| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
October 5, 2010 - 2:15pm
#1
Now this really has my interest up!
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
I'm confused about the prices you've quoted Jim.Is the $27.00 for a form of storage media and the $220 for the device itself? Is there an on-board mike or do we plug in an external one?
The media is $27 for a 16 gig card. You can buy 32 gig cards, but at over $70 they are not a good buy. Besides, you could have one card classical, one card jazz, and other cards for opera and rock, or what ever.
I understand the built in mic is stricly utility so a stereo mic preamp with a couple of decent condenser mics or a small mixer from the likes of Mackie or Yamaha would work nicely.
One Steve Hoffman forum member really likes the device, especially for the price.
It would take some time to get music on the cards, but once there it would make a super hirez IPod for the price of an...IPod.
I hate this hobby as there is always too many new toys to buy.
For me it would give me a back up to my recordings at 2496 and not on my DAT at cd redbook.
Jim, you have to buy this and report!
I noted a sign of 100% moderrnity in your post: 32 gig solid state memory card the size of your thumbnail is "not a good buy."
Are we spoiled now, or what!
Can anyone recommend a sturdy handheld digital recorder that would record a live rock band efficiently with the built in microphone (capture all instruments with no distortion; good bass response)?
Budget: Under $300
The Zoom h4n is really popular with musicians. I've recorded amplified acoustic ensembles with one, and it does a great job with the built in mics. I would think it would work fine for rock if it was positioned correctly. Try searching some of the electric guitar forums for some more opinions. amazon.com
I can vouch for this device (Zoom), as well.
Have been using one for over a year. It's great! Much better than portable cassettes, portable DATs, with their mechanical foibles, low battery life, etc...
Works well for VERY LOUD music on the low mic preamp setting.
Takes a bit of experimentation (with the preamp setting) to get levels right for un-amplified music. Medium is best.
The menus will drive you crazy, but that seems to be the way it goes with this sort of stuff, created by engineers who can't fricking design user interfaces...! ;-) Be patient... but once past that, enjoy the ride
N.B. Opaque tape over LEDs needed for "stealth" taping...
Don't want to get caught ripping off hard working musicians, do we?
You mean they'd otherwise be selling recordings of those performances?
Pet peeve of mine.
Artist X: I own all his released recordings, even buying more to give as gifts.
I pay to go to his shows.
He does not release recordings of 99.5% of his performances, yet I would buy them if he did. (I wonder if secretly they are embarrassed for playing an unvarying set list?)
So, how am I ripping him off if I were to record his show myself?
Artists are missing great sales opportunities, and you accuse a fan of ripping them off in what way?
Did you rip off J.S. Bach by using that name?
Did you pay a royalty for the photo you are using in your sig?
J.S.Bach's name, and everything he composed, is in the public domain. As is the photo used in my sig. I suppose we could ask around the banking fraternity though to learn if there's any way we can transfer funds to J.S Bach's account slipping it past St Peter at the Pearly Gates.
You may not be ripping off a particular artist and you may only be using the resultant recording for personal use. However, don't try and tell me all bootleg recording is done with such an apparently innocent intent as yours.
No matter my intent...how would I be ripping off the artist if he were never going to sell the music I recorded?
Bootlegs only exist because the artist won't sell what the bootleggers sell.
If I go buy Bruce Cockburn's 1980 live at the Warfield performance as a bootleg, I am not harming the artist. I have already purchased eveything he is willing to sell me.
Again, the artists need to wake up.
But what you're doing is not, I hope, bootlegging.
That's only part of the story. Bootleggers who go on to sell illicit recordings are simply stealing in that stealing is defined in this instance as taking someone else's property without compensating them and/or without their permission.
No, you need to wake up to the fact that artists have the right to decide which of their performances are immortalized or exposed to a wide public. At a live concert we can expect the odd duff note or maybe striking musicians on an off night ( ran out of coke the night before, or whatever) I claim it's the artists right to censor that performance. By purchasing a concert ticket you're not purchasing the right to record and publish that performance. So, what I'm trying to say essentially is that it's more than financial harm that's at stake here, it's also the artists pride in their music making and reputation.
My background on this argument is a little skewed, but I believe both Buddha and Dissily have points here.
I'll start with Dissily: legally artists once their work is copyrighted to their name/or whoever owner a live performance of that work belongs to the artists and any sort of commercial distribution would require compensation. Legally speaking, artists should profit off of recordings sold from their shows.
The problem is: in the most active bootleg markets, these live recordings are not bought and sold but downloaded via websites like archive.net or nugz.
Personally speaking as a budding musician, I could only hope that people would want to redistribute my show to others, especially if I dont have the resources. If I play like balls thats my own fault. Most likely, if there are followers, they'll comment on the poor performance and that boot will go nowhere or people will distribute it with a cheeky grin saying: "Wow, he had a bad night." Most probably the former. If people are already self-distributing your work, you have the force of the public on your side, and in the end, that will benefit you far far more than intense control of your art.
Phish does it exactly right. They let people tape all they want, and they sell sound-board recordings of old and new shows, providing a higher quality experience.
The concept of a "for sale" bootleg is a little foreign to me, but that could be b/c i grew up listening to jam bands complemented by the age of free downloads. But THIS i do not approve of for the legality. Tapers should tape as much as they want as long as they don't re-sell.
If she comes with the product...I'm buying
Is it just a rumor or do firemen really have PIN UP GIRLS plastered all over the station?
That's all right as long as you are not doing the Dudley Moore thing with the blow-up dolls like in "Foul Play".
lol! There was time when you could. Certainly when my Dad was in the fire service. These days the 'ol firehouse has become politically correct. Can't have em'
thats not to say we didn't 'bend the rules' a bit.
P.S. thanks for the link. My future wife makes a great model, dont you think.
I was going to get the ZOOM H4 but held off because of some of the reviews said that they expected an easier-use device. The H4n came out at $279 (discounted). I bought one with the wired remote control (~$29 more or so, discounted). Great device. Recorded kids concerts. Remote is needed to avoid handling noise on the device itself. I use it also with videocam.