This was featured on the back cover of the B&H pro audio catalog I just got. It caught my attention for size, convenience, standard AAA battery acceptance in addition the the provided AAA rechargeable, and true USB 2.0 connectivity.

My main reservation is that the frequency response only goes down to 40Hz, vs the more standard 20Hz for hi fi equipment. Would that be a deal breaker for you guys?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/543278-REG/Yamaha_POCKETRAK_2G_POCKETRAK_2G_Pocket_Stereo.html

...My main reservation is that the frequency response only goes down to 40Hz, vs the more standard 20Hz for hi fi equipment. Would that be a deal breaker for you guys?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/543278-REG/Yamaha_POCKETRAK_2G_POCKETRAK_2G_Pocket_Stereo.html

It's not 24 bit ...nor does it record at 48k. Seems to be a better fit for the radio guys.

Thanks Jim, but my question was about frequency response.

My old ears can't hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit depths. And I've read that the advantage is lost if there's any weak link in the recording or playback audio chain.

So for shooting school and community stage productions, 16 is fine for me. My Sony HiMD is 16 bit / 44.1 kHz and I like it fine, but the frequency response goes down to 20 Hz, not just 40 like the Yamaha.

You get the Olympus LS-10 for less money and it offers more feaures and better recording quality.

Thanks Matthias. B&H doesn't have the specs for some reason so I checked at the Olympus site. Wow! You are certainly correct. That's the one. One thing isn't clear though, so if you have one--does it upload at USB 2.0 or 1.O rate?

...My old ears can't hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit depths. And I've read that the advantage is lost if there's any weak link in the recording or playback audio chain.

So for shooting school and community stage productions, 16 is fine for me. My Sony HiMD is 16 bit / 44.1 kHz and I like it fine, but the frequency response goes down to 20 Hz, not just 40 like the Yamaha.

I rarely record anything below 80 hz now a days...
http://www.listenhear.co.uk/general_acoustics.htm

But, recording audio for video...I would never choose to record at 44.1 sample rate. I want to record audio at the same rate as the camera or above. For me, 48 khz is a minimum requirement. If it's going to DVD...it needs to be 48.

And if you are going to spend that much money on the external recorder ($350)...you might as well upgrade to 24 bit recordings. Hopefully, Yamaha will get it right on there next generation model.

I´m pretty sure it´s USB 2.0. I have one and uploading is pretty fast. You could also always use a SD Card anyway. I got mine for a little less than $300 but it seems prices have gone up again slightly. You might find this interesting too: http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1928

... But, recording audio for video...I would never choose to record at 44.1 sample rate. I want to record audio at the same rate as the camera or above. For me, 48 khz is a minimum requirement ... Well, to each his own I guess. I'd done 30 or so DVD projects with some tracks that were originally recorded at 44.1.

Upsampling to 48 kHz is no big deal. Also, there's no point in recording 24 bits on a lower end recorder. You have to spend at least $1,800.

Upsampling to 48 kHz is no big deal...

I've had to use 44.1 a couple of times because that's all there was...

Sure, it was no big deal. It's just an extra step. It's an extra step that will NOT sound as good as an original 48 khz recording and it will introduce sync problems in the edit that have to be dealt with. No big deal. Just extra work.

....Also, there's no point in recording 24 bits on a lower end recorder. You have to spend at least $1,800.

I'm not sure how scientific that is. Sounds like another challenge for Myth Busters. The lower end 24 bit recorders also give you the choice to record at 16 bit if that is what you prefer.

IMO, the idea of using an external recorder is to improve the recording quality in comparison to the camera's ability to record audio...and not to introduce digital artifacts and sync problems.

Okay, so now I have an audio newbie question. I always though if I record through the line-in the recorder bypasses its pre-amps. So shouldn´t I get better quality audio if I use the tape out from my MixPre to line-in of my Olympus than recording directly to my HV20? And how would it be different using a $2000+ recorder through line-in than using the Olympus line-in given I record the same sample rate since the better pre-amps of the expensive recorder wouldn´t come into play?

"I'm not sure how scientific that is. Sounds like another challenge for Myth Busters. The lower end 24 bit recorders also give you the choice to record at 16 bit if that is what you prefer."

Basically, the concept is you can't take advantage of the extra dynamic range of 24 bit unless the preamps are quiet enough. You just end up recording more hiss at a higher bit depth.

"So shouldn´t I get better quality audio if I use the tape out from my MixPre to line-in of my Olympus than recording directly to my HV20?"

I would think so. A better recorder will give you a higher signal to noise ratio though, and the ability to record at 24 bits.

The myth, in the form of a hypothesis, that I'd submit to Myth Busters is:

"If the same audio is recorded at 24 bit depth and 16 bit depth with the best available components throughout the recording chain, and played through average home consumer components, the majority of randomly chosen listeners would be able to hear the difference in a blind A / B test."

ditto for 48kHz vs 44.1kHz

This is fun. We could add a couple of more myths.

1) The majority of classical music fanatics with sound systems costing over $5k - $10k wouldn't notice the difference.

2) The majoriy of kids who drive down the street with the roof of the car pulsing from the sound would notice that the system was turned on.

In other words, I think one needs to consider the target end user in deciding on the whole recording chain. What's perfectly acceptable for one group would be deemed sadly lacking by another.

