Topic: your advice on portable recording devices best suitable for classical music

[mnkiwi]

hello everyone,
I am a total newbie so please excuse if I come across too uninformed for this forum.
I am a professional classical pianist trying to choose best portable audio recorder for my rehearsals and practice.
My main purpose is to be able to observe my performance from point of view of the audience since the acoustic while performing in front of the instrument and listening in the audience are quite different. I would like to be able to better estimate my sound in oder to to achieve most optimal dynamic changes. I will be mostly using the recorder in my practice room, which is rather confined, or other times in concert hall during rehearsals.
It would be my first time purchasing one of these semi-professional portable recorders so I would greatly appreciate your help.
With my limited knowledge, I searched internet and I am considering Tascam DR-100 MKII, Marantz PMD-661, Roland R-26, Olympus LS-100 as possible purchase but I wouldn't mind spending a bit less for Zoom H-4N or Tascam DR-40 if there isn't much recording quality difference and they serve my purpose well enough. Or maybe there are other devices I haven't yet heard of that you could recommend.
My main concern is which of these machine can capture my performance to it's original sound regarding tone color and dynamic change. I have tried using conventional cassette recorder, minidisc recorder and etc. in the past to listen to myself in practice realizing that it doesn't record fine nuances in music. When I play very soft the recorder automatically tried to focus on the sound more which resulted in more background noise and sound being recorded louder than it actually was. And when I play loud it couldn't handle the intensity and the recording ended up sounding distorted (often times also because my practice happens in small rooms).
I would greatly appreciate your opinions on which of these machines would be best suited to my purpose of observing classical piano music performance to finest nuances and dynamic changes so I can make detailed corrections in my performance.
I have couple of rather good microphones so it would be a plus if I could plug in phantom powered microphones to make richer recording in bigger rooms.
Thanks guys.

[earmonger]

You may have had your previous recorders set incorrectly. Many of them have Automatic Level Control--which will pump up quiet sounds as you experienced--set as the default, and you have to go into a menu somewhere and set it to Manual instead, which will record at one level and not boost things.  I know that's how my old minidisc worked--but it was very susceptible to distortion at high volumes.

But overload is a different problem from automatic/manual level control.  For the dynamics of classical music you are going to have to set your manual levels quite low--set them when you're playing fortissimo.

From what I have read, people here tend to think Zooms are flimsy and noisy (though Ozpeter, who records classical music, disagrees--you can search for his Zoom posts).

Most recorders now have internal mics that are pretty good but not great. Outboard mics tend to be better, and if you have good ones, then you will get better recordings.  Recorders are so hi-fi now that they will pretty much capture whatever comes through the mics, as long as you have levels set correctly.

Since you have mics, and the DR40 has phantom power and XLR connectors, that might be a good fit for you, but I have never used one. The difference between that and the more expensive units will be other features. Look at the specifications and see if you need all the bells and whistles. I hope other folks who have used them will chime in. And don't be afraid to be a newbie. We're friendly here.

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/DR40/

[Ozpeter]

Tricky one, this. 

If you lined up four or five recorders of the type we discuss here, and connected them to the same pair of reasonable quality mics, and recorded the same performance from the same position, being careful to end up with recordings that were all equally loud, then you'd probably have to do a fair bit of listening to determine which was the best.  However, if you used for or five mic pairs with any one of the recorders, you'd hear much more of a difference.  And if you used the internal mics built into the recorders, you might well hear an even bigger distance.

In other words, it's the mics that make the biggest difference.  The actual recorders are, to some extent, not so important.

The difference between mics isn't just the frequency response and amount of noise they produce, but also the stereo image differs a lot between different types of mics, and how they are placed.

You need to ask yourself whether, in the context you've described, you really want to be dealing with mics, cables, mic stands etc, or whether having the whole thing in one one piece - using the built in mics of a recorder - might be less distracting (your chief task is to perform!).  That also has the advantage that normally you don't have to mess with setting up mic angles and distances and so forth - you're more likely to get something on one occasion that can be compared with another on a level playing field.

