DR-40 vs. H4n

[Neil Gould]

Anyone have some hands-on time with the DR-40 yet, and if so, how does it
stack up against the Zoom H4n?

--
best regards,

Neil

[vdubreeze]

On Mar 14, 7:12 pm, "Neil Gould" <n...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
> Anyone have some hands-on time with the DR-40 yet, and if so, how does it
> stack up against the Zoom H4n?
>

This I don't know, but my friend, a pro video shooter who has his FCP
cubicle 10 feet from my ProTools cubicle here, had his newish H4 go
belly up in the middle of a shoot and wasn't too happy about it.
Doesn't plan to replace it with another.

[Gary Eickmeier]

My Zoom H2n has been terrific and I think it can do more functions than the
H4n, believe it or not, for less money. Can do MS, XY, or both in surround
sound. Can take external mike and remain in surround recording, using the
external to sub for the XY feed. Very flexible programming, very small, and
so far flawless.

Gary Eickmeier

[hank alrich]

They're quite handy little recorders. I've been using one for a few
years as a scratchpad for composition and to snag the odd boardmix from
a gig. Their mics are not always well-matched. I have found variances on
the order of 6 to 8 dB. The one I'm using is very well matched, on the
order of a dB difference all around. That's the thing about inexpensive
mass production - there's a big dose of random in the recipe.

There is very little headroom in the analog input section, so you must
be quite careful when using it with external mics or feeding it with
line inputs.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Gary Eickmeier]

"hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
news:1kgz2rp.ptybxfk1jss6N%walk...@nv.net...

> Gary Eickmeier <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:


>> My Zoom H2n has been terrific and I think it can do more functions than
>> the
>> H4n, believe it or not, for less money. Can do MS, XY, or both in
>> surround
>> sound. Can take external mike and remain in surround recording, using the
>> external to sub for the XY feed. Very flexible programming, very small,
>> and
>> so far flawless.
>
> They're quite handy little recorders. I've been using one for a few
> years as a scratchpad for composition and to snag the odd boardmix from
> a gig. Their mics are not always well-matched. I have found variances on
> the order of 6 to 8 dB. The one I'm using is very well matched, on the
> order of a dB difference all around. That's the thing about inexpensive
> mass production - there's a big dose of random in the recipe.
>
> There is very little headroom in the analog input section, so you must
> be quite careful when using it with external mics or feeding it with
> line inputs.

I thought the H2n just came out a month or two ago. You may have the H2 - ?

Mine seems very smart about AGC. For example, it has three levels of AGC,
something like concert, conference, dictation. The concert records
relatively loud sounds at reasonable levels without pumping or going over
zero. The thing also has limiting rather than full AGC, which is nice. And
compression. Just a very flexible little studio in a box. Did I mention that
it mounts on a tripod?

Gary Eickmeier

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/15/2012 7:50 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> Mine seems very smart about AGC. For example, it has three levels of AGC,
> something like concert, conference, dictation. The concert records
> relatively loud sounds at reasonable levels without pumping or going over
> zero.

A big difference between the H2 and the H2n is that the H2
had a 3-position input attenuator switch for the mic input
(only - it doesn't work on the external line input). If you
keep the record level setting above 100 on the 0-128 scale
(I leave mine at 100) and use the attenuator to keep the
level meters on scale you'll avoid clipping. But if you have
the attenuator set too low and have to bring the level down
below 100 to keep the meters on scale, you'll get clipping
right at the analog input stage. This was a problem with
many first generation handheld recorders, not just the Zoom.

The record level control on the H2n (and the H4n as well)
reduces the analog input gain so that you can put any
reasonable level into the external mic or line inputs and
not have clipping as long as the meters stay off full scale.

I can't seem to get in touch with the marketing rep for the
Zoom recorders so I haven't had an H2n in here for review
yet, but I hope to shake one loose one of these days and
give it a shot. I'd like to see how the new mic arrangement
works out in practice.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[hank alrich]

Yes, I have the H-2.

AGC is not something I can use, nor is any of the limiting or
compression of use to me. I want to capture all the dynamics and then
deal with dynamic range in post. My approach is to leave loads of
headroom, so as not to clip the analog stage.

The other thing to realize is that all those "effects" happen in the
digital domain. The signal gets there through the analog sections, and
that's where one must take care to avoid overdriving the inputs.

[Marc Wielage]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:41:01 -0700, vdubreeze wrote
(in article
<16136078-afc5-4fc9...@k6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>):

> This I don't know, but my friend, a pro video shooter who has his FCP
> cubicle 10 feet from my ProTools cubicle here, had his newish H4 go

> belly up in the middle of a shoot...
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

No "pro video shooter" should be relying on something like a Zoom H4 for
anything but a very casual backup, in my opinion.

--MFW

[Trevor]

"Marc Wielage" <mwie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.CB88112C...@news.giganews.com...

Professional covers a very wide range from wedding video's to Hollywood
blockbusters. I wouldn't expect the latter to use a Zoom, but the former
might want to use it in conjuction with camera audio, and would be adequate
IMO.

Trevor.

[Mxsmanic]

Marc Wielage writes:

> No "pro video shooter" should be relying on something like a Zoom H4 for
> anything but a very casual backup, in my opinion.

Because?

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/16/2012 12:35 AM, Marc Wielage wrote:

> No "pro video shooter" should be relying on something like a Zoom H4 for
> anything but a very casual backup, in my opinion.

No "pro" should go out without a backup. But you'd be
surprised at how many pros are using the H4n. I ran into
Frank Fillipetti at the Zoom booth at the NAB show last year
or maybe the year before and he's done a lot of nature sound
work with his.

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 3/16/2012 12:35 AM, Marc Wielage wrote:
>
>> No "pro video shooter" should be relying on something like a Zoom H4
>> for anything but a very casual backup, in my opinion.
>
> No "pro" should go out without a backup. But you'd be
> surprised at how many pros are using the H4n. I ran into
> Frank Fillipetti at the Zoom booth at the NAB show last year
> or maybe the year before and he's done a lot of nature sound
> work with his.
>

One of the questions that I had about these is the quality of the mic pres
used with their internal mics, since doing nature sound work usually
requires a lot of gain. I like the feature set of the DR-40, but I was
wondering how its preamps compare to the H4n in this regard. Reviews of the
DR-40 are not all that enlightening, and it's curious that in all the
replies, no one here has anything to say about the DR-40!

--
best regards,

Neil

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/16/2012 9:14 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

> One of the questions that I had about these is the quality of the mic pres
> used with their internal mics, since doing nature sound work usually
> requires a lot of gain. I like the feature set of the DR-40, but I was
> wondering how its preamps compare to the H4n in this regard.

Why do they always ask about "the preamps?" Or are you
planning on using it with external microphones? In an
integrated device such as this, you can't separate the mics
from the preamps from the converters. The question to ask is
"how does it do for recording nature sounds?" And for the
answer you'll have to ask a nature lover.

Unless you're close to a lion, nature sounds are all quiet
stuff, and what you're going to find is that you simply
can't get the meters very far up scale when recording. The
important thing is how it sounds when amplified to the
playback level that you want, which will almost surely be
greater than the sound level in nature (because that's human
nature ;) ).

I suppose that a good test would be to turn the record gain
all the way up, start recording, smother it with a pillow,
and play back the recording to see what the noise sounds
like, maybe with 40 dB of gain applied.

> Reviews of the
> DR-40 are not all that enlightening, and it's curious that in all the
> replies, no one here has anything to say about the DR-40!

I've been expecting one to fall into my lap but the guy who
has it who wants me to write a review just hasn't gotten
together with me yet to hand it over. Looking it over, it
seems like a logical competitor to the H4n, though they use
the second pair of tracks differently. I don't think you can
do 4-track overdubbing on the DR-40, it just gives you the
option of recording a second pair of tracks 10 dB lower than
the primary pair so you'll have them as backup in case
there's an unexpected overload.

[hank alrich]

Because in comparison to the tools that are considered professional for
video and film sound capture it's not very capable. You're stuck with
what it hears from the position of the camera, which is often not what
one wishes to hear in relation to the image. You're stuck with the
configuration and pattern of the mics, which gives you nothing like the
flexibility of a good hyercard or shotgun mic on a boom.

You can shoot a wedding with all the ambient sound that will be
included, and if you get paid, you can call it "pro", though I doubt
that anyone actually makes a living that way. There's a rather large
difference between that work and professional audio for film and video.

MIke Rivers' comment about Frank Fillipetti using a Zoom for nature
sounds shows a genuine pro using it for a specific purpose, but I'd
wager Frank isn't using one to capture sound in conjunction with imagery
at a scene shooting.

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 3/16/2012 9:14 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> One of the questions that I had about these is the quality of the
>> mic pres used with their internal mics, since doing nature sound
>> work usually requires a lot of gain. I like the feature set of the
>> DR-40, but I was wondering how its preamps compare to the H4n in
>> this regard.
>
> Why do they always ask about "the preamps?"
>

Because that is a frequent source of noise in recorders.

> Or are you
> planning on using it with external microphones?
>

That, too, as I figure my mics are better than the built-ins, should the
need arise for better quality.

> In an
> integrated device such as this, you can't separate the mics
> from the preamps from the converters. The question to ask is
> "how does it do for recording nature sounds?" And for the
> answer you'll have to ask a nature lover.
>

Well... I would rather know whether this unit records nature sounds as well
as or better than the H4n, so given that recording nature sounds with these
devices might be a common usage, I thought I'd ask here.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/16/2012 11:02 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

> Well... I would rather know whether this unit records nature sounds as well
> as or better than the H4n, so given that recording nature sounds with these
> devices might be a common usage, I thought I'd ask here.

It's unlikely that you'll find anyone here who has tried
both of these recorders for nature sounds. But you could be
that person.

Why don't you buy one of each, take them out on a field trip
together, and return the one you like the least, or return
both of them if you aren't satisfied with either. Dealers
know that there are some things that you just can't evaluate
from the literature and the writings of others (mostly
unknown "reviewers") and you just have to try them for
yourself.

