So far I have only used external microphones attached to my Canon XH-A1 camera, but am now considering a stand alone recorder.

I have a Rode NTG-3, with blimp etc.

What I think I need (and I'm sure the more experienced persons among you will guide me) is:

A reasonably priced and not too fancy (ie suitable for a beginner) machine with XLR input, delivering phantom power, digital (preferably to CF card) recording with a 10 or 15 second cache. These might be standard but I don't know. Oh, and a reasonably light weight too.

Virtually all of my recording is done outdoors, and is wildlife oriented - so anything from birdsong to rustling in the grass.

Ambient sounds are usually recorded on my Edirol RH-09, but I can't use that with the NTG-3.

Your help will be appreciated. Thanks

I've been reading lots of posts, and picked up a lot of information, but so far not an answer to this specifc question. Your help will be appreciated. Thanks

I'm not sure about the 10-15 second cache. You mean like a pre-record cache?

As a beginner its hard to pass up the zoom h4n. At only $300 its a bargain and a lot of people have done quality work with it. It looks a bit like a futuristic tazer, though.

I have no idea about the cache, sorry. I've only used an h4n a few times and didn't really dig through the features. For dialog I found it a very capable recorder.

The Marantz PMD660 is easy to use, supplies 48v phantom and has nice "twist" knobs (you don't have to adjust gain with "up/down" buttons or in the menu). I've used it quite a lot for recording ambient sound and all sorts of recording fun. It's a bit "old" technology and, currently cheaper than a lot of current gear.

It records to CF cards and uses AA batteries.

Andrew

Yes, I do mean a pre-record cache. I've been using the Sony HVR MRC unit with my cameras, and have found the cache feature extremely useful for wildlife video. Certainly the ability to record something that happened before I had time to hit the record button - and wait for the tape drive to crank up - has given me a few shots I would otherwise have missed. It would be even more useful for sound recording, so I'd have that as a priority.

I don't think the Zoom H4N supplies phantom power - so it would only be an alternative to my edirol.

Robn

Thanks for the Marantx PMD660 suggestion. I looked it up, and it seems to have been superceded by the 661. So far as I can see, it doesn't have the cache feature, but if I can't find anything else, I may look for a second-hand one to get me started.

You don't give a budget at all ???


1st choice - Nagra VI (http://www.nagraaudio.com/pro/pages/products_nagra_vi.php)

2nd choice - Sound Devices 788T (http://www.sounddevices.com/products/788t.htm)

3rd choice - Sound Devices 744T (http://www.sounddevices.com/products/744t.htm)

4th choice - Nagra LB (http://www.nagraaudio.com/pro/pages/products_nagra_lb.php)

5th choice - Sound Devices 722 (http://www.sounddevices.com/products/722.htm)

6th choice - Sound Devices 702T (http://www.sounddevices.com/products/702t.htm)

7th choice - Sound Devices 702 (http://www.sounddevices.com/products/702.htm)

8th choice - Fostex FR-2 (http://www.fostexinternational.com/docs/pro_products/fr2.shtml)

9th choice - Tascam HD-P2 (http://www.tascam.com/products/hd-p2.html)

10th choice - Fostex FR-2LE (http://www.fostexinternational.com/docs/pro_products/fr2le.shtml)

That's my list of pro and semi-pro recorders - best first.

The more you pay the better quality you get - much better mic. pre-amps, better resolution, lower noise, etc...


I have ignored the little pocket thingies as I do not consider them as main recording machines and more for back-up and grab-it recordings when you don't have the main stuff handy.

Good back-ups are the new Zoom H4N (http://www.zoom.co.jp/english/products/h4n/), the Edirol R-09HR (http://www.edirol.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=332&Itemid=390) (the R-09HR includes recovery software for recovering lost files and is popular with professionals as a back-up machine) and Sony PCM D-50 (http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/view/ShowProduct.action?product=PCM-D50&site=biz_en_GB&pageType=Overview&category=Mixers) - the Olympus LS-10 (http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/2581_digital_recorder_ls-10_18555.htm) and the new and improved LS-11 (http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/2581_digital-recorder_ls-11_21971.htm) are excellent pocketable "grab-it" recorders.

