Affordable digital recorder advice

Tue Jan 31 22:43:26 UTC 2006

I may not have read all the messages in this thread, so I'm not sure if someone
has already brought this up, but you might consider recording directly to a
laptop. For some circumstances, this is ideal--cuts out the download time and
gives the opportunity to make a copy of the recording for immediate return to
the speaker. If you have a decent sound card and an iMic (about $35) hooked to
a microphone to clean up the signal the quality can be quite good. You can also
carry this equipment for use as a backup in the event of equipment malfunction
if you use another device as your primary. The Vermont Folklife Center has a
good description of the process at 
http://www.vermontfolklifecenter.org/res_audioequip.htm#v.

Best,
Naomi

-- 
Naomi Fox
Center for American Indian Languages
University of Utah

Quoting Mia Kalish <MiaKalish at LEARNINGFORPEOPLE.US>:

 I guess the upshot of all this is that I don't think people should be made
 to feel bad because they can't afford high-end equipment. 

 I loved Keola's musician's analysis. He's right about the Dolby hiss :-) 

 And I agree that there are lots of recording options. But I think also what
 has come out of this discussion is that there are lots of considerations,
 lots of available technology, lots of things you can do with the recordings,
 and lots of people who will use the technology and the recordings. 

 Keola mentioned sampling frequencies: # of bits is related to sampling size;
 it is also related to how fast materials will download. I've noticed that a
 lot of the sites I see don't seem to worry about how long it takes a sound
 to make it down to the listener. People also use Windows Media format which
 is InCreDibly SLOW. . . . (aaargh). Every time to open a sound, it has to
 open that high-graph interface. . . . Recently, I couldn't download the new
 Windows Media Player because there was something wrong with the signing in
 the internal configuration. So I could hear the Welsh on the BBS site. . . .

 Mia

   _____  

 From: Indigenous Languages and Technology [mailto:ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU]
 On Behalf Of Susan Penfield
 Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:42 AM
 To: ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
 Subject: Re: [ILAT] Affordable digital recorder advice

 Mia,

 I couldn't agree more, because we have found all of the same
 conditions/recommendations. But the use of high quality equipment, in the
 field, still yields much better and much longer lasting recordings and
 should be considered. We had some problems just this weekend with a high end
 recorder, just because it was not initially easy to use. That led us to
 rethink what equipment is best and/or how much more training is needed.
 Guess all I'm saying is that there are lots of options now (I have also used
 your same recorder) and that making more of an investment in high quality is
 worth it in the long run. We are also in the business of creating tons of
 stuff for the community and are putting that responsibility into the hands
 of community members -- so I really understand what you are saying.
 Nevertheless, that makes the quality of the recordings even more valuable
 and we should all be striving not just for lots of stuff but for the best
 possible stuff, given the recording conditions. 

 Best,

 Susan

 On 1/31/06, Mia Kalish <MiaKalish at learningforpeople.us
 <mailto:MiaKalish at learningforpeople.us> > wrote: 

 Hi, Susan, 

 I didn't read the whole main thread, but I thought I was perceiving a
 recommendation for "recording studio quality" for archival recording.
 Bringing people into a sound controlled studio is very different from
 working in communities where we create tons and tons of material for use by
 the community. 

 When we were doing this initially 4-5 years ago now, Depree and I created a
 whole checklist of things we wanted to be able to do, with a focus of
 working in the community. For us, the considerations ranked approximately as
 follows: 

 1.       Elder comfort

 2.       Affordable by community members

 3.       High quality recording

 4.       Convenience

 5.       High portability

 6.       Battery-powered 

 7.       Ease of use, for us & for community members

 Our goal was to work with communities to show them how they could take a
 major hand in designing and developing their own resources. As such, many of
 our considerations incorporated the needs of the Community in our assessment
 of recorders. Sophisticated, expensive recorders wouldn't be appropriate;
 special recording rooms and devices would take us out of the community and
 would also be difficult to use in places where people live. We didn't want
 to use our hosts' electricity; for some people, this is a financial
 hardship, even for small requirements. We were also prepared for places
 where there is no electricity; or where the travel to and from the locale is
 challenging, as for example, the path down the Grand Canyon to the Havapai.
 So we included all these considerations in our analysis. 

 Mia

   _____  

 From: Indigenous Languages and Technology [mailto:
 ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] On Behalf Of Susan Penfield
 Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 7:59 AM
 To: ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU

 Subject: Re: [ILAT] Affordable digital recorder advice

 Mia, Jan and all,
 Just a thought here -- It seems to me that we might not want to distinguish
 between the uses for revitalization and documentation. Good quality is
 needed on both fronts since they really play into each other. I think that
 ease of use is important (for some of us less techie folks), and certainly
 cost is an issue for many, but getting good archival quality doesn't
 necessarily mean giving up all the other things Mia referred
 and,increasingly, those of us who do revitalization work need to be mindful
 that many of those recordings may end up as the only documentation of the
 language. 
 Best,
 Susan

 On 1/31/06, Jan Tucker < jtucker at starband.net <mailto:jtucker at starband.net>
 > wrote:

 Thank you all for the information you provided about affordable digital
 recorders. I'm looking at this one right now. 

 Yes, I'm using it for language revitalization, and would like the best
 possible quality and least degredation. I have about 100 to spend on the
 devise and the accessories such as a microphone. 