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 3/16/2012 11:02 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> Well... I would rather know whether this unit records nature sounds
>> as well as or better than the H4n, so given that recording nature
>> sounds with these devices might be a common usage, I thought I'd ask
>> here.
>
> It's unlikely that you'll find anyone here who has tried
> both of these recorders for nature sounds.
>

I'd settle for somone who has tried both of these recorders! ;-)

> Why don't you buy one of each, take them out on a field trip
> together, and return the one you like the least, or return
> both of them if you aren't satisfied with either. Dealers
> know that there are some things that you just can't evaluate
> from the literature and the writings of others (mostly
> unknown "reviewers") and you just have to try them for
> yourself.
>

I was hoping to benefit from the knowledge base that this group represents
on most audio topics. And, I really am surprised that this unit hasn't been
tried by anyone here, which makes me wonder whether Tascam's reputation has
declined.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:jjvf8f$ai$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 3/16/2012 9:14 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> One of the questions that I had about these is the quality of the mic
>> pres
>> used with their internal mics, since doing nature sound work usually
>> requires a lot of gain. I like the feature set of the DR-40, but I was
>> wondering how its preamps compare to the H4n in this regard.

> Why do they always ask about "the preamps?" Or are you planning on using
> it with external microphones? In an integrated device such as this, you
> can't separate the mics from the preamps from the converters.

Don't the XLR mic connectors provide a means to separate the mics from the
preamps?

http://tascam.com/content/images/universal/product_detail/706/medium/dr-40_xy_bottom.jpg .

Don't the DR-40 separate TRS line input jacks bypass the preamps?

[Richard Webb]

On Fri 2012-Mar-16 08:31, hank alrich writes:
>>> No "pro video shooter" should be relying on something like a Zoom H4 for
>>> anything but a very casual backup, in my opinion.
>> Because?

> Because in comparison to the tools that are considered professional

ha> for video and film sound capture it's not very capable. You're stuck

> with what it hears from the position of the camera, which is often
> not what one wishes to hear in relation to the image. You're stuck
> with the configuration and pattern of the mics, which gives you

> nothing like the flexibility of a good hypercard or shotgun mic on a
> boom.

INdeed. Have read of a couple guys using them in the bag on a shoot as a backup, or for transcription. ONe use I saw
floated was feeding timecode to one input, audio to the
other, but don't know how successful that was in actual
practice, but did see some mention of it in
ramps a few months back.

> You can shoot a wedding with all the ambient sound that will be
> included, and if you get paid, you can call it "pro", though I doubt
> that anyone actually makes a living that way. There's a rather large
> difference between that work and professional audio for film and
> video.

YEah I know, most guys I know doing wedding videos are
photographers just setting up a camera on a tripod and using the audio from the camcorder on the tripod wherever it is.
I tried to talk a photog friend back in the midwest into
upgrading his kit way back, but he says he got paid anyway
<g>.

> MIke Rivers' comment about Frank Fillipetti using a Zoom for nature
> sounds shows a genuine pro using it for a specific purpose, but I'd
> wager Frank isn't using one to capture sound in conjunction with
> imagery at a scene shooting.

Right, no timecode capability, etc. Again it comes down to
use the right tool for the job.


Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[hank alrich]

I think not, really, Neil. I think it's more that once someone who isn't
a reviewer has one of any make and model that satisfies the requirement
for which it was purchased, that person won't pay much attention to
what's on the market until the orignial piece either fails or new
requirements render it inadequate.

I didn't get the H2 for "serious" use, so as long as it works I'll
ignore what's new and better, even from Zoom.

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil Gould <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>
>I was hoping to benefit from the knowledge base that this group represents
>on most audio topics. And, I really am surprised that this unit hasn't been
>tried by anyone here, which makes me wonder whether Tascam's reputation has
>declined.

How could it decline?


"Our customers for the 80-8 are mostly stoned-out guitar players, they would
not know what to do with a schematic if we provided it."
-- Vice president of TEAC America, 1978 or so

--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[PStamler]

On Mar 16, 8:29 am, Mike Rivers <mriv...@d-and-d.com> wrote:

> Unless you're close to a lion, nature sounds are all quiet
> stuff,

And if you're close to a lion, you shouldn't be thinking about mics
and preamps, you should be thinking about getting away.

Peace,
Paul

[PStamler]

On Mar 16, 12:00 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote:

> Don't the DR-40 separate TRS line input jacks bypass the preamps?

Probably not. Typically, in semi-pro (and some pro) equipment, the
line inputs are balanced pads which are connected to the mic inputs.

Peace,
Paul

[Adrian Tuddenham]

Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:

[...]

> Unless you're close to a lion, nature sounds are all quiet

> stuff,...

Not always: you should hear the wood pigeon that kept hooting down my
chimney when I was trying to do sound editing in the room below.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Mxsmanic]

hank alrich writes:

> Because in comparison to the tools that are considered professional for
> video and film sound capture it's not very capable.

Considered professional by whom?

How does one distinguish unambiguously and consistently between "professional"
and "non-professional" equipment?

> You're stuck with what it hears from the position of the camera, which
> is often not what one wishes to hear in relation to the image.

It is not a camera-mounted unit.

> You're stuck with the
> configuration and pattern of the mics, which gives you nothing like the
> flexibility of a good hyercard or shotgun mic on a boom.

Why would a "professional" production unconditionally require that
flexibility?

> You can shoot a wedding with all the ambient sound that will be
> included, and if you get paid, you can call it "pro", though I doubt
> that anyone actually makes a living that way. There's a rather large
> difference between that work and professional audio for film and video.

So which is truly professional?

Over the years I've only been able to come up with one fully consistent
definition for "professional": Something is "professional" if it costs the
most you can afford to pay, or more. If it costs less, it's "consumer" or
"amateur" gear. Nothing else about the equipment matters.

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/16/2012 12:45 PM, Neil Gould wrote:

> I was hoping to benefit from the knowledge base that this group represents
> on most audio topics. And, I really am surprised that this unit hasn't been
> tried by anyone here, which makes me wonder whether Tascam's reputation has
> declined.

Oh, I doubt that their rep has declined, it's just those of
us who read this newsgroup and post regularly already have
our portable recorders and don't need any more at the
moment. I guess the last one I had in here was the Sony
PCM-M10, and that's been a couple of years ago now. If I get
my hands on a DR-40, I have a friend with an H4n that I can
compare it to, but I don't know if and when that will come
about.

Really , since you have a specific requirement, you'll be a
better judge than I as to whether it will meet your needs.

Have you read anything about it that suggests that it's not
a good unit?

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/16/2012 2:27 PM, PStamler wrote:

> And if you're close to a lion, you shouldn't be thinking about mics
> and preamps, you should be thinking about getting away.

Sony has a story from a wildlife recordist about (I think) a
PCM-D50 that a giraffe swallowed. He wanted to rescue the
recordings that were in the memory of the recorder so he
followed the giraffe until it came out. It still worked.

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/16/2012 1:00 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:

> Don't the XLR mic connectors provide a means to separate the mics from the
> preamps?

Well, yeah, you can use it with alternate mics, and you can
measure quiescent noise, and sensitivity at the external
connections, but who knows what the sensitivity of the
built-in mics is? With the gain all the way up, what's the
peak level of a yellow bellied sapsucker at 20 yards?

> Don't the DR-40 separate TRS line input jacks bypass the preamps?

l don't know. I don't have a schematic. Most line inputs on
devices that have mic inputs don't bypass the mic inputs.
But unless Neal is planning on using an outboard mic preamp
too, he's probably interested in the external XLR mic inputs.

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 3/16/2012 1:00 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Don't the DR-40 separate TRS line input jacks bypass the preamps?
>
> l don't know. I don't have a schematic. Most line inputs on
> devices that have mic inputs don't bypass the mic inputs.
> But unless Neal is planning on using an outboard mic preamp
> too, he's probably interested in the external XLR mic inputs.
>

I would presume that the line inputs don't pass the preamp on something at
this price point. If I were to use an external mic preamp with the DR-40,
I'd want it to have S/PDIF inputs, too...

--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Neil Gould <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>>
>> I was hoping to benefit from the knowledge base that this group
>> represents on most audio topics. And, I really am surprised that
>> this unit hasn't been tried by anyone here, which makes me wonder
>> whether Tascam's reputation has declined.
>
> How could it decline?
>
>
> "Our customers for the 80-8 are mostly stoned-out guitar players,
> they would not know what to do with a schematic if we provided it."
> -- Vice president of TEAC America, 1978 or so
>

Good point, if the DR-40 was targetting ex 80-8 users... ;-)

--
Neil

[Neil Gould]

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>> Unless you're close to a lion, nature sounds are all quiet
>> stuff,...
>
> Not always: you should hear the wood pigeon that kept hooting down my
> chimney when I was trying to do sound editing in the room below.
>

Perhaps a reincarnated, unhappy ex-client? ;-)

--
Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>hank alrich writes:
>
>> Because in comparison to the tools that are considered professional for
>> video and film sound capture it's not very capable.
>
>Considered professional by whom?
>
>How does one distinguish unambiguously and consistently between "professional"
>and "non-professional" equipment?

With the Nagra III, you could drop it off a building and it would keep
recording, and you could hear it hit and bounce several times on the tape
when you played it back afterward, and the tape would not have any audible
wow or speed change when this happened.

With the modern Nagra V you can do the same thing. It will bounce, and keep
going.

>So which is truly professional?
>
>Over the years I've only been able to come up with one fully consistent
>definition for "professional": Something is "professional" if it costs the
>most you can afford to pay, or more. If it costs less, it's "consumer" or
>"amateur" gear. Nothing else about the equipment matters.

Professional gear keeps working in the worst possible circumstances, and
you don't lose a take because of the equipment.

Enough terrible things go wrong in this world without having to worry about
the equipment too.

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 3/16/2012 12:45 PM, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> I was hoping to benefit from the knowledge base that this group
>> represents on most audio topics.
>

(...)

> Really , since you have a specific requirement, you'll be a
> better judge than I as to whether it will meet your needs.
>
> Have you read anything about it that suggests that it's not
> a good unit?
>

The reviews I've seen so far say things like, "At last! The recorder we've
been waiting for! Well, almost."
http://transom.org/?p=21768

Which, BTW, is also about the best review of the DR-40 that I've seen to
date Its feature set does seem to be aimed at H4n users, which is why I
asked here.

I think I'll just go ahead and get one. I've certainly spent more money on
things that turned out to be less useful.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Adrian Tuddenham]

Probably the composer whose name was left of the artwork - it kept
shouting "Who-who ...whooo!".