Personally, I have the Nagra VI (an upgrade from the Fostex FR-2) and the Olympus LS-10 (bought before the LS-11 came out).

I have included url links to the product information of all the recorders listed - just click on the names.

I hope this helps.

You don't give a budget at all ??? - No, because I have no reference point as to what this sort of thing costs. If all recommendations come at a price I can't afford, then I'll have to wait before buying. If I suggest something too low, I expect to berated for having too high hopes of what is possible.


1st choice - Nagra VI - looks impressive but far too complex for my needs - not that that couldn't change in the future.

2nd choice - Sound Devices 788T - same as above, but I don't see any reference to a pre-recording cashe/buffer

3rd choice - Sound Devices 744T - same as 788T

4th choice - Nagra LB - put this one down for a second look

5th choice - Sound Devices 722 - same as 788

6th choice - Sound Devices 702T - ah, found reference to a pre-record buffer in the user guide, so I suppose it's mentioned in the same place for the other Sound Devices machines. This is what I meant in my original post about not knowing if something would be considered standard and therefore not mentioned in the highlighted features.

7th choice - Sound Devices 702 - as for 702T

8th choice - Fostex FR-2 - needs a second look

9th choice - Tascam HD-P2 - don't see any mention of a pre-record buffer

10th choice - Fostex FR-2LE - needs a second look, but the buffer is only 2 secs

Now, a quick look at prices puts the Nagra LB at $3000 and the Fostex FR-2LE at £400. I'm not in the market for the former (certainly not at the moment) but I'd be happy with something at £400-£500, until I can justify more.

Although I'm not in the market for a pocketable unit (I already have the Edirol 09RH), I did take a look at the Zoom H4N and saw that it does provide phantom power, so I stand corrected on that.

Thanks for taking the time to compile that list for me, it has been a help and an education.

For a fairly light weght set up, I paired my Sign Eng44 (xlr and phantom) with a Tascam DR-07. I don't think the DR-07 amps are good enough on their own, and there is no phantom power, The DR-07 is not xlr, but I mate it with the ENG-44 with a 6 inch mini cable. I use velcro on physically join the two units.

I've got the Tascam HD-P2 and it does have a prerecord buffer. The length of prerecord depends on the quality settings. Overall it's a very good little field recorder right at the entry level of pro higher level serious hobbiest range. Tascam does also make a higher end professional recorder and they just introduced a 6 channel recorder on level with the HD-P2.

I'm a fan of the Sound Devices mixers and recorders for field work and on most projects where we have a dedicated production sound crew they usually use those.

I had the Sony PCM-D50 which I thought gave the best overall sound for hand held digital recorders but it does not have built in XLR and Phantom.

Edirol also makes a couple of good field recorders.

Garrett

I don't think the Zoom H4N supplies phantom power.In fact, it does.

EDIT: Oops, sorry, you aready noted this above. Missed it earlier.

For outdoor type nature recording, the 4/8 trk. machines like the SD 744/788 would most likely NOT be the best choice unless you planning on recording surround. (an expensive proposition)
At the least, for low SPL nature recording, if your budget does not allow a Nagra or SD, I would look into one of the machines in the $1k range like the Fostex or Marantz with the Ode brothers preamp mods.

BTW: The Marantz 660 is still in production, or a least available. It does have a 2 sec. pre-record buffer. The internal pre-amps are 'a little noisy' and it eats batteries.. 4-AAs at a time. the internal mics are useless for anything other than verbal notes.
The 661 is a little smaller and better, but I have no first hand experience. They are well built and reliable though for the price.

Hi folks

Thanks for all your contributions.

Chris - sounds like you've got a setup that works for you, but I'd really like something to just plug in and go.

Garrett - I'm beginning to think that buffer might be standard on most higher range recorders, so I'll add the Tascom to the list of possibilities.

Adam - I did mention that I'd discovered my error in a later post.

Rick - I was coming to the conclusion that I don't need anything more than 2XLR inputs - I have only one XLR mic at present, and two inputs would allow for later expansion. If I later want more, that will be the time for the very expensive recorder/mixer.

I've just been out filming in the garden, and I think I ought to add to my list of requirements something that automatically cuts out the sound of plane engines - they are 15,000- 20,000 feet overhead on the way from London to the Americas, but the Rode picks them up like they were next door - as well as all the noises from next door! And no, I haven't got the gain turned anywhere near half way, never mind full.

