Looking to Upgrade my Recording Rig

[John Hedger]

Hello,

I haven't been active on here in a long time but have come back to do some research as I am serious about upgrading my recording gear. I am a musician...an electric blues guitarist and classical guitarist/lutenist and classical composer. I plan to mainly record myself - live gigs and recitals, plus some serious recordings of my own guitar compositions and lute arrangements. I am currently a guitar instructor at three small area colleges and have access to recording guitar in a really nice sounding chapel at one of these institutions pretty much whenever I want to use it.

My current gear consists of a Superscope PSD 300 cd recorder (records at 44.1k), a pair of Nady Ribbon RSM-2 ribbon mics running through a Great River MP2-NV. I have been using the auxillary input in the back of the Superscope recorder to bypass the onboard pre. This rig has worked pretty well except for one frustrating problem...especially for recording my blues band, as my current Superscope CD recorder often just quits recording randomly due to floor vibrations from the drums/bass,etc..It's very frustrating. I've even made a homespun shockmount for the whole recorder unit using bungy cords and it still goes into error mode repeatedly on some gigs.

My last gig at Brackins Blues Club in Maryville, TN nailed it for me. I couldn't even get one song to record without a REC Error. Setting the recorder further away from the stage was not really an option due to taking up table room or possibly having patrons slip over cords. I decided I have to upgrade into something new that won't quit on me.

So, being in a bit better financial shape than I was a few years ago and also wanting to do some serious classical recordings in the next few years with the idea of tracking my own CDs, I am looking to upgrade my current chinese mic pair to a Wes Dooley AEA R-88 stereo ribbon and upgrade my CD recorder to a Korg MR-1000...being also enamored by the idea of DSD recording but not being able to aford the $8,000 or so to purchase into a Genex 8 track DSD, which I have been aware of for some years.

So, how does the above rig, along with my current Great River pre sound to you all? Any alternative suggestions? For those of you who have experience with the Korg, is it fairly hassle free?

I had also been eyeballing the Sound Devices 702,722 and other mics such as the Coles ribbons, Schoeps, even looked at a SoundField system. The Royer R-122v's have enticed me quite alot but I'm not sure about them as location mics if they really need a couple of hours to warm up properly. Plus, my budget right now is comfortably around $3000 unless I go into debt, which I don't want to. I could possibly upgrade into other, more high end mics later on. The R-88 seems like a good choice to me right now.

Sorry for rambling on so long...I welcome any thoughts or suggestions....thanks, John Hedger

[boojum]

I am a certified SD fan. But, I looked at all that was available in that price range before deciding. I wanted rugged quality and did not want to spend a ton. Aaton was out of the question. Sonosax is good, but repairs might be a problem. It is awfully small and I am sure a pain in the butt to fix should it fail. The closest contender is Nagra. Very nice, but repairs, again, could be a problem.

The SD I have, 722, is rugged, seems to never fail and if it does, repairs are a UPS shipment away. The pre's and A/d converters are good, the HD is off the shelf and user replaceable and it is very flexible. I have two of them and a 788T tomorrow or Tuesday. I do like them.

John Willet likes the Nagra. He is closer to Switzerland than I am so it is easier for repairs, should the Nagra fail. They rarely do.

In the US a rugged two track solution is the 702 or 722.

[John Willett]

I agree that for two track the SD is the best value.

Going more tracks - the Nagra VI does 6 tracks at 24/96 - the 8-trach SD is only 24/48. The 4-track SD does do 24/96 I think, but only has two mic mres.

The other one to consider is the Sonosax.

For superb sound and build quality without paying OTT it comes down to (in alphabetical order):- Nagra, Sonosax and Sound Devices. All quite different machines - so you choose the one that works for you.

After looking at them all, I seem to favour the Nagra VI at the moment as the price is right (£1,000 less than the SD 788T and about £500 more than the SD 744T) and has 6 tracks at 24/96 and four mic. pres.

I hope this helps.

[John Willett]

New Nagra LB - two channel recorder.

