|
Post by Will R (admin) on Jan 16, 2014 18:09:22 GMT
USB microphones can have a place in cross-cultural research. Here are some thoughts to think before going that direction.
Up until recently, digital microphone bit-depth maxed out at 16 bits. This is below academic/archival best practice (http://x-cult-media.boards.net/thread/7/bit-depth-recommendation-24-minimum).
In the past few years, however, manufacturers have started making 24-bit USB microphones, often w/ USB3 connectivity (which is to be preferred over USB2) . They are out there, and one of them is bound to be good.
I'll make a further comment that, because a digital microphone packs the capsule-element, pre-amps, and digitizer in a single package, it is hard to find a model that is acceptable in all three capacities. If you are getting your element, pre-amp, and digitizer in separate units, you can choose the the collection more faithfully to the details you desire. An all-in-one unit can be desirable, however, especially when training non-technically inclined partners in the field: just plug and play (er, record). I have colleagues out there that are looking for a good one. I've not heard of their progress lately.
|
|
|
Post by Will R (admin) on Jul 2, 2014 4:11:47 GMT
this link leads to a fantastic comparison between the Yeti and Yeti Pro: recordinghacks.com/2011/12/11/blue-yeti-vs-yeti-pro/. Mind you, I've not touched either of them, but the author put them through the kind of paces I would want to do myself. From the comparison review the big sell is that the Pro yields better sounding files, and is more faithful to to the original acoustic signal. But simply from the spec sheet, the Pro can sample to a depth of 24 bits. The 16 bits of the non-Pro do not capture the full dynamic range of the human ear. The down side - over and above the general negatives of all digital microphones - that I can see on this model is its size and weight. Although it is easy to set up (just plug it in), it is not a lightweight field tool.
|
|