Topic: Help in choosing preamp/microphones

[taper420]

Ok heres the deal for clarification purposes only .... I still say go with the R09....
ALL minidisc recorders use a prerecord buffer (I think it's twenty seconds). Its built in to the way they work, and helps save batteries because they're not constantly writing. They write in bursts. This prerecord buffer may or may not matter as far as bump errors are concerned though. If you bump during the buffer store then it shouldn't matter....if you bump during the disc write, it may create an error unless the minidisc system has some kind of checksum verify function built in which i doubt greatly.

That being said ... I've never had an error that I can attribute to bumping in over 5 years of MD use. I think allot of errors have been attributed to cheap, faulty media. I've not had problems using sony brand.....and if you plan on being really bumpy, the sony golds have an antishock mechinism built into the disc case.
But sony sucks, MD is a headache, go with the R09.

[rockola]

http://www.minidisco.com/Sony-MZ-NH700S_2 . (...) This is by far the best recording unit IMO, as it runs on a single AA battery instead of a proprietary, underpowered, and overpriced gum stick battery. (...) You can't beat the A>D (and overall sound quality for 16-bit/44.1khz) and size/battery usage anywhere close to that price level.

However, it does not retain your settings (AGC is on by default, for instance, and you have to go through multiple menus to turn it off), there's no backlight (may not be a problem for you), and 1 GB = 94 min of PCM audio, which means you're going to either be changing discs at least once for most shows (...)

I bought one of these from minidisc.com.au for A$149 a few months back. They still have the NH600 for A$99, but it doesn't have a mic pre. Anyway, I agree with everything twoheadedboy said. The R-09 must be a lot better in all regards - except the price, and size maybe? I tape only very occasionally, so I haven't been too motivated to invest in anything better. Bottom line is, it records CD-quality sound at 1/2-1/4 the price of the next best alternative (R-09, price in Australia A$700-800...).

[Church-Audio]

http://www.minidisco.com/Sony-MZ-NH700S_2 . (...) This is by far the best recording unit IMO, as it runs on a single AA battery instead of a proprietary, underpowered, and overpriced gum stick battery. (...) You can't beat the A>D (and overall sound quality for 16-bit/44.1khz) and size/battery usage anywhere close to that price level.

However, it does not retain your settings (AGC is on by default, for instance, and you have to go through multiple menus to turn it off), there's no backlight (may not be a problem for you), and 1 GB = 94 min of PCM audio, which means you're going to either be changing discs at least once for most shows (...)

I bought one of these from minidisc.com.au for A$149 a few months back. They still have the NH600 for A$99, but it doesn't have a mic pre. Anyway, I agree with everything twoheadedboy said. The R-09 must be a lot better in all regards - except the price, and size maybe? I tape only very occasionally, so I haven't been too motivated to invest in anything better. Bottom line is, it records CD-quality sound at 1/2-1/4 the price of the next best alternative (R-09, price in Australia A$700-800...).

I am going to get into trouble for saying this but, for the money I like HIMD. It works its small and it packs alot of features that make recording with less gear very possible.

[poorlyconditioned]

http://www.minidisco.com/Sony-MZ-NH700S_2 . (...) This is by far the best recording unit IMO, as it runs on a single AA battery instead of a proprietary, underpowered, and overpriced gum stick battery. (...) You can't beat the A>D (and overall sound quality for 16-bit/44.1khz) and size/battery usage anywhere close to that price level.

However, it does not retain your settings (AGC is on by default, for instance, and you have to go through multiple menus to turn it off), there's no backlight (may not be a problem for you), and 1 GB = 94 min of PCM audio, which means you're going to either be changing discs at least once for most shows (...)

I bought one of these from minidisc.com.au for A$149 a few months back. They still have the NH600 for A$99, but it doesn't have a mic pre. Anyway, I agree with everything twoheadedboy said. The R-09 must be a lot better in all regards - except the price, and size maybe? I tape only very occasionally, so I haven't been too motivated to invest in anything better. Bottom line is, it records CD-quality sound at 1/2-1/4 the price of the next best alternative (R-09, price in Australia A$700-800...).

