Best Setup For A Journalist?

[mmflavio]

Hello,

I have been researching a setup for my wife who is a journalist. I am confused alll the limitations, copyright protection and various software problems. All I want is to give her something she can tape her interviews with, download them to her PC for editing and re-listening.

Sound quality is an issue, so an external mic recommendation is welcome.

Thank you so much!

[dex Otaku]

I would heartily recommend the Edirol R-1 [http://www.edirol.com/products/info/r1.html] for journalistic use.

Also, for journalistic use I would recommend a mono handheld dynamic omni microphone such as the broadcast models that AKG make. They are not overly cheap, but are built to take a beating. I know people using AKG omnis [including CBC people] who have had the same mic in good working condition for 20+ years, going from open-reel to cassette to MD with the same mic.

You might consider a HiMD unit for her purposes, but the totally non-mechanical aspect as well as the ability to upload recordings very easily and completely in the clear [without having to rely on any proprietary software at all] give the R-1 some pretty clear advantages.

[mmflavio]

I see that looks like a fantastic product, yet it is not shipping until Mid-March. Any other suggestion? I appreciate it and may wait anyways... it looks like just what we are looking for.

Thank you.

[dex Otaku]

Check out the Marantz PMD-670 at http://www.soundprofessionals.com/cgi-bin/...item/MAR-PMD670

This is a pro broadcasting recorder, with XLR jacks, phantom power, et al. Looks to be about the size of a modern DAT portable, sans the moving parts. More expensive, yes. But you tend to get what you pay for with things like this - it's probably something that could last you 20 years if there's still anything around by that time that can read the media.

In the HiMD line I'd look at either the NH900 or the NHF800 [or the NH700 depending on where you are]. The advantage of models other than the NH1 is the ability to use AA batteries. This is the only reason I would never get an NH1.

I have an NH700 and it works very well. I wouldn't really recommend it for broadcast use, though. It's shape and all-plastic case would surely lead to it having a short lifetime given the kind of regular use and abuse a reporter's rig usually sees. For the occasional interview or something, it would be fine.

[craftech]

These suggestions are clearly overkill for journalism. Why not get the popular Olympus DM-10 Digital Voice Recorder for $149? It holds 22 hours of crystal clear audio. Read the user comments:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...ronics&n=172282

Shipping is free and they have a great return policy.

If you need more recording space you can spend another $65 for the DM-20 which doubles the recording time.

John

Edited January 12, 2005 by craftech

[dex Otaku]

I tend to mistake journalists for broadcasters, I guess. I forget that the need is to have the recording, no matter how bad it ends up because of the shite equipment you used.

[Christopher]

That device does only have 128mbs of RAM, so the quality/length of recordings would suffer under such limitations.

And why not Hi-MD? How rough and tumble would a journalistic experience be in this scenario? Uploading with Sonicstage 2.3 and a Hi-MD unit requires you to:

a.) plug in the unit via USB to the computer

b.) open Sonicstage 2.3

c.) hit transfer to transfer it to hard drive

d.) use Marcnet's utility to search for it and transform such to wav, mp3, etc or Sony's wav converter which takes very little time.

Furthermore, the Edirol R1 costs at least $439USD. I could get a NH900 for $239 and a nice mic in that price range and have great functionality.

[justin_barbier]

These suggestions are clearly overkill for journalism.  Why not get the popular  Olympus DM-10 Digital Voice Recorder for $149?  It holds 22 hours of crystal clear audio.  Read the user comments:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...ronics&n=172282

Shipping is free and they have a great return policy.

If you need more recording space you can spend another $65 for the DM-20 which doubles the recording time.

John

←

NEAT! But, as an aspiring journalist myself, I don't know if you can beat the WOW factor of minidisc. 150.00 is a good price, but is the audio quality up to par with minidisc? For my needs, minidisc still suffices...

[dex Otaku]

The ability to transfer recordings with no special software [meaning it can be do e literally anywhere there's a computer and flash reader] pretty much as soon as you've hit 'stop' - this alone is enough reason to go with a quality flash recorder.

Build durability, ease of use, no connection to proprietary software, lack of moving parts, &c. are also good reasons.

Cons: bad battery life [Marantz] by comparison [though in all honesty, look at what you're getting - phantom power and all]. Yes, they're more expensive. The thing is, something like the Marantz is built duty and purpose-specific, to be used by professionals who can't afford to waste time mucking with going through menus to change options that shouldn't be in menus, hoping that when the bumped the recorded, they didn't lose part of their recording, &c.