I think I ought to add to my list of requirements something that automatically cuts out the sound of plane engines

Sorry Annie, only the stop button does that, despite any claims you may have heard or what's portrayed on fictional TV shows.
However some noise reduction software can attenuate it in post production .. to a certain degree.. a lot depends on the characteristics of the objectionable noise...no way to totally eliminate it. Record in-between the aircraft fly-overs. ( and tell the noisy neighbors to 'shut-the f___ up)

If I had a dollar for ever time I halted an interview or production for aircraft, vehicles, lawnmowers, weed-wackers, dogs, people, ect, ect, ect. ect., I'd be freak'in rich.

The Sony PCM-D50 is damned good! As mentioned it doesn't have XLR inputs (unless you buy the $499 adapter!) BUT the built in mics are way better than you might expect at this price point. I am always pleasantly surprised at how good a job it does in side by side tests against my Schoeps.

Is it as good as the Schoeps/SD combo. No! Is at a heck of a lot better then you'd expect considering it costs less than 10% as much as the Schoeps/SD setup. Absolutely! Would most ordinary (ie non audio) people be able to tell the difference? Probably not really!

Maybe something like a Beachtek or Juicedlink adapter with the D50 should work well and be in budget or pretty close.

By the way, it does have a 5 second pre-record cache and one of the cleverer limiters around - it has an attenuated signal cache and when the signal clips it intelligently replaces the clipped audio with the attenuated version. Works quite nicely

Do I sound like I really like the unit??? Right!

What doesn't it do? Well it doesn't automatically cut out planes and dogs and ambulances etc.

Hey Rick, I wasn't serious about something to cut out the plane noise!

Jim - if the Sony PCM-D50 doesn't have XLR inputs, presumably it can't supply phantom power either? Have just looked further on the Sony site, and they list the XLR adapter (with two XLR sockets) for it that does supply phantom power. OK, that can go on the list for further scrutiny. Thanks.

Annie,

I'll second Jim's comments regarding the D50's limiter function. It is actually one of the best I've ever used. It is actually one of the few limiters I am willing to use. It is almost unnoticeable when it kicks in. The thing I can't understand is how they can put that good of a limiter in a $500 recorder but the limiter in my Sony EX3 SUCKS!

One other thing to note about the D50 also is that the drift is very small. I use to use mine to pick up board feeds for long stage shows and found that it would drift a very predictable 5 frames per hour from my Canon cameras. The predictability of it made sinking very easy.

Garrett

Yes, they have an adapter but it's pretty expensive, which is why I suggested checking out something like a Juicedlink or Beachtek - they'll perform the same function (ie XLR in and 3.5mm out and also provide phantom power) and they're quite a bit cheaper than the Sony adapter.

Beachtek | DXA-6A Audio Adapter | DXA-6A | B&H Photo Video

juicedLink | CX231 Audio Mixer and Preamplifier | CX231 | B&H

Sony | XLR-1 XLR Mic Adapter for PCM-D1 and PCM-D50 | XLR-1

The Sony has a 1/4 - 20 socket on the back so either the Beachtek or Juicedlink could probbaly screw onto the Sony

Garett,

I have a sinking suspicion that in most cameras - even pro cameras - the most expensive piece of the audio chain is the XLR connector itself.

I'm being a bit cynical, but I might be right!

You don't give a budget at all ??? - No, because I have no reference point as to what this sort of thing costs. If all recommendations come at a price I can't afford, then I'll have to wait before buying. If I suggest something too low, I expect to berated for having too high hopes of what is possible.


OK - recommendations.......

The Nagra VI and Sound Devices 788T are both superb and are both in the £4,500 - £5,500 price bracket.

Serious recorders that are more affordable are the Nagra LB and Sound Devices 702 - The Nagra LB is £1,600 and I think the 702 is similar (the 702T has time-code and would be a bit more).

Personally I would choose these over everything else - they are all fully professional machines designed to give reliable service in all conditions day in, day out used by film and broadcast sound recordists.