 Olympus VN-960PC Digital Voice Recorder, with LCD Display - Built-in 128MB
 Flash Memory and PC Link

   Any further comments would be welcome. Here is a link with specifications.

 <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&
 sku=389757&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation#Recording>
 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&s
 ku=389757&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation#Recording 

 In recording format they say ADPCM (Adaptive Differential Pulse code
 Modulation)(WAV on PC). Can I assume then this is a .wav format recorder? 

 Thank you,

 Jan

 ----- Original Message ----- 

 From: "Nicholas Thieberger" <  <mailto:thien at UNIMELB.EDU.AU>
 thien at UNIMELB.EDU.AU >

 To: < <mailto:ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>  ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU >

 Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 2:30 PM

 Subject: Re: [ILAT] Affordable digital recorder advice

 > David,
 > 
 > If it does not record in WAV format then it is not archival. |If it 
 > records in a compressed form like WMA, mp3, or others, and then 
 > converts to WAV it means the actual recording has already lost lots 
 > of the signal. The m-audio microtrack records to WAV and is around 
 > US$300 and is not too bad, it has some problem with preamps.
 > 
 > Nick 
 > 
 > At 11:17 AM -0800 30/1/06, David Lewis wrote:
 >>Hi Nicholas,
 >>I checked out the first website mentioned and they wrote this as to 
 >>an archival quality format "For audio, use WAV 
 >><  <http://emeld.org/school/glossary.html#wav>
 http://emeld.org/school/glossary.html#wav > format." 
 >>Coincidentally, I was at Best Buy last night and looked over their 
 >>selection and chose the lower end of the higher end devices, the 
 >>WS-100. It is supposed to transfer directly into Microsoft WMA 
 >>format to the computer. I'm pretty sure I can then convert it to WAV 
 >>format either with Windows Media player or ITunes. Any advice here? 
 >>the device cost $100. the next higher device was $149.00.
 >>David Lewis
 >>
 >>Nicholas Thieberger wrote:
 >> 
 >>>-->
 >>>Just to add to this thread from an archival perspective. If you are 
 >>>recording unique things that you want to be available to 
 >>>generations to come then you need to think about the format of what 
 >>>you are recording and whether it will endure. Olympus and other 
 >>>small (and cheap, unfortunately) recorders do not record in 
 >>>archival formats.
 >>>
 >>>For a summary of the issues around longterm storage of recorded 
 >>>material and endangered languages you could look at 
 >>>http://emeld.org/school/index.html.
 >>>
 >>>There was a discussion of recorders on the RNLD list and if you go 
 >>>to the archive of the RNLD list, here: 
 >>>
 http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?S1=resource-network-linguistic-d
 iversity
 <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?S1=resource-network-linguistic-
 diversity>  
 >>>and search for 'flash' and 'recorder' you will get some useful info
 >>> 
 >>>A summary item is here:  <http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-2710.html>
 http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-2710.html
 >>> 
 >>>All the best,
 >>>
 >>>Nick Thieberger
 >>>
 >>>At 7:36 AM -0700 30/1/06, Mia Kalish wrote:
 >>>
 >>>>Jan & all,
 >>>>
 >>>>I have been using Olympus digital recorders for years now. They have 3 
 >>>>quality settings (low, medium, & high) and 2 recording modes (one for
 >>>>meetings, one for one-to-one). The ones I buy are about $99. I recently
 got 
 >>>>a Sony refurb unit for $32 at e-cost.com <http://e-cost.com/> .
 >>>>
 >>>>I didn't read the thread about recorders, because I'm really happy with
 >>>>mine, and I had shared about it before.
 >>>
 >>>>Mia 
 >>>
 >>>
 >>>--
 >>>
 >>>Project Manager
 >>>PARADISEC
 >>>Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics 
 >>>University of Melbourne, Vic 3010
 >>>Australia
 >>>
 >>> nicholas.thieberger at paradisec.org.au
 <mailto:nicholas.thieberger at paradisec.org.au> 
 >>>Ph 61 (0)3 8344 5185
 >>>
 >>>PARADISEC
 >>>Pacific And Regional Archive for Digital Sources in Endangered Cultures 
 >>>http://paradisec.org.au <http://paradisec.org.au/> 
 > 
 > 
 > -- 
 > Project Manager
 > PARADISEC
 > Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics
 > University of Melbourne, Vic 3010
 > Australia 
 > 
 >  <mailto:nicholas.thieberger at paradisec.org.au>
 nicholas.thieberger at paradisec.org.au 
 > Ph 61 (0)3 8344 5185 
 > 
 > PARADISEC
 > Pacific And Regional Archive for Digital Sources in Endangered Cultures 
 >  <http://paradisec.org.au/> http://paradisec.org.au 
 > 

 -- 
 Susan D. Penfield, Ph.D.

 Department of English
 Affiliate faculty: Department of Linguistics 
 and the Second Language Acquisition and Teaching Program 
 American Indian Language Development Institute
 Phone for messages: (520) 621-1836 

 -- 
 Susan D. Penfield, Ph.D.

 Department of English 
 Affiliate faculty: Department of Linguistics 
 and the Second Language Acquisition and Teaching Program
 American Indian Language Development Institute
 Phone for messages: (520) 621-1836 