But then, that's just my opinion.

Like I've said, the CBC here use MD for almost all portable audio recording. The real throwback guys use stuff like Nagras with open-reel tape [knowing that open-reel is still the only truly accepted archival format out there, among other things].

kurisu, the whole issue I have with professionals using HiMD is mostly based around the fact that it requires SonicStage.

But - what if you don't have a noebook computer? What if you're in Norway, and your SS system is in Canada? Are you going to carry around your CDR of SS to install on every computer you use so you can get to your audio? Are people going to -LET- you install SS,which is already well-known for its ability to munge installations and basically wreck otherwise-functioning windows configs?

Or would they be more likely to let you slip your flash card into their flash slot, to copy your file faster than HiMD even can, let alone will, and then send it to wherever you want without ever needing to install other drivers or management software?

[Christopher]

Well, the pricepoint of Hi-MD would make me question the ease of use of the R1 is worth the $. Like I said, the NH900 is $239, giving you $200 bucks to play with for a Mic. Total price of the R1 plus mic would be too much in my honest opinion.

Er, I'm not so sure about Sonicstage wrecking windows configurations, runs like a charm on my computer and all the other computers I've used it on. Installing it on other computers would be a slight hassle, but I doubt in this scenario that would really be relevant - and you could throw Sonicstage on a Hi-MD disc anyway.

Plus, you speak about the R1 like you own it. You don't. We really don't know how easy this device is to use, eh?

[dex Otaku]

Plus, you speak about the R1 like you own it. You don't. We really don't know how easy this device is to use, eh?

←

All your points are true, of course.

Thing is, the original question was about what we'd recommend fora specific application.

Even having never held an R-1, I'd suggest that it would be more suitable for portable broadcast recording than -any- form of electromechanical recording [analogue or digital].

There was also no budget specified, nor has it been claimed to be an issue.

Which makes, IMO, the more important criteria that the device work, and work well for this specific purpose. Once again, I can't actually attest to the usability of the R-1, but by virtue of the advantages inherent to its design [using flash, being small, &c.] I would say it's definitely the more suitable device.

This isn't a matter of MD or HiMD sucking. Nor has it been made an issue of cost vs. performance [which, it could be argued, would still be worth paying twice as much for].

My assumptions about SonicStage are mainly based on the number of support threads here and on T-Board from people who are hopelessly lost with it - destroying libraries during upgrades, simply having upgrades not work, repeated crashes, fresh installation that don't work right off the bat, the fact the SS is shite to begin with, &c.

If what you want is prestige and hacker mystique [since it takes far more steps than should be necessary to get to your audio with HiMD -or- MD] then go buy the HiMD recorder. If what you want is something that works for your purpose, the R-1 [or whatever other flash or non-flash recorded that, basically, doesn't use SonicStage software, since that is the -real- issue] might be a better choice.

And yes, throw SS on a HiMD disc. That's assuming that at the other end, they're not using Windows98 [still very common]. Its also assuming that you have the half hour it will take to copy SS off the HiMD, and then the time to install it, time to rip, time to convert, before you could send your audio - which with something based on flash [assuming a reader with drivers at al, as with the HiMD/Win98 issue] would have already had you finished your task before SS was even done installing.

It's simply a matter of suitablity to the task. If someone wants to drive around town, never on the highway, never in snow, never off road - why sell them an SUV when a sub-compact suits the purpose?

Likewise, why sell someone on the merits of a delorian when what they need is the SUV?

As for SS's trashing of tracks being a myth, with the amount of transferring I've done my estimate is currently that about 3-7% of tracks get trashed on my setup. Others have reported the same problems occurring in the same ways. That doesn't seem like a myth to me.

[Christopher]

As for SS's trashing of tracks being a myth, with the amount of transferring I've done my estimate is currently that about 3-7% of tracks get trashed on my setup.

←

How many have you lost since upgrading to Sonicstage 2.3?

Speculation aside, this fellow's budget would be interesting to know. Obviously, dunking $600+ for the R1 and mic or $350 - 400ish for the NH900 or lesser model and mic is an unresolved point.

..and I hope I don't come off harsh in my context. He's come to a MD board for opinions about MD. I will be sure that all sides of the spectrum are represented fairly.

[dex Otaku]

Since upgrading to 2.3 [and I'll point out here that unlike many of the other users out there who ask for assistance with SS, I have never had any problems installing or using it other than the lost uploads and its deficiencies in transcoding certain mp3s].. no lost uploads.