If you are more semi-pro and a bit hard up, then the Fostex FR-2 and Tascam HD-P2 are worth considering; as also is the FR-2LE at a lower price. These three are good value for money, but are all plastic bodied.

I had the FR-2 for three or four years before I upgraded to the Nagra.

I hope this helps.

I have a sinking suspicion that in most cameras - even pro cameras - the most expensive piece of the audio chain is the XLR connector itself.

I'm being a bit cynical, but I might be right!

LOL - I think you might be right too.

The Sony PCM-D50 is damned good! .


Yes, it's a nice bit of kit, but more a pocket device (though, I would say, probably the best of them). But the XLR inputs with phantom is an add-on box that is, I think, double the price of the recorder.

For quality at a low budget, I would say the Fostex FR-2LE is the best option.

I reviewed it for a pro broadcasting magazine when it came out and my conclusion then was that it was about the cheapest machine that you could call "professional".

What about the Marantz PMD661 mentioned earlier in this thread? Some seem to prefer it to the FR-2LE and it's a similar price point and a big improvement on the previous 660 - I've not read anything said against it though like most of these things you get what you pay for, but fully professional gear is too expensive for most so is kind of a red herring (why is it that pro gear though better is never as better as the huge leap in price suggests?)

I say this without any actual experience of the 661 but am interested, as like Annie, I'm looking to upgrade (from my H4).

Hi Annie
I started off with a Zoom H4. The original version. Sold it very quickly and bought a Fostex FR2 LE. I've been very happy with it.
If you decide to buy one I would recommend getting one of the high capacity model car etc batteries too. It seems to run forever on one charge.

Maybe something like a Beachtek or Juicedlink adapter with the D50 should work well and be in budget or pretty close.
.

I paired the the Sony PCM-D50 with the Beachtek DXA-6A, and have been very happy with the combo. The DXA-6A provides phantom power, should you need that.

Yes, you're right about it being a pocket device. But as you say it may well be the best of the bunch and it can be quite nice as a stand-alone unit.

I just find that it's so damned handy on its own. You can stick it anywhere you want an additional mic or backup for the main mic/recorder. It's always in my bag "just in case". I had a little aluminum plug made up that screws into the mounting hole and then fits into a shock mount so I can mount it on a regular mic stand.

I suppose if I had a 4 or 8 track recorder I might not use the Sony as often as I do, but there are times when I want more than the two tracks the 702 will handle, and don't want to drag a PC/Mac setup around with me if I can avoid it.

Suppose we do this exercise with one, or more digital mics. Can we just use the reasonable preamps that come with the mic? Or are we going to get better quality by investing in more preamps on the recorder? Do we really need timecode on a recorder, or can we just use some cruddy $10 mic that either comes on the camera or that we add on for reference audio? I sure dont want to be crawling around in the jungle or climbing some tree with the 310 x 74 x 285mm of bulk and 3.8 kg of the Nagra vi), if I can record as well with the 131.5 mm x 48 mm x 22.4 mm bulk and 165 grams of the Olympus LS-11.

Shem

With a digital mic there are no pre-amps - it's digitised in the mic., so no pre-amps at all.

The only portable recorder that will take an AES42 digital mic. straight in is the SD788T (a lot smaller than the Nagra VI).

If you want a small pro. portable recorder, then it's really only the SD 700 series and the Nagra LB (a lot smaller than the Nagra VI).

The Sony PCM-D50 is damned good! As mentioned it doesn't have XLR inputs (unless you buy the $499 adapter!) BUT the built in mics are way better than you might expect at this price point. I am always pleasantly surprised at how good a job it does in side by side tests against my Schoeps.
.

My vote also goes to the PCM-D50!

You're not going to find anything even near the price that will do a better (or even equal) job.

It has phenomenal battery life (a full two 14 hour days at least on 4 AA), has 4GB internal memory (5 1/2 hours @ 48K) and I have an 8GB card installed that the sound person can switch to when the internal memory is full (Sony says 4GB, but I have had no probs using the 8GB card). Tested sync drift (using a time code slate) with my JVC GY-HD200UB is less than a frame an hour.

I use it with a SD 302 mixer, and it fits perfectly in the bottom compartment (made for the NP battery option) of the SD 302 Portabrace field bag. I connect the tape out on the 302 to line in on the Sony using the SD XL-3 cable (and a right angle adapter on the Sony side), and using the Sony remote (which is excellent, BTW), the sound person can operate the PCM-50 even when it's secured in the Portabrace.

