Topic: Portable recorder choices to record classical guitar with internal mics only.

[panagogt]

This is my first post in this great forum.

I play the classical guitar and I am in need of a decent but rather cheap recorder. My bugdet comes up to 250 EUR (340$ approximately) at the moment.
I 've been searching and reading so much that I have even got really tired, cleaning the house seems easier than all this try to choose a recorder.
I am a newbie neophyte to taping, but after reading some stuff in the forum and also in threads similar to mine, it is now clear in my mind that I need external mics and battery power supply etc. to have some good results. However, this a step above my knowlegde, budget and time right now and I am, definitely going to stick with the recorder's internal mics. Another reason for this is that I move a lot by train and aeroplane in long distances and I am unable to carry too much equipment. External equipment might be something to look up to in the future.

I really need some advice that takes into account that I will only record solo classical guitar (in my practice room and stage as well, but never open air). The thing is that classical guitar is a quiet instrument when compared to the piano, the violin, wind instruments and practically almost every other acoustic instrument. It's range, depending on the tuning is aprroximately 80-1000 Hz and if you add harmonic notes it reaches 1300 Hz in a pretty low volume.

It has become quite a nightmare to choose one, I just cannot understand which one fits me better, I really can't choose one.
Anyway, after some research a narrowed down my list to the following recordes:

Sony PCM-M10: What I read about its internal mics is controversial but what I finally get, is that it's stereo image is not decent enough (because of it's omni mics), but I don't know if this is really important in my case, that is, recording solo guitar. On the other hand, it seems to be the most quiet, in terms of self-noise, something that probably suits me, as the guitar produces low volumes.

Olympus LS-11: Seems to have a better stereo image than the Sony (directional mics).
Olympus LS-14: Haven't found almost nothing about it, but it is in my bugdet limits.
Tascam DR-40, DR-2D: Quite noisy, as people say, maybe that's a problem for my low volume recordings, but these are presented as decent recorders with good sound quality.
Zoom H4n: Seems that this device, as all Zooms, is not highly appreciated here. I have the impression though, that is has decent internal mics and it easily produces a beautiful, but stylished sound, that is to some extent unrealistic.

Any other recorder is accepted, if you propose it. I think that there also many others Tascams that I did not come across, for example.

Size, built and ergonomy do not really matter to me now, I just want what fits better my purposes, in terms of sound quality.

Thanks in advance!

[Gutbucket]

I think the most important questions may be: what do you expect from the recordings and what do you plan to do with them?

Practicallity is probably most important for ease of setup for decent results and minimal frustration.  Get a small stand with a flexible 'bendy' arm so you can quickly and easily position the microphones (which in this case will happen to have a recorder attached to them).  Minimizing setup hassle with a system which works simply makes a huge difference when you are trying to wear both performing and recording hats simultaneously.  All that is more important than the recorder itself.. so is the room in which you are recording in most cases.

For what you are doing the overall sound of the mics and mic-reamps in terms of noise and timbre is far more important than whether it has omnis or directional microphone elements.  You'll want the recorder in quite close where the pattern won't matter as much as it does when recording things even slightly more distant.  A simple small cardboard baffle taped to the recorder between the two omni mircophones can make sometimes make them image better than other machines with directional mics.  Good sound quality beats good stereo image for this, hands down.  It will pay to spend a good amount of time experimenting with placement and angles to find what works best so don't wory about recording any good keepers, or nailing musical ideas while doing that.  After you figure out something which works, the next time you can set up the stuff and quickly switch hats to 'performer mode' and hopefully put the recording stuff out of mind.  I haven't kept up with all the portable recorders, but I've heard some very good in-room band practice recordings made with Zooms several years ago.  I wouldn't rule them out just becasue they aren't as good a fit to what we are looking for in concert recorders using external microphones.  It seems most of the small recorders have gotten better quality mic elements than they used to have.  They used to be really terrible.

