Basic audio question.

[daniel flather]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I want to make audio recordings. I want audio only, no video. I want to make a video with still pictures and add audio that relates to the still image. I have the still image down and know too much about still images. I need help with the audio part. I need to make basic audio recordings in mono. Stereo would be nice if it's not that much more work/costly. I used to see on PBS and the CBC documentaries where the journalist used to use a simple single mic and a tape recorder. I want a set up like that, but maybe digital? I want it to be archival. Tape is not archival (or is it?).</p>

<p><strong>What audio format is equal to the RAW still images I shoot?</strong> I want quality minus the frills for my audio. Links to products would also appreciated.</p>

<p>I want to make basic portable handheld mono or stereo <strong>archival</strong> audio files on a budget of $500.00. Is it possible?</p>

<p>Thanks for any input.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p><a href="http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/CD-quality+sound">This</a> pretty much says it. There are pro digital recorders which will record at this standard for about $500.00 and in some cases include the microphone. I don't know the current crop, although some people I know like Edirol. If you're using a microphone attached to the recording unit (which you can find in some field units) make sure the recording is done on to flash memory and not a moving disk. Otherwise you may record the internal vibrations of disk movement.<br /> Alternatively, you can record with a good microphone and preamp to a PC. I tend to like preamps that connect via USB or firewire and not the internal sound cards in PCs, because there is a lot of electronic noise in PCs which can get into your audio.<br /> You don't really need to go beyond the CD standard given in the link, which is 16 bit at 44kHz. You will need skills in microphone placement, avoiding extraneous noise and echoes, directing those you are recording, etc. Although there are directional microphones, avoiding extraneous sounds is more difficult than avoiding extraneous images when you are photographing.</p>

<p>Analog tape is not archival because the magnetic pattern on tape stored in a reel will affect adjacent tape and result in so-called "print-through" which will sound like faint echoes. It also cannot match the signal-to-noise ratio of current digital recorders.</p>

<p>BTW, whenever I record someone sitting at a table, I always adjust the seat for them, and shove the seat as far foward as possible. It's an attempt to limit their movement, which might affect the mouth to microphone distance. Good luck.</p>

<p>For accurate recordings, aim the microphone at the mouth from the side, and keep it about 4 inches (10cm) away from the mouth (unless you have a good reason not to.)</p>

[daniel flather]

<p>Hi, Hector.</p>

<p>Thanks for the reply, you've given the information I need. Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

[mc2imaging]

<p>Just as a good camera isn't very good without a quality lens, even the best audio recorder isn't much without a quality microphone. What kind of microphone(s) you use will vary greatly depending on the situation you are in. Just as you have a bag full of lenses and one body, you may want multiple types of microphones for one recorder.</p>

<p>For the greatest flexibility, I'd look for a recorder that will accepts low impedance microphones (typically with a 3 pin XLR connector) and provides 48v phantom power so you can use quality condenser mics. You can always adapt and transform for cheaper mics, but if you get something that only accepts high impedance (aka 'unbalanced') mics, it is harder to get the best out of a mic, and a 48v condenser won't work at all. </p>

<p>I have 'pencil' condensers mounted to my video cameras, but often use wireless mics if I'm not close to the subject, unidirectional mics if I need to isolate a sound or speaker in a noisy environment, omnidirectional mics for singing groups, or large diaphragm condensers for acoustic instruments... </p>

<p>A single shotgun mic might get you started OK, but you might want to budget for a variety of mics depending on what you think you will be doing.</p>

<p> </p>

[bill_mussett1]

<p>This is another source with a collection of audio information; recorders, mics, editing software and capturing and other resources.</p>

<p>http://plaza.ufl.edu/mmcadams/audio.htm</p>

<p>http://mindymcadams.com/guest/nww/index.html</p>

 

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>"What audio format is equal to the RAW still images I shoot?</strong> "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>24 bit depth @ 96kHz sampling rate in WAV format is about as close to RAW equivalent these days, at quite an affordable price too (see below).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I want to make basic portable handheld mono or stereo <strong>archival</strong> audio files on a budget of $500.00. Is it possible?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In fact it can be done at less than half your budget with a <a href="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Zoom+H2&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq="><strong>Zoom H2</strong> </a> portable recorder which includes built-in microphones - about $200 street price. This would be the most practical solution which will give you portability for future projects as well.</p>

<p>For one time use, another option is to input a microphone to your PC via your sound card's mic. input. Some sound cards offer stereo but most only have one mic. input for mono sound. The quality won't be great (using common sound cards) but might be adequate for narration purposes, and just like photography, the recorded file can be sweetened in post with tools such as <a href="http://audacity.sourceforge.net/"><strong>Audacity</strong> </a> (free) or <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/audition/"><strong>Adobe Audition</strong> </a> (my preference). Alternatively, your video editing software (to create slide shows) might have adequate audio editing capability.</p>

 

[daniel flather]

<p>Thanks for all the answers. You've given me a great starting point. </p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>For many years the standard equipment (more or less) for radio reporting was a Marantz PMD-222 cassette recorder (or Sony equivalent) and an Electrovoice mike, either the 635A or RE-50. The mikes are still the same but the equivalent digital recorder is the Marantz 660, which is in the ballpark of $500. Go to <a href="http://www.transom.org">www.transom.org</a>, a web site for radio producers, and you'll find reviews on mike and recorders galore. Avoid built-in mikes at all costs -- the key to good sound regardless of recorder is the right mike and getting it close to the subject. As far as archival, for my money tape is every bit as archival as digital and maybe more so. Just about everybody still has a cassette recorder around and can play back a cassette from 1965 provided the cassette has been taken care of. Same is true for reel-to-reel tape at a radio station or recording studio. Lots of people still have turntables for LPs and even 78s can still be played back. The problem with digital is that the recording medium, recording format and equipment change so frequently there's no guarantee that you can even play back a memory card from somebody else's machine on your machine today, let alone be able to play it back on any machine or computer at all 10 years from now. Digital audio recording has jumped from DAT tape to minidiscs to removable hard drives to every type of memory card that's been put into a camera (CF, SD, etc.). Digital audio recorders have even been built that used VHS or Betamax tape (just to record the audio, no video). Even once you get the files into a computer, there's no guarantee that today's "standard" is going to survive beyond whatever the next big thing might be. For photography, shoot digital but make prints so your grandchildren will be able to look at the pictures. For sound, record digitally but copy onto everything there is because who knows that will still be able to be played back 50 years from now.</p>