If you do go the one piece route, there are some good recorders with bad mics out there, and some indifferent recorders with good mics.  Once again, I'd stress the importance of the mic.  For instance, the Sony M10 is a fine recorder, but its omnidirectional mics are not good for the purpose you have in mind.  The Zoom H2N is less well regarded as a recorder (though personally I'd say most people wouldn't have a problem with it if blind tested against the M10, but it can be regarded as being a reasonable stereo mic system which records (rather than being a good recorder with a mic tacked on as an afterthought.  Those are not the only choices of course.

Lastly, I'm a little troubled at the thought of you changing your playing according to what you hear on a recording of this sort.  I'm not sure it's going to provide a real impression of things - a recording always falls far short of hearing with your own ears, which as you say are in the wrong place when playing, but musicians have coped with this for hundreds of years before recording came along!  Maybe kick the idea around with fellow musicians and get their reactions.

Cheers!

[flintstone]

Stephanie Wingfield is a classically trained musician (cello) who sells pocket size recorders for musicians.  Check out her web pages, which include recorder ratings and recommendations, here http://www.wingfieldaudio.com/

[earmonger]

I like Stephanie Wingfield's straightforward reviews...but unfortunately she hasn't reviewed a lot of the current recorders. She does simply go by what the built-in mics record, and as Ozpeter says, if you're using outboard mics, there's not that much difference between recorders.

Mnkiwi, what phantom power mics are you using? How are you setting them up? 

[John Willett]

Your choice will depend on what you want to do now - and what you want to do in the future:-

For a good flexible recorder now I think I would put the Olympus LS-100 at the top of the list - good internal mics, XLRs for adding external mics., high quality and superb battery life

Second I think I would put the Tascam DR100II - this also has internal mics and XLRs for external mics - but - it also has a digital in so it can be used as a "bit bucket".

For example you could add a small mixer with superb mic. pres like the AETA MIXY and good mics and output digitally to the DR100II - this would give you the quality of a recorder costing about £5-6,000 at a very much lower cost (in this instance you are not using any of the analogue circuitry in the pocket recorder).

Oh - I specialise in recording solo piano, for what it's worth.

[mnkiwi]

OMG, I just wrote whole lot about thanking you guys and how much I learned and blah blah just to find that I was automatically logged out and lost everything I wrote with a push of "Post" button.
So I start again.
Thank you guys for your advices. When I try comparing specs of those devices or reviews of advanced users it was kind of overwhelming because I have so little knowledge about all the technical stuff. When I read your advices I get some ideas about which thing are the first things I should know about and which things I can think about later considering my level of understanding.
For the beginning I think  I will mainly use the recording device as literally portable recording device to check my playing anywhere I go. So I will be using internal mics for everyday use. I have a pair of decent mics. I forgot which maker they were (I am not at home right now) but I am pretty sure they are decent ones for home use because I bought them on recommendation from a renowned Tonmeister. But I will probably be using those only occasionally.
Now with a bit more insight and reading into what you guys told me are more important the other things, I have narrowed down my choices to Olympus LS-100 (good preamp and mics but no 4 channel recording?), Roland R-26 (good preamp and option for recording 4 channel if one chooses to use external mics. but I don't know how internal mics compare to Olympus?) and Taskam DR-100 MKII (digital input but I think I read somewhere omnidirectional mics are not as good?).
Which one would you guys choose if you were me? Oh, and please correct me if I seem misinformed about assessment of these different devices.
Thanks again guys now I feel like I am getting somewhere with my choice and with a bit of knowledge.

[John Willett]

For the beginning I think  I will mainly use the recording device as literally portable recording device to check my playing anywhere I go. So I will be using internal mics for everyday use. I have a pair of decent mics. I forgot which maker they were (I am not at home right now) but I am pretty sure they are decent ones for home use because I bought them on recommendation from a renowned Tonmeister. But I will probably be using those only occasionally.
Now with a bit more insight and reading into what you guys told me are more important the other things, I have narrowed down my choices to Olympus LS-100 (good preamp and mics but no 4 channel recording?), Roland R-26 (good preamp and option for recording 4 channel if one chooses to use external mics. but I don't know how internal mics compare to Olympus?) and Taskam DR-100 MKII (digital input but I think I read somewhere omnidirectional mics are not as good?).
Which one would you guys choose if you were me? Oh, and please correct me if I seem misinformed about assessment of these different devices.
Thanks again guys now I feel like I am getting somewhere with my choice and with a bit of knowledge.

