Need a sound recorder, what should I get?
in [Repair]
|
From: Gareth Magennis on 11 Mar 2010 03:35 "Sjouke Burry" <burrynulnulfour(a)ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote in message news:4b984edd$0$14133$703f8584(a)textnews.kpn.nl... > 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. Rubbish. Once his CD quality recording is made, with what he has at the moment, it can then easily be transferred to a PC via USB into free editing software like Audacity, where you can do all the equalising, level shifting, noise reduction and analysis you like. You can't do much of that with a Cassette Player.
From: Adrian Tuddenham on 11 Mar 2010 04:38 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? The recorder isn't as important as the microphone and the playback loudspeaker. Is the noise coming through in one place (e.g. hammer drilling or tap dancing) or is it diffuse? If it is diffuse, an omnidirectional mic might work best. If the noise is predominantly low frequency (e.g. boom box) a cheap omnidirectional mic will generally have a better low frequency response than a cheap cardioid. The big problem you will have with L.F. noise is demonstrating it realistically to someone, because loudspeakers are rarely flat at such frequencies and the bass from headphones will depend on their positioning on the listener's ears. Investment in a cheap analogue sound level meter will help; then you can calibrate the recording level and match the playback level to it when you come to demonstrate the problem. Use the dBC scale if the noise is predominantly L.F. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk
From: PeterD on 11 Mar 2010 08:08 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. > Why? A recording would prove nothing. You need to measure sound levels, not record the sounds. A sensitive microphone would pick up the smallest of sounds so there would be no way to determine that the neighbor's noise/sounds were a problem or not. As well, what does your lease say on noise, and his? If it is not covered, prepair for a long hard time. >Using Sony ICD-SX700 did not achieve very good results. > >What should I use? I'd use the threat of moving out at the end of my lease.
From: Robert Macy on 11 Mar 2010 11:23 On Mar 11, 1:38 am, adr...(a)poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote: > 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? > > The recorder isn't as important as the microphone and the playback > loudspeaker. > > Is the noise coming through in one place (e.g. hammer drilling or tap > dancing) or is it diffuse? If it is diffuse, an omnidirectional mic > might work best. > > If the noise is predominantly low frequency (e.g. boom box) a cheap > omnidirectional mic will generally have a better low frequency response > than a cheap cardioid. The big problem you will have with L.F. noise is > demonstrating it realistically to someone, because loudspeakers are > rarely flat at such frequencies and the bass from headphones will depend > on their positioning on the listener's ears. > > Investment in a cheap analogue sound level meter will help; then you can > calibrate the recording level and match the playback level to it when > you come to demonstrate the problem. Use the dBC scale if the noise is > predominantly L.F. > > -- > ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ > (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)www.poppyrecords.co.uk Thank you for your reply. Curious, why dBC, not dBA? The sounds are being transferred through above tenant's flooring and then through our ceiling. It is possible to tell origin, but it's like a spotlight diffused onto a sheet of paper - you can tell where it's coming from a little. I like the idea of calibrating to verify the recorded sound presentation recreates EXACTLY what was there, but may be difficult in a large courtroom... Any recommendations for readily available sound level meters? the Sony has vu meters on it, but I think they're relative and not absolute. I did notice that the low level sounds using this mike/preamp of the Sony appear to be sitting around the last 5 to 10 levels of digitization. I did a 'quiet' recording and was going to do a histogram to find out. But there was just enough room noise to prevent that. there's a spike around 100Hz and a lesser one again near 200Hz, but don't know where that's coming from. Too high for air/ fan noise? two PC's in the room were running. on 60Hz mains. Naive question: does quantization cause hiss? only distortion? Not sure, but removing the low frequency spikes the noise spectral density does appear reasonably flat, except for the what appears as 1/ f noise starting to come up around 50Hz, but who hears that, right? Robert
From: Robert Macy on 11 Mar 2010 11:24
On Mar 11, 12:35 am, "Gareth Magennis" <sound.serv...(a)btconnect.com> wrote: > "Sjouke Burry" <burrynulnulf...(a)ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote in message > > news:4b984edd$0$14133$703f8584(a)textnews.kpn.nl... > > > > > > > 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. > > Rubbish. Once his CD quality recording is made, with what he has at the > moment, it can then easily be transferred to a PC via USB into free editing > software like Audacity, where you can do all the equalising, level shifting, > noise reduction and analysis you like. You can't do much of that with a > Cassette Player. Will check out Audacity, thaks for the reference. |