[vdub...@gmail.com]

On Friday, March 16, 2012 7:31:36 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 3/16/2012 12:35 AM, Marc Wielage wrote:
>
> > No "pro video shooter" should be relying on something like a Zoom H4 for
> > anything but a very casual backup, in my opinion.
>
> No "pro" should go out without a backup. But you'd be
> surprised at how many pros are using the H4n. I ran into
> Frank Fillipetti at the Zoom booth at the NAB show last year
> or maybe the year before and he's done a lot of nature sound
> work with his.
>

The person I mentioned bought it for the convenience and quality and just wanted to use it as part of a whole. Wasn't without second option. It sounded more like a quality control issue than anything specific to the model.

[hank alrich]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> hank alrich writes:
>
> > Because in comparison to the tools that are considered professional for
> > video and film sound capture it's not very capable.
>
> Considered professional by whom?

People who make their eintire living doing film and video sound work.

> How does one distinguish unambiguously and consistently between "professional"
> and "non-professional" equipment?
>
> > You're stuck with what it hears from the position of the camera, which
> > is often not what one wishes to hear in relation to the image.
>
> It is not a camera-mounted unit.

Makes no differencem, because if you get close enough to tighten what
it's hearing you're in the picture. That, too, is unprofessional.

> > You're stuck with the
> > configuration and pattern of the mics, which gives you nothing like the
> > flexibility of a good hyercard or shotgun mic on a boom.
>
> Why would a "professional" production unconditionally require that
> flexibility?

You either know about that kind of work or you don't.

> > You can shoot a wedding with all the ambient sound that will be
> > included, and if you get paid, you can call it "pro", though I doubt
> > that anyone actually makes a living that way. There's a rather large
> > difference between that work and professional audio for film and video.
>
> So which is truly professional?
>
> Over the years I've only been able to come up with one fully consistent
> definition for "professional": Something is "professional" if it costs the
> most you can afford to pay, or more. If it costs less, it's "consumer" or
> "amateur" gear. Nothing else about the equipment matters.

Yor're not talking about what the rest of us are talking about.

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/16/2012 4:00 PM, Neil Gould wrote:

> The reviews I've seen so far say things like, "At last! The recorder we've
> been waiting for! Well, almost."
> http://transom.org/?p=21768

That's a pretty comprehensive review. It seems that the
reviewer considers the input gain and noise to be pretty
significant, and I would think that if it's truly out of the
ordinary, it could pose a problem for nature recording.

I've found that with most of these recorders, while there's
a lot of stuff on the menu, in actual use, you don't need to
make changes very often. I've seen that "Peak reduction"
mode on another recorder that I reviewed, maybe it was
another TASCAM, and I didn't care for it. It's useful if the
band (or the woodpecker) continually gets louder, but I
think I'd rather live with a momentary overload that doesn't
repeat than have my recording level lowered and have it stay
there.

Give it a try. Buy it from a dealer who will let you return
it if it doesn't meet your needs.

[vdubreeze]

On Mar 16, 2:53 pm, Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Over the years I've only been able to come up with one fully consistent
> definition for "professional": Something is "professional" if it costs the
> most you can afford to pay, or more. If it costs less, it's "consumer" or
> "amateur" gear. Nothing else about the equipment matters.

If it feels in your hands like if the first time it slid off the chair
onto the floor it wouldn't survive, it's consumer. And if it costs
$100 more to make the same widget sturdy enough to not have to handle
like it's made of eggshells no pro is going to think that's $100
stupidly charged.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott Dorsey writes:

> With the Nagra III, you could drop it off a building and it would keep
> recording, and you could hear it hit and bounce several times on the tape
> when you played it back afterward, and the tape would not have any audible
> wow or speed change when this happened.

Nevertheless, I'm sure there are people around who have paid even more for
something else and thus consider the Nagra to be "non-professional" equipment.

> With the modern Nagra V you can do the same thing. It will bounce, and keep
> going.

I like sturdy equipment, although it tends to be expensive (and often
overpriced).

> Professional gear keeps working in the worst possible circumstances, and
> you don't lose a take because of the equipment.

But that's a sliding scale, since "the worse possible circumstances" could be
all sorts of things.

Maybe the Nagra can tolerate a fall from a building--but does equipment have
to be able to tolerate such a fall in order to be "professional"?

[Mxsmanic]

hank alrich writes:

> People who make their eintire living doing film and video sound work.

There is no consensus among these people.

> You either know about that kind of work or you don't.

You haven't answered the question.

> Yor're not talking about what the rest of us are talking about.

You haven't answered the question.

I've explained what "professional" really means: it's the best you can afford,
or anything beyond what you can afford. Anything less expensive is "amateur"
or "consumer." There are no other standards.

[Mxsmanic]

vdubreeze writes:

> If it feels in your hands like if the first time it slid off the chair
> onto the floor it wouldn't survive, it's consumer.

A lot of gear marketed specifically to consumers can easily survive this these
days. Does that make it professional?

I recall a small Nikon digital camera (which I still have, and which still
works) that made endless unplanned falls to the floor without ever showing any
damage at all. Nevertheless, it was marketed as a consumer camera, with a
consumer price.

> And if it costs
> $100 more to make the same widget sturdy enough to not have to handle
> like it's made of eggshells no pro is going to think that's $100
> stupidly charged.

I suspect the H4n would easily survive a fall to the floor, although I'm not
about to try it. But so would an iPod, or most cell phones.

[vdubreeze]

On Mar 16, 11:29 pm, Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You haven't answered the question.
>
> I've explained what "professional" really means: it's the best you can afford,
> or anything beyond what you can afford. Anything less expensive is "amateur"
> or "consumer." There are no other standards.

You've only explained that you have a definition of what
"professional" means that no one shares.

[vdubreeze]

On Mar 16, 11:32 pm, Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> vdubreeze writes:
> > If it feels in your hands like if the first time it slid off the chair
> > onto the floor it wouldn't survive, it's consumer.
>
> A lot of gear marketed specifically to consumers can easily survive this these
> days. Does that make it professional?

You're just trolling. Could you not tell I was using a literary
device? If I had a shitty 50 cent cheese grater and it survived a
chair drop would that make it a professional chef's grater? What's
your point?

>
> I recall a small Nikon digital camera (which I still have, and which still
> works) that made endless unplanned falls to the floor without ever showing any
> damage at all. Nevertheless, it was marketed as a consumer camera, with a
> consumer price.
>

Congrats. If you get a professional photography gig and use that and
it takes amazing enough pictures and everyone is thrilled then you
have a professional tool. Otherwise you still have a point and shoot
camera that isn't a professional tool. Once again, surviving the fall
doesn't magically transform it into something it wasn't before it
fell. It is still what it is. You still have to do your thing with
it.

If it breaks easily, it's not pro. But not breaking does not confer
pro status upon it.

> > And if it costs
> > $100 more to make the same widget sturdy enough to not have to handle
> > like it's made of eggshells no pro is going to think that's $100
> > stupidly charged.
>
> I suspect the H4n would easily survive a fall to the floor, although I'm not
> about to try it. But so would an iPod, or most cell phones.

Oh Jesus. So would a toothbrush. So what? ; /

[Mxsmanic]

vdubreeze writes:

> You've only explained that you have a definition of what
> "professional" means that no one shares.

Most people don't want to admit that this is the correct definition. Everyone
wants to believe that whatever he has is "pro" and that anything even slightly
less is "amateur." There's no correlation with any other variables.

Advancing technology blurs and erases any objective distinction between
professional and consumer equipment. The remaining distinctions are
subjective, and driven by marketing and ego.

In the early days of a new technology, the first pieces of consumer gear are
dramatically inferior to the professional gear, because it's so expensive to
achieve a reasonable level of quality with a brand-new technology. But as the
technology matures, that difference evaporates. Eventually the "consumer" and
"pro" gear are difficult to tell apart, and in fact the equipment all lies
upon a continuum from the cheapest to the best, with no clear demarcation
between professional and consumer gear. And so the distinction ceases to
exist, except in the minds of those who depend upon the money they've spent on
gear to validate their illusions of competence and talent.

The proof is in the final result. For well-established technologies, the
results created by "consumer" gear may be indistinguishable from the results
created by "pro" gear.

[Mxsmanic]

vdubreeze writes:

> You're just trolling.

No, I'm serious. I'm tired of seeing people talk about "pro" vs. "consumer"
gear as if there were some bona fide, bright-line distinction between them.
I'm tired of seeing people with ego issues dismissing what someone else uses
as "not professional" because it cost less to buy.

> Congrats. If you get a professional photography gig and use that and
> it takes amazing enough pictures and everyone is thrilled then you
> have a professional tool.

What makes a photography gig "professional"?

> Otherwise you still have a point and shoot camera that isn't a professional
> tool.

If you use the same camera for "professional" and "amateur" purposes, is it a
professional camera or not?

> If it breaks easily, it's not pro.

What counts as "easily"?

> But not breaking does not confer pro status upon it.

So what does?

> Oh Jesus. So would a toothbrush. So what?

So talking about surviving a fall as the criterion of "professional" quality
doesn't really make any sense.

[Trevor]

"vdubreeze" <vdub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f32213e2-1172-4db7...@l1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

True, but I don't think I've ever seen any real pro equipment for only $100
more than the consumer stuff. Perhaps you mean a $10 Vs $110 item I guess
:-)
(Now compare the cost of a Nagra digital recorder and a Zoom! :-)

Trevor.

[Mxsmanic]

Trevor writes:

> True, but I don't think I've ever seen any real pro equipment for only $100
> more than the consumer stuff.

The increment in price tends to be much larger than the increment in
manufacturing cost. A "professional" camera with a metal body may cost ten
times more than a "consumer" camera with a plastic body, but the metal body
itself doesn't cost ten times more to produce than the plastic body.

"Professional" equipment often has very generous margins and very high price
tags, in part because that's what the market will bear, and in part because
that's what some "pros" want and expect, because making the equipment
expensive helps to keep it out of reach of any ordinary consumer or amateur.
"Prosumer" gear (whatever that is) shows the same phenomenon.

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/16/2012 11:26 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:

> Nevertheless, I'm sure there are people around who have paid even more for
> something else and thus consider the Nagra to be "non-professional" equipment.

In a forum like there there will be someone who will put
anything down as not good enough for them. But among a group
of those really in the know, I doubt that anyone would
consider a Nagra "non-professional" in the right context.
People haven't replaced the traditional sound cart with a
Zoom in a pocket yet, but reporters probably no longer carry
a Nagra to do an interview.