Here is a pic of my set-up: Production (http://www.enzogiobbe.com/production0.html) (scroll down to the bottom of the page).

The director I was doing this shoot for (William Malone), liked the sound quality of the PCM-50 so much, he borrowed it to do the Director's BD/DVD commentary for Parasomnia (using the built in mics), and he said the sound came out fantastic and that he did not have to tweak it at all.

So, yes, I really, really like it too!

I find recording sound for natural history projects very difficult mainly because many of the sounds to be recorded are at such a low level and are often unpredictable. I have tried a PCM-D50 largely because it is small, light, easy to use, economical on battery power etc. However base level noise is a problem when recording in very quiet conditions above a gain level of about 4.5 on a scale that goes to 10. It has the ability to cache but it is so sensitive to handling noise (and wind noise) that it is very difficult to use this facility with the built-in microphones. I considered buying an external preamp and a phantom power supply combination but decided this would be awkward and bulky so I bought an SD 702 and NTG-3 instead. At the moment I am not convinced that it is much better at handling low level sounds and it does not permit trimming of takes within the recorder unlike the PCM-D50. I find that at high gains I also pick up handling noise when using the Rode blimp. However SD702 does have a built in timer so that it is possible to leave the recorder close to where a bird might call at dawn for example.

Thanks to everybody for your input. It has made the choice much easier.

I will get the Fostex FR2-LE. That gives me some scope for expansion, eg a second XLR mic, and doesn't seem too complicated for a novice recordist with not much time to get to grips with recording.

Maybe in a few years I'll find a need to upgrade, but for the time being I'll take the same line as I do with using Premiere elements (v Premiere pro) for video editing, viz that by the time I can devote a significant amount of time to doing the job and therefore justify the extra expense, there is likely to be a newer version of the professional kit on the market.

Congratulations! I hope you're happy with the Fostex. Much as I like the Sony it isn't the right tool for every situation or every sound person and I've heard good things about the Fostex. Let us know how it works out for you.

Even thought you have already decided on the Fostex, I'll give you my take on the 702T.

I have a Sound Devices 702T. It has pre-recording - 10 seconds at 48khz and 5 seconds at 92khz. It is very easy to operate for a novice like myself. I don't have experiences working on different machines. I did a lot of research on recorders before I bought it and splurged for the Sound Devices because the recordings I use it to capture are very important to me and I wanted the best quality and reliability. It's difficult to image a better recording device than the 702T. If you don't need timecode the 702 is substantially cheaper. If you got a Sound Devices 702 you would probably never need to upgrade unless you wanted to record more than 2 channels.

The pre-recording makes this an attractive proposition, however, it is still five times the cost of the Fostex, and I really can't justify that at present. But thanks for your input.

If you want a small pro. portable recorder, then it's really only the SD 700 series and the Nagra LB (a lot smaller than the Nagra VI).
John, I appreciate and have been encouraged by your advice on being professional, ie: having reliable equipment.

However, I also want to direct my comments and questions to the topic of this thread, which was:

What I think I need is: (a) reasonably priced and not too fancy (ie suitable for a beginner) machine with XLR input, delivering phantom power, digital (preferably to CF card) recording with a 10 or 15 second cache. These might be standard but I don't know. Oh, and a reasonably light weight too.

Virtually all of my recording is done outdoors, and is wildlife oriented - so anything from birdsong to rustling in the grass.

I also am working out in nature: in rainforest conditions: at night too. When it's wet my telephone crashes. when it's hot my laptop freezes. It might be obvious that (contrary to some comments in another recent thread) a laptop isn't a reliable field recorder; and that humidity will be an issue. The SD 788T makers aren't confident of their recorder being reliable above 80% relative humidity. The Nagra LB makers state theirs will work in 99%.
I will take on board John's suggestion (elsewhere) of using RF condenser mics for top quality audio in humid conditions. I also understand that the digital versions are more idiot-proof. The price of cameras keeps coming down a lot faster than does the price of mics. So, if I forgo the Canon XH-A1, and instead get a Kodak zi8, I might be able to afford an MKH 8000 series mic. The top end recorders don't yet match my needs. The closest is the Nagra LB coupled with an AES 42 connection kit: how well would this work? Otherwise I wait for the recorder makers to catch up and in the mean time use something like an Hn4 with a connection kit: how well would that work?
Shem