I have known about this coming for a while, but was sworn to secrecy - but as it's now up on the Nagra webseite.

Worth considering as well as the others mentioned.

[RickZ]

I now have 2 of the Korg MR-1000 recorders, and have recorded several organ recitals and choral concerts with them. To clarify, I bought the second one for backup, and only do 2 channel stereo recording with one at a time. They are very reliable, easy to use. If you use the DSD 5.8 mode, the amount of recorded data is large, and copying over to your editing computer takes a while, as does the DSD>PCM conversion with AudioGate. I've used both TLM103 pair and MKH8040 pair with these recorders, on L gain, no limiter. To my ears the sound is very clear.

There have been cautions written about handling of these units while recording, but given your sad story about ultra-sensitive CD recorder, you're familiar with keeping vibration away from a recording device that uses a rotating electromechanical device to capture your audio.

FWIW,
Rick Z on MR-1000

[John Hedger]

I appreciate the replies so far. Yes, the SD units seem solid and I have been aware of them since they first became available several years ago. I know the onboard pres are very good. But I would likely choose to use my Great River preamp over the SD pres in most situations. My thoughts are that with extra $ I would pay for an SD recorder I would be paying for features I would rarely use, though I can see them being more rugged and roadworthy than the Korg.

The Niagra recorders I am not that familiar with...but they look like a great piece of gear! I'll have to check them out more thoroughly.

What about my mic choice? Any thoughts? Any of you using the AEA R-88 for location recording for solo guitar, duos, or small ensembles? To me it looks like the best choice for the $.

If I had more funds I thought about perhaps an SD 744t with two stereo pairs...especially with the blues band recording. However, I might fear phase issues with alot of mics. Four tracks would be a nice option....but for recording classical guitar I am recalling what Julian Bream wrote in the book "Life On The Road" where, in his best recordings done later in his career,in a local British chapel near where he lived....he mentions the RCA recording engineer merely using a single stereo mic for all of the recordings. So, to me it sounds like a simple, hassle free solution.

John

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by John Hedger

The Niagra recorders I am not that familiar with...but they look like a great piece of gear! I'll have to check them out more thoroughly.

Nagra (not Niagra) - the company was started by Stephan Kudelski (a Polish émigré living in Switzerland) and Nagra is Polish for "to record". He won the very first international recording contest in the 1950's with a home-made wind-up tape recorder. Swiss Radio were so impressed they ordered a number of them immediately - and so Nagra was born. For very many years the Nagra was *the* recorder for the location recordist. I think the new stereo Nagra I linked to above will be a tad over £1,000; so, slightly cheaper than the stereo SDs.

Originally Posted by John Hedger

What about my mic choice? Any thoughts? Any of you using the AEA R-88 for location recording for solo guitar, duos, or small ensembles? To me it looks like the best choice for the $.

My personal choice would be s stereo set of MKH 8040 for this.

[Corran]

I got into a "fever" a couple of months ago with various ribbon mics recording various classical music ensembles.

Personally I found that using ribbons on small ensembles and even some larger ensembles induced a fight with even good preamps to get a good s/n ratio.

After trying a pair of SDC mics I had already I was instantly off my ribbon kick. The sound and general ease of use trumped the "ribbon sound" that I was enjoying.

Long story short, while a pair of ribbons probably was just perfect for your loudish bluegrass band I don't think you'll be happy with them as your only mics. A pair of SDCs will be what you want, in my opinion.

As for the recorder, I personally don't have any experience with the Korg or any of these nicer recorders, but I would like to have one! I use a Korg D888, 8 tracks of preamps with 44/16 recording. I think it comes down to how many channels you want and of course budget. I always have jazz groups that require around 8 channels. If you know you just need two I'm sure you'll be happy with the MR-1000. If you need more than just 2-channels, I'd look at the D888 (it's a great unit) but if you want something that could record in 48/24 or higher maybe look at an Alesis HD24.

[sonare]

I agree with the side effects of "ribbon fever" voiced above. I went through that when I first bought my Royer SF12, and the fact is that mediocre rooms and un-loud ensembles equal less-than-desirable ribbon results.

