Topic: Microtrack II 1/8 mic in VS Sony RH1 line in

[(Evan)]

Quick question. I'm going to be recording something this weekend that requires me to use small microphones. So I purchased the Sound Professionals CMC-8 mics, along with their battery box.

I have two recorders. A Microtrack II, and a Sony MZ-RH1 HI MD recorder.

The show I'm recording is not particularly loud so I'm not worried much about clipping, however I was wondering which recorder and input I should use to get the best quality recording? Should I use the Microtrack II 1/8" input with the battery box, or the RH1 Line Input with the battery box? The Microtrack doesn't have a mini Line-In, so that's out of the question. I really want to be able to record in 24 bits, but I was told that the Microtrack's Mic-In is poor quality/inferior to Line-In on Sony.

Any recommendations? Thanks!

[boojum]

The battery box is not a pre-amp, so you may still need to use "mic-in."  The SONY RH1 has a very good front end, line-in, mic-in lo, and mic-in hi so you have three flavors.  Point: you can always make it louder.  You cannot get the clipping out once it is there.  You can play with it, smoothing the edges of the clip, but it will always be clipping.

I cannot vouch for the Microtrack, but I have a little RH1 and think it is sweet.

[(Evan)]

Yes I know it's not a pre-amp. And as I said, I'm not worried about clipping. I'm only worried about overall quality.

[willyp523]

Quick question. I'm going to be recording something this weekend that requires me to use small microphones. So I purchased the Sound Professionals CMC-8 mics, along with their battery box.

I have two recorders. A Microtrack II, and a Sony MZ-RH1 HI MD recorder.

The show I'm recording is not particularly loud so I'm not worried much about clipping, however I was wondering which recorder and input I should use to get the best quality recording? Should I use the Microtrack II 1/8" input with the battery box, or the RH1 Line Input with the battery box? The Microtrack doesn't have a mini Line-In, so that's out of the question. I really want to be able to record in 24 bits, but I was told that the Microtrack's Mic-In is poor quality/inferior to Line-In on Sony.

Any recommendations? Thanks!

Haven't owned an RH1 but in the past have used a Sharp MD with a nice front end, along with the same mics you have.  Much preferred that over running 1/8 in on a Microtrack 24/96.  Given the info you've provided...I think your chances for success are greater using the RH1, and I'd run "mic in"   

[fmaderjr]

Not even close. Sony MZ-RH1 all the way. Great mic preamp.

[nameloc01]

Go MD. Unless its acoustic, I'd go "line in", you can always add gain later if need be. The mic jacks are quite sensitive.

[dallman]

I would take 24 bit over 16 bit any time. I'm unfamiliar with the MT2 in terms of personal use, but on the Mt 24/96 (or MT1) the best move was to go through an adapter from 1/8 into 1/4 TRS. This may not be the best idea with the MT2 as there are issues with unbalanced 1/4 inch lines in, but I have made many outstanding recordings on the MT 1, and while I wish it were not true, from the first time I recorded 24 bit there was no turning back. The difference was too much to ignore even though it may require extra post work to dither it back to 16 bit.

If you are confiodent your 1/8 input will not overload, I would go MT.

[fmaderjr]

24 bit may be better than 16 bit, but most hand held recorders like the MT II do not have good enough built in preamps to get any benefit from 24 bit unless you use an external preamp into line in.

The RH1 has a better internal preamp and I think it would be a better choice for you until you get an external pre. You can get good results with your battery box using line in if the source is loud enough to give you decent levels. If not, go mic in. The RH1 has a great mic preamp.

That said, it's very possible that a recording with the MT II would sound equally good to one made with the RH1, but I'd be shocked if it sounded better and I think the RH1 is the safer choice.

[taper420]

as far as front-end and ADC the RH1 is the way to go. again, if it's loud, the preamp on the sony may clip (before the levels do), so the line in might be the best bet.
The ADC on the Sony is VERY high quality.

[fmaderjr]

as far as front-end and ADC the RH1 is the way to go. again, if it's loud, the preamp on the sony may clip (before the levels do)

I agree with taper420 to use line in if it's loud. That's what I do myself, but if you do need to use mic in, there's an easy way to tell if the mic in will clip before the levels indicate clipping. If you need to set the record levels below 12 to keep the meters from hitting 0 DB you will get brickwall distortion and must switch to line in. If you're going mic in, have the record level set at 12 or above, and the meters are peaking below 0 dB you won't clip. 



 

[(Evan)]

Thanks for all the replies! Looks like I'll be using the RH1 then.

That brings me to another question. Are there any portable 24/96 recorders that have mic inputs that are as good quality as the RH1?