> I like sturdy equipment, although it tends to be expensive (and often
> overpriced).

No, it's not overpriced. It just may be more expensive than
you personally can justify. An Applie iPad is overpriced.

> But that's a sliding scale, since "the worse possible circumstances" could be
> all sorts of things.

And sometimes you know you'll be working in circumstances
where there's nothing that will environmentally affect your
gear. But still, SOME "professional" gear is less
persnickety than SOME everyday gear. And other times it's
the other way around. But one thing about "professional"
gear is that it can nearly always be repaired (within reason
- not much point in trying to repair a Nagra that's been
flattened by a large truck) and everyday gear is, and is
priced as throwaway.

> Maybe the Nagra can tolerate a fall from a building--but does equipment have
> to be able to tolerate such a fall in order to be "professional"?

No. It just has to make you FEEL like a professional when
you're using it.

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/16/2012 11:29 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:

> I've explained what "professional" really means: it's the best you can afford,
> or anything beyond what you can afford. Anything less expensive is "amateur"
> or "consumer." There are no other standards.

I suppose you're entitled to define it however you choose.
Have you checked a dictionary? While some "professional"
gear is indeed more expensive than devices that can perform
the same functions at lower cost, cost shouldn't be the
defining quality.

Lots of professional engineers use $100 microphones, but
what makes them professional is that they also have $2,000
microphones that they can use when it's appropriate, and
they're experienced enough to know how to choose which tool
to use for the job.

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/17/2012 1:07 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:

> Everyone
> wants to believe that whatever he has is "pro" and that anything even slightly
> less is "amateur." There's no correlation with any other variables.

Where in the world do you get THAT idea?

> Advancing technology blurs and erases any objective distinction between
> professional and consumer equipment.

I think that there's some truth to the basis of that
statement. It means that if it's your choice, you can do
"professional quality" work using less expensive tools.
There's a lot of really crappy music recorded in bedrooms
using inexpensive mics and a computer program, but there's
also a lot of very well recorded music using the same kind
of gear.

Someone whose regular job is, for example, recording
concerts for hire, might have brought a Nagra along 30 years
ago (I was doing it with a Revox, but it wasn't my full time
professional) but today is more likely to bring a modestly
priced laptop computer and a decent quality audio interface.
Or maybe even a Zoom H4n. But what makes him professional is
that he has another one handy in case the primary one fails.
And spare batteries. Many people who carried Nagras couldn't
afford that.

> In the early days of a new technology, the first pieces of consumer gear are
> dramatically inferior to the professional gear, because it's so expensive to
> achieve a reasonable level of quality with a brand-new technology. But as the
> technology matures, that difference evaporates.

I wouldn't say that they were dramatically inferior - unless
you're going back to the days of the portable recorder that
had to use low bit rate MP3 compression because it had only
16 MB of memory. I think it's dramatically inferior (from a
professional viewpoint) that my Zoom H2 really can't be used
with external mics without also using an external preamp.
That's why I have a Korg MR-1000 as well. But I have a
couple of friends who take a Zoom H4n to paying gigs where
the client would be very disappointed if he didn't get a
recording. They studied what was available, made a choice,
and now they're standing by that choice and are confident
that it's as good as whatever they were using before, and
better in some respects. "Professional" is understanding the
job needed to be done, deciding what's necessary to do the
job, and taking care that the risks are covered.

> Eventually the "consumer" and "pro" gear are difficult
to tell apart

What's more important is how do you tell the consumer and
the professional apart? Today, a grocery store checkout
clerk by day can be a moneymaking songwriter on his kitchen
table in the evenings, using a laptop computer, a $200
microphone, and a lot of talent and inspiration (priceless).
And any boob with $10,000 can buy a Nagra 5 and make a
lousy recording of a wedding.

> The proof is in the final result. For well-established technologies, the
> results created by "consumer" gear may be indistinguishable from the results
> created by "pro" gear.

Agreed. But some gear won't work in some circumstances. The
professional knows what to choose. The amateur uses what he
has and can afford to accept failure now and then as a
tradeoff for having only one inexpensive (for example here)
recorder rather than deciding which is the best recorder to
take to the gig (renting one if need be).

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/17/2012 1:11 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:

> No, I'm serious. I'm tired of seeing people talk about "pro" vs. "consumer"
> gear as if there were some bona fide, bright-line distinction between them.

So am I. Why bother? If you want a professional job done,
hire a professional and he'll use whatever gear he believes
will get the job done. But I don't believe in calling anyone
"professional" or "amateur" based on the gear he owns or uses.

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 3/16/2012 4:00 PM, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> The reviews I've seen so far say things like, "At last! The recorder
>> we've been waiting for! Well, almost."
>> http://transom.org/?p=21768
>
> That's a pretty comprehensive review. It seems that the
> reviewer considers the input gain and noise to be pretty
> significant, and I would think that if it's truly out of the
> ordinary, it could pose a problem for nature recording.
>

Capturing nature sounds is tough business without a LOT of gain, so the
question is, pretty significant noise compared to what? The H4n also has
audible noise at high gain levels, but it's not unreasonable for most uses.

> I've found that with most of these recorders, while there's
> a lot of stuff on the menu, in actual use, you don't need to
> make changes very often. I've seen that "Peak reduction"
> mode on another recorder that I reviewed, maybe it was
> another TASCAM, and I didn't care for it. It's useful if the
> band (or the woodpecker) continually gets louder, but I
> think I'd rather live with a momentary overload that doesn't
> repeat than have my recording level lowered and have it stay
> there.
>

These units have a lot of modes that I'd probably never use. They can be
ignored as long as they don't preempt the modes that I want.

> Give it a try. Buy it from a dealer who will let you return
> it if it doesn't meet your needs.
>

I probably will do that.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Marc Wielage" <mwie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.CB88112C...@news.giganews.com...
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:41:01 -0700, vdubreeze wrote
> (in article
> <16136078-afc5-4fc9...@k6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> This I don't know, but my friend, a pro video shooter who has his FCP
>> cubicle 10 feet from my ProTools cubicle here, had his newish H4 go
>> belly up in the middle of a shoot...
>>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

>
> No "pro video shooter" should be relying on something like a Zoom H4 for
> anything but a very casual backup, in my opinion.
>

> --MFW
>

Boy did I come into the backside of this controversy!

But since I am a pro wedding shooter, I must add to the tonnage. We
frequently use a little Casio digital voice recorder that is the size of a
pack of gum, attached to a Sony lavalier, stuck in the pocket of the groom
to get the vows at a wedding. Nothing like it! First, using some clumsy
wireless mike and transmitter would be bulkier and would give us fwip fwap
or bzzz bzzz every once in a while. Secondly, it would require one of the
video cameras to waste a track on the wireless feed. Third, digital audio
will stay in sync with digital video all day long, so editing is a snap and
we have one more source for the whole ceremony. We use it mainly for the
vows, but if the church sound system sucks, we can usually get the minister
and the bride and groom a lot better from the groom's lapel than from the
camera mikes.

PS, we don't like taking sound from the church sound system either, because
of mismatches and the simple fact that all it picks up is the minister and
the music, and we like to have all ambient sounds as heard by the
congregation. The vows are a special problem because they are usually not
heard by anyone but the bride and groom and maybe the minister, so the "on
board" recorder is the surest solution, and the sound is top notch.

And for those among you who drop their recorders from buildings, I would
vote for the Casio with no moving parts. A case in point, I taped one to the
podium for a graduation one fine morning. Led the mike cord up to the top
and taped it to the podium mike boom. Unbeknownwt to me at the time, the
little step stool that was hinged to the podium for short people, when
folded back into the cavity of the podium, was just wide enough to wipe my
recorder off the surface where I taped it and disconnect it from my mike
cable. Halfway thru the ceremony, sure enough, clump thump POP, and my
wonderful sound became a little more distant - but it did not stop! What
happened was the recorder got popped onto the floor under the inside of the
podium, and kept on recording with its own internal microphone!

The Casios are going for about $79.95, if you want something better than a
Nagra.

Gary Eickmeier

[Scott Dorsey]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Advancing technology blurs and erases any objective distinction between
>professional and consumer equipment. The remaining distinctions are
>subjective, and driven by marketing and ego.

The professional vs. consumer split has nothing to do with technology.

>The proof is in the final result. For well-established technologies, the
>results created by "consumer" gear may be indistinguishable from the results
>created by "pro" gear.

Sure, but results aren't what make it professional. How easy it is to get
those results, how reliable it is getting them, and what happens when something
goes wrong are what makes it professional.

I hate to say it, but it doesn't sound like you have actually used any
professional gear. I recommend trying some. It's a very different
experience than what you seem to be used to.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>The increment in price tends to be much larger than the increment in
>manufacturing cost. A "professional" camera with a metal body may cost ten
>times more than a "consumer" camera with a plastic body, but the metal body
>itself doesn't cost ten times more to produce than the plastic body.

Yes. This is due to the wonders of mass production. If you make a million
of something, you can make it a lot cheaper than if you make a hundred of
them. The engineering and tooling costs are amortized over far more units,
and you have a lot more buying power for materials.

The additional consequence of this is that, in order to bring volumes up,
consumer audio gear tends to be designed to do everything. If you make a
console that can be used for PA and for recording both, you can sell a lot
more of them than if you make a console that can just be used for one
specific recording application. Selling a lot of them is your goal, because
the more you sell, the cheaper you can make each one.

>"Professional" equipment often has very generous margins and very high price
>tags, in part because that's what the market will bear, and in part because
>that's what some "pros" want and expect, because making the equipment
>expensive helps to keep it out of reach of any ordinary consumer or amateur.
>"Prosumer" gear (whatever that is) shows the same phenomenon.

I hate to tell you this, but the guys at Manley and Universal Audio are
not driving around in Rolls-Royces. It's a whole lot more expensive to
make stuff in small runs, and it's a whole lot more expensive to provide
the kind of customer support that professional customers expect. That
is where the money is going.

[Adrian Tuddenham]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

> How does one distinguish unambiguously and consistently between "professional"
> and "non-professional" equipment?

If it has the word "Professional" on it ...it's non-professional.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Rivers writes:

> In a forum like there there will be someone who will put
> anything down as not good enough for them. But among a group
> of those really in the know, I doubt that anyone would
> consider a Nagra "non-professional" in the right context.

