Beginner looking to record

[slash131]

Hi,
I'm new to recording, and really all I want to do is a stand-alone recorder which I can use in a music room to record solo piano. So, I'm not looking to use any additional mics or anything like that, just want to use a recorder as it comes in the box to record good quality music. If anyone has any suggestions as to which recorder I should use and what my results are likely to be like, that would be fantastic, thanks!

Nick

[boojum]

Nick - How much can you afford? Must it be an all-in-one package?

[slash131]

I'm hoping I can get something for under $500. If an added mic or something would drastically improve the sound then let me know

[Corran]

Each of the lower-priced units has their own positives and negatives, in my opinion. I recently shopped around for one and made my decision based on what I needed, which of course might be different...

Anyway, here's kind of what I gathered:

1. Zoom H4 - Slightly larger than the others, but is packed with features. Does up to 96/24, has true XLR inputs (with TRS dual-plugs), and runs off of AA batteries. The con with this one is the built in mics are probably the weakest out of the standards in the $300-$400 range.

2. Edirol R-09 - This one probably has the best built in mics, but it doesn't have any input save a 3.5mm plug. You can buy upgraded mics for it but my experience with those mini-mics are pretty lackluster.

3. M-Audio MicroTrack II - The all-rounder, has TRS inputs that actually give phantom power (whether it's true 48 I don't know). The con for me on this one is that it is a rechargable battery and therefore if it goes out on location (like, in the woods or something, which is something I was doing for a movie shoot) then you're screwed. I prefer normal batteries.

There is also the Zoom H2 for an even cheaper recorder, but it has the same problem as the H4 (below-average mics) but none of the features (XLR inputs, battery power).

If you spend just a little more you could get the nicer Fostex FR-2LE that I've heard is nice, but I've no experience.

And hey! The Korg MR-1 has just dropped $300! Now it's only $400, which if it's as good sounding as the MR-1000 that everyone loves here then that might be your best bet!!

That's some of my observations, read more at Portable Recorders | Sweetwater.com

[Petrus]

Olympus LS-10.

LS-10

Adding separate microphones (costing 5 times more than this recorder)would certainly improve the quality of the recording (if not the music...), but I think this thing with a cheap tripod is quite state-of-the-art for out-of-a-box systems.

One caveat: do not belive this 24/96 resolution BS marketing people put out with these cheap recorders, the electronics are so noisy that 16/44 is the best they can deliver in reality. Recording at 24/96 you just get 8 bits more noise. Well, that 16/44 is "only" CD quality... If it is of any consolation even the expencieve 24/96 recorders deliver only about 20 bits worth of resolution (S/N ratios and dynamic ranges are around 114 to 117 dB).

[Corran]

Actually, on my Zoom H4 the 48/24 setting is very noticeably better than 44/16, in terms of noise and clarity.

[NorseHorse]

Ditto on the 24bits...

I wouldn't buy a recorder that only does 16-bit. Especially since you need the extra wiggle room of 20-24bits for live recordings.

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by Petrus

Olympus LS-10.

LS-10

Adding separate microphones (costing 5 times more than this recorder)would certainly improve the quality of the recording (if not the music...), but I think this thing with a cheap tripod is quite state-of-the-art for out-of-a-box systems.

One caveat: do not belive this 24/96 resolution BS marketing people put out with these cheap recorders, the electronics are so noisy that 16/44 is the best they can deliver in reality. Recording at 24/96 you just get 8 bits more noise. Well, that 16/44 is "only" CD quality... If it is of any consolation even the expencieve 24/96 recorders deliver only about 20 bits worth of resolution (S/N ratios and dynamic ranges are around 114 to 117 dB).

Then why do an AD-DA loop of 24/44.1 and 24/192 sound different on a CD source?

There's no technicall reason that the noise floor should wipe away differences in sampling speed.


/Peter

[Petrus]

Originally Posted by Audiop

There's no technicall reason that the noise floor should wipe away differences in sampling speed. /Peter

Do you really think that mics on these pocket recorders reach cleanly past 22 kHz? Even very few separate hifi mics are usable above 20 kHz. There might be some tiny reasons for recording at 96 kHz but that is outside this thread. All those pocket recorders mentioned above would fit the bill, recording at 16/44. There is also a Sony at under $500, also good.

Norsehorse: About recording at 24 bits with a machine which has high noise floor: You are just kidding yourself. If you get something like 90 dB dynamic range with 16 bits and the same 90 dB with 24 bits, there is no more wiggle room anywhere.

With something like SD7xx, Nagra or Deva recorders you do get 4 bits more = 24 dB which is great. At 10-20 times the price.

[ghellquist]

It seems like the place where these small recorders is discussed most is on the special forum Taperssection.com - Index . Many of the users there though mainly record loud, amplified rock concerts, so noise floor is not an issue for them. Most units on the market however are talked about with actual, real-world experience of glitches and problems.

My only real recommendation is that you really have to try for yourself. A unit that one person (say me) finds totally unusable could be the perfect fit for another person (say you).

A person well armed with knowledge can often get much better prices on the second hand market. One example is that I did use a small minidisc recorder with a Sony stereo mic for many years which worked perfectly for my applications. Minidisc recorders today can be had more or less for free, and the mic shold come in around $80. The problem is to collect the knowledge, as it is built on experience. ( By the way, stay away from DAT )

As we have witnessed again and again, low-priced equipment often has a very noticeable "sweet spot" when it comes to sampling frequency. There are probably technical reasons for this, related to exactly what circuits are used in the recorder, not to any theoretical discussion of what could be achieved at various sampling rates. Only way to find out is to do a good test of the actual recorder.

16 or 24 bits is an interesting question as well. It is more or less impossible to find a 16bit-only recorder today. Not that the analog electronics are good enough to get you above the 16 bit mark, more of a marketing thing. Really good, rackmounted equipment can get you up to the 20bit mark or perhaps one bit more when you feed them carefully from really good preamps. But still, todays so called 24 bit recorders are generally (not always) better than older 16 bit ones. Again, try with what you have.


Gunnar

[Petrus]

Most ADC are now 24/96 units and 16 bit resolution is downsampled from there. That's why every new recorder has 24/96, but that does not mean that the analog electronics are anywhere near that mark. Let's not forget that 16/44 is plenty good enough for practically anything, who is really complaining about CDs sounding deficient? (I know some are, but...)

I just made a CD form a 11 year old minidisk recording of mine, sounded fine. Finding a used recording MD player is one good solution, only that transfering the material digitally needs a player with digital out and corresponding digital input on PC, some extra work, and separate mics. For those reasons it maybe is not a good solution after all compared to the ease of using a memory card recorder with built in mics like Olympus et all.

[Corran]

Petrus, it was simply a matter of listening: on the Zoom H4, set at the same recording level and everything, recording something in 44/16 and then 48/24, the higher resolution simply sounded better and had less noise. I feel the Zoom H4, even being one of the cheapest, actually is quite good in terms of noise (or lack thereof), though of course the preamps/converters are not that nice.

[Corran]

I should note though that most of my recordings on the H4 have been with two Earthworks QTC-1 mics plugged directly into it, and even using the Zoom preamps it sure sounds great!

[Petrus]

ok ok ok , certainly you hurt no-one by recording at 24 bits, and if it even sounds better, great! I just brought up the point so that people who buy these nice recorders (I have Z4 also) do not think they are really getting a real 24/96 bit machine, only 17/96 or actually 17/44 with the built-in mics. The fact is, nobody is getting 24/96 in this world, even with $10000+!

Have to take Z4 home and run some pink noise tests.