I will take on board John's suggestion (elsewhere) of using RF condenser mics for top quality audio in humid conditions. I also understand that the digital versions are more idiot-proof. The price of cameras keeps coming down a lot faster than does the price of mics. So, if I forgo the Canon XH-A1, and instead get a Kodak zi8, I might be able to afford an MKH 8000 series mic. The top end recorders don't yet match my needs. The closest is the Nagra LB coupled with an AES 42 connection kit: how well would this work? Otherwise I wait for the recorder makers to catch up and in the mean time use something like an Hn4 with a connection kit: how well would that work?


Good mics don't really come down in price - it's a mature technology.

But - a good mic. will last forever. An MKH 416 bought in 1976 (when it came out) will be just as good today (but would cost a lot lot more today). A camera will need replacing about every 3 years and the new one will be half the price and twice as good. A good mic. will last you 20 / 30 years or more.

If money is really tight, then I would go for a Fostex FR-2LE or Tascam HD-P2 rather than a pocket machine - both these have XLRs and phantom.

and another feature that I really like of the Tascam HD-P2 is the video input which lets me connect the composite out from the camera to an input on the tascam, and it then syncs the clock rate of the recorder to the sync signal in the video stream.

This means that for long recordings (e.g. 1 hour +), my audio stays in frame sync with my video. of course this can be dealt with in other ways too, but it makes things that much easier (note this is not time code / time clock in).

In the cases where I've had long recordings without using that feature, I've found the clock rate on the recorder (tascam) to match very very closely (if not exact) to the canon A1 (not that the camera is that accurate, but they two stay on sync with little drift)

I think on the less expensive recorders, one area where the component cost is reduced is on the clock chip, resulting in more drift (for correction later) on the audio.

and another feature that I really like of the Tascam HD-P2 is the video input which lets me connect the composite out from the camera to an input on the tascam, and it then syncs the clock rate of the recorder to the sync signal in the video stream. ..... etc .....


I think that the HD-P2 is the cheapest recorder with timecode for video sync'ing.

The next up is the Fostex FR-2 with timecode board (NB: *not* LE)

Then the next is the Sound Devices 702T and 722T.

I'm back, and with a bit of cash to spare to actually purchase something before the end of the month.

My half-hour lunch break has stretched to two hours already as I've gone through this thread again, checked out all sorts of things, both on this forum and elsewhere on the net (including U-tube videos), and I find myself wondering.

Fostex FR2LE or Marantz PMD661?

The Fostex gets 8 mixed reviews on the B&H site, while the Marantz has 21 positive reviews. There is a comment on the end of a video review of the Marantz that says its only competition in the price range is the Fostex which is slightly better quality recording, but bigger and bulkier. I was surprised to see 800g for the Fostex and only 410g for the Marantz.

In favour of the Fostex are the use of CF cards instead of those fiddly SD cards (but it seems most things are going the way of SD cards anyway) and the option of a rechargeable battery (although I have so many different batteries and chargers that I'm not sure I want yet another one - I use lots of rechargeable AAs).

Has anyone here used both machines and can add any comments?

Thanks

Pardon me for jumping in.

I have Sound Devices 722 recorder. (not the 722T). I use Sennheiser MKH461 condenser mics in tropical rainforests (Malaysia). Average humidity is about as close to 100% as you can get. Paired that with Panasonic HPX172 HD video camera for wildlife and nature videos inside Malaysian National Parks.

All passed the litmus test. I record the audio to CF (not to internal hard-disk of the 722). Save battery power - which is a premium when you can't find mains socket to charge for miles around. (722 uses the Sony LiOn battery - which lasts "forever"). The 722 mic preamp is pretty good - very quiet - so, if the ambient noise is not too high, I can increase the recording level a fair bit to get the animal sounds from a distance.

I post process the audio using Sony Sound Forge and BIAS Soundsoap Pro software to get rid of the recorded noises. Soundsoap has adaptive noise filtering which dynamically adjusts the noise level as the clip moves along.