For piano, omni mics are better than directional mics as they get the bottom end of the piano that directional mics miss.

Personally, as I said above, I would choose between the Olympus LS-100 and Tascam DR-100 II.

[earmonger]

Now with a bit more insight and reading into what you guys told me are more important the other things, I have narrowed down my choices to Olympus LS-100 (good preamp and mics but no 4 channel recording?), Roland R-26 (good preamp and option for recording 4 channel if one chooses to use external mics. but I don't know how internal mics compare to Olympus?) and Taskam DR-100 MKII (digital input but I think I read somewhere omnidirectional mics are not as good?).

Do you need four-channel recording? If you are just recording yourself, stereo is all you need.

Cardioid mics are directional, and many people here use them for recording concerts in order to lessen audience noise from behind them.  If you are recording in an echoey room, cardioids will also lessen some of the reflected sound from behind you.  But the more inexpensive cardioids, like the ones that would be built into a recorder, do not pick up the lowest bass tones. The bottom note on your piano is 27.5 Hz; an octave above that is 55. Many cardioids don't go down that far. You'd have to check the frequency range spec on the recorder's mics.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/Files/3455/5/Phys_img024.jpg

 
Meanwhile, omnis pick up all around you, more like your ears. For straightforward, point-the-recorder-at-the-music recording, I find the sound of omnis much more realistic; cardioids, to me, give an odd, "backless" sound, as if there is nothing behind you.  Inexpensive omnis also have a wider frequency range than inexpensive cardioids.   

[DigiGal]

For piano, omni mics are better than directional mics as they get the bottom end of the piano that directional mics miss.

Personally, as I said above, I would choose between the Olympus LS-100 and Tascam DR-100 II.

Of those two, I think I'd lean toward the Olympus.  Don't think I'd ever want to rely on a DR-100 II as a bit bucket due to the obscure integration.

If you do plan to use a bit bucket, consider the Marantz PMD661 Coaxial S/PDIF via RCA connector or the Sony PCM D50 via Optical S/PDIF (both are higher but similarly priced).

[John Willett]

For piano, omni mics are better than directional mics as they get the bottom end of the piano that directional mics miss.

Personally, as I said above, I would choose between the Olympus LS-100 and Tascam DR-100 II.

Of those two, I think I'd lean toward the Olympus.  Don't think I'd ever want to rely on a DR-100 II as a bit bucket due to the obscure integration.

If you do plan to use a bit bucket, consider the Marantz PMD661 Coaxial S/PDIF via RCA connector or the Sony PCM D50 via Optical S/PDIF (both are higher but similarly priced).

I would agree in many ways - but the PCM-D50 is now, unfortunately, discontinued and I am told that the Marantz PMD661 has a very short battery life.

I would probably have put the PCM-D50 at the No.1 spot as the digital input is optical, had it not been discontinued.   

[DigiGal]

For piano, omni mics are better than directional mics as they get the bottom end of the piano that directional mics miss.

Personally, as I said above, I would choose between the Olympus LS-100 and Tascam DR-100 II.

Of those two, I think I'd lean toward the Olympus.  Don't think I'd ever want to rely on a DR-100 II as a bit bucket due to the obscure integration.

If you do plan to use a bit bucket, consider the Marantz PMD661 Coaxial S/PDIF via RCA connector or the Sony PCM D50 via Optical S/PDIF (both are higher but similarly priced).

I would agree in many ways - but the PCM-D50 is now, unfortunately, discontinued and I am told that the Marantz PMD661 has a very short battery life.

I would probably have put the PCM-D50 at the No.1 spot as the digital input is optical, had it not been discontinued.   

Sony's PCM D50 may be discontinued but it is still widely available.  B&H Photo, Full Compass, Guitar Center, Musicians Friend and Amazon all have them in stock.  It's got an optical digital input though instead of coaxial so obviously you'd need an mic-pre having an optical output to use it as a bit bucket.