I am going to get into trouble for saying this but, for the money I like HIMD. It works its small and it packs alot of features that make recording with less gear very possible.

Hey, right on!  I love my HiMD too.  Compact, runs on a single AA battery, and has a pretty good builtin preamp.  The HiMD solves most of the previous problems, including USB upload and online adjustment of recording level.

I think the R01/R09 are the first real competition for MD, and I can't quite justify spending $300-400 for a two track recorder yet...

  Richard

[chong138]

I have a HI-MD recorder and love it for stealthing shows.  I bought it because my M-1 broke and I didn't wanna pay to fix it.  The R-09 wasn't out yet...so I didn't have alot of choices.  I've had it for about 9 months now and recorded maybee 10 shows with it.  I record punk and metal shows and am constantly getting bumped into.  I've never had it record silence or skips from beeing bumped or from anything.  I Don't think that there is anything wrong with the HI-MD's...I actually think the recordings on it sound better than the M-1 did.  If I was going to buy something to record now...it'd probably be the R-09, but I don't think the HI-MD is a bad choice either.  I'm actuallly going to get a RH-01 soon so I can upload all my old school MD shows too. 

[King Ghidora]

I remember a time just a couple of years ago that people on boards like this were swearing there was nothing ever like HIMD and that there never would be because it was dang near perfect.  Flash memory was just way too expensive and there were no really good flash memory recorders anyway.

The truth is that HIMD has been a great technology and it still is for many applications.  It was always vulnerable to being shaken too hard but I've taped many, many events with my old MD and I never once had a single issue with lost recordings due to shaking.  It's always been possible to lose your whole recording if you bumped the recorder hard enough when it was writing the TOC but I have never heard anyone complain about that either.

There are first generation HIMD units being sold for $125 to $150.  Check out this web site for examples.  I bought a used HIMD that was barely used and got a bunch of discs for $115 (thanks twoheadedboy).  They have their limitations and never technologies have finally overtaken them as the prime mobile recording device.  But they had a great run and they still have their uses.

I think some people are so intent on proving to themselves that their investment in newer technology was a good idea that they rag on HIMD more than is justified.  It was a great technology for it's time but it's time is nearly over.  There are still reasons for buying HIMD.  It can be bought much cheaper than the Edirol's if you don't mind buying 1st generation stuff (which sounds just as good as the latest HIMD stuff).  I bought HIMD because I needed a mobile recording device to use with my video business.  I don't need to worry about bouncing or 90 minute record time limitations or even the hassle of resetting the recording settings every time I put in a new tape.  I also don't need 24 bit audio since I will have to render it down to 16 bit to work with my video format anyway.  I also record a bluegrass band quite often and aside from not having 24 bit audio the HIMD I bought is still as good as any other mobile recording device around.  And I'm not convinced that 24 bit audio is worth paying 3 times the price when I'm not recording studio quality for the band.  If I was I would be buying something besides the Edirol anyway.

HIMD and before it MD were great technologies to have when there wasn't anything else.  HIMD is still a great bargain technology and it is grea for matching up with current video standards.  There are lots of other reasons to still use HIMD too.  Battery life is a good example.  Being able to use standard AA batteries is another (unless you want your recorder to be useless in 5 years because the price of a new battery is more than the price of a new recorder - I like having my old MD still work for me for many reasons - for example I can stick it in the pocket of a rodeo clown and not worry a bit if it gets smashed). 

Just because it isn't the latest and greatest it doesn't mean that it is totally useless.  I have good reason for saving the money off of what I would pay for a R-09.  We shouldn't be so quick to criticize people who might want to buy good to see if they want to invest in better down the line.  How many of us started playing keyboard on a Steinway Grand?  I started on a Casio with maybe 36 keys.  Now I have a great keyboard and maybe someday I'll have a top of the line keyboard if my arthritis doesn't kill my ability completely.  There are always mitigating factors and reasons for all sorts of things.  We should keep that in mind.  Taping is a hobby and not everyone is interested in jumping right to the top of the game before they see if they actually like taping.