Mind you, I have only uploaded 6 tracks of less than 5 minutes each since upgrading.

For now I am running with the assumption thet the problem still exists.

Absence of evidence != evidence of absence.

[Christopher]

I will keep attempting to trash a track and I hope you will as well. If they finally corrected that issue, it will be a major milestone for this young format.

[Jack]

I agree with Dex mostly. For journo purposes MD is far too fiddly, Sonic Stage is a fascist imposition by Sony and thank God for Marc's conversion program. Although I've only had my HiMD for three weeks already SS has trashed one 27 min track. It seems fine on anything less than 10 mins.

If the poster's wife wants simplicity then something with knobs would be more use than scrolling down menus in the heat of that important interview.

Jack

[mmflavio]

Well, it became an interesting thread... and budget is always an issue, but so is ease of use for someone who does not enjoy the technical aspect of installing software and making it work, and just wants the technology to be as seamless as possible (and I end up being the IT person, and I am a Mac user, she is on a Windows XP). Perhaps the R1 would be a better choice, once it is out and we have some users reviews.

I would like not to spend more than $500, but I want something she can use, and enjoy, and that would be worth a couple hundred more, if it made a real difference. What do you say?

Thank you for the replies, I appreciate them and will keep reading, until I figure out what to get her.

[craftech]

Here are some more user reviews of the Olympus DM-10:

http://www.epinions.com/pr-Olympus_DM-10_V...isplay_~reviews

These are the specs:

Recording format: DSS (Digital Speech Standard)/WMA (Windows Media Audio)

Recording media: 64 MB built-in flash memory

Recording time: SHQ mode: 2 hours 10 minutes; HQ mode: 4 hours 20 minutes; SP mode: 10 hours 25 minutes; LP mode: 22 hours 20 minutes

Alarms: 1

Card format: N/A

Input level: - 70 dBv

PC interface: USB

LCD: Large backlit full dot display

LED: N/A

Folders/messages: 5 folders

Sampling frequency: SHQ mode: 44.1 kHz; HQ mode: 44.1 kHz; SP mode: 12 kHz; LP mode: 8 kHz

Overall frequency response: SHQ mode: 300 to 8,000 Hz; HQ mode: 300 to 7,000 Hz; SP mode: 300 to 5,000 Hz; LP mode: 300 to 3,000 Hz

LP mode: Yes

Voice activation: Yes

Demographic data input: No

Practical maximum output: Information not available

Write protection: No

Speaker: 23 mm diameter dynamic internal speaker

Microphone jack: 3.5 mm minijack, impedance MIC 2 kW

Earphone jack: Yes (3.5 mm)

Power supply: Rated voltage: 3V DC; batteries: 2 AAA; external power supply: AC adapter

Batteries: 2 AAA Alkaline batteries (LR03 or R03) or 2 AAA Ni-MH batteries

External power supply: AC adapter (not included)

Battery life: Voice Recording: Alkaline: Recording: Approx. 16 hours; Playback: Approx. 9 hours (based on Olympus's standard testing procedure); Voice Recording: NiMH: Recording: Approx. 12 hours; Playback: Approx. 8 hours (based on our standard testing procedure); Music Player: Alkaline (Approx. 10 hours); NiMH (Approx. 8 hours - based on our standard testing procedure)

OS supported: Windows: Windows 98, 98SE, ME, 2000 Professional, XP Professional, Home Edition; Macintosh: Mac OS 9.0/9.1/9.2/10.1/10.2

CPU: Requires Intel Pentium II class 333 MHz processor or higher

RAM: PC: 64 MB or more; Mac: 16 MB or more

Sound board: Requires Creative Labs Sound Blaster 16 or 100-percent-compatible sound card

Video card and display: Requires 800 x 600 pixel or more, 256 colors or more

Removable drive: Requires 2x or faster

USB port: Requires 1 free port

Audio output: PC: earphone (or speaker) output; Mac: Microphone input or earphone (or speaker) output

Supplied software: Windows Media Player 9 (Windows only), DSS Player software (Windows and Mac)

Item width: 1.6 inches

Item height: 4.3 inches

Item depth: .59 inches

Item weight: .19 pounds, including battery

Warranty: 1 year parts and labor

In the box: Voice recorder, docking station, USB cable, stereo ear bud headphones, a CD-ROM, a user's manual, and warranty info

Optional Accessories are reasonably priced here:

http://www.video-direct.com/olympus/voicer...ccessories.html

John

Since she will be conducting interviews and not recording concerts or other live music why spend all that money on a recorder that won't be any better for interviews and may be more complicated to use?