[John Willett]

Sony's PCM D50 may be discontinued but it is still widely available.  B&H Photo, Full Compass, Guitar Center, Musicians Friend and Amazon all have them in stock.  It's got an optical digital input though instead of coaxial so obviously you'd need an mic-pre having an optical output to use it as a bit bucket.

The AETA MIXY has an optical output.

You can also get S-PDIF to Optical adaptors if you need them.
 

[Gutbucket]

Sounds like for most of your use, choosing a machine with good internal microphones is going to be quite important since that is how you will be using it most often.  I've not used one, but have heard the Sony's PCM D50's internal mics are quite good.  If John endorses the internal mics in the Olympus (which I've not heard either) I'm sure it's also good.  Both of those feaure directional mics.  The comments on omnis being more sensitive to the lowest couple octaves is true, however the arrangement of omnis so close together on a small machine is not optimal for a good stereo recording.  I'd think a machine with good quality built-in directional mics will make it easier for you to get good results.

External preamps and mics complicate things significantly.  If you can get results that are satisfactory with the built-in mics alone, you can greatly simplify the process of recording so you can concentrate on your performance and not on the recording of it!

[Church-Audio]

I would go with a Sony pcm 10 or pcm 50 Its got a great preamp built in and its a good quality recorder. The others you mention dont have great preamps and the signal to noise will not be anywhere as good as the sony will.

[dogmusic]

I'll second that about the Sony's, but I would strongly suggest you get the M10. It's small, light, easy to handle, and very fast to turn on and start recording. And it makes very fine recordings, either with the internal mics, or with even an inexpensive pair of externals using plug-in power. The more I use mine, the more I think it's a real gem of a machine, a classic.

I wonder if it will also be discontinued soon like the D50.…

[F.O.Bean]

I recommend the m10 everyday. I went from an sd 722 and sold it to buy 2 M10s

[John Willett]

Sounds like for most of your use, choosing a machine with good internal microphones is going to be quite important since that is how you will be using it most often.  I've not used one, but have heard the Sony's PCM D50's internal mics are quite good.  If John endorses the internal mics in the Olympus (which I've not heard either) I'm sure it's also good.  Both of those feaure directional mics.  The comments on omnis being more sensitive to the lowest couple octaves is true, however the arrangement of omnis so close together on a small machine is not optimal for a good stereo recording.  I'd think a machine with good quality built-in directional mics will make it easier for you to get good results.

External preamps and mics complicate things significantly.  If you can get results that are satisfactory with the built-in mics alone, you can greatly simplify the process of recording so you can concentrate on your performance and not on the recording of it!

The Sony PCM-D50 is certainly a nice unit - but it's now discontinued, expensive, and does not have XLR inputs.

I still rate the Olympus LS-100 and Tascam DR-100 II as the top two with XLRs (possibly the Marantz 661 as well, but I'm told the Marantz has poor battery life).

Purely analogue I think I would go with the Olympus - for using it as a "bit bucket" in the future I would go with the Tascam.

The Nagra SD and LINO are also very nice, but these don't have XLRs nor phantom power.

[DigiGal]

Sounds like for most of your use, choosing a machine with good internal microphones is going to be quite important since that is how you will be using it most often.  I've not used one, but have heard the Sony's PCM D50's internal mics are quite good.  If John endorses the internal mics in the Olympus (which I've not heard either) I'm sure it's also good.  Both of those feaure directional mics.  The comments on omnis being more sensitive to the lowest couple octaves is true, however the arrangement of omnis so close together on a small machine is not optimal for a good stereo recording.  I'd think a machine with good quality built-in directional mics will make it easier for you to get good results.

External preamps and mics complicate things significantly.  If you can get results that are satisfactory with the built-in mics alone, you can greatly simplify the process of recording so you can concentrate on your performance and not on the recording of it!

The Sony PCM-D50 is certainly a nice unit - but it's now discontinued, expensive, and does not have XLR inputs.

I still rate the Olympus LS-100 and Tascam DR-100 II as the top two with XLRs (possibly the Marantz 661 as well, but I'm told the Marantz has poor battery life).

Purely analogue I think I would go with the Olympus - for using it as a "bit bucket" in the future I would go with the Tascam.

The Nagra SD and LINO are also very nice, but these don't have XLRs nor phantom power.