[tiberiusbkirk]

I don't think anyone answered the OP's question.
He already has a HImd unit and was looking for recommendations for mics and pre amp.
I think Chris church can help with this question.
As I'm still using a MDLP MD unit, no usb with DIY mics. So I can't offer much advise in this area.
except, I will eventually get one of Chris church's battery box or if I can his Pre amp unit.

[King Ghidora]

I don't think anyone answered the OP's question.
He already has a HImd unit and was looking for recommendations for mics and pre amp.
I think Chris church can help with this question.

Actually Church's stuff was mentioned in the first response to the OP.  Sound Professionals was mentioned in the second response.  It was after that that the questions about the viability of MD got started.  First it was a question about lossless recording and then one time uploads and upload problems.  It was the standard progression of complaints about MD.  From people who still think MD is limited to ARTRAC to people who say all MD pre's are crap these things are repeated over and over again in threads all over the net.  I have seen lots of folks say the pre's on HIMD's are just as good as the pre on the R-09.  Sure the pre's can always be made better.  But I don't think the pre's on HIMD's are crap.  They aren't studio quality but they were never meant to be.  They were just meant to be good and they are.

[guysonic]

I don't think anyone answered the OP's question.
He already has a HImd unit and was looking for recommendations for mics and pre amp.
I think Chris church can help with this question.

Actually Church's stuff was mentioned in the first response to the OP.  Sound Professionals was mentioned in the second response.  It was after that that the questions about the viability of MD got started.  First it was a question about lossless recording and then one time uploads and upload problems.  It was the standard progression of complaints about MD.  From people who still think MD is limited to ARTRAC to people who say all MD pre's are crap these things are repeated over and over again in threads all over the net.  I have seen lots of folks say the pre's on HIMD's are just as good as the pre on the R-09.  Sure the pre's can always be made better.  But I don't think the pre's on HIMD's are crap.  They aren't studio quality but they were never meant to be.  They were just meant to be good and they are.

R-09 preamp is actually more pro quality than NON-pro type MD 'mini-decks' in ability to handle full professional high + 10 dBu mic input levels.  Something none of the mini-md decks have ability to handle.  Also good to note 5 years recent MD models do process at 24 bit depth, but convert digital output to 16 bit.

For see chart of R-09 input ability go to: http://www.sonicstudios.com/r-09revw.htm#inputs

[King Ghidora]

R-09 preamp is actually more pro quality than NON-pro type MD 'mini-decks' in ability to handle full professional high + 10 dBu mic input levels.  Something none of the mini-md decks have ability to handle.  Also good to note 5 years recent MD models do process at 24 bit depth, but convert digital output to 16 bit.

Yeah that was one of the major failings of MD.  Their inability to handle the level of power put out by really good mics was a constant source of problems with md of all flavors.  You either had to attentuate or go line in but that often causes problems IMO with track marks etc..  There are workarounds for that too but it shouldn't be neccessary to begin with.  Maybe Sony just wanted to sell a bunch of ECM-MS908c mics because they were never a problem because their output was low enough to work well.  It worked I guess because that mic was the pick of many who bought MD for years because they were known as a well matched pair.  But of course that doesn't explain why Sharp also played that game.

[dunebug81]

R-09 preamp is actually more pro quality than NON-pro type MD 'mini-decks' in ability to handle full professional high + 10 dBu mic input levels.  Something none of the mini-md decks have ability to handle.  Also good to note 5 years recent MD models do process at 24 bit depth, but convert digital output to 16 bit.

Yeah that was one of the major failings of MD.  Their inability to handle the level of power put out by really good mics was a constant source of problems with md of all flavors.  You either had to attentuate or go line in but that often causes problems IMO with track marks etc..  There are workarounds for that too but it shouldn't be neccessary to begin with.  Maybe Sony just wanted to sell a bunch of ECM-MS908c mics because they were never a problem because their output was low enough to work well.  It worked I guess because that mic was the pick of many who bought MD for years because they were known as a well matched pair.  But of course that doesn't explain why Sharp also played that game.