As alluring as a standalone recorder seems, the reality is that when you are using external micpres you are probably headed towards a small rack, and considering your budget and future plans you would do well to consider the Metric Halo 2882 (which can do 24/96) and older Macbook. I used a first generation TiBook (500mHz) but with a gig of RAM with no problems at all. You can safely record to the internal drive-- I upgraded for very little money. The software is free and rock-solid, the record panel is 80-bit fixed, and the ADC is quite good. The mic pres are not quiet enough for classical but you already have 2 channels of really good Great River, or you could sell that and get 8 channels of Broadhurst Gardens. The 2882 and BG8 fits in a 2U rackcase.

You could get a 2882, TiBook, and 8 ch BG for $3500 and add mics as your budget allows. You will not need to upgrade your capture system unless you need more than 8 channels, and if you do then get another 2882 (about $1000) and you have 16 channels.

For mics the Neumann TLM193 are the great sleeper bargain on ebay-- I didn't pay more than $700 for any of the four I have, and one was new in the box. Very smooth and lacking the current signature Neumann glare. The Rode 55 is a great value in SDC omnis, and you also have the cardioid caps when needed. If you have the scratch then the new Sennheiser 80XX mics are an incredible bang for the buck.

The ultimate stumbling block to any standalone recorder (especially DSD format) is that you really need to edit the material you recorded, and then get it to Redbook (16/44.1) and onto a CD-R. And congrats on deciding to rid yourself of the Superscope. My daughter's piano teacher bought one and the noise and distortion in the electronics was truly remarkable.

Rich

[John Hedger]

Originally Posted by RickZ

I now have 2 of the Korg MR-1000 recorders, and have recorded several organ recitals and choral concerts with them. To clarify, I bought the second one for backup, and only do 2 channel stereo recording with one at a time. They are very reliable, easy to use. If you use the DSD 5.8 mode, the amount of recorded data is large, and copying over to your editing computer takes a while, as does the DSD>PCM conversion with AudioGate. I've used both TLM103 pair and MKH8040 pair with these recorders, on L gain, no limiter. To my ears the sound is very clear.

There have been cautions written about handling of these units while recording, but given your sad story about ultra-sensitive CD recorder, you're familiar with keeping vibration away from a recording device that uses a rotating electromechanical device to capture your audio.

FWIW,
Rick Z on MR-1000

Thanks Rick, I appreciate the first hand info on the MR-1000. I believe that's what I will go with. I understand that the files in high resolution DSD will be very large. When I record my blues band I usually record the whole set as one track, which can be up to 75 minutes or so, to edit later into separate tracks.

Thanks to all for the replies. I have considered some SDC mics as well, like the Schoeps or perhaps a pair of Neumann K84's - which LA Guitar Quartet and many pro classical concert players use as performance enhancement mics. I may stick with ribbons this go around as I have been happy with the results so far when running the cheaper ones through my Great River...but I definitely need some SDC's in my arsenal very soon.

John

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by RickZ

on MR-1000

I would certainly *not* use 1-bit recording.`

There is a long thread on the Sound on Sound Forum HERE on the subject.


This is what Hugh Robjohns (Technical Editor of Sound On Sound and very well respected in the industry) originally said on this matter:-

Originally Posted by Hugh Robjohns

This is something I explained in my review of the Korg MR-1000, as well as in other technical SOS articles.

That Korg article is fundamentally flawed and false in several of its arguments and claims, and who ever wrote it doesn't understand the basics of linear PCM, let alone DSD. It is clearly a marketing puff piece, and sadly contains some serious misinformation (such as in the description of oversampling), and misdirection (such as the squarewave graphs), while also spouting unproven opinions as facts! Can you tell I'm less than impressed...?

However, the basic argument is this:

You can trade off reduced word length for increasing sample rate. Philips introduced this concept back in the early 1980s with their oversampling converters (4x oversampling enabled the use of 14 bit converters to deliver full 16 bit 44.1kHz audio quality.

As the technology improved, they introduced Bitstream which used 64x oversampling and a slightly bodged 1 bit output to provide the same quality. Their competitors offered similar solutions, such as MASH.

These techniques led on to the practical development of delta-sigma conversion techniques. Essentially, the analogue signal is sampled at a very high rate (~6MHz or more) but with very low word length (typically less than five bits, sometimes only one). A digital filter (decimation filter) process is then used to translate the information from high sample rate, low word length to lower sample rate, high word length for storage or further processing.

D-A conversion works the other way, with digital filtering (oversampling) to convert the low sample rate/high wordlength signal into a very high sample rate and low wordlength signal.

The advantages are far greater linearity (way beyond that achievable with 'conventional' converter designs as used in the last century), much reduced manufacturing costs, far better stability and accuracy, and a generally better sound because of all those factors (and many others).

Everything currently produced uses delta-sigma converters, because it is not practical or cost effective to do it in any other way... but Sony had the bright idea of simplifying things further.

They wondered why bother with the decimation filter in the A-D if you're only going to reverse the process again with the oversampling filter in the D-A? Why not just leave the data in the raw high sample rate, low wordlength form and save the hassle?

And that makes sense if you are only talking about a recording medium. So that's what they do in the DSD (and the SACD) format and on the face of it, it seems a good idea...

But as with all these things there are swings and roundabouts to consider. Firstly, and probably most importantly, many argue that the current 2.8224MHz DSD sample rate isn't high enough to support true 1 bit wordlength at the intended resolution -- and that's why the bigger Korg recorder offers a second higher DSD rate. Those in the know (and I'm talking about Sony's own egg heads here) argue that even that isn't high enough to do the job properly...

Secondly, huge amounts of noise shaping is required in these formats, and that results in a lot of out-of-audible-band energy that can cause problems in some cases. It also means that the oft cited claims of huge signal-noise ratio afforded by DSD only apply at very low frequencies. The noise performance gets progressively worse with increasing frequency. Linear PCM 24/96 has a considerably better signal-noise ratio at 40kHz than DSD... should such things be of concern to you ;)

It also makes signal processing (gain, EQ, dynamics, etc)very difficult indeed. Many DSD-based DAWs and other processing equipment actually converted back to PCM to do the work, and then back to DSD for the output -- thus completely negating all of the claimed advantages in one swoop! Later systems were developed to work more in the DSD native domain, but with less flexibility and even then the processing involved multi-bit stages -- it has too -- and even if only two or three bits further (simpler) decimationand oversampling filtering stages are still necessary.

The inimtable Dr John Watkinson wrote a very entertaining demolishing article about DSD in an edition of Resolution magazine a while back, too...

Personally, I'm quite happy sticking with 24/96 which I reckon is the best compromise in terms of audio quality, and the most practical in terms of processing, storage, and archiving.

But DSD does have its fans...

hugh

Edited to add: Don't take my word for it, read this abstract from two of digital audio's leading gurus:

I also think you will find This SOS Thread interesting reading.

I hope this helps.

[videoteque]

I would certainly *not* use 1-bit recording.

I would certainly not buy a Korg MR1000 and NOT use DSD!!!

As much as people like to use words, a lot of people in this and other boards has tested the Korg and are very happy with them. I am one of them!

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by videoteque

I would certainly not buy a Korg MR1000 and NOT use DSD!!!

As much as people like to use words, a lot of people in this and other boards has tested the Korg and are very happy with them. I am one of them!

So you didn't actually *read* any of the words then.

Let's just repost the words of the masters - Stanley Lipshitz and John Vanderkooy - who certainly *do* know what they are talking about:-

Stanley P. Lipshitz and John Vanderkooy
Audio Research Group, University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada

ABSTRACT

Single-stage, 1-bit sigma-delta converters are in principle imperfectible.

We prove this fact. The reason, simply stated, is that, when properly dithered, they are in constant overload. Prevention of overload allows only partial dithering to be performed.

The consequence is that distortion, limit cycles, instability, and noise modulation can never be totally avoided. We demonstrate these effects, and using coherent averaging techniques, are able to display the consequent profusion of nonlinear artefacts which are usually hidden in the noise floor.

Recording, editing, storage, or conversion systems using single-stage, 1-bit sigma-delta modulators, are thus inimical to audio of the highest quality.

In contrast, multi-bit sigma-delta converters, which output linear PCM code, are in principle infinitely perfectible. (Here, multi-bit refers to at least two bits in the converter.) They can be properly dithered so as to guarantee the absence of all distortion, limit cycles, and noise modulation.

The audio industry is misguided if it adopts 1-bit sigma-delta conversion as the basis for any high-quality processing, archiving, or distribution format to replace multi-bit, linear PCM.

Whether you are happy or not is really irrelevant, the experts say 1-bit recording can never work properly.

[RickZ]

John,

Not trying be a wise guy, but just out of curiosity, do Stanley P. Lipshitz and John Vanderkooy use audio recorders to record musicians ? I only ask because I have never heard of them, and see by your post that they are part of an audio research group.

I've compared recordings of same choir in same venue with same mics, done with Benchmark A/D @ 24/96, and Korg DSD 5.8, and prefer the Korg. Just a bit cleaner, the difference is not that much. BTW this comparison is after AudioGate Export to 96K/32bitIEEEFloat. Since I can't deliver the DSD, I haven't bothered to listen to that output from Korg.

On another topic, thanks for recommending MKH8040, I finally received my pair, and like the sound very much. I'll be using them with MR-1000 to record same choir on their upcoming tour to Austria.

Best regards,
Rick Z

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by RickZ

Not trying be a wise guy, but just out of curiosity, do Stanley P. Lipshitz and John Vanderkooy use audio recorders to record musicians ? I only ask because I have never heard of them, and see by your post that they are part of an audio research group.

I'm surprised, because Stanley Lipshitz is one of the most famous names in digital audio - it was he that first wrote the paper on dithering, for example. He is a very respected man in the industry. It's the equivalent of saying you have never heard of Alan Blumlein.

Originally Posted by RickZ

I've compared recordings of same choir in same venue with same mics, done with Benchmark A/D @ 24/96, and Korg DSD 5.8, and prefer the Korg. Just a bit cleaner, the difference is not that much. BTW this comparison is after AudioGate Export to 96K/32bitIEEEFloat. Since I can't deliver the DSD, I haven't bothered to listen to that output from Korg.

Not saying that the Korg is,t good in itself (though some have commented on the noisy mic. pres.), just that 1-bit recording seems fundamentally flawed.

Originally Posted by RickZ

On another topic, thanks for recommending MKH8040, I finally received my pair, and like the sound very much. I'll be using them with MR-1000 to record same choir on their upcoming tour to Austria.

Good luck with the tour; I hope you like the mics and you'll love Austria - it's a wonderful country - I drive through it several times a year as I have a house near Vienna.

[hughesmr]

Originally Posted by John Willett

Whether you are happy or not is really irrelevant, the experts say 1-bit recording can never work properly.

Define "properly". Properly, as in, "it has the ability to capture material far outside the audible range with zero measureable distortion"? Or properly, as in, "it sounds fantastic to my musically trained ears and those of my clients, who then call me back wanting me to record them again and again"?

I humbly opt for the latter.

Cheers!

[John Hedger]

Originally Posted by John Willett

So you didn't actually *read* any of the words then.

Let's just repost the words of the masters - Stanley Lipshitz and John Vanderkooy - who certainly *do* know what they are talking about:-




Whether you are happy or not is really irrelevant, the experts say 1-bit recording can never work properly.

So, what you are pointing out John is that, whether using a $1000 Korg MR1000 unit or a $8,000+ Genex GX9000 or GX9048 recorder...either way the process of DSD recording is inherently flawed....right?

Not being as technically knowledgable as many recordists on this board, I didn't fully understand from these articles exactly what the flaws were in DSD. I'm not sure why "1-bit sigma-delta converters are in principle imperfectible"...Why is it in constant overload? Are these statements/articles theoretical in nature or not?