PMD661 has XLR inputs and still in production with standard and MKII versions, additionally preamp modded units are available from Oade Brothers.  661 has a coaxial RCA S/PDIF input for use as bit bucket with; Sound Devices MixPre-D, Sound Devices USBPRE2, Grace Design Lunatec V3, Aeta Mixy, etc.

Yes, the Sony PCM D50 is discontinued but it is still widely available.  B&H Photo, Full Compass, Guitar Center, Musicians Friend and Amazon all have them in stock.  D50 can be used as Optical S/PDIF bit bucket with Sound Devices USBPRE2, Grace Design Lunatec V3 having optical output option, Aeta Mixy, etc.

I'd stay away from the Tascam for use as a bit bucket due to the poor way the digital input has been implemented.

[Gutbucket]

I recommend the m10 everyday. I went from an sd 722 and sold it to buy 2 M10s

Both good quality recorders, but the 722 has no internal mics at all AFAIK and I doubt you use the internals on the M10 much if at all.

If one must record a music performance using the integrated omnidirectional mics on any recorder, which may well be of decent quality but simply cannot be physically arranged optimally due to the small size of the machine, a baffle of some sort can help make up somewhat for the far too close spacing.  Photos of a small folding cardboard baffle for the original R09 (which is almost pointless as the R09 did not have very good omnis, although the baffle improved the configuration significantly) are here- http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=70134.msg939775#msg939775.  Something similar could be made for the M10 and would undoubtably help, but I'd still suggest directional mics for music recording using the built-in mics on any small recorder.

[mnkiwi]

Hi guys,
I have ben reading your comments and searching other sites and youtube to get some feeling of what the strengths and weaknesses of different devices are.
I think I am about to come to a decision after summarizing your opinions. Please let me know what you guys think.
Many people recommended Olympus LS-100. Main reason for many recommendations seem to be better quality mics and preamps. Next, people recommended Tascan DR-100 MKII. Some people seem to have likings to Tascam however there also seem to be some opposition. From what I understand people who like it favor it for reasons of quality preamp and better options. People who have lukewarm feeling about it seem to think it could be better but it's not. And even though this one was not one of my considerations, quite a few people seem to recommend Sony. I guess there are lot of people who were satisfied with its performance.
I now understand that many of you guys with much more experiences and expertise are used to higher standards of performance from these devices than me and therefor express your assessment of these devices according to your usual expectations.
Reading your responses, it inspired me to get deeper into understanding the mechanism of how quality recordings are made. I think it would be very exciting if I myself could produce something that's real quality recording.
But this portable device I am trying to buy would be just a first step to experiment with my sound so I plan to buy this one device alone and just play with it.
So I was thinking what's important to me.
I like that Olympus has nice looks and solid looking device with emphasis on good mics. I also like it has many different functions like tuner and metronome. (but I can just use tuner and metronome with my smartphone) What's minus points for me about this device is that it only runs on proprietary battery (what if I cannot recharge the battery in time or if this model or battery becomes obsolete?) and that this device doesn't have omnidirectional mic. (I think I would like to have both cardioid and omnidirectional internal mics if possible because lot of people said that recording classical music with omnidirectional mics often have better results) (at least I would be able to compare the difference of two if I had both)
Tascam DR-100 MKII is something I am seriously considering because it has both directional and omnidirectional internal mics (although I am not quite sure about quality of its omnidirectional mics since they look like just two pin wholes on the top). I also like the fact that it is powered both by rechargeable and standard AA batteries. What I don't much like is the fact that when it records, I can record only with either directional or omnidirectional mics at one time and not both at the same time.
Sony seems visually very pleasing but since it is in the process of becoming obsolete and I can't find a vendor easily, it would be out of my choices.
Marantz seem to be a device which can release its best potential when it's working with outside peripherals such as external mics. So I think it would not be one of my choices.
I am a bit hesitant to mention Roland R-26 because nobody put it as there first or second choices. But surprisingly it is the one I am seriously considering because it has both directional and omnidirectional internal mics. It uses standard AA batteries as its power source. It seems to have decent built in preamp. And i read some posts where they said it's a good device. And they say the reason why this device is not more popular is because people just don't seem to know much about it. On the other hand main points that makes me hesitant about choosing Roland are that maybe there is a reason why many people haven't used it. (maybe there were some weakness in the product that you guys knew to avoid.) The other point is just visual. It is a bit too big  and visually not very appealing to me as much as Olympus or Sony. But I am willing to look past visual if it can better serve my purpose.
So I am torn between Tascam DR-100 MKII and Roland R-26 at the moment but I think I seem to tend toward Roland R-26 a bit more.
What do you guys think? Is my logic flawed and anyone want to stop me if you think I am making a bad decision?
Please let me know I think I am going to make my decision pretty soon.
Wow this is really long post. Please excuse that I wrote without gathering my thoughts concisely.
Thank you guys anyway.