I play a bit of bastardized Piedmont steel string acoustic style and once got the best sound out of a DR2d by firmly taping the recorder directly to the face of the small travel guitar I was recording.  I got a beautifuly deep resonant guitar tone from the direct sound transmission though the recorder itself and that also positioned the mics properly to capture my voice. It worked much better than pointing the recorder at the front of that guitar, but it was sort of tinny to start with ans that's probably not something you'd want to do to a nice guitar.  Didn't sound nearly as good as properly setting up the big mics and wires and stuff to properly record a good guitar, but doing that's a hassle, and it sounded loads better than test recordings made with the internal mics in the 8 year old old Edirol R-09s I have. 

Yeah its a tough puzzle, but still easier and far more fun than cleaning house.  I'd check guitar and song writer forums and see what the consensus is there, we simply have different goals here so the advice on which recorder is 'best' is may lead you astra.

[panagogt]

Thanks for the reply and the effort you put on writing in detail. 
The purpose of recording is to be able to listen to my playing from another, more detached perspective, to collect ideas and judge myself better. Also I may do some recording sessions in which I am going to need sound quality that is better than the camera's
The good news is that I already have two stand tripods, a little palm sized one and a Velbon that extends up to 2 meters.
Of course I 'll be setting up the recorder on the tripods and do the trick with the attached cardboard, as you mentioned, in fact I was thinking about doing that already. Working with external mics is a bit prohibitive for now, as I said
I like that Tascam DR-2D worked well for you, even if the classical guitar is way different in colour and volume as opposed to an acoustic guitar and in addition it's sustain wears out too soon. Fortunately, my guitar is a very good one.

Anyway, thanks again, I hope there are even more people to come on this!

[Gutbucket]

No problem, welcome aboard.

The DR2d has been discontinued and for what you're doing may not be any better or worse than the others you listed.  It was mostly favored around here because it could record 2 stereo channels of external input simultaneously, which doesn't matter for your application.  Using either of your tripod stands, I'd still suggest a short, flexible gooseneck extension.  That will make positioning the recorder in close and angling it just right for best results far quicker, easier and more repeatable.

I really dig the classical string tone.

[DigiGal]

Check this recording of acoustic guitar from an iPhone...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TKF6nFzpHBU

[earmonger]

You're playing solo so stereo image doesn't matter.

You're also playing classical guitar so fully capturing deep bass is irrelevant.

As is obvious from my posts, I have a Sony PCM-M10.  Its internal microphones are very nice and detailed. Put it on a tripod near your guitar and do some test recordings to decide what level is best--start with about 4 or 5, adjust from there. You'll have pleasing recordings--certainly good enough both for capturing ideas and checking your technique.

[panagogt]

I am leaning towards Sony PCM-M10, I listened to some samples here:
http://www.wingfieldaudio.com/portable-recorder-sound-samples.html
 and:
http://www.wingfieldaudio.com/portable-recorder-noise.html#samples

I liked it's colour more, it sounds to me more realistic that my other choices. It does not seem to be overdoing it in terms of depth in sound, as compared to Zoom H4n, which (as I hear it) produces a beautiful but overdeep, quite misty sound. Olympus LS-11 sounds a bit sharp for my taste, especially when I listen to it before or after listening the Sony's samples. I 've been listening to some samples from other sources as well, but at wingfieldaudio there were many of my choices together to listen to them side by side. Also the recordings were made under the very same conditions. This place helps me conclude a little bit, as I liked the Sony more than all the others at all samples, both cello and voice samples, with or without external mics.

I would consider Tascam DR-2D as an option, but it is discontinued and I cannot find it anywhere in Europe, but anyway, I think I would be buying Sony PCM-M10 nevertheless.

One more reason for that is that it is a perfect choice to be used with external stuff, something that I may consider doing in the future. I am happy with all the praising this device gets here in the forum when combined with external mics. Also, another positive thing is that it has become popular and I can easily find out answers to any problem here in the forum or even elsewhere, not to mention all the stuff that is written about it and the "how-to" that already exist.