Nagra is probably not a good example because so few people would consider it
anything but professional gear.

> No, it's not overpriced. It just may be more expensive than
> you personally can justify. An Applie iPad is overpriced.

Just about anything aimed at "professional" buyers is vastly overpriced. The
margins are very generous. Not only are professionals willing to pay more
because they can treat it as a business expense, but many of them also believe
that paying huge amounts of money for something means that they are getting
the best of the best, and are better than other "pros" whom they look down
upon because of their smaller budgets.

There are gearheads in every profession.

> And sometimes you know you'll be working in circumstances
> where there's nothing that will environmentally affect your
> gear. But still, SOME "professional" gear is less
> persnickety than SOME everyday gear.

Sure, but that's a very blurry boundary.

> And other times it's the other way around. But one thing
> about "professional" gear is that it can nearly always be
> repaired (within reason - not much point in trying to repair
> a Nagra that's been flattened by a large truck) and everyday
> gear is, and is priced as throwaway.

Here again, while this is true very generally, it's a blurry distinction. A
Maytag washing machine can be repaired many times, even though it's just
consumer gear. A high-end computer server, used for "professional" purposes,
is likely to be thrown away if it fails.

> No. It just has to make you FEEL like a professional when
> you're using it.

Ah. Perhaps that's the key. And one thing that often makes people feel
professional is spending large amounts of money on equipment.

If having fancy equipment made people pros, then in the olden days, when I had
lots of money, I would have been able to fill my house with Oscars and Emmys.
But I found out the hard way that even the best gear doesn't replace skill or
talent--although it was still kinda fun to have the best gear.

It's like people who buy the fastest PC they can find, overclock it, and then
use it only to run performance tests. Or people who buy fancy cameras and
lenses and spend all their time shooting test charts with them.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Maybe the Nagra can tolerate a fall from a building--but does equipment have
>to be able to tolerate such a fall in order to be "professional"?

Professional equipment is designed to do one thing, and to do one thing
well. It's not designed to be everything to everybody. It's designed to
do one job so reliably that you don't have to make excuses for it.

And for field recorders, being able to tolerate a fall off a building is
a minimal basic requirement.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Rivers writes:

> Where in the world do you get THAT idea?

From just about everyone, or at least just about everyone of male gender.
(Women seem far less interested in gear and far more interested on what can be
done with it, although that varies a lot by individual.)

> I think that there's some truth to the basis of that
> statement. It means that if it's your choice, you can do
> "professional quality" work using less expensive tools.
> There's a lot of really crappy music recorded in bedrooms
> using inexpensive mics and a computer program, but there's
> also a lot of very well recorded music using the same kind
> of gear.

Exactly. And if a person is skilled in the use of his inexpensive equipment,
will anyone really know that he is using inexpensive equipment?

And phenomena like bootleg music recordings show that consumers often either
don't know or don't care (or both) about the equipment used to record
something.

> Someone whose regular job is, for example, recording
> concerts for hire, might have brought a Nagra along 30 years
> ago (I was doing it with a Revox, but it wasn't my full time
> professional) but today is more likely to bring a modestly
> priced laptop computer and a decent quality audio interface.
> Or maybe even a Zoom H4n. But what makes him professional is
> that he has another one handy in case the primary one fails.
> And spare batteries. Many people who carried Nagras couldn't
> afford that.

Then, by that logic, the people carrying Nagras weren't pros, because they
didn't have back-up equipment.

Technology can change things. I suspect a lot of consumer gear can survive
falls and abuse that "pro" gear from decades back could never have tolerated.

The little Handycam that I have produces better images than the pro gear that
I paid tens of thousands of dollars for 20 years ago. That's a price ration of
at least 100 to 1, and a quality ratio of 10 to 1, for a total improvement of
1000 to 1, even though the old stuff was "pro" and the new stuff is
"consumer."

As technology advances, eventually everything works so well that the
distinction between "pro" and "amateur" practically disappears, particularly
in terms of final results.

> I wouldn't say that they were dramatically inferior - unless
> you're going back to the days of the portable recorder that
> had to use low bit rate MP3 compression because it had only
> 16 MB of memory.

I'm thinking of--for example--when I was little, and I had a phonograph record
player, and my grandfather had a very expensive reel-to-reel stereo tape
system (I don't recall the specifics). My record player was very obviously
inferior to the system he had. There could be little doubt that his system was
"pro"--so to speak--whereas mine was not.

But today, after decades of advances in audio recording, the music I hear with
a MP3 player is hard to distinguish in any way at all from recordings made
with equipment costing thousands of dollars. If there's a difference, it's not
so much in the equipment used as in the way the "pros" used it.

If I buy the fancy equipment, I still won't get pro results because I don't
know enough about how to make the best of the gear. But a seasoned pro will be
able to do better with even cheap equipment, since he'll know how to use it
best. In the early days of a new technology, that cannot happen because the
consumer gear is just too inferior, but as tecnologies mature, the only real
difference left is in the persons using them.

> I think it's dramatically inferior (from a
> professional viewpoint) that my Zoom H2 really can't be used
> with external mics without also using an external preamp.
> That's why I have a Korg MR-1000 as well. But I have a
> couple of friends who take a Zoom H4n to paying gigs where
> the client would be very disappointed if he didn't get a
> recording. They studied what was available, made a choice,
> and now they're standing by that choice and are confident
> that it's as good as whatever they were using before, and
> better in some respects. "Professional" is understanding the
> job needed to be done, deciding what's necessary to do the
> job, and taking care that the risks are covered.

Yes! So it's scarcely a question of gear at all. There is no "pro" or
"consumer," there is only "do."

> What's more important is how do you tell the consumer and
> the professional apart? Today, a grocery store checkout
> clerk by day can be a moneymaking songwriter on his kitchen
> table in the evenings, using a laptop computer, a $200
> microphone, and a lot of talent and inspiration (priceless).
> And any boob with $10,000 can buy a Nagra 5 and make a
> lousy recording of a wedding.

Yup. And while neither situation is common, they happen often enough that
talking about "pro" vs. "consumer" gear is often a waste of time.

> Agreed. But some gear won't work in some circumstances. The
> professional knows what to choose. The amateur uses what he
> has and can afford to accept failure now and then as a
> tradeoff for having only one inexpensive (for example here)
> recorder rather than deciding which is the best recorder to
> take to the gig (renting one if need be).

Maybe. But pros can't afford to have the ideal equipment for each situation,
either. And if they don't have the right stuff, they have to make do with
whatever they have on hand, just like consumers. So ultimately the difference
comes back to the person using the gear, not the gear itself.

I'd rather hire a pro to use my H4n than hire an amateur to use his Nagra. The
former would almost certainly get better results than the latter.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott Dorsey writes:

> The professional vs. consumer split has nothing to do with technology.

Right. That is, it has nothing to do with equipment.

> Sure, but results aren't what make it professional.

Really? Then why do people pay pros lots of money for results?

> How easy it is to get those results, how reliable it is getting them,
> and what happens when something goes wrong are what makes it professional.

All of which depend a lot more on the person using the equipment than on the
equipment itself.

> I hate to say it, but it doesn't sound like you have actually used any
> professional gear. I recommend trying some. It's a very different
> experience than what you seem to be used to.

I haven't used much in the way of professional audio gear, but I've used a lot
of such gear in other domains over the years. Using so-called professional
equipment is usually a lot more enjoyable than using so-called consumer
equipment ... but these days it's very hard to draw a clear line between the
two for audio-visual equipment.

The widespread use of digital systems has had a tremendous levelling effect,
since it eliminates a lot of analog gear that is extremely sensitive to
manufacturing tolerances and was formerly the source of wide differences
between "consumer" and "pro" equipment.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Rivers writes:

> So am I. Why bother? If you want a professional job done,
> hire a professional and he'll use whatever gear he believes
> will get the job done. But I don't believe in calling anyone
> "professional" or "amateur" based on the gear he owns or uses.

So there's no reason to make such comparisons with respect to a DR-40 or H2 or
H4n.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Rivers writes:

> I suppose you're entitled to define it however you choose.
> Have you checked a dictionary? While some "professional"
> gear is indeed more expensive than devices that can perform
> the same functions at lower cost, cost shouldn't be the
> defining quality.

It shouldn't be, but it usually is.

> Lots of professional engineers use $100 microphones, but
> what makes them professional is that they also have $2,000
> microphones that they can use when it's appropriate, and
> they're experienced enough to know how to choose which tool
> to use for the job.

Not all professionals can afford $2000 microphones, but that doesn't make them
any worse than those who can.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott Dorsey writes:

> Yes. This is due to the wonders of mass production.

Or at least that's what manufacturers would like you to believe. Sometimes
it's true. Often it's not.

I remember selling equipment that was made in only very small quantities
(dozens of units), and yet we still had 95% margins on that equipment.
Customers didn't know, and some of them didn't care.

> The additional consequence of this is that, in order to bring volumes up,
> consumer audio gear tends to be designed to do everything. If you make a
> console that can be used for PA and for recording both, you can sell a lot
> more of them than if you make a console that can just be used for one
> specific recording application. Selling a lot of them is your goal, because
> the more you sell, the cheaper you can make each one.

I'll partially agree. But the manufacturing process for making a million units
is often identical to that used to make ten million units, so often the
all-in-one design is simply designed to sell more units, and not to lower the
cost of producing them.

> I hate to tell you this, but the guys at Manley and Universal Audio are
> not driving around in Rolls-Royces. It's a whole lot more expensive to
> make stuff in small runs, and it's a whole lot more expensive to provide
> the kind of customer support that professional customers expect. That
> is where the money is going.

What do the executives at Nagra drive?

[Mxsmanic]

Adrian Tuddenham writes:

> If it has the word "Professional" on it ...it's non-professional.

I agree with that--it has been on my checklist for ages. Professionals don't
need to be told that they are using professional equipment, neither do they
need to advertise it to anyone else.

I'm happy to report that my H4n doesn't say "pro" anywhere. In fact, it calls
itself a "Handy Recorder," which implies a certain modesty about the unit on
the part of the manufacturer.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Scott Dorsey writes:
>
>> Sure, but results aren't what make it professional.
>
>Really? Then why do people pay pros lots of money for results?

Customers pay professionals for results.

