recommendations for portable .wav/.mp3 recorders?

[kangaroo?]

luis, with just a quick look at the pictures of the Olympus, i think the positioning of the mics is a deal-breaker to begin with. It's bound to give a horrible stereo image. One of the good points with the Zoom is the stereo pattern & despite what i said above, i'd still recomend it as a budget option for recording with mics, built-in & external

[joseghast]

luis, with just a quick look at the pictures of the Olympus, i think the positioning of the mics is a deal-breaker to begin with. It's bound to give a horrible stereo image. One of the good points with the Zoom is the stereo pattern & despite what i said above, i'd still recomend it as a budget option for recording with mics, built-in & external

Even as I didn't listened as closely as with my H4, my comrade Miguel has an Olympus LS10 and it sounds pretty good to me. The stereo image is wide, I think that the mics are positioned following the ORTF stereo pair (obviously, adapting it to the little space they had to position the mics), wich I've tried sometimes and lately I'm liking it more than the XY used on the Zoom.That's other think that attracted me from the H4n, the possibility of widening of the stereo image.

It's en route Luis, as soon as I can try it I'll tell you what I think.

[polypx]

Esquilo

You might be right about the low end on the PCM-D50. There's a built-in high pass filter that can be switched between 75 and 150 Hz, but can't be turned OFF, which is kind of a drag. I'm not sure why Sony did this, maybe to reduce handling noise? (not that I'd ever record while holding the thing)

It's not been much of an issue for me because I'm generally using it for ambience recording, so unless a jet flies over... at the same time, the top end is fabulously detailed, and as i said the noise floor is very very low.

But if you were using it to record hip hop gigs, I guess you'd be losing some weight there. The mics are probably a bit too sensitive for loud music anyway.

[patois]

My minidisc is finally showing its age. It had a very good run...

... but what about the Tascam DR-1; has anyone any experience with this compared say, to the zoom or Olympus? Another forum I was at someone suggested the Tascam was better at catching the warmth of acoustic instruments, by contrast suggesting the olympus was a little 'clinical' in its capture.

Meanwhile, a salesman has suggested the ipod with docking-bay - pricier, but with the advantage I guess of being a 'walkman' in it's spare time... if the ipod is able to record at a high sample-rate, where is it lacking? And if i was happy with the sound of the MD, does any of this really matter..? (As someone said above - it's often the playing, not the record quality that determines the quality of a work)

l i f

[visa tapani]

I have an Olympus LS-10. My decision was between that and the Sony PCM-D50. I knew that the Sony would be of higher quality, but I ended up on the Olympus mainly due to its size. I figured that it's pretty much the only high-quality portable recorder thats so small that I can realistically carry it with me at all times. This is very important for my recording habits. With the Sony I would get better quality recordings but in the worst case I might not even use it that much because I couldn't be bothered to carry it around a lot of the time.

The ORTF stereo technique actually produces a fairly nice, wide stereo image. However, it's much less directional than the XY, so my biggest problem with the Olympus is that unwanted noise (traffic/ footsteps etc) are not as easy to zoom out. The Sony is of course optimal in this as it's switchable. I think esquilo is mistaken in thinking that the frequency response of the internal mics is 70 Hz - 20 Khz. That is the frequency response of the built in speakers. Although I haven't seen anywhere what they state as the frequency response of the mics so I don't know for sure... The mics are a little bit bright in their character, though.

Since the preamps of the H4 are shite, I think the only advantage the Zoom has over the LS-10 is that it's more directional. In my use this is far outweighed by the small size of the ls-10 and its superior build quality. However, if you really need better quality, the Sony is probably a good choice...

[esquilo]

I think esquilo is mistaken in thinking that the frequency response of the internal mics is 70 Hz - 20 Khz. That is the frequency response of the built in speakers. Although I haven't seen anywhere what they state as the frequency response of the mics so I don't know for sure... The mics are a little bit bright in their character, though.

I'm pretty sure about that. Just go to the olympus ls-10 website, download the guide and you can see the specifications there: 70 Hz-20 kHz for the built-in mics and 20 Hz to 20 kHz for the line-in input.

That's why it sounds bright with the built-in mics - from what I've read in online reviews that's the main complaint...the sound of the built-in mics is thin and bright.

But what I want to know is what is the frequency response of the built-in mics of the sony PCM-D50.

[visa tapani]

I'm pretty sure about that. Just go to the olympus ls-10 website, download the guide and you can see the specifications there: 70 Hz-20 kHz for the built-in mics and 20 Hz to 20 kHz for the line-in input.

Oh you're right, my bad. Couldn't find that info anywhere earlier. The bass rollof doesn't make the mics sound bad, however. I'd still say they are better than Zoom H4's mics, but obviously not as good as the Sony. If size or price are not that crucial the Sony is the best bet...

[Moon]

Hope there's not a really good reason why this hasn't been mentioned before:
Edirol R09

I have not found or tried another recorder I like better so far, and that includes the expensive sony's.
The built in mics are excellent. It doesn't say how sensitive they are on the specs, but there's a mention of 20Hz to 40kHz, guess that's for the recorder in general. So at least you could always plug in a better mic in the powered stereo mic input. It's a stereo mini-jack, that's not too cool. Powered is a plus, though.

I tried to find a good example of recording I had done with it. One from an acoustic gig in a noisy little basement pub is good example? (link)
Have some more if it helps to decide, outside sounds and quiet sounds and some rockets?

[Adam Asnan]

Hope there's not a really good reason why this hasn't been mentioned before:
Edirol R09

I have not found or tried another recorder I like better so far, and that includes the expensive sony's.
The built in mics are excellent. It doesn't say how sensitive they are on the specs, but there's a mention of 20Hz to 40kHz, guess that's for the recorder in general. So at least you could always plug in a better mic in the powered stereo mic input. It's a stereo mini-jack, that's not too cool. Powered is a plus, though.

I tried to find a good example of recording I had done with it. One from an acoustic gig in a noisy little basement pub is good example? (link)
Have some more if it helps to decide, outside sounds and quiet sounds and some rockets?

I only use an Edirol R09, drawbacks: Stereo jack inputs (break and crackle easily.. but if you look after them they're OK) Rubbish pre-amp (I ALWAYS use an external mic preamp and feed the signal into the line-in, I use a beachtek DXA-10 but am upgrading to a sound devices soon) 48. the new R09h (? - cant remember what its called) records up to 96.
The new SDHC format SD cards are incompatible with the old R09, not sure about the new one.. and the regular SD cards are slowly dwindling.

MAIN advantages - AA batteries, I would avoid buying anything with a built in battery, as once it dies, the recorder is useless. How are the Sony recorders? do they have external batteries??

Recently used a Sound Devices 744t for a project, and I could nto believe how smooth the recordings were, outstanding recorder!