Edited January 14, 2005 by craftech

[Christopher]

That device only has 64 MB of built-in storage, are you sure it's wise to keep recommending this?

[craftech]

That device only has 64 MB of built-in storage, are you sure it's wise to keep recommending this?

=======

Yes. If you look at the recording times/mode above it is adequate for a journalist. In my fiirst post I did mention that the next model up was only $65 more and that it DOUBLES the recording time.

It is the DM-20 with 128MB of internal memory.

# Recording format: DSS (Digital Speech Standard)/WMA (Windows Media Audio)

# Recording media: 128 MB built-in flash memory

# Recording time: SHQ mode: 4 hours 20 minutes; HQ mode: 8 hours 45 minutes; SP mode: 20 hours 55 minutes; LP mode: 44 hours 45 minutes

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...46&vi=tech-data

John

[dex Otaku]

That device only has 64 MB of built-in storage, are you sure it's wise to keep recommending this?

=======

Yes.  If you look at the recording times/mode above it is adequate for a journalist.  In my fiirst post I did mention that the next model up was only $65 more and that it DOUBLES the recording time.

←

Basically this would be suitable for anyone who is accustomed to dictaphone/microcassette recordings.

[off topic:] My first portable was microcassette - the quality was terrible, but it worked well, and I still have the tapes. I collected soundmarks when I went to France/UK in 1993 - and only got around to either listening to or transcribing them [to CD] two summers ago.

It's sort of interesting to hear them, though. The quality is such that [even having tweaked the player] it sounds like the recordings were made over a mediocre-quality analogue long-distance phone line. So yeah, they almost sound like they're coming from overseas.

[craftech]

Basically this would be suitable for anyone who is accustomed to dictaphone/microcassette recordings.

[off topic:] My first portable was microcassette - the quality was terrible, but it worked well, and I still have the tapes. I collected soundmarks when I went to France/UK in 1993 - and only got around to either listening to or transcribing them [to CD] two summers ago.

It's sort of interesting to hear them, though. The quality is such that [even having tweaked the player] it sounds like the recordings were made over a mediocre-quality analogue long-distance phone line. So yeah, they almost sound like they're coming from overseas.

=======

That is clearly not the case with this recorder. I know fellow videographers who use this device for soundtracks INSTEAD of minidisc and they cannot tell the difference. Another device some of them use is the RCA LYRA 20 gig recorder although it is not as well made as the Olympus:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...882362?v=glance

They use a DAT for archive, but record wav straight into the Lyra from a splitter that feeds the DAT and the Lyra at the same time. Virtually no capture time to get the .wav file into the computer, which is what they like, of course.

John

Edited January 17, 2005 by craftech

[dex Otaku]

Basically this would be suitable for anyone who is accustomed to dictaphone/microcassette recordings. 

=======

That is clearly not the case with this recorder.  I know fellow videographers who use this device for soundtracks INSTEAD of minidisc and they cannot tell the difference.  Another device some of them use is the RCA LYRA 20 gig recorder although it is not as well made as the Olympus:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...882362?v=glance

They use a DAT for archive, but record wav straight into the Lyra from a splitter that feeds the DAT and the Lyra at the same time. Virtually no capture time to get the .wav file into the computer, which is what they like, of course.

←

I find parts of this hard to believe. In the case of the Lyra recorder, sure, no problem. But the thought that someone can't tell the difference between MD at SP and a device that records over 4 hours in only 128MB is a little harder to come to terms with. Yes, there are dedicated speech codecs that work amazingly well. Yes, the recording bandwidth is probably limited by using a 8 or 16kHz sampling rate, which simplifies encoding and helps prevent artifacting. Still, though. This thing is either a miracle product, or these videographers are either deaf or have REALLY low standards in terms of audio [which admittedly is true of most people I've met in video-related industries].

Let's not forget that until quite recently [i.e. the last 10 years], the best-quality audio used when location video recording was usually the linear tracks of whatever videotape format was used - which had about equivalent quality [often worse] to cassette tape [similar track width and tape speed].

I know a few professional videographers and video artists. Most of them have absolutely no clue what they're doing with audio [which is how I get to know them - they come to me to help with that part]. They often come my way with questions about "How do you un-distort audio?" because they made their only recording of a vital and non-repeatable function on their cam and didn't even bother to set levels.

