Need a sound recorder, what should I get?
in [Repair]
|
From: Gareth Magennis on 10 Mar 2010 19:14 "b" <reverend_rogers(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bb1f6658-f46d-433f-88ea-3f2429dc820a(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 10, 8:46 pm, Robert Macy <m...(a)california.com> wrote: >> Need a sound recorder for recording noise intrusion from an adjacent >> tenant. >> >> Using Sony ICD-SX700 did not achieve very good results. >> >> What should I use? > > As mentioned above, a tape deck is cheap and effective. A second hand > stereo one (be sure to get one with mic inputs) and a couple of good > mikes will knock the socks off any mp3 type device, for the same or > less money. > see > http://www.vintagecassette.com/ > for specs. > -B Why on earth would anyone recommend buying a last century Cassette Deck, the OP already has a digital recorder capable of 16 bit 44.1k recordings, the same quality of CD. You might be able to improve the recordings by using a better quality external mic plugged into the mic input jack and placed accordingly. I suspect though that the problem is not the equipment, but rather the unrealistic expectations of the OP.
From: William R. Walsh on 10 Mar 2010 20:01 Hi! > Thank you for your reply. I fear you are correct that the front end > is most important - the mike and preamp. It's going to be a good starting point. But almost any portable cassette recorder I've used did a good job of picking up sound from all the room. It's a compromise of course...the more room noise you pick up, the less chance you have of being able to focus on a specific source. > In defense of digital vs mechanical, the Sony has 1 1/2 hr of > 'perfect' MP3 and more than 340 hours of plain recording A tape won't match that, but my thought is to wait until the noise occurs and start recording immediately. Announce the time of day and then just let it roll. Or get a tape recorder with voice operated recording. I have a Realistic Minisette 20 here right now that does this with two sensitivity levels. Its built in speaker is nothing to write home about, yet the recordings are pretty good. I'd guess it was made before the heyday of microcassettes (and handily beats those in terms of audio quality). > [even speech recognition software] Which would probably work from a tape recording as well, although you're likely to be able to do a much better job by transcribing it yourself if the need arises. Speech recognition is still an imprecise concept. > I just realized I was playing the sound back using the built in 1 inch > diameter speaker. Duh! Will try using earphones with better fidelity > to see if the lower spectrum exists. Consider going further than that -- play the unit into your stereo receiver. > so I can do some very esoteric manipulations using a Matlab clone, octave. While that sounds very interesting, why do you want to do that? It sounds like a lot of work to me, and I don't understand the value of the outcome. William
From: William R. Walsh on 10 Mar 2010 20:04 Hi! > Why on earth would anyone recommend buying a last century Cassette > Deck, the OP already has a digital recorder capable of 16 bit 44.1k > recordings, the same quality of CD. Because it's cheap, easy and simple? You don't need ultra-high-fidelity to capture a record of someone's making a disturbingly loud amount of sound. The cheap point is rendered moot by the presence of the more expensive recorder, yet the simplicity and still massive installed base of playback equipment can't be argued. Plus, the tape recorder has the advantage in cost--if something happens to it, you aren't out a fortune! William
From: Sjouke Burry on 10 Mar 2010 21:01 William R. Walsh wrote: > Hi! > >> Why on earth would anyone recommend buying a last century Cassette >> Deck, the OP already has a digital recorder capable of 16 bit 44.1k >> recordings, the same quality of CD. > > Because it's cheap, easy and simple? > > You don't need ultra-high-fidelity to capture a record of someone's making a > disturbingly loud amount of sound. The cheap point is rendered moot by the > presence of the more expensive recorder, yet the simplicity and still > massive installed base of playback equipment can't be argued. Plus, the tape > recorder has the advantage in cost--if something happens to it, you aren't > out a fortune! > > William > > Also for the purpose of the OP he is better off, using an old recorder, because the new ones have the nasty habit of "equalizing" the mic input. As he needs a record of sound level, that is not a very good idea.
From: Jeff Liebermann on 10 Mar 2010 22:16
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:46:53 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy <macy(a)california.com> wrote: >Need a sound recorder for recording noise intrusion from an adjacent >tenant. > >Using Sony ICD-SX700 did not achieve very good results. > >What should I use? Use a computah. Scanner recorder will only record when there is something worth hearing and doesn't gobble disk space: <http://www.davee.com/scanrec/> -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl(a)cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |