New portable recorders not good enough - Why not? When will the better ones come??

[akej]

I notice there are a some new portable recorders with phantom-powered xlr-inputs in the lower price-range being released at the moment: Tascam DR40 and Roland R-26. But together with Zoom H4n, none of them seem to offer good enough preamps for high-quality field recordings. In the next price-range (compact 2-channel recorders) the products are getting quite old, the Marantz PMD661 and Fostex FR2LE are from january 2009 and april 2007.

Isn't it time for a new one? They should be able to make machines smaller quieter and more advanced by now. I believe many people (who cant afford Sound devices) are willing to pay more than what the DR40, R26 and H4n costs for a recorder with high quality preamps. Quiet preamps can't be that hard, Oade brothers do it, why don't Tascam and Roland go for real quiet preamps? And when will the new Fostex and Marantz show up?

My guess (or wish) is soon, maybe they're just waiting for the others...

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by akej

I notice there are a some new portable recorders with phantom-powered xlr-inputs in the lower price-range being released at the moment: Tascam DR40 and Roland R-26. But together with Zoom H4n, none of them seem to offer good enough preamps for high-quality field recordings. In the next price-range (compact 2-channel recorders) the products are getting quite old, the Marantz PMD661 and Fostex FR2LE are from january 2009 and april 2007.

Isn't it time for a new one? They should be able to make machines smaller quieter and more advanced by now. I believe many people (who cant afford Sound devices) are willing to pay more than what the DR40, R26 and H4n costs for a recorder with high quality preamps. Quiet preamps can't be that hard, Oade brothers do it, why don't Tascam and Roland go for real quiet preamps? And when will the new Fostex and Marantz show up?

My guess (or wish) is soon, maybe they'e just waiting for the others...

The Oade mods cost up to 350$ for a stereo machine.
Real quiet pre-amps are not easy to make and cost money.
There will never be a 200$ machine with the specs of a 2000$ machine.

[leddy]

Originally Posted by apple-q

The Oade mods cost up to 350$ for a stereo machine.
Real quiet pre-amps are not easy to make and cost money.
There will never be a 200$ machine with the specs of a 2000$ machine.

And don't forget size. Most decent preamps are in a 19" rack, or at least a half-size rack for a reason. Shrinking that down to fit in your hand without giving something up (either quality or price) is not realistic.

Having said that, I have a couple R44's and the preamps are decent.

[mathieujm]

As a happy owner of a FR2LE I also think there is a place for 500/600 €/$ recorders, with reasonably good preamps and conv. It could be some 2 ch interface a la RME UFX with recording capabilities.

JMM

[akej]

Originally Posted by apple-q

The Oade mods cost up to 350$ for a stereo machine.
Real quiet pre-amps are not easy to make and cost money.
There will never be a 200$ machine with the specs of a 2000$ machine.

Of course I don't mean its easy to make good preamps! I know it costs too.

I don't mean 200$, rather under 1200$...

But the Oade modded marantz PMD661 and Fostex FR2LE (600-700$) seem to be the only quiet (enough) ones on the market in that price range (and not available in europe where I live). I just wonder why there are so few competitors in that price/quality range? Maybe because its between the bigger market and the high-end/pro market?

[mkgs]

I've had an H4n a little while and must say that I've been more than a little disappointed with it's noise performance. I'm now looking for something to upgrade to myself and was hoping the upcoming R-26 would be it. The feature list is exactly what I was hoping for and their mention of a more isolated analog circuitry gave me hope. I'd be curious to hear what you thought of it...or anyone else that has heard of it here. Especially in terms of noise performance.

Other than that, it seems the Marantz may be the only decent alternative.
Thanks

[Ozpeter]

I think you have to define the purpose of the recording. Many of these small recorders can provide a sound quality more than adequate for live classical music recording for instance. Couple them with a respectable mic pair and you will find that the system noise is below the ambient noise in the location and below the ambient noise in the environment where the recording is most likely to be heard.