[John Willett]

You're playing solo so stereo image doesn't matter.

I would strongly disagree with this !

Stereo image *does* matter.

It's how the instrument sits in the acoustic that stereo will show and will make the recording much more enjoyable to listen to.

[panagogt]

I ordered the M10 yesterday. As far as I have read, it may not have a good stereo image, but it is not going to be mono either. I think attaching a cardboard to improve the image when I have the possibility is an ok idea. I feel happy about my choice already, as I just liked it more from the samples I 've listened, there is a bible of topics to read about it here and elsewhere, it is smaller and a bit cheaper that others and it is a classic in its category, if you want to record with external power supply and microphones.

Recording with internal mics, however is not going to have really better or worse results, whatever device of these I use (and thank you forum to make me understand that), as well as, maybe other recorders do not have a stereo image that is as good as it is supposed to be, because their on-board mics are, as it is logical, very close to each other and with little angle options.
For example, here is a link of a review on the Zoom H4n:
http://kenrockwell.com/audio/zoom/h4n.htm

Quotation:

No True Stereo

My biggest audio beef is that the Zoom H4n has no true stereo (spaced mic) ability, only coincident X-Y at 90º or 120.º The 120º position does not separate the microphones. If you want stereo the way I want it, you'll need external microphones. This is important for music recording, but not a big deal for audio-for-video.

While Zoom's marketing poof tries to downplay this defect as a feature, the phase differences imparted by true stereo (spaced) mic technique are precisely what creates a full, broad and deep soundstage, especially as heard over headphones and earbuds so popular today. The coincident X-Y arrangement completely eliminates all the interchannel phase differences so critical to good stereo, although their lack does help improve mono compatibility — if anyone is still listening in mono. Zoom's marketing is trying to turn their laziness and cost-cutting in skipping the spread-mic position and mechanical mic protection into a feature.

Coincident X-Y recordings sound as if your two ears were just pushed into your head into the same (coincident) position. It's like having your ears sucked together. It squashes the stereo image into a one-dimensional line between the speakers. The phase differences we hear because our ears are on different sides of our head is what contributes to the 3-D stereo we hear naturally, and you need spaced microphones to record that.

When I play examples of coincident X-Y and true (spaced) stereo, the difference is obvious. I prefer the ORTF (Office de Radiodiffusion Télévision Française) placement, which is to angle the mics at 110º and have them spaced as far apart as your ears: 17 cm (6"). This natural spacing adds air and dimension to the one-dimensional soundstage of X-Y recordings, but the Zoom H4n can't do this without external microphones.

Recording engineers have been debating stereo mic technique for as long as there has been stereo, so don't let my preferences distract you — unless you want awesome-sounding orchestral recordings, which are my specialty but not why people buy the H4n.

[panagogt]

I 've made my choice, but maybe it will be positive if people keep replying on this. Other classical guitarists or users with an issue similar to mine, might need more detailed information and answers.

[2manyrocks]

The whole idea of limiting oneself to a portable recorder for this use is ....limiting and one can only so far far with this regardless of the portable recorder chosen. 

The OP could buy a small Mackie or Behringer XLR board for under $99 with phantom power and two channel that can output to the M10 or any of the other portable recorder or just use some kind of USB interface like the focusrite 2i2.  Then'll he be on the quest for the "right" mics to use (no end to that discussion).  At some point, he's going to start having to deal with the acoustics of the room and room treatment. 

If the OP really wants to record classical guitar in a fixed location, a portable recorder probably isn't the best way to start off.  Spend $130 on a 2i2 and save the rest for cables, stands and money for mics. 

If portability is essential, different story.  Maybe look at the Tascam 100 MKII with built in XLRs and internal mics. 

[Gutbucket]

It’s these practical questions about the way you plan to use the gear and the recordings.  Sort of like the suggestion to choose a recorder with XLR inputs so you can plug external microphones directly into it later without much hassle if you decide to use standard external mics.  That's a good one that leaves open lots of practical options.