It's a lot easier to get results with professional equipment that is
specifically designed to do a single job well than it is to get results
with consumer equipment.

I can get a perfectly good mix with a Mackie console, but it's going to
take me a whole lot longer than it would on my DDA. With the DDA, there
is plenty of headroom... I can just pot things up and not have to worry
about babysitting levels. With the Mackie, the sound quality changes
with the operating point, so I spend more time worrying about gain structure
and less time mixing.

This means if you were to pay me to mix on the Mackie, it would cost you
a lot more money than if you were to pay me to mix on the DDA. Professional
equipment saves time, and when time is money, that means it saves money.

>> How easy it is to get those results, how reliable it is getting them,
>> and what happens when something goes wrong are what makes it professional.
>
>All of which depend a lot more on the person using the equipment than on the
>equipment itself.

That's true, there are professional people and not-professional people,
but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about equipment.

>The widespread use of digital systems has had a tremendous levelling effect,
>since it eliminates a lot of analog gear that is extremely sensitive to
>manufacturing tolerances and was formerly the source of wide differences
>between "consumer" and "pro" equipment.

I wish that were the case. Now we have the same differences in software.

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/17/2012 10:15 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:

> Not all professionals can afford $2000 microphones, but that doesn't make them
> any worse than those who can.

Not all professionals can afford to own a collection of
$2,000 microphones, but any professional who's professional
enough to price his work properly will know when one is
called for and can afford to rent one when he needs it. You
decide when ownership is more cost effective than rental
when you see how your work is going. That's another sign of
a professional.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott Dorsey writes:

> And for field recorders, being able to tolerate a fall off a building is
> a minimal basic requirement.

How many field recorders can survive such a fall?

[Mxsmanic]

Scott Dorsey writes:

> It's a lot easier to get results with professional equipment that is
> specifically designed to do a single job well than it is to get results
> with consumer equipment.

But where does "consumer" stop and "professional" begin?

> That's true, there are professional people and not-professional people,
> but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about equipment.

My point is that there is no clear distinction between pro and consumer
equipment, particularly for mature technologies. There may well be equipment
that is very obviously consumer or very obviously professional, but it's a
continuum rather than a black and white distinction. And in the middle,
there's lots of argument by people who believe that whatever they have is pro,
and anything less is consumer.

> I wish that were the case. Now we have the same differences in software.

If the software were properly written, you wouldn't have that problem. But the
quality standards for software--even the fanciest "pro" software--are largely
nonexistent.

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/17/2012 10:09 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:

> And if a person is skilled in the use of his inexpensive equipment,
> will anyone really know that he is using inexpensive equipment?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes we don't care. But
clients (a "professional" is one who has clients -
remember??) sometimes judge the level of professionalism by
what they see. For example, you would be judged more
professional by your client (and anyone else watching you
set up) if you carried your gear in well fitted cases in
good condition than if you carried it in in the cardboard
box it was shipped to you in, or a carton you got from the
grocery store. Both serve the purpose equally well, but the
nice cases make a better impression that "this is a
professional that I hired."

> And phenomena like bootleg music recordings show that consumers often either
> don't know or don't care (or both) about the equipment used to record
> something.

This is a different story. Those people don't want to pay
for professional work so they don't really count in this
discussion.

> Then, by that logic, the people carrying Nagras weren't pros, because they
> didn't have back-up equipment.

Some did. But those who didn't knew their equipment well
enough to have confidence in it to last through a gig. They
develop that confidence by working with it, perhaps working
on it, taking it apart and seeing how it's built, knowing
that it's properly maintained, and such. You really can't do
very much of that with your Zoom other than keep fresh or
freshly charged batteries in it and tell yourself "It hasn't
failed me yet other than because of operator error."

And now that I'm thinking about it, one characteristic that
SOMETIMES differentiates what I'd call professional
equipment is simplicity of operation to reduce the
possibility of operator error. It's easier to know that you
forgot to turn on phantom power if there's no red light on
the front panel or a switch handle in the ON position than
if you have to go into a menu to do it and the only
indication you have that it's on is perhaps a small icon on
a small and cluttered display.

> Technology can change things. I suspect a lot of consumer gear can survive
> falls and abuse that "pro" gear from decades back could never have tolerated.

I won't argue with that, but there's a wider range of
consumer gear today than there ever was (and still is) of
pro gear. I happen to think that the Zoom H4n feels like a
pretty solid piece of gear. The original H4, which a lot of
wannabe pros bought because it had XLR connectors for
external mics was, mechanically, a piece of crap. Zoom
figured that out and the H2 was much better in that respect,
as was the H4n. And probably even the H1.

> The little Handycam that I have produces better images than the pro gear that
> I paid tens of thousands of dollars for 20 years ago.

My Mackie Onyx mixers for the most part sound better than
the Soundcraft 600 that I paid $7500 for more than 20 years
ago. But the Soundcraft is still what's in my studio for a
few reasons, the primary reason being that it's a real
recording console with tape returns, subgroup outputs,
higher maximum output level (= more headroom), and more gain
in the preamps. It's getting kind of old and I'd like to
replace it, but I'm no longer doing several $5,000 projects
a year. I simply can't justify the replacement cost
(probably in the $10,000-15,000 range today) for what's
turned into a hobby that occasionally provides some income -
mostly from writing and using the gear as laboratory
equipment rather than recording music.

> But today, after decades of advances in audio recording, the music I hear with
> a MP3 player is hard to distinguish in any way at all from recordings made
> with equipment costing thousands of dollars. If there's a difference, it's not
> so much in the equipment used as in the way the "pros" used it.

I think you're getting it. We really shouldn't be using
labels for gear like "professional" and "consumer." A
professional can make his choice and will likely choose
wisely whether he buys from Full Compass Systems or Best
Buy. I see some $25,000 turntables, and $30.000 amplifiers
and speakers at CES. Are they professional because of the
cost or the build quality? Not necessarily.

But there are many professional mastering engineers who are
using these audiophile (which is what we call a consumer
with too much money) speakers and amplifiers in their
studios, not because they sound like what consumers listen
on (nope, that'd be MP3 players and earbuds) but because
they really sound more accurate than the Genelecs and Focals
that are sold through professional channels, presumably to
professionals, On the other hand, you don't see audiophiles
buying Genelecs, though Alan Sides has been at the last
couple of CESs with his big Ocean Way monitors and has been
astounded by the number of orders he's taken for them there
- from audiophiles.

> If I buy the fancy equipment, I still won't get pro results because I don't
> know enough about how to make the best of the gear. But a seasoned pro will be
> able to do better with even cheap equipment, since he'll know how to use it

There's some truth to that, but if you never get any better,
then you might as well stick with consumer equipment. While
experienced engineers have demonstrated that they can use an
SM57 for everything on a session and have it sound fine,
there comes a point where the equipment WILL stand in your
way. There's a good example right here in this discussion,
that of using a handheld recorder for gathering quiet nature
sounds. A review reported that at full gain, it was a little
noisy. Would coupling it with a "professional" outboard
preamp solve that problem? Quite likely. Would buying a more
"professional" recorder like, for example, a Sony PCM-D50
for twice as much solve the problem? Maybe - it's worth a
test. I suggested that he do the "professional" thing and
get both (I think he was talking about a TASCAM DR-40 vs.
Zoom H4n), evaluate them for the use he intended, and then
keep the one that was best, or return both of them if
neither did the job satisfactorily. That's what
professionals do.

> Yes! So it's scarcely a question of gear at all. There is no "pro" or
> "consumer," there is only "do."

Well, the Zoom H2 and Korg MR-1000 are clearly targeted for
different markets. But you don't need a special license to
buy the "pro" unit, nor, if you're professional, do you need
a special exemption to buy the "consumer" unit.

> But pros can't afford to have the ideal equipment for each situation,
> either. And if they don't have the right stuff, they have to make do with
> whatever they have on hand, just like consumers.

NO, NO, NO, NO . . . the difference between a pro and a
non-pro is that the pro will recognize what he needs and get
it. He won't necessarily buy it, he'll rent it. The non-pro
will make do with what he has on hand and probably won't
turn in as good a job as the pro. But to some the difference
isn't important - though the difference charged by each one
might well be.

> I'd rather hire a pro to use my H4n than hire an amateur to use his Nagra. The
> former would almost certainly get better results than the latter.

You probably won't find an amateur with a Nagra. In fact,
today, you probably won't find too many pros with Nagras.
It's not just a portable recorder any more - those, as you
say, are a dime a dozen. It's a very special kind of
recorder. Sure, it'll work for recording your band's
rehearsals or your school orchestra concerts. But you can
probably do that cheaper and, in many cases just as well,
with the Zoom.

But that doesn't make either one professional.

[Luxey]

As Mr. Rivers said above, the clue is in hiring party, usually client. Hiring party often rely on hype. So, they want Pro Tools and do not care about the same or better result from Cubase, they want 24/192 eventhough can't tell it from mp3, and so on. If you are a pro you have to have equipment that's in demand.

[vdubreeze]

On Mar 17, 10:14 am, Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I haven't used much in the way of professional audio gear,

As the Cameron Crowe character said in the back of the car in Almost
Famous, "That explains so much..." : )

With all due respect, this is apparent by your posts and the way you
keep chasing your tail in your arguments.

Hang out on a pro audio or video endeavor and you may understand the
whole issue, although to be honest at this point I have no idea what
your point is, other than that why is some stuff so expensive.

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/17/2012 11:29 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:

> But where does "consumer" stop and "professional" begin?

> My point is that there is no clear distinction between pro and consumer
> equipment, particularly for mature technologies.

No argument there. But professional isn't defined by
equipment. I think that most people know what's on one end
or the other, and if what's in the middle is used both by
professionals and non -professionals (hey, professionals are
consumers too - quit using that word!) so be it. There are
professionals who are willing to take risks using
inexpensive gear that isn't built to the same standards as
more expensive gear, but if they're still making money and
keeping business going, that defines them as professional.

> If the software were properly written, you wouldn't have that problem. But the
> quality standards for software--even the fanciest "pro" software--are largely
> nonexistent.

We in this business don't get exposed to real professional
software. There are software quality standards in place for,
for example, software and firmware used in airport landing
and lighting systems, that assure that it's fail-safe and
doesn't crash unless there's a hardware problem. And often
the hardware is redundant so it can sustain a failure and
the system will continue to operate.