If you are talking about getting the best possible result regardless of the necessity to do so, then of course you have to pay for the best possible equipment.

[akej]

Originally Posted by Ozpeter

I think you have to define the purpose of the recording. Many of these small recorders can provide a sound quality more than adequate for live classical music recording for instance. Couple them with a respectable mic pair and you will find that the system noise is below the ambient noise in the location and below the ambient noise in the environment where the recording is most likely to be heard.

If you are talking about getting the best possible result regardless of the necessity to do so, then of course you have to pay for the best possible equipment.

I wish I could pay for the best equipment, but for now there has to be some compromises. I will record sound effects and ambiences, sometimes music. Many quiet sounds. My mics are a pair of Beyer MC930, they sound nice and have high output and low self-noise for their price.

At the moment I think I will get the Marantz PMD661, because of the size, price and noise. But of course I would prefer one with even lower noise (The Fostex is a bit big for me) and smaller size.

I've been looking here to compare the self-noise of the different recorders:

Avisoft Bioacoustics - Microphone Input Noise Comparision

Portable Recorder Noise: The Sounds of Silence

The first page says the FR2LE has lower noise than the PMD661, but on wingfieldaudio.com the hiss appears to be louder on the FR2LE (the mic/condenser samples).

I've read that the Roland R-26 should have the same preamps as the R44. According to this page it will then have more noise than the fostex and marantz:

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/type/www...ndstenMeas.htm

The Tascam DR40 I suppose wont be better than the DR100, since it's cheaper.

But part of this is of course speculation, I'm waiting for some real comparisons...

[Rolo 46]

Use high output mikes (MKH)
There is no free lunch for quality.

[akej]

Originally Posted by Rolo 46

Use high output mikes (MKH)
There is no free lunch for quality.

Again, I must have been unclear in my post. Quality costs. I just wonder why all the new recorders are in the low budget-line and not in the 500-1000€-range, which I suppose would allow better parts, like preamps, converters etc.

Like the PMD661 or FR2LE but newer and better

[npatro22]

Yea I would advice against the PMD661,
not realistic when doing run and gun, or even outside when not sitting.
Sunglare sucks, headphone output very low, when on a shoulder strap you cant see the meters at all not even the anti-glare LED meters. Sounds great and has a lot of cool features but still wouldn't buy it knowing what i know now.

[ErikG]

Im eagerly awaiting delivery on my Roland R26

Reading the manual I can see some things I would have loved was done differently though.

Plugin mic input uses same signal path as internal omni mics. So its not possible to to mix and match all combinations of microphones. This will force me to build a 48V-plugin power converter as I want the option of recording both sets of internal mics and small electret mics that would really be suitable to connect to the plugin input...

Limiter and locut is in digital domain making them less useful (I have yet to hear and test though). I didnt expect them to be analog really, but I would have loved it if they were. Locut filter frequencies are weird (way to high) but eventual usability will depend on sound and slope of cutoff.

Apart from the above limitations it looks like a pretty useful unit.
If its as quiet as (or better) the M10 and or the D50 it will be super!
I will compare noise floor with Sony PCMM10 as soon as I get it. the M10 is pretty low noise, but hasn't got good stereo depth because of he closely spaced omni mics on the unit. Also it can only record two channels and haven't got XLR or phantom powering.

Im also quite curious of how the internal mics handle lots of LF. The M10 is crap when theres to much bass, I tried to record noisy truck and car interiors but it just never sounded any good, regardless of level it overloaded in the mics.

[Brackish]

Originally Posted by npatro22

the PMD661 ... headphone output very low

Yes, that's been a problem. Disappointed.

[Brackish]

Originally Posted by ErikG

Im eagerly awaiting delivery on my Roland R26

If its as quiet as (or better) the M10 and or the D50 it will be super!

Give us some brief impressions when you get it in.