[nameloc01]

IMO, a HI-MD deck typically sounds better than the other handhelds (MT,R9s,ect)
I just got my 2nd M100 deck today

[Falconidave]

Thanks for all the replies! Looks like I'll be using the RH1 then.

That brings me to another question. Are there any portable 24/96 recorders that have mic inputs that are as good quality as the RH1?

I would say that the Sony PCM-D50's mic/line-in inputs are as good as the RH1's.  The only problem with using the RH1 is that the maximum bitrate/resolution you can get is 16/44.1 when going PCM wave and then 90 minutes max on a 1GB Hi-MD disk.  I've never owned a MTII, so can't comment there.  But I do own both of the Sony's I mentioned.

[dallman]

24 bit may be better than 16 bit, but most hand held recorders like the MT II do not have good enough built in preamps to get any benefit from 24 bit unless you use an external preamp into line in.

I can hear a huge difference. I only use my MT for low pro situations, and the 24 bit is noticably superior to the 16 bit. Personal choice I guess, but I could never go back to an MD.

[fmaderjr]

I can hear a huge difference. I only use my MT for low pro situations, and the 24 bit is noticably superior to the 16 bit. Personal choice I guess, but I could never go back to an MD.

Sure it's a matter of personal choice and I admit the MT is capable of making excellent recordings, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You are comparing the MT to Hi-MD aren't you? If you hear a huge difference and are not using a preamp with your MT recordings, it would appear that there may be something going wrong with your MD recordings. IMO, at best, the 24 bit MT recordings (made without an external preamp) should sound about the same as the Hi-MD recordings and no way should they sound way better.

Plus as an added bonus the MZ-RH1 is way easier to use inconspicuously. You can put it in your shirt pocket and just look down into your pocket to check levels.

[(Evan)]

Now are you guys talking about the MT II or the original MT? Because I've been told that the MT II's 1/8" input is far superior to the original MT.

[nameloc01]

Interesting read :

http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-reports/HiMD/index.htm

[fmaderjr]

I kind of switched the discussion to the MT 24/96 because that's what Dallman has. You are correct that the MT II has a far better mic input, but the MZ-RH1's preamp is so good I suspect it will still give better performance.

The MT II still really needs a preamp to take advantage of its 24 bit capabilities, but if you ever get a preamp you will need to be aware of the much discussed sprinkler noise problem when going line in with unbalanced sources and take steps to avoid it. This entails either
1) Turning the MT II's gain to the minimum and getting all gain from the preamp or
2) Ordering the following cable from Sound Pros to connect your preamp (and be sure to specify you want the one for the MT II). http://www.soundprofessionals.com/cgi-bin/gold/item/SP-MICROTRACK-MINI-TRS-1

That said, if you feel more comfortable going mic in with your MT II, you will probably get an excellent recording as well. But you won't really be benefiting from 24 bit, and the MZ-RH1 is far easier to operate inconspicuously if needed. I just think using the MZ-RH1 will be safer, easier to do, and will produce a recording that is at least as good (if not better) than you get from the MT II. Just my option, but many who have contributed to this thread (Dallman excepted) seem to agree with me.

[boojum]

Other than a greater dynamic range, what is the advantage of 24 bit over 16 bit?  I cannot think of any.  The bits just describe the length of the word used in recording.  16 bits = ~ 96dB and 24 bits = ~144dB.  The 24 bit dB I think is more a possibility than a reality.  What am I missing?

[fmaderjr]

Maybe DSatz can chime in and help us out here.

I pretty much agree with you and I don't care about the greater dynamic range. I actually compress many of my live recordings to I don't need to keep adjusting the volume when I play them back (but that's just a personal preference).

All  I really care about with 24 bit is that it allows you so set your record levels a lot lower so that you have no danger of clipping and not add audible noise when you boost the levels. I love not worrying about clipping!

However, and I know nobody here will agree with me, I have recorded many things with 16 bit equipment that peaked as low as -25 dB or so, and after converting the files to 32 bit in Adobe Audition to raise the levels, I could hear no added noise when I reconverted to 16 bit. So even here, I'm not really sure I'm benefiting much from having 24 bit recording equipment.

[dallman]

I kind of switched the discussion to the MT 24/96 because that's what Dallman has. You are correct that the MT II has a far better mic input, but the MZ-RH1's preamp is so good I suspect it will still give better performance.

