost at the moment a certain amplitude is reached.
I have been using the marantz PMD660 as well as the microtrack 24/96 with both shotgun mics and small clip-on mics with xlr and jack plugins.
My question is now, what recorder would you advice based on the above information? THe marantz does not have all the options I have and is very expensive and I understood XLR is not perce better than jack plugin. The olympus LS-3 is cheap, has a timer function and can be powered by USB, making it much better in terms of requirements. But how does the audio quality differ between the above three mentioned devices.
So taken all together, what device would you suggest? Thank you very much for your help!

[rcrowley]

1) The Marantz appears to be a much better candidate for accurate recording. The claims on the Olympus website for magical powers amount to less than completely accurate recording and reproduction. I would not trust the Olympus gadget for accuracy.

2) Other features of the Olympus (like sound activation, etc.) may be more important to your experiment than sonic accuracy(?)

3) I would not trust ANY recorder for accuracy when used in any sort of lossy compressed mode (MP3, WMA, etc.) They are fine for casual music listening while you are jogging, but they are NOT suitable for scientific use where the subtle characteristics of the sounds may be important factors. The kinds of compression we use for listening to music are designed to discard things that humans mostly won't notice are missing. But all bets are off when you are recording sounds of other species either for analysis or for reproduction back to them.

4) XLR connections (implying professional, balanced microphone lines) are the best standard we have for connecting microphones and other audio. Not sure what your terms "perce better" and "jack plugin" mean?

[Rolo 46]

What do you playback with ?

[joljols]

Thanks.
But can you please explain answer 1 since just saying this does not help if others say the opposite.
Sonic accuracy is very important to record the birds calls because if the response to the adults might be there it is because of very subtle differences between calls.
THe olympus has a timer function which is needed for some of the experiments.
I don't understand why you say the XLR is better just because it is the standard. With a jack plugin I just mean a TRS connector and since the cables are the same for both there shouldn't be any difference in quality.
For playback I would use the same device. We used Marantz PMD660 and microtrack 24/96 last year connected to a amplifyer and a professional small speaker used by other researchers (forgot the name).

[ttown23]

Originally Posted by joljols

Thanks.
But can you please explain answer 1 since just saying this does not help if others say the opposite.
Sonic accuracy is very important to record the birds calls because if the response to the adults might be there it is because of very subtle differences between calls.
THe olympus has a timer function which is needed for some of the experiments.
I don't understand why you say the XLR is better just because it is the standard. With a jack plugin I just mean a TRS connector and since the cables are the same for both there shouldn't be any difference in quality.
For playback I would use the same device. We used Marantz PMD660 and microtrack 24/96 last year connected to a amplifyer and a professional small speaker used by other researchers (forgot the name).

If I may, I think what he is saying is that the Marantz you have is a better quality recorder. Likely this has to do the the quality/method of A to D conversion... in terms of XLR vs. TRS, I would view this as a more minor issue. I would also favor XLR, because it 'locks into place' whereas TRS does not... but sure, in terms of the actual signal quality there won't be a difference between XLR and TRS.

[rumleymusic]

I would also favor XLR, because it 'locks into place' whereas TRS does not.

Not to mention jack plugs and inputs are very clumsy, loose connection easily, and break quickly. Something to seriously consider in a portable device.

I'm not sure what the timer function is, or why you need it. But any recorder that works with broadcast wave files will record them at a specific time stamp, which can be uploaded easily into any DAW.

[ttown23]

Originally Posted by rumleymusic

Not to mention jack plugs and inputs are very clumsy, loose connection easily, and break quickly. Something to seriously consider in a portable device.

I'm not sure what the timer function is, or why you need it. But any recorder that works with broadcast wave files will record them at a specific time stamp, which can be uploaded easily into any DAW.

Agreed.

[rcrowley]

Originally Posted by joljols

Thanks.
But can you please explain answer 1 since just saying this does not help if others say the opposite.