The "taping a piece of cardboard to the recorder between the mics" thing is a practical work around for built-in omni microphones which must be mounted close together because of the small dimensions of the recorder.  It makes them behave more directionally towards the higher end of the frequency range.  Similar techniques are used with excellent quality external omnis arranged in near spaced configurations with a baffle between them.  It is a very appropriate strategy for this type of recording, perhaps more so than wider spaced omnis.  The cardboard baffle trick should work with an M10 which uses internal omnis or most any other recorder which uses built in omnis.  It is not applicable to recorders with internal cardioid microphones which are already directional, but who knows, it could help in some cases if the cardioids are constrained to 90 degrees. 

Given what you are recording, your expressed preferences for sound and headphone listening, near-spaced baffled omnis would be a good suggestion even if using external mics.  Some space between omnis using the baffle is best (usually something like 7 to 15 inches), but it works even if the omnis are mounted directly against the baffle with effectively no space between them.  I suppose that could be called baffled X/Y omnis.

Coincident techniques are perfectly legitimate and just as 'true' stereo as spaced techniques.  Some specific coincident (X/Y) techniques using external microphones can have similar ‘open’ spatial qualities you ascribe to spaced omnis.  Those are usually configurations using microphone patterns with reverse polarity lobes towards the rear like figure-8's at angles up to 90 degrees, supercardioids at angles up to 120 degrees, and hypercardioids at angles somewhere in between.  Those setups introduce a form of 'absolute phase difference' for the reverberant sound arriving from far off-axis to their reverse polarity sides, making them sound more 'open' and 'out-of-head' over headphones than more common X/Y setups using cardioids which have no reverse polarity information often arranged at relatively narrow angles between mics that make much of their sound predominantly mono.


Back to the practical stuff- First off, you are more likely to notice general tonal differences between recorders with internal omnis verses internal cardioids before the differences stereo imaging.  As a gross generalization, internal cardioids often sound brighter, crisper and drier, with a rising high frequency emphasis, omnis warmer, softer, and roomier, with more low end and less top emphasis.  That can be manipulated to a suprisingly large extent with EQ after the recording is made, but the basic fingerprint and limits on what you can do is always there.

If recording in a nice sounding big room, you can move the microphones farther away to get a nice balance of the direct sound and the natural reverb.  If recording in a small boxy sounding room, get the recorder in close to maximize the direct guitar sound and minimize the room sound, then if necessary add reverb to the recording afterwards to taste.  That strategy is less 'purist' but gives you easier and greater control over the reverberant balance than moving microphones forward and back, recording something, then listening to it, and repeating the process to get a good balance.  The best strategy to peruse here partly hinges on this: Do you want to simply record directly into the recorder and playback the files without doing anything else to them, or will you be doing some work on the resulting files on the computer to adjust things like EQ and reverb balance. 

[Gutbucket]

You're playing solo so stereo image doesn't matter.

I would strongly disagree with this !

Stereo image *does* matter.

It's how the instrument sits in the acoustic that stereo will show and will make the recording much more enjoyable to listen to.

This is one of the most common misunderstandings that regularly pops up around here.  Usually it's in the form of something like this- "the PA is mono so stereo mic setups and stereo image don't matter" and my practical reply is often something like- "you'd probably not think twice about recording a solo performer without a PA in stereo".  I guess that answer isn't as obvious as I though it was! 

Once a sound is made in a room it is not mono, or stereo, or multichannel.  It is a highly complex soundfield.  How we choose to capture a small portion of that complex soundfield is the question.

It also pops up in the form of this statement often made around here- "two mics, two ears".  OK, that’s true for binaural recordings, yet the tapers expressing that sentiment are not doing that.  It is of course perfectly acceptable to use two mics and spectacular recordings are made that way all the time.  But that particular justification for it is invalid for anything but binaural.

[earmonger]

Point taken about recording a solo performer in stereo.