[jnorman]

most of the taper crowd have moved away from single box solutions to combinations of battery powered preamps > line inputs of handheld recorders. a typical configuration might be a Naiant Tinybox > sony M10, or sonosax sx-m2 > sony D50 or korg MR2.

as far as a single box solution, what about the tascam HD-P2 for $750 or so - isnt that about what the OP is looking for?

[Ozpeter]

I will record sound effects and ambiences, sometimes music. Many quiet sounds. My mics are a pair of Beyer MC930, they sound nice and have high output and low self-noise for their price.

When considering the real-world noise performance of recording equipment, the first thing to decide is whether the recordings will be played with zero overall gain, or with amplification.

Take the example of a recording of acoustic music. The objective here should be that the reproduced sound should have high fidelity, and due to the characteristics of human hearing, the level at the ear should be the same as it would be at the performance, otherwise the perceived frequency response will be skewed.

Under those conditions, where the playback level does not result in amplification overall, then noise from any reasonable recording system should not be a significant issue these days, in my view. Noise at the location and in the listening environment will exceed system noise. If the recording or reproduction locations are unusually quiet, then it is likely that you are making a big budget recording and perhaps then you might expect to be using bigger budget equipment than the kind of thing we're discussing here.

You've mentioned "ambiences" and here again, depending on precise circumstances, one could argue that to correctly reproduce an ambience, then zero overall gain is appropriate. I recently posted an example of an ambient recording in another forum made with cheap equipment and I stressed that for correct reproduction it should be played at an authentic level, and there were a couple of points in the recording which could help set that. For instance, the sound of footsteps on a gravel path should sound no louder (or quieter) than you would expect such footsteps to sound. (Link - Zoom Gear & Home Recording Forum • View topic - Walking the dogs in the park with the Zoom H2N ). Again, in my view that recording shows that you don't have to use exotic equipment to make an ambient authentic-level recording where system noise is not an issue in real-world terms.

Lastly there is the matter of what might be called "nature" recordings, where the object might be to clearly hear that which might not be readily audible at the location. (I guess surveillance recordings are another example!). Now here low noise performance is much more important in real world situations, as of course the system noise will be unnaturally amplified along with the desired signal, and might obscure it in certain cases. This is where greater expense is clearly required.

As for the matter of the R-44 and its noise performance, I think the link you provided is about the only one where it has been criticised other than anecdotally. I have no factual basis to dispute the measurements but in my experience with that device, used with Sennheiser MKH series mics recording classical music, I haven't felt any misgivings about the level of noise. I recall doing a test between a rehearsal and a concert, which involved recording in the hall at the concert-level settings (it was, as I recall it, a lute concert) the sound of a "dog clicker" being operated in the supposedly soundproof recording booth overlooking the hall. Although the sound at the mics was very low level - virtually inaudible to someone in the hall, and thus virtually inaudible when replayed at a natural level - none the less, boosting the amplification of the click one could not only hear it clearly but also its reverb tail, with the chief noise problem being ambient noise even though the hall is modern and well isolated. (And it was only a 16 bit recording fwiw).

And my point is... obviously one seeks to get the best overall system noise performance when selecting recording equipment, but these days the low noise bang-for-buck (whimper-for-buck?) has probably never been better, and I would expect the equipment now coming onto the market (including the Tascam DR-40 not I think mentioned above) to provide very adequate real-world performance in other than amplified reproduction (nature etc) situations. Time will of course reveal whether my expectations will be fulfilled - we await reports!

[akej]

Ozpeter:
Thanks for your post! Very interesting. In my case many sounds will be unnaturally amplified, I use my recordings for compositions/soundscapes for use as sound design for theater. Often I use them in a way where the original sound-source is irrelevant, more for musical qualities. Before I've been using a Microtrack and later a Zoom H2 outdoor, but the low-pass filter has become too much standard in my works , so now I'm looking for some new field recording gear. As I said I wish I could buy for example mkh-mics and a SD702, but for now it will be the mid-price range. And maybe it would be overkill since I will ruin the sounds afterwards...

Your experience with the r44 preamps sounds very promising, then the r26 might be a competitor against the PMD661 and FR2LE!