However, in one of the above thread links you offered, Hugh Robjohns points out that one has the option of using DSD with Korg, or not using DSD mode.

You don't have to use the DSD record mode on the Korg -- it does support standard 16 and 24 bit PCM recording at all the usual sample rates up to 192kHz too. But at least you have the option of experimenting with DSD recording if you want to. Some people swear by it.. others just swear at it Personally, I'd probably be more tempted by the Tascam HD-P2 (in fact I nearly bought one last month but then spent the money elsewhere instead!) as it hs slightly more flexible I/O facilities and the preamps sound surprisingly good.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by hughesmr

Define "properly". Properly, as in, "it has the ability to capture material far outside the audible range with zero measureable distortion"? Or properly, as in, "it sounds fantastic to my musically trained ears and those of my clients, who then call me back wanting me to record them again and again"?

I humbly opt for the latter.

Properly as described by the experts - I posted it all above, I'm not going to go over it all again.

They say it's a technically flawed system - if you like it, fine, I'm only pointing out the facts.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by John Hedger

So, what you are pointing out John is that, whether using a $1000 Korg MR1000 unit or a $8,000+ Genex GX9000 or GX9048 recorder...either way the process of DSD recording is inherently flawed....right?

Yes.

That's what the experts say.

Originally Posted by John Hedger

However, in one of the above thread links you offered, Hugh Robjohns points out that one has the option of using DSD with Korg, or not using DSD mode.

Yes - I didn't say anything about using or not using the Korg - only that 1-bit recording was inherently flawed according to the experts and pointing it out for information.

I have no axe to grind one way or the other.

Personally I just want the highest quality recording possible and if someone like Stanley Lipshitz and others say that 1-bit is flawed, then I will look for something else. That's all.

[hughesmr]

Originally Posted by John Willett

Personally I just want the highest quality recording possible and if someone like Stanley Lipshitz and others say that 1-bit is flawed, then I will look for something else. That's all.

Well, nothing is "perfect", for that matter. Would Lipshitz say that the Sennheiser 8020 is a "perfect" microphone? I doubt it, as microphones are in principle certainly "imperfectible". Yet you (and I) happily continue to use them....

Cheers!

[mrsteaks]

"Use your Ears, Luke...."

On the surface, flippant, but deeper - no -

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by hughesmr

Well, nothing is "perfect", for that matter. Would Lipshitz say that the Sennheiser 8020 is a "perfect" microphone? I doubt it, as microphones are in principle certainly "imperfectible". Yet you (and I) happily continue to use them....

Why are you getting so defensive?

There is no "perfect" microphone - just engineering compromises to what engineers think will be the best sound.

Sometimes this forum amazes me - you post some interesting technical information so people can make intelligent decisions about what equipment to get and get attacked for it.

One of the worlds most respected experts on digital recording says that 1-bit recording is flawed and you want to question it.

Fine - do what you want - I don't care - I am just posting the information so people can make an informed, intelligent decision about what to buy.

What you do does not affect my recordings, so do what you are happy with - take it or leave it, it's up tou you.

Just don't shoot the messenger.

[macula]

Dear Mr. Willett,

Digital synthesizers also are, in some ways, more "perfectible" than acoustic pianos. This does not make them any more preferable musically. The reason is that our evaluations are not based on theoretical limitations but on currently available implementations of theory -- i.e. on the limitations of actual products.

From this perspective: May I ask whether you have ever tried an MR-1000 and what your impressions were?

[hughesmr]

John, I'm not getting defensive. I don't question for a minute that DSD is flawed, nor any other technology we use for recording. And I certainly don't question the credentials of Mr Lipshitz. My posts were in no way an attack on you or anyone else.

I'm merely presenting my position, as did you and Mr Lipshitz. And that position is that all audio reproduction is subjective, and that regardless of what any other expert's opinion or technical truth may be ... if it sounds good, it is good.

Cheers!