Field recording at DVinfo.net

Adam Houde · December 4th, 2004, 08:21 AM

I've noticed the Marantz PMD 670 mentioned a few times.
I was wondering if a combination Fostex MR8 (uncompressed audio) with a Samson Mixpad 4 (field mixer with phantom power) would be a better route to recording.
Thoughts?

Douglas Spotted Eagle · December 5th, 2004, 12:09 PM

Adam,
I've never worked with the Fostex, but have heard good things about it. Also, have you looked at the new Roland unit? It also looks pretty sweet.

Scot Stafford · December 5th, 2004, 01:15 PM

I'm impressed with the feature set of the Edirol R-1 for ~$440.

Not having phantom power will limit the microphone choice. Additionally, the Marantz will have superior connectors, pre's and converters, but i'd be curious to hear a side by side.

Douglas Spotted Eagle · December 5th, 2004, 01:17 PM

Sorry, I did mean the Edirol. To me, Roland and Edirol are the same company. Edirol was in the music industry as part of Roland before they split off and became their own channel, but still owned by Roland.

I've only heard great things about the Edirol units.

Scot Stafford · December 5th, 2004, 01:30 PM

same thing to me, too. didn't even notice. :>

The poster might do well to consider the following "costs" of the Samson+Fostex configuration

- The circuitry is not at the Marantz level to begin with
- The added circuitry+cable will degrade the signal further
- Extra bog (mixer+cable)

Any reason you'd be overdubbing in the field?

December 4th, 2004, 08:21 AM	#1
Adam Houde New Boot Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Watertown, NY Posts: 11	Field recording I've noticed the Marantz PMD 670 mentioned a few times. I was wondering if a combination Fostex MR8 (uncompressed audio) with a Samson Mixpad 4 (field mixer with phantom power) would be a better route to recording. Thoughts?

December 5th, 2004, 12:09 PM	#2
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	Adam, I've never worked with the Fostex, but have heard good things about it. Also, have you looked at the new Roland unit? It also looks pretty sweet. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

December 5th, 2004, 01:15 PM	#3
Scot Stafford Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: United States Posts: 39	field recorder I'm impressed with the feature set of the Edirol R-1 for ~$440. Not having phantom power will limit the microphone choice. Additionally, the Marantz will have superior connectors, pre's and converters, but i'd be curious to hear a side by side.

December 5th, 2004, 01:17 PM	#4
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	Sorry, I did mean the Edirol. To me, Roland and Edirol are the same company. Edirol was in the music industry as part of Roland before they split off and became their own channel, but still owned by Roland. I've only heard great things about the Edirol units. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

December 5th, 2004, 01:30 PM	#5
Scot Stafford Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: United States Posts: 39	edirol = roland same thing to me, too. didn't even notice. :> The poster might do well to consider the following "costs" of the Samson+Fostex configuration - The circuitry is not at the Marantz level to begin with - The added circuitry+cable will degrade the signal further - Extra bog (mixer+cable) Any reason you'd be overdubbing in the field?