There are several issues here and they do tend to get confused.
1. Recording the audio data.
This needs high quality audio processing, ability to use a range of
microphones etc, good facilities on the recording machine, battery life,
portability etc.
2. Editing the audio - needs to match the format of the recording medium, or
convert without loss of quality from it.
3. Final output file-format (digital, analogue etc)
4. Broadcasting medium (web, CD, minidisk etc)
5. Long term storage.
I would probably choose to go digital all down the line (because it loses
less data), and choose the most adaptable recording equipment to match.
However, it is the performance of the MICROPHONE and the electronics that
process its signal that is the real key to quality - and that will tend to
influence the type of recorder that is chosen. This has been the situation
since recording began and it is often the weakest link.
It is a similar situation with photographic and video formats - it may
actually be the LENS of the camera that makes the most difference - the
medium
it is attached to makes little difference if the lens is just a cheap bit of
plastic that cannot be focussed properly, or is too heavy to hold still.
One probably needs to set a budget, list all the facilities that are
required, be very, very clear about how, why and by whom the project will be
used and make choices to match (including, probably, revising the original
budget estimate!). As usual, it will be a compromise - and you will need to
try things out (several times) before making expensive mistakes.
Peter Clarke
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Stiff" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: Second World War etc
> I can testify to the quality of the Marantz recorder having done Rob
Perk's
> course and used one in my previous job. However, that was some time ago
and
> prior to the existence of professional quality minidisc recorders.
>
> I would be interested in the views of those on this list as to whether in
a
> digital age we should still be using analogue recording equipment? Digital
> recordings can be archived on a server (with the subsequent ease of
upgrade
> path (although admittedly this will require large disc capacity). Analogue
> recordings will need to be kept on audio tape (with future upgrade
problems)
> or digitised (in which case,why not record them digitally in the first
> place?). I raise this question because already the use of audio cassettes
> can be seen to be in sharp decline. No doubt the same fate awaits minidisc
> recorders/players (witness the decline of the CD-ROM which has already
> begun). However, by using standard digital audio file formats it should be
> possible to keep ahead of changes in hardware for the time being at least.
>
> I cannot claim any expertise in oral history or any knowledge of the
current
> state of play, but I would be interested in people's reactions to these
> thoughts.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Matthew
>
> *****NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESSES*****
>
> Dr Matthew Stiff
> Head of Standards
> mda
> 19 Riverside Road
> Oxford
> OX2 0HT
>
> Tel: +44 (0)1865 200561
> Fax: +44 (0)1865 200561 (by arrangement)
> email: [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]
> URL www.mda.org.uk
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rosalind Collier" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 8:15 PM
> Subject: Second World War etc
>
>
> We are planning a 2 World War small exhibition, Rye's War (E.Sussex) for
> next
> year. We will be doing a lot of educational stuff with it (many of us are
ex
> teachers!! See various articles about the usefulness or not of ex
teachers)
> but we are also being encouraged to record oral history of local people.
> I am getting confused about the right sort of recording equipment to use.
I
> understand a Marantz is the best, but I have seen what seems to be the
right
> one at £300 odd, and been quoted £1700 (with VAT).
> Any ideas? All help very gratefully received.
> Rosalind Collier
> Rye Castle Museum
>
|