Sure. First of all, we are assuming that you are recording "PCM" or "WAV", i.e. UN-compressed. ANY lossy compressed method is completely off the table for scientific use. Period. End of discussion.

I am reacting to the things I am reading on what I presume to be the manufacturer's official product page:
LS-3 | Linear PCM Recorder | Olympus Imaging Asia
When I see things like "omnidirectional center microphone to enhance low frequencies" I read: "we have diddled the frequency response of the microphones to make it sound "better". When I see "advanced new technology dramatically enhances audio reproduction from small speakers" again it says that they are diddling the frequency response so that it will sound "better" (i.e. different) than what was recorded. This may be OK if you are trying to record street buskers, but NOT for any sort of scientific use.

And "Retune technology is also incorporated to flatten the frequency response". Does this mean that they are throwing some equalization (again diddling the frequency response) to make up for the cheap mic elements in the gadget? What if I am using REAL microphones with flat frequency response? Can I turn off this "Retune technology"? The whole page is filled with terms that appear to be "commercial puffery"*. And they frequently use terms that are ambiguous or simply undefined. I cringe when reading that page. It gives me ZERO confidence that I could send an arbitrary audio signal into that thing and expect to get it back out unscathed.

* What Is Puffery in Advertising? | Small Business - Chron.com

If I wanted something to record audio notes or meetings or lectures or street musicians, I wouldn't hesitate to consider something like that Olympus product. But if I were trying to do real scientific research, I would not even consider that or any other product in that "pocket recorder" category. I would reject them all out of hand as being designed for something other than accurate reproduction.

Sonic accuracy is very important to record the birds calls because if the response to the adults might be there it is because of very subtle differences between calls.

Understood. And that is EXACTLY why I would never consider something like that little Olympus recorder.

THe olympus has a timer function which is needed for some of the experiments.

Understood. And that is I why I modified my original statement to allow for the possibility that these kinds of features may be more important to your scenario than actual sonic accuracy. Only you can ultimately make those kinds of trade-off decisions.

I don't understand why you say the XLR is better just because it is the standard.

The XLR is not better because it is the standard. It is the standard because it is better. Virtually ALL professional audio applications use XLR connectors. The rare exceptions are for things that are so small they must use smaller connectors (there are even a miniature version of XLR).

With a jack plugin I just mean a TRS connector and since the cables are the same for both there shouldn't be any difference in quality.

1/4-inch phone (or 3.5mm mini-phone) connectors will not make any significant difference in audio quality. However, (except for some special variations), phone connectors lack any sort of locking mechanism, so they pull out easily. That is OK for interconnecting equipment in a rack where nothing is moving. But if you are trying to plug 2-3 mic extension cables together to get the microphone where you want it, you do not want anything that will come apart all by itself.

But even more importantly, an XLR mic connector is a reasonably good indicator of more serious mic preamp circuit design. Something that is less susceptible to interference, and something that is quieter and lower distortion. ALL of these factors would be desirable to me if I were doing this kind of scientific recording out in the field.

Note that there are online forums where nature recording is the prime focus. ie...
naturerecordists : E-Mail group of individuals interested i
But remember that scientific experimental techniques are not necessarily the same as what is important to hobbyists just going out to record bird-calls for their own amusement (and the amusement of fellow birders). We don't know what are the important but perhaps subtle things in the waveform that the birds respond to. We need the most accurate recording possible to eliminate that possible source of error in the experiment.

[ttown23]

^
And that folks, is how we take care of business downtown!!!


Alright, that's the wrap folks, time for lunch break...

[Rolo 46]

As the forum has observed linear accuracy is essential for this research
In the past this was Nagra with the Nagra DSM speaker for playback.
The speaker needs to be accurate too.

Recording WAV on a shaver and playing back on a small DC powered class D active speaker would be the way today

Poncing about with 3.5mm jacks is silly in the field up a tree
Why not hire the proper kit?

[joljols]

1) Yes I am recording PCM and am currently using what is often seen as the standard in scientific research, the PMD660.