But the idea that the PCM-M10 internals give you essentially a mono recording just doesn't equate with my experience.  There is considerable spatial information from those internals. Maybe it's how they are placed, recessed in the corners of the PCM-M10.

Put the PCM-M10 on a table and record yourself walking around that table and you will understand that it is by no means mono.

I'd expect a PCM-10 on a tripod, in the sweet spot of a room, will make a good, straightforward, natural-sounding guitar recording.  You'll hear the guitar, you'll hear the room. And it won't be one channel in the middle of your head like a mono recording. 

If you want more separation, the baffle would help, and there are also post-processing plugins.  But try it straight out of the box for starters. 

[panagogt]

One thing you ought to consider carefully with recording guitar is it's rather different from concert or ensemble recording, because you are typically in the nearfield (about 1m for classical guitar, maybe more in really good room, less in a bad room).

Of course, this is obvious. I' ll test different positions and settings and I 'll read more until I reach my desiring results.

The OP could buy a small Mackie or Behringer XLR board for under $99 with phantom power and two channel that can output to the M10 or any of the other portable recorder or just use some kind of USB interface like the focusrite 2i2.  Then'll he be on the quest for the "right" mics to use (no end to that discussion).  At some point, he's going to start having to deal with the acoustics of the room and room treatment.

If the OP really wants to record classical guitar in a fixed location, a portable recorder probably isn't the best way to start off.  Spend $130 on a 2i2 and save the rest for cables, stands and money for mics. 

If portability is essential, different story.  Maybe look at the Tascam 100 MKII with built in XLRs and internal mics. 

When it is time to buy microphones and power supply, I am going to try to read about all the options there are on my bugdet, including yours, since I have already ordered the M10. The location is not going to be a fixed one, but I may do recording sessions in a good room sometimes. In general, it is essential to have portabilty, so I will live up with an equipment that does not orientate to a standard location.

Back to the practical stuff- First off, you are more likely to notice general tonal differences between recorders with internal omnis verses internal cardioids before the differences stereo imaging.  As a gross generalization, internal cardioids often sound brighter, crisper and drier, with a rising high frequency emphasis, omnis warmer, softer, and roomier, with more low end and less top emphasis.  That can be manipulated to a suprisingly large extent with EQ after the recording is made, but the basic fingerprint and limits on what you can do is always there.

If recording in a nice sounding big room, you can move the microphones farther away to get a nice balance of the direct sound and the natural reverb.  If recording in a small boxy sounding room, get the recorder in close to maximize the direct guitar sound and minimize the room sound, then if necessary add reverb to the recording afterwards to taste.  That strategy is less 'purist' but gives you easier and greater control over the reverberant balance than moving microphones forward and back, recording something, then listening to it, and repeating the process to get a good balance.  The best strategy to peruse here partly hinges on this: Do you want to simply record directly into the recorder and playback the files without doing anything else to them, or will you be doing some work on the resulting files on the computer to adjust things like EQ and reverb balance.

The difference you clarify between internal omnis and internal cardioids and in the way you described it, is what I actually liked more about the M10 while listening to samples and comparing. Also, the classical guitar sounds in low frequencies, generally speaking. Maybe this adds some points to M10's internals.

Thank you all for the advices, you are really helpful to a starter! Interesting to read your disagreement, even if I do not really realise who is right.

Point taken about recording a solo performer in stereo.

But the idea that the PCM-M10 internals give you essentially a mono recording just doesn't equate with my experience.  There is considerable spatial information from those internals. Maybe it's how they are placed, recessed in the corners of the PCM-M10.

Put the PCM-M10 on a table and record yourself walking around that table and you will understand that it is by no means mono.

I'd expect a PCM-10 on a tripod, in the sweet spot of a room, will make a good, straightforward, natural-sounding guitar recording.  You'll hear the guitar, you'll hear the room. And it won't be one channel in the middle of your head like a mono recording. 

If you want more separation, the baffle would help, and there are also post-processing plugins.  But try it straight out of the box for starters.

Very nice to hear that! It is what I want to hear anyway!