[earmonger]

You may be over thinking this.

I don't see why you want to record with omnis and directional mics at the same time. The characteristics of one type or the other type are going to be better for your particular situation, which is why units offering both have you switch between them. Mixing the two types  would be something a pro would do with a multitrack setup. (So perhaps there would be a cardioid/directional up close to the instrument, for detail, and omnis further away for the warmth of the room.)

And I don't see why you think you need more than two channels.  Are four or six channels really necessary for you?

If I understand correctly, what you want to do is get a recorder with built in mics and put it in the room where you are performing and hit the Record button. You can do that with the Sony PCM-M10 quite nicely, and with the money you save over a fancier recorder you can get some nice mics. The Sony D-50 is apparently discontinued, but the PCM-M10 is going strong.  However, if your microphones have XLR connections, the Sony does not. But if you are just planning to use the built-in mics, that's not a consideration.

The professional recordists here may be right that the PCM-M10's omnis do not create the most richly, perfectly  realistic stereo image (because they are too close together, not separated as far as your ears) but you're just recording a rehearsal to see how you sound, not making a professional CD. You'd be fine with the PCM-M10. Even better if you used it with a pair of outboard mics that you can now afford.

If you are in Europe, the Sony is way more expensive. Another similar recorder, more sensibly priced in Europe, is the Roland R-05. Or you could have a friend who's visiting the US grab a Sony for you...

[F.O.Bean]

You may be over thinking this.

I don't see why you want to record with omnis and directional mics at the same time. The characteristics of one type or the other type are going to be better for your particular situation, which is why units offering both have you switch between them. Mixing the two types  would be something a pro would do with a multitrack setup. (So perhaps there would be a cardioid/directional up close to the instrument, for detail, and omnis further away for the warmth of the room.)

And I don't see why you think you need more than two channels.  Are four or six channels really necessary for you?

If I understand correctly, what you want to do is get a recorder with built in mics and put it in the room where you are performing and hit the Record button. You can do that with the Sony PCM-M10 quite nicely, and with the money you save over a fancier recorder you can get some nice mics. The Sony D-50 is apparently discontinued, but the PCM-M10 is going strong.  However, if your microphones have XLR connections, the Sony does not. But if you are just planning to use the built-in mics, that's not a consideration.

The professional recordists here may be right that the PCM-M10's omnis do not create the most richly, perfectly  realistic stereo image (because they are too close together, not separated as far as your ears) but you're just recording a rehearsal to see how you sound, not making a professional CD. You'd be fine with the PCM-M10. Even better if you used it with a pair of outboard mics that you can now afford.

If you are in Europe, the Sony is way more expensive. Another similar recorder, more sensibly priced in Europe, is the Roland R-05. Or you could have a friend who's visiting the US grab a Sony for you...

THIS!!!!

[Tisbo]

You might look into the brand-new Olympus LS-14 designed for music recording. It has a pair of directional mics for stereo and a single omni mic especially to capture low frequencies down to 20Hz. Since it is so new, there are not many user reviews, but reports on the nature recordists site (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/message/49901) say it's sound quality compares well with the highly regarded LS-11. As you will see, the LS-14 is relatively inexpensive and has remarkable battery life. Good luck!

[John Willett]

You might look into the brand-new Olympus LS-14 designed for music recording. It has a pair of directional mics for stereo and a single omni mic especially to capture low frequencies down to 20Hz. Since it is so new, there are not many user reviews, but reports on the nature recordists site (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/message/49901) say it's sound quality compares well with the highly regarded LS-11. As you will see, the LS-14 is relatively inexpensive and has remarkable battery life. Good luck!