2) Thanks for your indepth reply rcrowley. What I need is to record the most natural sound as possible and play back this sound as natural as possible. Your comment seems to suggest the Olympus changes the sound a lot and will therefore be a bad choice as a recorder. However, how would it perform if I playback a recording recorded with the marantz? We need at least 6 recorders and marantzes are very expensive.

3) I understood XLR is preferred but since the quality does not matter and the device will be recording static I leave this issue.

4) We need a recorder with a timer for one of the project to start and stop recording at a certain time each day. We would leave the recorder out for a week on end with a large external battery. For the recorder with the timer the timerfunction is more important than the quality of the recording, however for the other projects the recording should be as natural as possible.

Any more ideas? Thanks again!

[Rolo 46]

Hire a Sound Devices 702,it has a timer ,runs very efficiently, and could be left in a Peli case in all winds and weathers with an external NiMh cell.
Its edited results could be copied to any playback machine.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by rcrowley

When I see things like "omnidirectional center microphone to enhance low frequencies" I read: "we have diddled the frequency response of the microphones to make it sound "better".

I don't read that into it at all - I see that as: "as directional microphones do not have a good bottom end we have added an omni capsule to capture the bass end that a directional mic. misses"

Originally Posted by rcrowley

When I see "advanced new technology dramatically enhances audio reproduction from small speakers" again it says that they are diddling the frequency response so that it will sound "better" (i.e. different) than what was recorded. This may be OK if you are trying to record street buskers, but NOT for any sort of scientific use.

Maybe - but where is this "diddling"? If it's only for the internal loudspeaker it does not matter, as the recording itself will be fine and if it's not on the line outs you can easily add an extension listening monitor that by-passes the circuit.

I find the little Olympus (LS-10 in my case - LS-11 is better) a nice little unit - though I have now upgraded to the Nagra SD for small portable use.

[rcrowley]

Originally Posted by John Willett

I don't read that into it at all - I see that as: "as directional microphones do not have a good bottom end we have added an omni capsule to capture the bass end that a directional mic. misses"

Really? That 2.2mm center capsule is so much better than the 2.0mm left and right capsules? That is a marketing gimmic. If it were a legitimate microphone design technique, do you think someone would have discovered the technique by now?

Maybe - but where is this "diddling"? If it's only for the internal loudspeaker it does not matter, as the recording itself will be fine and if it's not on the line outs you can easily add an extension listening monitor that by-passes the circuit.

Certainly. But we have no way of knowing that now, do we?

I find the little Olympus (LS-10 in my case - LS-11 is better) a nice little unit - though I have now upgraded to the Nagra SD for small portable use.

I'm sure it is a nice unit. But it is very far away from the requirements as stated by joljols.

Isn't that rather like saying "I find the Yugo a nice little car though I have now upgraded to a Maserati."?

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by rcrowley

Really? That 2.2mm center capsule is so much better than the 2.0mm left and right capsules? That is a marketing gimmic. If it were a legitimate microphone design technique, do you think someone would have discovered the technique by now?

Yes they have discovered the technique, and it's a technique often used in classical recording - though normally with a pair of omnis, rather than a single.

Sorry, I don't see it as a gimmick at all.

Originally Posted by rcrowley

Certainly. But we have no way of knowing that now, do we?

Yes we do - we ask the manufacturer.

Originally Posted by rcrowley

I'm sure it is a nice unit. But it is very far away from the requirements as stated by joljols.

Maybe, maybe not - but your overly negative comments really deemed a reply.

[ttown23]

Originally Posted by Rolo 46

Hire a Sound Devices 702,it has a timer ,runs very efficiently, and could be left in a Peli case in all winds and weathers with an external NiMh cell.
Its edited results could be copied to any playback machine.

This is a great suggestion. I've used the Sound Devices units with great success, and actually we just did a piano jazz album with them. The A to D conversion was some of the best I've heard-- out of both portable and fixed units-- we ended up using none of the ProTools Digi002 stuff because the Sound Devices was so good.