[sjohns37]

Originally Posted by akej

Ozpeter:
Thanks for your post! Very interesting. In my case many sounds will be unnaturally amplified, I use my recordings for compositions/soundscapes for use as sound design for theater. Often I use them in a way where the original sound-source is irrelevant, more for musical qualities. Before I've been using a Microtrack and later a Zoom H2 outdoor, but the low-pass filter has become too much standard in my works , so now I'm looking for some new field recording gear. As I said I wish I could buy for example mkh-mics and a SD702, but for now it will be the mid-price range. And maybe it would be overkill since I will ruin the sounds afterwards...

Your experience with the r44 preamps sounds very promising, then the r26 might be a competitor against the PMD661 and FR2LE!

I'll second the praise for the r44. Two jobs ago I was using a 788t+CL8, then after that a Zoom H4n so I understand the desire for some devices in between. The director of the shoot I'm on now bought an R44 and I'm quite fond of it. I dont think I'm qualified to speak to the preamps as my ears arent that sensitive but I haven't heard anything terrible yet. I wrote up some stuff about this device on my blog if you want more info: Blog in the Shot

[Plush]

These machines are seen by the manufacturers as part of the tools offered to "democratize" recording.

They are made to be affordable and are built to a price point, not to a quality standard.

So if you need real recording equipment, buy the real kind, not the kind sold for everyman.

[panatrope]

In choosing gear for low-noise recording, two things have to be borne in mind; 1) the noise floor (self-noise) of the microphone; 2) the output level of the microphone relative to the equivalent input noise of the preamp.

The MKHnn mics perform well because their sensitivity is high at 25mV/Pa, they have 8dB higher output than the 'average' SDC of 10mV/Pa. This tends to make their 'self noise' of 12dB(A) dominate over the Ein of the preamp. even if it has an Ein of -120dBV(A) or worse.

Compare this with an AKG C414 XLS which has an output level of 20mV/Pa and a claimed self-noise of 6dBA. Its output is 2dB lower but its claimed self noise (6dBA) is 6dB lower, so the effective noise will be 4 dB lower (LDCs will generally have a better self noise than SDCs at the same price level). Therefore the input noise of the preamp needs to be considered more carefully to take full advantage of the microphones low noise. It is possible that even the inputs of the PMD661 could add less than 1dB noise to a C414.

There are more issues with using an LDC in the field compared to an SDC, but it depends on the demands of your job. And if budget is a consideration a C414 is somewhat less expensive than an MKH40, and of course an NT-1A or NT2-A also offers low noise at a lower price. Therte are lots of choices ...

[Ozpeter]

These machines are seen by the manufacturers as part of the tools offered to "democratize" recording.

They are made to be affordable and are built to a price point, not to a quality standard.

So if you need real recording equipment, buy the real kind, not the kind sold for everyman.

Totally meaningless elitist rubbish.

What kind of car do you have? A Maserati? A Ferrari? Or something appropriate to your needs and budget?

What kind of house do you live in? A 20 room mansion or something more appropriate to your current needs and time of life?

Etc etc.

The contents of your post could apply to virtually any purchase in any field.

The original post mentioned...

people (who cant afford Sound devices)

and that gives the context to the thread. Please, no more 'drive by shootings'. If you can't say something helpful in the context of the discussion, don't say anything.

[Hornblower64]

A friend of mine gets good results with an Oade modded Tascam HD-P2. Not a Sound Devices or a Nagra, of course, but respectable for $1200, though I would try to swing at least a 702 for $600 more, if it were me.

[boojum]

There are lots of recorders out there. There is a general direct connection between price and quality. OK. If you cannot afford Aaton Cantar (Aaton : Cantar-X2) that does not mean you cannot get great recordings. Lots of folks are doing quite well in the under $1,500 range and in the under $1,000 range. The biggest thing in great recording, as Plush always points out, is the room. Next is getting the mics in the right place. Ah, there's the art!

