Print

Print


I have a Zoom H2. Impossibly small screen, menus required to do just about anything, etc. Not 
impressive, although it makes good recordings for the price.

Sound Devices thing costs more than most DAT machines did, but I agree it's highly impressive, has 
real-deal meters and can be used easily and quickly in dim light or under stress conditions where 
tiny buttons, dim tiny LCD displays and menus won't do.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Goren" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Hold the rotten tomatos -- does anyone record to DAT anymore?


> The Sound Devices 722 is a Flash/Hard Drive recorder which retains the old school form factor, has 
> great mic preamps, and excellent metering. I like a recorder that I can hide in a bag and operate 
> by feel as I chase a sound source down the street and the 722 fills the bill. Yes, it's a bit 
> pricey but entirely worth it.
>
> That said I like the Zoom H2N too, a nifty little deck for $200 and it fits in my shirt pocket.
>
>
>
> On Sep 25, 2012, at 8:13 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
>
>> Hi Karl (and Rafael):
>>
>> I would say that the DAT was the "user-friendliest" digital recorder in that it worked just about 
>> the same as the long-known tried and true cassette recorder. You see the incoming audio levels on 
>> well-known meter types (with actual lights as opposed to images on a dim LCD screen), you hit 
>> Record to record and tape moves past heads. You rewind, hit play and hear back what you recorded. 
>> The flash recorders have gotten more user-friendly, but I think many of them have unreadably tiny 
>> "screens" and then require menu-driven command sequences that require you to read the tiny 
>> screen. Furthermore, since there are no moving parts, it's hard to know if recording is really 
>> going on. Mic preamps seem to be a major place to cut corners on the lower-end models, but that 
>> was the same with cassette recorders.
>>
>> There are many downsides to DATs, and I sure don't miss them, but I do think that the traditional 
>> recorder form-factor and user interface was a big plus for the format, especially with older 
>> users.
>>
>> -- Tom Fine
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karl Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 5:59 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Hold the rotten tomatos -- does anyone record to DAT anymore?
>>
>>
>>> The man who makes the recordings of the Welte, recordings that we issue on our
>>> label, still uses DAT. Coincidentallly, I just had both of my DAT machines
>>> repaired. The man who makes those recordings is in his 80s and is afraid that he
>>> would find any other recording device to be "too complicated." I have tried to
>>> convince him otherwise...but no luck. I should add that he refuses to have a
>>> computer in his house. He has six telephones in his house, including one with a
>>> rotary dial and not too long ago bought a cell phone...but no computer!
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Sent: Tue, September 25, 2012 3:43:42 PM
>>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Hold the rotten tomatos -- does anyone record to DAT
>>> anymore?
>>>
>>> Are there any DAT holdouts left? Sound-for-picture? On-tour recordings? Audio
>>> mastering? Transfer work?
>>>
>>> Just curious ...
>>>
>>> -- Tom Fine
>