Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
23 of 23 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Inexpensive and good quality at close range., March 2, 2003
A graduate-level class of mine required that I type up notes and post them on a class web page for review. I had a problem. I'm a very poor note taker and tend to gain most of my knowledge from reading and one-on-one discussions with classmates and professors. So, I figured my only hope was to record the classes so I could listen to the things I missed during class.
I did some searching and this one seemed like the best recorder for the money. I am pleased with my decision. The quality is perfect for voice -- I wouldn't try to bootleg a concert on it. One thing of note generally on the quality of recordings: Although you pick up more distance sounds, you also get static when recording at the "high sensitivity microphone" setting.
The professor I have has a very deep, loud voice and the classroom is small -- about 600 square feet (approx. 56 square meters).
You cannot connect this unit digitally to a computer -- you can only use the analog earphone output to an analog "mic" input.
Here are my results from recording some classes... I recorded on the "high sensitivity" setting at all times because the "low sensitivity" setting just didn't seem to work unless you were speaking very close to the mic. I always recorded with the microphone facing up, with the unit laying on its back on a desk.
Here are the results I had while recording lectures:
* When the unit is about 15 to 20 feet from the professor, I can make out most of the lecture during playback. Sometimes, when the professor is speaking away from the class, the sound fades out.
* When the unit is about 10 to 15 feet from the professor, I can hear all of the lecture during playback. Occasionally I had to rewind to make out a few words.
* When the unit is about 5 to 10 feet from the professor, I can hear all of the lecture during playback. I had no problems at all listening to any of the lecture.In all of the above cases, I could not hear student questions unless the students were sitting right next to me. I hope this helps people make a decision in purchasing a digital recorder.
|
|
|
10 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
For the price, it serves it's purpose., January 18, 2003
By A Customer
.... Sound quality: not much better than a microcassette in the same price range. Size and weight: very light and compact. Recording time: up to 150 minutes. High and low mic sensitivity.
Now, being a realistic person, I did not expect crystal clarity. I DID expect a unit that was light and small enough to carry in a shirt pocket, and one that was convenient to operate. I have used the unit for recording meetings (high sensitivity), and for dictating ideas when they occur to me. For these purposes, the unit works very well. Having realistic expectations, I am quite satisfied with the recorder. If one wants better sound quality and the ability to download to a computer, expect to pay for these features; I've done some research, and you can expect to pay $150.00 and up for such a unit.
Perhaps some see the word "digital" and ideas of crystal-clean audio come to mind. Having recorded in studios both in analog and digitally for many years, I certainly didn't expect high frequency noise supression in a tiny unit costing fifty bucks!
The convenience of an inexpensive unit such as the ICD-B5 is surprisingly small size and weight, pretty incredible recording lengths, and saying goodbye to the inconvenience and cost of microcassettes. Being able to essentially overdub a recording comes in quite handy at times, as does being able to locate files quickly (no fast forward - reverse frustrations).
I write music and fiction. I wanted a device that I could easily record thoughts and ideas before they were gone forever. I got what I paid for, and I'm quite happy with it.
If you expect more, expect to pay for. This is pocket-size consumer electronics for fifty bucks, folks. For what it is and was designed for - and with realistic expectations - it's not a bad deal.
|
|
|
10 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Good for basic use, January 17, 2003
I work for three magazines and use this recorder for professional, demanding work. Before purchasing the Sony ICD-B5, I shopped around quite a bit and heard good things about this particular recorder (Consumer Reports, etc.). Although the reviews were accurate in their positive points, unfortunately, only people needing just the basics should think about purchasing this product.There are a few major things that Sony -- and other manufacturers of these recorders -- need to take into consideration (honestly, I haven't really found the ideal solution for my needs). The Sony ICD-B5 is lacking in the following areas: * No "slow play" feature which many microcassette recorders sport. You have a choice of "Play" or "Stop"/"Pause"... that's it. * Due to the fact that you have no "slow play," you are constantly having to hit "Pause" during playback (if you're taking notes), which wastes a lot of time and [uses] through the batteries VERY quickly. An hour and a half to two hours of interviews, including playback, and the batteries are [gone]. * The recorder has a jack that's labeled "Plug-In Power" but no one, including Sony, sells the power adapter needed. * If you're careless and accidentally tap the "Rewind" button twice, it takes you back to the very beginning of the recording. VERY ANNOYING. Then you have to fast forward back to where you were. More time and batteries wasted. They should have a button that will take you back to the last spot in the recording that you were listening. * Slow fast forward and rewind -- I expected something tremendously better for digital. Unfortunately, these two functions act just like they do on a microcassette. Slow and tedious. I gave this item 3 stars because, honestly, the other digital recorders I've seen don't seem to be that much better.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
Saving...