Pro Tools, on the other hand, is full of annoyances, bugs,
and is continuously updated because it's never been
finished. But to some, it's the best they can get so they
put up with it.

Does it make me any more or less professional because I use
a Mackie HDR24/95 hard disk recorder instead of a general
purpose computer with general purpose software to do my
multitrack recording? Mackie would like people to think that
they make professional equipment, but it's just a Celron
motherboard at heart, though a high quality industrial one,
not a Dell or HP that changes every few months when they can
find cheaper components. This product is going on 13 years
old (though discontinued 5 years or so ago) but it's still
possible to get a replacement motherboard for it from the
original manufacturer. And that's important because the
recorder uses a few things that are special about that board.

[vdubreeze]

On Mar 17, 11:29 am, Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote:

> My point is that there is no clear distinction between pro and consumer
> equipment, particularly for mature technologies. There may well be equipment
> that is very obviously consumer or very obviously professional, but it's a
> continuum rather than a black and white distinction. And in the middle,
> there's lots of argument by people who believe that whatever they have is pro,
> and anything less is consumer.

But that's how it is in most fields, even where new technology doesn't
enter into it. Chef's tools, sports equipment, painting supplies,
gardening tools, etc., etc. It's how it has nearly always been and
not only does it make perfect sense why it is that way, but there's
nothing wrong with it being that way. It makes some people all tied
up in knots about it but really that's about it.

People either know what they're buying or they don't, or it doesn't
matter much, or it doesn't actually make much difference, and this is
regardless of the category. Not a whole lot more to say about it.

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/17/2012 3:41 PM, vdubreeze wrote:

> But that's how it is in most fields, even where new technology doesn't
> enter into it. Chef's tools

Great example. Not even famous chefs use the kind of knives
that Wiliams-Sonoma sells. They buy sturdy utilitarian
knives, usually stainless steel, from restaurant supply
stores, and recommend that home cooks do the same.

And a couple of winters back when we had about 30 inches of
snow over a weekend, I walked over to Home Depot to try to
find a couple of day workers to shovel my driveway. The two
guys who came back with me didn't even have snow shovels -
they used mine. 2-1/2 hours later, my 160 foot driveway was
clear and they went away happy to have done a good job for
$60 each. Professionals? They were, in my eyes.

[hank alrich]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Nevertheless, I'm sure there are people around who have paid even more for
> something else and thus consider the Nagra to be "non-professional" equipment.

No one posting here who has professional audio experience and knows of
Nagra is is going to be suggesting it isn't pro gear. Which is not to
say that every model was a success.

Yes, anyone can have an opinion. Not all opinions are equally informed.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snipitty doo dah>

> Just about anything aimed at "professional" buyers is vastly overpriced.

Disagree, strongly. I paid a lot for the Studer. It repaid many times
over. The quality of the design and build was awesome. The reliability
was outstanding, as in a single card failure between 1975 and my first
post here, when the sync card output caps began to fail.

The Schoeps cost a lot. They are worth it in terms of performance. The
Great River wasn't cheap. It earns its keep, and then some, and survives
some pretty rough treatment.

<snipitty yay>

> Here again, while this is true very generally, it's a blurry distinction. A
> Maytag washing machine can be repaired many times, even though it's just
> consumer gear.

Note the name of this Usenet group. Maybe you should post to
alt.homechores.washing_machines.

[hank alrich]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> hank alrich writes:
>
> > People who make their eintire living doing film and video sound work.
>
> There is no consensus among these people.
>
> > You either know about that kind of work or you don't.
>
> You haven't answered the question.
>
> > Yor're not talking about what the rest of us are talking about.
>
> You haven't answered the question.
>
> I've explained what "professional" really means: it's the best you can afford,
> or anything beyond what you can afford. Anything less expensive is "amateur"
> or "consumer." There are no other standards.

I consider your opinion in that regard bullshit. I see it as unworthy of
further consideration. I think you have no idea what the fuck you're
talking about in relation to professional audio work, but that you like
talking, a lot.

[hank alrich]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Most people don't want to admit that this is the correct definition.

Even as you fail to grasp the extent to which on many matters pertaining
to professional audio work you have neither knowledge nor experience.

Go write a dictionary.

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:

> On 3/16/2012 11:29 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > I've explained what "professional" really means: it's the best you can
> > afford, or anything beyond what you can afford. Anything less expensive
> > is "amateur" or "consumer." There are no other standards.
>

> I suppose you're entitled to define it however you choose.
> Have you checked a dictionary? While some "professional"
> gear is indeed more expensive than devices that can perform
> the same functions at lower cost, cost shouldn't be the
> defining quality.
>

> Lots of professional engineers use $100 microphones, but
> what makes them professional is that they also have $2,000
> microphones that they can use when it's appropriate, and
> they're experienced enough to know how to choose which tool
> to use for the job.

Bingo. Pros I know do not spend money without consideration of results
and value.

[hank alrich]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> No, I'm serious. I'm tired of seeing people talk about "pro" vs. "consumer"
> gear as if there were some bona fide, bright-line distinction between them.

This group is about pro audio. In that field you are obivously clueless.
You don't seem to realize that.

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:

> I hate to tell you this, but the guys at Manley and Universal Audio are
> not driving around in Rolls-Royces. It's a whole lot more expensive to
> make stuff in small runs, and it's a whole lot more expensive to provide
> the kind of customer support that professional customers expect. That
> is where the money is going.

What Scott said.

[hank alrich]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What do the executives at Nagra drive?

And you claim you're not trolling...

[Les Cargill]

hank alrich wrote:
> Mxsmanic<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snipitty doo dah>
>
>> Just about anything aimed at "professional" buyers is vastly overpriced.
>
> Disagree, strongly. I paid a lot for the Studer. It repaid many times
> over. The quality of the design and build was awesome. The reliability
> was outstanding, as in a single card failure between 1975 and my first
> post here, when the sync card output caps began to fail.
>
> The Schoeps cost a lot. They are worth it in terms of performance. The
> Great River wasn't cheap. It earns its keep, and then some, and survives
> some pretty rough treatment.
>
> <snipitty yay>
>
>> Here again, while this is true very generally, it's a blurry distinction. A
>> Maytag washing machine can be repaired many times, even though it's just
>> consumer gear.
>
> Note the name of this Usenet group. Maybe you should post to
> alt.homechores.washing_machines.
>

I think Geddy Lee is the moderator.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRxJzIQf11reDD5NQLiQgKLRf69zI4uw_jDXiggPbJTkaC0naS9EdzmtEGWcA

--
Les Cargill

[vdubreeze]

On Mar 17, 9:42 pm, walki...@nv.net (hank alrich) wrote:

> Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Nevertheless, I'm sure there are people around who have paid even more for
> > something else and thus consider the Nagra to be "non-professional" equipment.
>
> No one posting here who has professional audio experience and knows of
> Nagra is is going to be suggesting it isn't pro gear. Which is not to
> say that every model was a success.
>
> Yes, anyone can have an opinion. Not all opinions are equally informed.

Hank, that reminds me of a great Isaac Asimov quote, one of his many,
which only requires substitution of suitable nouns in the first part
to fit the thread.

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way
through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion
that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your
knowledge.'”

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/17/2012 9:42 PM, hank alrich wrote:

> I paid a lot for the Studer. It repaid many times
> over. The quality of the design and build was awesome. The reliability
> was outstanding, as in a single card failure between 1975 and my first
> post here, when the sync card output caps began to fail.

I had a pretty good track record with my TASCAM 80-8. I even
dropped it once, loading it into the trunk of the car, and
the heads didn't even get out of alignment. It easily paid
for itself. But when I moved on to a 2" 16 track Ampex
MM-1100, I started getting better gigs. I was no longer
getting "Oh, OK, well, no thanks" when someone called for a
session and asked what kind of recorder I had. It paid for
itself, too.

Same with microphones, even whe I was using the TASCAM. I
had U87s and C451s, and Beyer M260s when other TASCAM
studios had their PA mics. That got me some business that
might have gone elsewhere.

[Mxsmanic]

hank alrich writes:

> Disagree, strongly. I paid a lot for the Studer. It repaid many times
> over.

It may have paid for itself, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't overpriced.
You'd have to compare the manufacturing cost to the sale price to determine
that.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Rivers writes:

> I had a pretty good track record with my TASCAM 80-8. I even
> dropped it once, loading it into the trunk of the car, and
> the heads didn't even get out of alignment. It easily paid
> for itself. But when I moved on to a 2" 16 track Ampex
> MM-1100, I started getting better gigs. I was no longer
> getting "Oh, OK, well, no thanks" when someone called for a
> session and asked what kind of recorder I had. It paid for
> itself, too.

That helps prove my point. Clients were interested in how much money you had
spent, not in how good you might be at your work.

For the same reason, wedding photographers and product and fashion
photographers used Hasselblads for years. The 6x6 format was far more than
newlyweds or magazines needed to get superb photos, but the snob appeal of the
expensive gear was more important than the quality of the work.

> Same with microphones, even whe I was using the TASCAM. I
> had U87s and C451s, and Beyer M260s when other TASCAM
> studios had their PA mics. That got me some business that
> might have gone elsewhere.

But did it make a difference in the results?

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Rivers writes:

> Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes we don't care. But
> clients (a "professional" is one who has clients -
> remember??) sometimes judge the level of professionalism by
> what they see.

In which case, a business suit might be more important than any piece of audio
gear.

> For example, you would be judged more
> professional by your client (and anyone else watching you
> set up) if you carried your gear in well fitted cases in
> good condition than if you carried it in in the cardboard
> box it was shipped to you in, or a carton you got from the
> grocery store. Both serve the purpose equally well, but the
> nice cases make a better impression that "this is a
> professional that I hired."

But appearances and results are different. Is appearance a more important
criterion of professionalism just because superficial clients pay more
attention to it, or is it really the result that counts?

> This is a different story. Those people don't want to pay
> for professional work so they don't really count in this
> discussion.

A lot of people don't want to pay for professional work, and not just the ones
trying to obtain things illegally. And some people pay for bootlegs, despite
their generally poor quality.

> And now that I'm thinking about it, one characteristic that
> SOMETIMES differentiates what I'd call professional
> equipment is simplicity of operation to reduce the
> possibility of operator error. It's easier to know that you
> forgot to turn on phantom power if there's no red light on
> the front panel or a switch handle in the ON position than
> if you have to go into a menu to do it and the only
> indication you have that it's on is perhaps a small icon on
> a small and cluttered display.