+1

(as long as you don't need external mics on an XLR at any time - in which case I would go for the LS-100)

[Karl]

Sounds like for most of your use, choosing a machine with good internal microphones is going to be quite important since that is how you will be using it most often.  I've not used one, but have heard the Sony's PCM D50's internal mics are quite good.  If John endorses the internal mics in the Olympus (which I've not heard either) I'm sure it's also good.  Both of those feaure directional mics.  The comments on omnis being more sensitive to the lowest couple octaves is true, however the arrangement of omnis so close together on a small machine is not optimal for a good stereo recording.  I'd think a machine with good quality built-in directional mics will make it easier for you to get good results.

External preamps and mics complicate things significantly.  If you can get results that are satisfactory with the built-in mics alone, you can greatly simplify the process of recording so you can concentrate on your performance and not on the recording of it!

The Sony PCM-D50 is certainly a nice unit - but it's now discontinued, expensive, and does not have XLR inputs.

I still rate the Olympus LS-100 and Tascam DR-100 II as the top two with XLRs (possibly the Marantz 661 as well, but I'm told the Marantz has poor battery life).

Purely analogue I think I would go with the Olympus - for using it as a "bit bucket" in the future I would go with the Tascam.

The Nagra SD and LINO are also very nice, but these don't have XLRs nor phantom power.

PMD661 has XLR inputs and still in production with standard and MKII versions, additionally preamp modded units are available from Oade Brothers.  661 has a coaxial RCA S/PDIF input for use as bit bucket with; Sound Devices MixPre-D, Sound Devices USBPRE2, Grace Design Lunatec V3, Aeta Mixy, etc.

Yes, the Sony PCM D50 is discontinued but it is still widely available.  B&H Photo, Full Compass, Guitar Center, Musicians Friend and Amazon all have them in stock.  D50 can be used as Optical S/PDIF bit bucket with Sound Devices USBPRE2, Grace Design Lunatec V3 having optical output option, Aeta Mixy, etc.

I'd stay away from the Tascam for use as a bit bucket due to the poor way the digital input has been implemented.

DigiGal, why do you say this about the Tascam? Is it because of the odd size input jack?

[weroflu]

I have couple of rather good microphones so it would be a plus if I could plug in phantom powered microphones to make richer recording in bigger rooms.

Which mics would these be?

90%-95% of your sound will come from the microphone as you are probably aware.

You are intending to use the built-in mic from the portable recorder for home recording, and external mics for rehearsal hall recordings?

So given the above, just choose the recorder with the best mics as the A/D conversion will be relatively negligible at this level.

I also think you should spring for a higher-level recorder right off that bat since as soon as you start recording with good mics you will be in this game forever. Not that any of the choices mentioned are bad at all. So spring for something with really good preamps and phantom power built in right off the bat and save yourself trouble down the road. A good way to rationalize this is that you are a musician and it's not just for fun, so take yourself and your music career as seriously as possible and get the best equipment you can afford sooner than later. I also think you don't need more than 2 tracks.

[DigiGal]

DigiGal, why do you say this about the Tascam? Is it because of the odd size input jack?

The DR100's S/PDIF input uses an odd TRRS derivative of a 2.5mm connecter.  Seems to me that poor quality connector could be it's Achilles Heel inhibiting the practical use of S/PDIF input on the DR100, especially in the long term.

My speculation is that it will work alright for a while then develop connector problems that would be detrimental to the digital signal.  2.5mm TRRS provides little contact area and is not a 75 ohm impedance matched connector, it simply wasn't designed with high bandwidth digital audio signals in mind.  You'd definitely want to use short cable lengths and preferably low sample rates for best stability and protection against dropouts or glitches.  Consumer S/PDIF signals are low voltage (should not fall below 0.5 V p-p) and do not allow much margin for error due to cable loss or impedance mismatch.  IMO, a 2.5mm TRRS digital input connector is a failure waiting to happen.

[Karl]

I see the concern and would agree it would have been much better if they could have used a regular coaxial connector.

But you say its speculation...how about real world reports of how it works?