Why wouldnt you run line in no matter what mics you have? 

[King Ghidora]

R-09 preamp is actually more pro quality than NON-pro type MD 'mini-decks' in ability to handle full professional high + 10 dBu mic input levels.  Something none of the mini-md decks have ability to handle.  Also good to note 5 years recent MD models do process at 24 bit depth, but convert digital output to 16 bit.

Yeah that was one of the major failings of MD.  Their inability to handle the level of power put out by really good mics was a constant source of problems with md of all flavors.  You either had to attentuate or go line in but that often causes problems IMO with track marks etc..  There are workarounds for that too but it shouldn't be neccessary to begin with.  Maybe Sony just wanted to sell a bunch of ECM-MS908c mics because they were never a problem because their output was low enough to work well.  It worked I guess because that mic was the pick of many who bought MD for years because they were known as a well matched pair.  But of course that doesn't explain why Sharp also played that game.

Why wouldnt you run line in no matter what mics you have? 

The automatic track marks when recording line in are a hassle IMO.  Any time a HIMD senses 5 seconds of near-silence, it inserts a mark forcing you to have to combine the tracks that were divided.  There are programs that combine the tracks automatically fairly well but it's still a hassle IMO.

[dunebug81]

R-09 preamp is actually more pro quality than NON-pro type MD 'mini-decks' in ability to handle full professional high + 10 dBu mic input levels.  Something none of the mini-md decks have ability to handle.  Also good to note 5 years recent MD models do process at 24 bit depth, but convert digital output to 16 bit.

Yeah that was one of the major failings of MD.  Their inability to handle the level of power put out by really good mics was a constant source of problems with md of all flavors.  You either had to attentuate or go line in but that often causes problems IMO with track marks etc..  There are workarounds for that too but it shouldn't be neccessary to begin with.  Maybe Sony just wanted to sell a bunch of ECM-MS908c mics because they were never a problem because their output was low enough to work well.  It worked I guess because that mic was the pick of many who bought MD for years because they were known as a well matched pair.  But of course that doesn't explain why Sharp also played that game.

Why wouldnt you run line in no matter what mics you have? 

The automatic track marks when recording line in are a hassle IMO.  Any time a HIMD senses 5 seconds of near-silence, it inserts a mark forcing you to have to combine the tracks that were divided.  There are programs that combine the tracks automatically fairly well but it's still a hassle IMO.

I guess Ive never taped anything quiet enough for that to happen.  What are you taping?

[King Ghidora]

I'm mostly taping a bluegrass band which doesn't overload the mic input too much even with a hot mic so I'm not using line in with that.  I do sometimes use an inline volume control to attenuate the sound if the band is playing particularly loud or something. 

Some instrument solos can have silent sections especially in classical music which can cause problems (not that I record classical but I do record mountain and bluegrass which sometimes contains silent sections in the songs).  BTW I've seen other people complain about the same problem on the MD board.  Check out the thread on this web page.  A guy there says he ended up with 247 tracks on a single disc because the auto track mark function kept finding sections of low sound and adding track marks there. 

My actual experience with this is limited because I saw pretty quick that it was going to be a problem for me especially in interviews for my video business.  Any modification of the timing of the recording can cause big havoc for me when I try to sync with my cameras.  I didn't want to end up with a messed up audio track so I really didn't try using it.  I understood people to say that the MD added some time between each track that it picked up with the auto track function.  Maybe I read their comment wrong but I had already decided it was a hassle having so many tracks in my interviews.

And I've recorded rock concerts using attenuation and didn't have any particular problems.  I do realize that there are S/N issues with attenuation but they haven't been a problem for me.  Rock concerts are pretty loud so they don't generally suffer from S/N problems.  Also I have been to many rock concerts where they have silent sections in the songs.  You don't see it too much in head banger music but with certain classic rock groups this could be a problem.

[dunebug81]

Woah!  247 tracks!  That would be a problem.  I used to have my sharp do auto tracks every 10 min so i could skip thru the show quickly while listening to it on the way home.  Its easy enough to delete 4-5 track marks but damn 250 would be a pain.