I read one review that said that the fewer on-screen menus you have to wade
through and the greater the number of buttons and switches, the more
professional the equipment is. That would correlate with my own experience.

> I won't argue with that, but there's a wider range of
> consumer gear today than there ever was (and still is) of
> pro gear. I happen to think that the Zoom H4n feels like a
> pretty solid piece of gear.

I am surprised by its weight. It makes me wonder what's inside. But perhaps
that is characteristic of hand-held audio recorders (?). This is the only one
I have direct experience with.

> My Mackie Onyx mixers for the most part sound better than
> the Soundcraft 600 that I paid $7500 for more than 20 years
> ago. But the Soundcraft is still what's in my studio for a
> few reasons, the primary reason being that it's a real
> recording console with tape returns, subgroup outputs,
> higher maximum output level (= more headroom), and more gain
> in the preamps. It's getting kind of old and I'd like to
> replace it, but I'm no longer doing several $5,000 projects
> a year. I simply can't justify the replacement cost
> (probably in the $10,000-15,000 range today) for what's
> turned into a hobby that occasionally provides some income -
> mostly from writing and using the gear as laboratory
> equipment rather than recording music.

Would replacing it actually allow you to get better results, or would it
simply be nice to have a replacement?

> I think you're getting it. We really shouldn't be using
> labels for gear like "professional" and "consumer."

I agree. People who still make the distinction have issues.

High technology is the great democratizer. Eventually the technology reaches a
point where anyone can get top quality for everything. And when that happens,
the only way to distinguish between a consumer and a pro is from the results
that they obtain. Unfortunately, that puts a lot of incompetent "pros" out of
business, since they can no longer hide behind expensive equipment.

> I see some $25,000 turntables, and $30.000 amplifiers
> and speakers at CES. Are they professional because of the
> cost or the build quality? Not necessarily.

I bet the people who buy with them would argue vigorously with that, although
I agree with you.

> But there are many professional mastering engineers who are
> using these audiophile (which is what we call a consumer
> with too much money) speakers and amplifiers in their
> studios, not because they sound like what consumers listen
> on (nope, that'd be MP3 players and earbuds) but because
> they really sound more accurate than the Genelecs and Focals
> that are sold through professional channels, presumably to
> professionals, On the other hand, you don't see audiophiles
> buying Genelecs, though Alan Sides has been at the last
> couple of CESs with his big Ocean Way monitors and has been
> astounded by the number of orders he's taken for them there
> - from audiophiles.

It's hard for me to relate because I don't recognize these brands, but I think
I see your point.

> There's some truth to that, but if you never get any better,
> then you might as well stick with consumer equipment. While
> experienced engineers have demonstrated that they can use an
> SM57 for everything on a session and have it sound fine,
> there comes a point where the equipment WILL stand in your
> way.

In the days when I had money, I did buy the very best quality I could get. But
I did it because I know that if I had the best equipment, any problem with the
results I got could only be my own fault--I could not blame the tools,
especially since I had spent more than some pros. Unfortunately, I discovered
that the results were still mediocre in many cases ... only because I was
incompetent. So it was sort of good and bad: Good to know that the equipment
was not holding me back, but humbling to realize that I just lacked the skills
to get the most out of really good equipment.

> There's a good example right here in this discussion,
> that of using a handheld recorder for gathering quiet nature
> sounds. A review reported that at full gain, it was a little
> noisy.

I'll try it sometime, although the city in which I live is so noisy that I
don't think I'd ever have a situation in which I'd set the gain to its
maximum. Maybe I can try recording in a park or something.

I tried using it to detect sleep apnea, believe it or not. I just let it run
while I slept. When I loaded up the resulting recording, I heard nothing in
the background, but by cranking it way, way up, I was finally able to hear my
own breathing, which surprised me, as I can't hear that when I'm actually
awake. There were some deep rumbling sounds from a subway far below the
building that were much louder than the breathing noises, even though these
subway sounds are almost impossible to hear in real life. So I guess the H4n
did pretty well. But it's probably still a noisy environment compared to some,
and I've never used any other recorders.

> NO, NO, NO, NO . . . the difference between a pro and a
> non-pro is that the pro will recognize what he needs and get
> it. He won't necessarily buy it, he'll rent it.

Only if he can afford to buy or rent.

Pros regularly make do with what they have. That's why most Hollywood films
are shot with a single camera, even though multiple cameras would be much
closer to ideal.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Rivers writes:

> We in this business don't get exposed to real professional
> software.

There's no such thing, when it comes to software for desktop computers. It's
all garbage.

> Pro Tools, on the other hand, is full of annoyances, bugs,
> and is continuously updated because it's never been
> finished. But to some, it's the best they can get so they
> put up with it.

Pro Tools is garbage. I can say that without having used it because all
desktop software is garbage.

If hardware had the same problems as software, pros would be marching on the
headquarters of the equipment manufacturers with their lawyers, demanding
compensation for defective merchandise. But for some reason, end users of
desktop software simply shrug their shoulders and eat their losses when
defective software causes them to lose time and money. They've been
conditioned to accept any level of mediocrity at any price, and vendors take
full advantage of that.

> Does it make me any more or less professional because I use
> a Mackie HDR24/95 hard disk recorder instead of a general
> purpose computer with general purpose software to do my
> multitrack recording? Mackie would like people to think that
> they make professional equipment, but it's just a Celron
> motherboard at heart, though a high quality industrial one,
> not a Dell or HP that changes every few months when they can
> find cheaper components. This product is going on 13 years
> old (though discontinued 5 years or so ago) but it's still
> possible to get a replacement motherboard for it from the
> original manufacturer. And that's important because the
> recorder uses a few things that are special about that board.

Try the same for software, and you'll see why desktop software is garbage.

[Mxsmanic]

vdubreeze writes:

> But that's how it is in most fields, even where new technology doesn't
> enter into it. Chef's tools, sports equipment, painting supplies,
> gardening tools, etc., etc. It's how it has nearly always been and
> not only does it make perfect sense why it is that way, but there's
> nothing wrong with it being that way.

What's wrong with it is that it's massively dishonest and unfair, rather like
saying that someone isn't suitable for a job because his skin is too dark. In
both cases, distinctions are being made based on irrelevant criteria.

[Mxsmanic]

Luxey writes:

> As Mr. Rivers said above, the clue is in hiring party, usually client.
> Hiring party often rely on hype. So, they want Pro Tools and do not
> care about the same or better result from Cubase, they want 24/192
> eventhough can't tell it from mp3, and so on. If you are a pro you have
> to have equipment that's in demand.

So you don't need skill, at least not if you're only interested in earning
money.

[Mxsmanic]

vdubreeze writes:

> As the Cameron Crowe character said in the back of the car in Almost
> Famous, "That explains so much..." : )
>
> With all due respect, this is apparent by your posts and the way you
> keep chasing your tail in your arguments.
>
> Hang out on a pro audio or video endeavor and you may understand the
> whole issue, although to be honest at this point I have no idea what
> your point is, other than that why is some stuff so expensive.

The principles I'm discussing apply identically to every business, so it is
not necessary for me to be an expert on audio specifically. It always works
the same way.

In the same way, your post that talks about me rather than the subject at hand
also follows a universal pattern, although it is not a very flattering one.

[Mxsmanic]

hank alrich writes:

> Even as you fail to grasp the extent to which on many matters pertaining
> to professional audio work you have neither knowledge nor experience.

The principles I'm discussing are universally applicable, and are not specific
to audio at all.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Rivers writes:

> Not all professionals can afford to own a collection of
> $2,000 microphones, but any professional who's professional
> enough to price his work properly will know when one is
> called for and can afford to rent one when he needs it.

What if he can't find anyone to pay that price?

[Mxsmanic]

hank alrich writes:

> I consider your opinion in that regard bullshit.

Your consideration is not germane to this thread.

> I see it as unworthy of
> further consideration. I think you have no idea what the fuck you're
> talking about in relation to professional audio work, but that you like
> talking, a lot.

There is a direct and extremely reliable correlation between name-calling and
incompetence.

[Mxsmanic]

hank alrich writes:

> This group is about pro audio. In that field you are obivously clueless.

The principles I'm discussing apply to all fields of endeavor, including pro
audio.

If you cannot discuss the topic, just don't discuss at all, which will save
time for everyone.

[Mxsmanic]

hank alrich writes:

> And you claim you're not trolling...

And your posts all talk about me, rather than the topic. You lose.

[vdubreeze]

(snip)

> Pro Tools is garbage. I can say that without having used it because all
> desktop software is garbage.

You wouldn't say making that statement to have any "irrelevant
criteria"?! : ) You don't have a point, yet you keep writing as if
there is one to be made.

That's only about the 20th dealkilling statement you've made, so that
anyone who calls you on it isn't calling you a name, as you're posing
to Hank, but rather is simply exhibiting their exasperation at your
inane posts. This one sums the whole thing up: If you've never used
ProTools you couldn't possibly use it in a discussion about what color
the interface is much less whether it's garbage or not. You don't
know. You don't know about any of this. I hate flaming and rarely
would even consider it, but you're begging to be put in your place.
That statement is simply inane and elicits only chortles.


Mike Rivers is being incredibly gracious in explaining many things
here, at great length and clarity. Please be grateful to have them
in the thread and read them over and over and leave it at that.

[Mxsmanic]

vdubreeze writes:

> If you've never used ProTools you couldn't possibly use it in a
> discussion about what color the interface is much less whether
> it's garbage or not.

Yes, I can. It would have to be a one-in-a-million exception to a rule that
I've never seen broken up to now, and I know that's not the case.

All desktop software is garbage. It's just that users have never seen anything
but garbage on the desktop, so they don't realize how bad it is.

> Mike Rivers is being incredibly gracious in explaining many things
> here, at great length and clarity.

Maybe he's a professional. They are usually good at that, if they don't have
any issues with insecurity.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey writes:
>
>> And for field recorders, being able to tolerate a fall off a building is
>> a minimal basic requirement.
>
>How many field recorders can survive such a fall?

Pretty much all of the professional ones. Not all that hard today now that
you can buy ruggedized hard drives for the automotive embedded computer
market.

I wouldn't feel too worried about dropping a Cantar or a Sound Devices
either. I would not expect to lose a take.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."