The Fostex gets 8 mixed reviews on the B&H site, while the Marantz has 21 positive reviews. T

I don't know anything about the Marantz.

Having now read the reviews of the FR2 LE on the B and H site it would appear to me that they are overwhelmingly positive.

The negative ones come from one reviewer who seems to be easily confused by the menu and doesn't seem to have heard about card readers (it's a lot easier to take the card out and slap it into a card reader than it is to fiddle around hooking the recorder up to a computer via a USB).

The other reviewer is complaining about the plastic body. Well, that's why it's cheap. I have found it robust but if it is going to have to take abuse then a more expensive recorder might be a better buy.

The other main gripe is the hissy monitoring via headphones. Which I agree with. But that's just the monitoring. The recording is superb.

The controls are simple and easy to access too, once you get used to them.

BTW I think that most of the weight in the Fostex is the battery. It's bulky but light. Don't get it if you want a recorder that you can slip into your pocket. But if you want controls and a display that are easy to access this may be a better configuration than a miniature recorder.

Having watched this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtnpodTVG70 it seems that the recording quality of the Marantz is not as good but the form factor my be more convenient if you need to keep it in a coat pocket. The other issue is the battery life. 3 hours (using phantom) is probably fine for many. I think that I am getting nearer 8 with the Fostex and a model car battery. I'm a bit vague about that. It's a long time since I make the test. The main thing is that I didn't want to have to worry about the battery running out when I am filming. There are so many things to have to monitor that I like to eliminate possible errors wherever I can. I have never come near to running out of battery power with the Fostex. BTW I use an 8 gb card too, so it never comes close to filling up and another possible error is eliminated.

They both have the same pre-record buffer (two seconds) and the menus seem to be about the same in terms of ease of use. The Fostex has a limiter. The Marantz doesn't.

I upgraded to the Marantz 661 from the H4N and love it for my needs, events, supplementing it with a couple of smaller units - Olympus LS11. I think you need to try these things out and decide if they are good enough quality for what you're doing. For me the SDs and Nagras would be way overkill. The Marantz really kicks the Zoom out of the park for not a lot of money more, and just feels much better. Also the Zoom goes through AAs like nothing Ive ever used, obv more if using Phantom, and the menus are just annoying. btw the little Olympus LS11 is ridiculously good value and batteries last forever.

Annie,

I've been looking at recorders for a while. As an external recorder for my Video camera (just a Canon DV30 now, but I'm upgrading), I think the PMD661 with Oade Brothers Super Mod is the best option for me. Here's a link: Ordering for Oade Brothers Audio: Marantz PMD 661 Super (http://www.oade.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=OBA&Category_Code=PMD661SM).

From their description:

"The Marantz PMD 661 Super MOD upgrade rebuilds the XLR inputs using very high speed, very low noise and super low distortion op amps that dramatically improve low level detail and clarity. Components are selected by ear to optimize detail and low level resolution. Super low THD+N op amps allow for a very wide SFDR even with signal levels down 50dB. This preserves the signal quality of the highest grade microphones when recording soft signals, like voice, un amplified music, nature sounds and FX."

The cost of the recorder WITH the upgrade is $679.

FYI... I found this about the PMD661 prerecord feature:

"When using auto-record mode I set the Marantz up so that it hears a sound above a predetermined trigger level, meanwhile has buffered the 2 seconds of sound before the autorecord trigger level is reached, starts recording including the two second pre-recorded bit in the buffer and records until the sound stops for 3 seconds or longer. The recorder then automatically goes back into pause mode until it hears another sound above the auto-start preset trigger level which starts it recording again with another 2 second pre-recorded bit in the buffer."

Note that I found this comment on: Recorder advice - BirdForum (http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=179289).

I hope this helps.

Regards,

Dan.

Dan - that is a very interesting feature that I didn't know existed. And reading more of that comment - he goes on to say:

And Auto-track is a great and very useful feature. You set some convenient length in time you want files to be to make them a size that is easy to manage, say 30 minutes, and every time the record clock gets to 30 minutes, the recorder aromatically starts a new file... It is a vast improvement over dealing with files of several hours of recording time in one huge 2Gb lump. That's the equivalent (but more versatile) to recording video with the Sony MRC-1K which splits a couple of hours recording into 4GB (20minute) segments.

