To me, it's moot trying to list and classify recorders with just a simple label like this.
It all depends on the usage.
Maybe something like: "all-in-one, decent mics, low handling noise, max preferred size/weight, memory size/battery life demands, budget".
Edited to add: if I had to "triage" most non-tapir singers' expectations/requirements based on the queries I have received from singers, they would probably go in the following order:
- cost (probably under $300, under $200 preferred)
- clear, non-distorting and amazingly hifi sound quality
- no need for any extras (ie all-in-one)
- portability (smaller=better)
- decent battery life
I think most tapirs would agree that this is a slightly skewed and contradictory - and perhaps unrealistic! - set of priorities, but there we have it!
To elaborate:
Sunjan, I absolutely agree with you, also that my monikers are, perhaps, a bit too general (for the record, I was being slightly tongue-in-cheek, as well!)
HOWEVER (to fill you in on a little background), I can tell you from firsthand experience that many classical singers don't really want to learn much about taping - even the most basic things , despite the fact that they of all people really *need* to know as much as possible so they can get the kind of recordings they hope for. I can't tell you how many singers I know who will put up with a distorting, nearly-useless $50 cassette recorder from Walmart until it actually breaks before going out and getting a new machine, and who are then surprised that to get really good recordings it may cost more than that, or that they might want to learn a little bit about microphone types and what a preamp is to try and get the sounds they want to hear. I have - LITERALLY - had people email me and say, "Just tell me what recorder to buy - I don't want to learn anything about the technical side, I just want to push record and have it sound great". Seriously. I try to educatewhere I can but, for instance, if a student asks me about recorders and my goal is just to get them recording so they make better progress, THAT is a more pressing concern than turning them into informed tapirs when they have no interest at all in anything other than the cost and end result. For me? Absolutely. Bring on all the info that's out there. For them? Not so much
(There are OF COURSE exceptions as you know from the handful of singers who have wandered through this place, but we are exceptions that prove the rule, I'm sorry to say....)
Once upon a time, I was nearly as bad as that myself (not quite, but almost
. I diligently recorded my lessons with my MD and Sony 907, but I was always disappointed with what I heard (that mic never seemed to record operatic voices well - I'm amazed it was recommended as widely and for as long as it was), and just did NOT want to have to deal with learning about something that seemed to be outside my artistic purview. In my misinformed mind it was too much geek stuff; too many numbers.
Of course, when I finally upgraded to a really GOOD recorder and microphone it was an epiphany: I was finally able to hear myself CLEARLY and thus could no longer make excuses for the things which needed fixing (no, that nasty noise WASN'T due to a microphone distortion but was simply cuz I SUCKED on that note) and also learned that I sounded a lot better a lot of the time than I realised (time to stop beating myself up for imagined flaws and just go for it). I was
hooked both personally (wow, this taping thing is fun! I liiiikkkkeee this!) and professionally (my hire rate went up considerably as I really knuckled down and addressed the things I could, finally, hear CLEARLY). Once I realised it was FUN, I started reading in here to learn more and, well.... here we are
As I said in an earlier post in this thread, the "emotive" content of listening to yourself is always present (even for those of us who have taken the plunge and take taping a little more seriously!) and I think for some singers it almost becomes a kind of fingers-in-ears-la-la-la denial: if they never have to listen to a "clean" tape of themselves, they always leave a little bit of room for the imagination to fill in the blanks (or adjust for the distortions) and thus perceive themselves the way they HOPE they sound. Technology is almost seen as a curse.
However, this is starting to change as good quality recorders are becoming affordable and so readily available. Let's face it, even the "lowliest" of recorders that tapirs consider, deliver a quality of sound that 10 years ago would have astonished and been considered practically studio-quality. The idea that I can take an under $300 unit the size of a pack of cards into a practice room (or theater) and come away with recordings I can safely use on a demo disk still amazes me; add my DPA4060s, and I am blown away just about every time I plug up and hit record.
Ok, this is a long answer, but I just wanted to fill in some of the blanks about how and why I posed my groupings the way I did and am creating "blanket" answers instead of approaching it in a more technical way. Thanks for your input; you're right. But I was intentionally general and "non technical" not for myself, but in anticipation of the kinds of questions I know I'll be asked.
/slight tangent
Thanks for all the input folks - much appreciated! I'll read up on the DR at greater length. The handling noise issue may make it less attractive to singers who want to stealth from the house, but it sounds like it could be a good machine for recording lessons and coachings etc. I'll see if I can find some acoustic samples somewhere (or if anybody has 'em, let me know!). But it's certainly another one for the list!
Topic: "ranking" portable recorders (Read 12998 times)