"Ultra High Quality" Voice Recorder Review Underway
After several years of daily jostling in my pocket, my Olympus WS-200S stereo voice recorder started distorting in one channel. So I cracked open the case and discovered this scary dust-bunny invasion. Perhaps it was shorting out the mic?
Grabbing an old toothbrush, I flicked off most of the linty debris. But then, with a sickening snap, I accidentally severed the wire to one mic as well. Fortunately, I'd taken the artsy photo at right prior to brushing, so I could see where the wire was supposed to connect, but I haven't had a chance to haul out my soldering iron.
Olympus has released several improved models since the 200S, so I thought I'd take the opportunity to check out the one with what looked like the friendliest combination of features and price, the WS-311M. It sells online for as little as $65 yet has four times the memory of the 200S, the ability to play back MP3s, high-speed USB 2.0 transfer, and better audio specs. (Olympus boldly describes these as "ultra high quality," but that's in voice-recorder terms. Still, recordings I made with the "sorta high quality" WS-200S were good enough to end up on a feature film. A birdsong in the voice recorder is worth two you didn't get because you left your high-res field recorder at home, as the saying goes.)
The WS-311M just arrived today; let me know what sounds you'd like me to point it at and I'll try to work them into the review. Incidentally, Olympus also makes two more capacious models, the 321 and 331, which double or quadruple the 311's memory and don't cost much more. It also offers a sister series with a DS- prefix; those models have better mics but a bulkier design.
Categories
Audio
Comments (4)
Read More Entries by David Battino.
@Jenni:
not sure what's best for my needs.
We've reviewed a number of recorders at both ends of the spectrum: voice recorders and field recorders.
I haven't done critical listening tests on this voice recorder yet, but for nature recordings, I'm positive you'd want something in the latter category. You'd get better mics, less data compression, and more durability.
That said, if you can spare $75, this is almost a no-brainer. There are so many times when having the audio equivalent of a point-and-shoot camera in your pocket will let you capture wonderful moments.
As always, one tool may not be right for every task. Check out this podcast reviewer Mark Nelson and I did about choosing recorders.
David,
What do you do if you use a voice recorder for your day-to-day work (making podcasts) but you also want to use it on the weekends to making field recordings (nature ambience, coffeehouse readings)?
I'm thinking about the Zoom H2 and the Olympus LS-10 and this one you mention here but I'm confused, not sure what's best for my needs.
Thanks for your help!
jenni
@sfberglund:
Your comment reads like a pitch for your product, but there is some useful information in the blog link, so thanks for sharing.
For the recording of meetings, you may want to consider the Acappella Conference Audio Recorder which records in CD quality sound and reduces the time and cost of transcription by telling the typist the name of the person speaking.
http://www.acappella.com.au
You may also want to visit this blog on selecting a digital dictation solution.
http://audiorecorder.wordpress.com/