The MT II still really needs a preamp to take advantage of its 24 bit capabilities, but if you ever get a preamp you will need to be aware of the much discussed sprinkler noise problem when going line in with unbalanced sources and take steps to avoid it. This entails either
1) Turning the MT II's gain to the minimum and getting all gain from the preamp or
2) Ordering the following cable from Sound Pros to connect your preamp (and be sure to specify you want the one for the MT II). http://www.soundprofessionals.com/cgi-bin/gold/item/SP-MICROTRACK-MINI-TRS-1

That said, if you feel more comfortable going mic in with your MT II, you will probably get an excellent recording as well. But you won't really be benefiting from 24 bit, and the MZ-RH1 is far easier to operate inconspicuously if needed. I just think using the MZ-RH1 will be safer, easier to do, and will produce a recording that is at least as good (if not better) than you get from the MT II. Just my option, but many who have contributed to this thread (Dallman excepted) seem to agree with me.

You make a good point!! I have not played with Hi MD, so I cannot say with any authority that it may or may not be better. I think you are right though, so much is personal choice and getting comfortable with the rig(s) we use. I would not switch my setup, because I am so comfortable and at ease with it. And of course the recordings are really very good. This is not to say that, I'll never upgrade, but that comfort and ease of use really helps for consistently good recordings.

[dallman]

Other than a greater dynamic range, what is the advantage of 24 bit over 16 bit?  I cannot think of any.  The bits just describe the length of the word used in recording.  16 bits = ~ 96dB and 24 bits = ~144dB.  The 24 bit dB I think is more a possibility than a reality.  What am I missing?

Sonic quality. 24 bit has much greater sonic quality. The difference is startling to me. I wish it were not, because when I used to record 16 bit I had that many less steps. But once I tried 24 bit, there was no way I could go back. This is not to say I cannot get a great 16 bit recording, but all things being equal, the 24 bit recording his more color and tone. It sounds better.

[illconditioned]

I can hear a huge difference. I only use my MT for low pro situations, and the 24 bit is noticably superior to the 16 bit. Personal choice I guess, but I could never go back to an MD.

Sure it's a matter of personal choice and I admit the MT is capable of making excellent recordings, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You are comparing the MT to Hi-MD aren't you? If you hear a huge difference and are not using a preamp with your MT recordings, it would appear that there may be something going wrong with your MD recordings. IMO, at best, the 24 bit MT recordings (made without an external preamp) should sound about the same as the Hi-MD recordings and no way should they sound way better.

Plus as an added bonus the MZ-RH1 is way easier to use inconspicuously. You can put it in your shirt pocket and just look down into your pocket to check levels.

Minidisc analog circuitry (mic and line) is excellent!

Plus, you can use a backlit remote, which is great.

  Richard

[fmaderjr]

Dallman: I guess we have a truce!

I'm not saying 24 bit isn't better than 16 bit. I'm not that knowledgeable technically, but from reading some studies made by others (especially on guysonic's Sonic Studios website) I understand that many of the small 24 bit recorders are not getting much benefit from their 24 bit mode when using their own internal preamps. He feels that most of their internal  preamps are of good enough quality to make excellent 16 bit recordings, but not good enough to get much or any added benefit from 24 bit.

I've made a few excellent recordings with a ST-9100 preamp into a MT 24/96 in 24 bit mode, which should be taking advantage of 24 bit and even then I'm not sure I could detect an audible difference between recordings made with the same preamp into my MZ-RH1. The MZ-RH1 truly is capable of making excellent recordings and is much easier to use inconspicuously than either of the MT's. Even its HI SP mode (about 8 hours on a 1 gig disc) sounds pretty much indistinguishable from its PCM (wave) mode and can come in handy if its going to be hard to change discs.

[Ozpeter]

Sonic quality. 24 bit has much greater sonic quality. The difference is startling to me. I wish it were not, because when I used to record 16 bit I had that many less steps. But once I tried 24 bit, there was no way I could go back. This is not to say I cannot get a great 16 bit recording, but all things being equal, the 24 bit recording his more color and tone. It sounds better.

I'm afraid you can't put that (more colour and tone) down to the number of bits used.  There must be some other factor involved in the comparison.

A 16 bit recording and a 24 bit recording are the same until you start dealing with levels of less than -96dB (off the top of my head).  Then the 16 bit recording runs out of bits but the 24 bit recording carries on down to -144dB (again, off the top of my head).  Don't make the mistake of thinking that 24 bits gives you more measurement of the audio across the same extent as 16 bits and it's therefore 'more accurate because the intervals are smaller'.  Imagine you have a 16 bit ruler and a 24 bit ruler - the 24 bit ruler is longer, with the notional graduations the same space apart as the 16 bit ruler (though the graduations have a log base just to make things more complicated).