Archiviing on DAT? That's also a bit strange, considering that it's one of the most volatile and least reliable tape formats ever created. The vast majority of archival houses still use exclusively 1/4" analogue open-reel tape for longevity. Most actual archivists won't use DAT as anything other than an intermediate medium [like what the recording is originally made on, to be dumped and erased immediately after].

God. Sorry. I'm being snarky again. Grain of salt, grain of salt.

Time to go meditate or something.

[craftech]

I don't doubt the differences when it comes to music and that is where this entire thread has been counterproductive to the original post. When you are asked a question about quality you immediately think MUSIC. The original poster was asking for a device for his JOURNALIST wife. Clearly your suggestions are overkill as well as they are overkill for videographers who are recording something other than stage productions or music concerts. A journalist needs simplicity, portability, and clarity. The Olympus recorders fulfill these needs beautifully. Moreover, when used at the highest quality level those recorders will hold their own with half the fiddling that MD requires especially on today's menu heavy poorly built units.

John

Edited January 17, 2005 by craftech

[smorytko]

While the actual equipment recommendations are a bit dated, your wife may benefit from some of the distilled wisdom found at:

transom.org

The site is dedicated to broadcast journalism but recording techniques and strategy are discussed.

There are a number of very interesting shows too. Check out the SCRABBLE piece - excellent!

[rirsa]

I'm a little late to this conversation but thought I'd add a few remarks. It would be interesting to have more details about the way the recorder will be used. If this isn't for broadcast journalism (i.e. she's not a reporter producing pieces for radio) then maybe the audio quality isn't so critical. Maybe it just needs to be easily intelligible.

Transom, as someone suggested already, is a useful site. They are down on the little portable voice recorders like the DM-10 but then again they are more interested in getting broadcast audio. There is in fact a story on Transom that was put together using an older Olympus voice recorder that uses a much lower sample rate and amazingly enough it isn't too bad. Here's the link: http://www.transom.org/shows/2003/200308.lawnmower.html. The newer Olympus recorders use the WMA format and sample at 44.1kHz. The DM-10, DM-20 and DS-2200 have a high quality setting that is uses 64kbps stereo WMA. There is an even newer Olympus recorder, the DS-2 that has a high quality setting that uses 128kbps stereo WMA with an upper end freq. response of 17kHz. The frequency response is constrained to an upper-end of 8kHz in the other three but for voice you really only want the mid-range, assuming this isn't for broadcast. I haven't used one of these devices but I suspect they probably work well under certain circumstances and for certain uses. Battery life is very good and if you need longer record times look at the DS-2200 as it supports removable memory. The cost will be similar to MD, aside from DM-10 which is cheaper.

An issue with the Olympus voice recorders and minidisc and the R-1 to some degree may be design. If you are doing reporting in the field it is probably very important to have something that is rugged, reliable, and easy to use. You don't want to be fiddling with menus, small buttons, and worrying about miniplug connectors. If you want something designed with field journalism and similar types of audio gathering in mind look at the Marantz PMD660. At around $500 that's at the top of your price range.

http://www.proaudiosuperstore.com/marantz-pmd660.html

[rirsa]

Here's a user report on the Edirol R-1:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/message/16458

Based on the fact that this person reports "Clearly the designers have no experience with field recording," I'd say wait and see what users have to say about the Marantz PMD660. Marantz, unlike Edirol, has been designing gear for different types of field recording for many years...

[Reactive]

This is an intersting thread, I will add my own experiences:

When MD came along it blew me away, far better than tape, impossible to write over a previous track, superb sound....you know the rest, that's why we are all still here.

BUT, trying to get your now digital recording up to a pc quickly, sigh that's where it really lacks. You take a picture on your camera and you can digitally transfer it to a pc quickly and easily. Why oh why can we not do the same with a minidisc recorder. Thanks to Sony and the music recording industry who are still in the dark ages about all this, we have a great recorder that still only allows an analogue upload (unless you buy a new HI-MD, even then it's not easy).

THanks to Sony and those other guys, they have paved the way for new products that will allow digital transfer of files: Flash recorders, eridols ect ect. We are working with a client in Europe that is using the new breed of pocket pc's for journalism. Lot's of features and easy transfer of data. In the end that is the one feature that will win over all the rest.

Fun times, and new products heading our way soon