There have been some good machines suggested in your price range. You will do well with any of them if you get the room and the mics right. You will do better with better gear. But you have to start somewhere. If you cannot afford or do not want to buy used or save up for one, pick one of the suggested machines and go for it. And keep us informed about how you are doing, OK?

[discostrangler]

Not that I am a fan of the Microtracker in any way shape or form BUT since you say you already have one, you could easily pair it with a nice preamp that has SPDIF coax out put. For 650 -950 and get a Sound Device USBPre2, A Grace Lunatec V3, an Audient Mico, Motu Ultralight all of which would give you a much better sound than the stock MT unit and allow you to upgrade your recorder later. Using the MT as a "bit bucket" means that you will not be using any of the topology and less than stellar preamps the unit has

[Sounds Great]

Originally Posted by akej

Again, I must have been unclear in my post. Quality costs. I just wonder why all the new recorders are in the low budget-line and not in the 500-1000€-range, which I suppose would allow better parts, like preamps, converters etc.

Like the PMD661 or FR2LE but newer and better

A good quality pair of mic preamps would be in the 500 - 1000 range alone, and that is with a bigger box with space to put it together reasonably. So the recorder would have to be thrown in for free, as well as the cost of miniaturizing everything. The numbers just don't add up.

[jmcarlock]

Originally Posted by Ozpeter

Totally meaningless elitist rubbish.

I have to disagree. Quality equipment does cost serious money. As Rolo said, there is no free lunch.

[Ozpeter]

I have to disagree. Quality equipment does cost serious money, but it pays off. As Rolo said, there is no free lunch.

Look, the first paragraph of the first post makes it abundantly clear that the subject under discussion is concerned with equipment "In the next price-range (compact 2-channel recorders)" where "the products are getting quite old, the Marantz PMD661 and Fostex FR2LE are from january 2009 and april 2007". The question is, in that price range, "Isn't it time for a new one? They should be able to make machines smaller quieter and more advanced by now."

It contributes nothing whatever to the discussion to remark that "They are made to be affordable and are built to a price point, not to a quality standard. So if you need real recording equipment, buy the real kind, not the kind sold for everyman". Firstly, what the hell is meant by "real recording equipment"? - I grew up using reel recording equipment but this "real" thing is a new concept to me. For that matter, how do you define "quality equipment"?

Time for a simple parable.

Two persons stood in the street beside their cars and were discussing the merits of the Ford Focus vs the VW Golf. One remarked that it was about time that a company brought out a new model in that price bracket that offered better performance and lower fuel consumption. At that point along comes another person driving a Lamborghini, winds down the window and remarks, "Those are made to be affordable and are built to a price point, not to a quality standard. So if you need a real car, buy the real kind, not the kind sold for everyman". And off he goes (probably looking for the nearest gas station).

Now what do you think the persons having the discussion thought? "What a useful contribution to our discussion, we hadn't thought of that", or, "what on earth was the point of that, what a pompous ass"?

I'm unaware of any rule in this forum that prevents the discussion of other than premium equipment for premium location recording scenarios. "Everyman" has a right to be here and may have something helpful to say to all. Long may it continue that way.

[apple-q]

If you want an excelent midprice portable setup get an SD Mix-Pre D (around 800$) and the cheapest recorder with digital input.
Or a Nagra SD (around 1000$).

It's not that this price-segment doesn't exist, you just need to look outside the edirol, zoom etc. "plastic segment" and you will find some things with excelent audio specs far ahead of the cheapo-segment.

[Plush]

Hello Oz,
My comment above that you didn't like was quite mild. I tried to describe the landscape of this recorder segment as seen by the manufacturers. Democratize Recording is their watchword. It's very obvious and clear To them the drive to offer products for Everyman drives their thinking.

[richgilb]

If noise is the reason why you say the preamps are not good enough on the Zoom H4N, you could do what I do and plug 2 Fetheads into the XLR inputs and use your own mics. Problem solved. It is suddenly a portable recorder that is up there with the best.