In practice this means that if your preamp has a range between noise and overload greater than 96dB, then you will need 24 bits fully to capture that range.  However, bear in mind that at the bottom of that range, you'd better be listening in a very quiet environment to hear it - even with most headphones.  More usefully, you can record in 24 bits so that the highest peaks going into the A to D converter never go over about (say) -12dB (or much less in fact), and you'll still be able to convert it back to analog without losing the low level information which will be stored in the part of the bit range than 16 bits doesn't have.  That still doesn't absolve you from considering the signal to noise ration of the analog stages of the system - if, in order to record at those lower levels, you are under-running your preamp and its design is such that it's not working at its optimum signal to noise level, you could end up with a worse result.

As always therefore you have to have a broad grasp of the theory - then throw away the rule book and listen with your ears.  (Heh, but don't let your ears tell you something that the rule book says is impossible!)

[Ozpeter]

Anyone wanting to delve deeper into a discussion about bit depth and sample rate which explores and explodes several digital audio myths might wish to download a couple of handy pdfs I made from Harmony Central discussions some time ago - see http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/9/22/1451533/Bits%20and%20samples%201.pdf and http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/9/22/1451533/Bits%20and%20samples%202.pdf

It's worth churning through that stuff before repeating the discussions here! 

[fmaderjr]

In practice this means that if your preamp has a range between noise and overload greater than 96dB, then you will need 24 bits fully to capture that range.  However, bear in mind that at the bottom of that range, you'd better be listening in a very quiet environment to hear it - even with most headphones.  More usefully, you can record in 24 bits so that the highest peaks going into the A to D converter never go over about (say) -12dB (or much less in fact), and you'll still be able to convert it back to analog without losing the low level information which will be stored in the part of the bit range than 16 bits doesn't have. 

Ozpeter-Does this mean that even if your preamp doesn't have the 96 dB range you mention, you still benefit from recording in 24 bit because of the benefits of being able to record at a lower level and being able to convert back to analog without losing some of the low level information it was able to capture? This would be great to know. I always assumed that if the preamp wasn't up to the 96 dB range it was just a waste of space to record in 24 bit.

[Ozpeter]

Well, in theory yes, recording in 24 bit at a lowish level (aiming say for -12 max) does always have the advantage of avoiding digital overloads regardless of the source.  Again, I'm wary of generalising as to the overall benefit - think through the gain staging of your particular setup and see if you can do some tests to show what benefit there might be.  Remember you are looking for overall noise performance, not some kind of magical improvement in the sound itself.  But the tradeoff is file size being that much larger.  That may or may not be significant for you.

Personally I use 16 bits and come away with a deep sense of satisfaction if the recording peaked to around -0.5dB overall - living dangerously keeps me awake in tedious concerts!

[fmaderjr]

Personally I use 16 bits and come away with a deep sense of satisfaction if the recording peaked to around -0.5dB overall - living dangerously keeps me awake in tedious concerts!

Sounds like you're a bit of a gambler. Any success in the casinos as well as the concert halls?

But seriously, many thanks for the input, ozpeter! I didn't realize there was a benefit of recording in 24 bit even if using the internal preamp of a handheld digital recorder that does not have the 96 dB range.

I like the sound of 16 bit as well (many of my best recordings were made with my MZ-RH1) but I alway use a preamp & 24 bit anyway when it is possible to do so. I don't like to gamble (love poker but stopped playing on line when I stopped winning and started to give back my winnings) so I guess from now on I'll set my R-09 Micsketeer to 24 bit.

[dallman]

I don't have a lot of science on hand to back me up or not, but I do know that in 2007 when I was at 10klf, a friend (who shall be nameless) switched my settings on my MT, which I was using for alternate sets. I recorded Little Feat, and was astounded at how much better my recording sounded than anything I had previously recorded with the setup. I had no idea why at the time. I later found out that my settings had been switched to 24 bit while I was away at another stage. It was still on 44.1, but sounded fantastic. To me the recording had much more depth. That started me experimenting and now I record on both my Tascam and MT at 24/48. I don't hear any difference at 96 over 48, and 96 does take up alot of space. (I'm not saying there is no difference, I just don't hear it)

I cannot tell you who makes good recordings or how to do that. It is something you learn. I also cannot tell you what makes one recording better than another when they are both excellent to begin with. I can tell you that when I record at 24 bit, I get a better recording. It is not a clipping issue with me, I rarely have a problem with clipping. Maybe I am not able to correctly quantify what the difference is, but there is a noticable difference to my aged ears.

The really cool thing though is that it does not take much to make a good recording. We've come a mighty long way since I made my first aud. recording...

[fmaderjr]

The really cool thing though is that it does not take much to make a good recording. We've come a mighty long way since I made my first aud. recording...

You're defintely right about that! I've got some pretty good equipment on hand but can make a very fine sounding recording with just Chuch Audio ST-11 cards > Battery Box > iHp-120 (replace the battery box with a preamp if the concert is not going to be very loud). Haven't screwed up a recording due to clipping in quite a long time.