I´m sure I would not hear the difference. But I always thought the main advantage of recording at a higher bitrate is that you get more leeway or headroom if you will for postproduction before the signal gets distorted. No?
And I still would be curious to know what the difference would be if you record to a 300 bucks recorder to line-in opposed to a 1.800 bucks recorder to line-in at the same bit rate?

I´m sure I would not hear the difference. But I always thought the main advantage of recording at a higher bitrate is that you get more leeway or headroom if you will for postproduction before the signal gets distorted. No?

Absolutely, more bits...less margin for error. Of course, there is always that law of diminishing returns that puts a limiter on the process.


And I still would be curious to know what the difference would be if you record to a 300 bucks recorder to line-in opposed to a 1.800 bucks recorder to line-in at the same bit rate?

The main difference should be w/ the Analog to dig conversion.

I'm sure that Sound Devices could make a two track solid state unit that would be scaled down to work w/ their field mixers...that would cost under $800... And everyone would rave about it.

"I'm sure that Sound Devices could make a two track solid state unit that would be scaled down to work w/ their field mixers...that would cost under $800... And everyone would rave about it."

I sure wish they'd do that. I don't know why you need duplicate sets of limiters and preamps in both devices. It's worth noting that the high pass filter in their mixers is much better than those in their recorders, which are a combination of analog and digital techniques. I suspect the same is true for the limiter, but I'm not as sure about that. While we're at it, why is the output on their mixers on the right and the input on their recorders on the left? Sheesh. That is so annoying. I wish you could easily go from the tape out on the mixer to an impedance matched line in on the recorder with one simple cable.

Bit late to the game, but:

No need to worry about 20 Hz, you need really good microphones to get frequences below 40 Hz, and mostly only omnis go flat that low. All video shotguns, also professional ones, start to fall off at about 50-60 Hz anyway. And even then lowcut filter is used to cut everything out below 80 Hz or so.

24 bit recording on cheap (under $1000) recorders really does not work as the electronics are noisy, at most you get something like 17-18 bit dynamic range. On better recorders you get about 21 bits worth (like SD7XX series). No recorder is 24 "all the way". The only value with 24 bits is the better headroom; safety in setting levels.

44.1 is not a problem with video, just convert it to 48 kHz before importing to the editor. NOBODY is going to hear any difference.

The biggest difference between 300 and 1800 dollar recorders would be the noise floor level, better (more costly) recorders have cleaner analog front ends and better AD converters. $300 recorder would typically have 10-20 dB more noise.

My Mythbuster: http://hosted.filefront.com/Jullepoika

A 14+ minute 24/96 WAV test file with random 30 second 16/44.1 parts. Nobody has been able to tell where the lo-rez parts are, just by listening, so far.

If you download it, take also the explanation .txt file.

A truly 24/96 capable system is needed to play the file, not even all 24/96 audio cards can do it in reality (and computers are noisy). File size is 470 MB.

Yeah, cool as 96 kHz, I don't think it's actually used on even big budget feature films. I recall an informal poll on RAMPS sometime back in which the question was asked, and nobody was using it. It's all 24 bit, 48 kHz.

Great mics (DPA, Earthworks, Schoeps) + high quality mic pres and a/d converters + good placement and a great musician will expose the difference between higher sampling rates and bit depth. I do a lot of location recording for classical artists, and I have heard it myself. It is subtle, to be sure, but it is there. Once you reset your ceiling of listening expectation it isn't even really that subtle. Maybe I'm risking sounding elitist but I think you need incredibly good equipment in the recording chain to exploit these refinements of sonic possibility. The people who make and pay for these recordings, in my experience, can and do hear the difference. They have trained and practiced their whole lives listening for detail and refinements of interpretation that the huge majority of the population would not hear. Most people are perfectly content with the 10x compressed mp3 format. I am privileged to have worked with some people who's ears were so refined and descriminating that they demanded the very best. The blind tests to see who can tell the difference, IMO, aren't the way this question is answered. The book "Blink" had some fascinating studies about how bad humans are at blind tests. Plus, how was the test conducted? What equipment was used? With low to mid range mics and converters the difference probably isn't that great. Recording a great player with great gear (well chosen and executed) at 24/96 will result in a finer recording. I've heard it again and again for myself. I am always a little sad when it comes time to down sample to the antiquated redbook audio standard, but even then, the project usually benefits from the higher standard of acquisition. To give an example, I recorded a pianist a couple of months ago in a great acoustic on an amazing, fully restored and regulated 1923 Steinway. I used 5 matched DPA microphones mounted on a DPA surround bar. The power was provided by DPA amps into a Prism Sound ADA-8XR. I'm usually working as the producer/editor but I was doing this recording as a favor to my friend so this time was serving as the engineer. After the first piece of the session I realized that I hadn't changed the sample rate from 44.1 to 96. The schedule was tight so we just moved on. I didn't bother telling him, I just started a new project at 96 and recorded the rest of the project. At the end I mixed everything, bounced it down to stereo and burned him a cd at 16/44.1. The next day he called me puzzled. "Mark, the first piece is different somehow, not quite the same quality as the others." Subtle yes, but perceivable to his experienced ears. I'm as pragmatic and skeptical as they come but this has been a lesson I have learned over time and witnessing great engineers working with great musicians and using great gear.

These differences ARE subtle, but they are there. It's like eating one really good summer peach and then taking that first bite of another one that's just a little bit sweeter, a little bit juicier. They're both great (and aren't we blessed in an age when a $100 digital recorder can make an audible, clear reproduction) but you know your tasting something better.

Amen, Mark!!!!