Richard - I thought you'd jump in about the Fostex. I agree the negative reviews seemed to by by people who didn't know what they were talking about. However, your comment about hissy sound through headphones has me worried, especially as I think you are the sort of person who would have tried different headphones to confirm that. I don't like wearing headphones, but I understand the value of them for the purposes of recording, so, yes, I do use them. But hisses or hums . . . . . . . . . .

Now I'm going to show my ignorance. I assume that a limiter cuts the signal when it gets too loud, but how important is it to have one?

Thanks

Maybe the word 'hissing' overstates it.
There is slight background noise which you might think came from the mic.
As long as you realise that it works fine for monitoring ie to check if it is distorting.

Hi Annie, the idea of limiters in a record circuit is to reduce loud peaks in the incoming audio to stop distortion but for wildlife recording work you don't need one, in fact a limiter could wreck your particular audio eg: by the time you establish the record level the loud bird might have flown. Just lower one of the record channels as fast as possible to cater for the peaks.

But it's necessary to have good audio limiters available in the gear and be able to recognise when you need them in the recording chain.

I agree with the others, the Sony D50 is a superb recorder for the price, it has a pre-record cache and its mics are hard to beat. One feature is it has very quickly adjustable 90 and 120 degree settings. 120 is wide stereo and after you get used to using that, you'd quickly get to recognise when to use 120 and it would greatly enhance some of your wildlife work. (and it has switchable on/off limiters)

The battery life is amazing and it's lightweight very compact and the windproofing accessory works as advertised. Most important .. as a solo shooter it's extremely easy to move around, quick to set up and start recording.

Cheers.

Has anyone mentioned the Edirol R-44? 4 channels. Pre-record. You can get a modified one for about the same price as a stock model. It's simple, and it's awesome.

Edirol / Roland R-44 Solid-State Four-Channel Portable R-44 -

I also looked at the R-44 (modded by Oade Brothers). Its' a nice unit, but I couldn't justify the extra bucks for two more channels. Here's the link:

Ordering for Oade Brothers Audio: Edirol R44 Super MOD- Ground Shipping (http://www.oade.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=OBA&Product_Code=EDR44SMGND&Category_Code=EDIR44-Super)

Regards,

Dan.

I suggested the R-44 because it's the best value, and has the cashe recording. Eventually everyone needs more than 2 channels. If you can do without cashe recording, and don't mind fiddling with menus, the H4N has XLR inputs, stereo recording, and is cheap. It's nowhere near the sound quality of the R-44, but it's cheap, and that's what people want first and foremost.

Chad,

I don't think cheap is what all people want. I can't speak for Annie, but I have NO interest in cheap and no interest in the H4n.

At $679, the Oade Bros modified PMD661 isn't cheap and the sound quality is supposed to be excellent. Not super expensive perhaps, but not cheap either.

IMO, both the R-44 and PMD-661 are very good quality recorders. Right now, I don't see the need for the R-44's extra channels. Perhaps in the future.

Regards,

Dan.

I suggested the R-44 because it's the best value, and has the cashe recording. Eventually everyone needs more than 2 channels. If you can do without cashe recording, and don't mind fiddling with menus, the H4N has XLR inputs, stereo recording, and is cheap. It's nowhere near the sound quality of the R-44, but it's cheap, and that's what people want first and foremost.

Chad I don't agree either .. what people want is value for money, they always have.

What ever it is, if they want it they'll pay a relatively expensive price if they recognise it's value. And not everybody will ever want more than 2 channels or 2 tracks either.

Cheers.

Just stumbled upon this thread. If it helps Annie, here is my take on the Fostex FR2-LE. Sure it's not perfect and I wish it was smaller but I certainly get very acceptable audio from it for the (mostly corporate) work I do. I think it's a great step into the world of professional audio gear, even if it's on the bottom rung of that ladder. I can't comment on the other models mentioned in this thread as I don't own any of them (I own a Zoom H2.... which is best left out of this discussion!)

FOSTEX FR2-LE MINI REVIEW (http://www.shootingimage.co.uk/Fostex/Fostex.html)