Topic: Multiple External Microphones?

[gossling]

I seem to be missing something.  How do you all connect multiple external microphones to a device like the Edirol R-09HR in the field? If you need an external 2-4 channel preamp to connect them to the recorder, how do you power the preamp? How do battery boxes fit into all of this? If I needed an external preamp, I'd take as cheap a multiple channel preamp as possible (http://www.zzounds.com/item--STOPR4).  Any objections?

I'm currently debating between Edirol R-09 HR, H2, Microtrack II.  I don't see what the Edirol has over the H2 that makes it so much more expensive BESIDES the quiet mic input.  I would never be using this because my applications that would require external microphones will be going through an external preamp into the line-in of whatever device.  Or, in the MTII's case, directly into the TRS inputs.  I'll mostly be recording chamber music/jazz and will need multiple microphones for the recordings I do at home.  When I'm recording a concert, I'll probably just connect one microphone to the mic input of whatever device and point and shoot.  In the H2's case, I'll just use internal mics, due to its noisy mic input.

I'm leaning towards the MTII because of its two phantom-powered TRS inputs (I'll usually be using condensers).  This would allow me to connect two mics to the recorder simultaneously without any external preamp or box or anything.  Mics are balanced, so the unbalanced issues with the TRS inputs shouldn't be a problem, right?

My final application would be accepting and recording feed from a sound board of a live concert.  Would the output of these things always be analog? Or could the output potentially be digital (in which case I will definitely go with the MTII).


Thanks!

[cybergaloot]

I'm certainly no expert but next to the mics the preamp is the most important part of the chain in my way of thinking. I don't know anything about the unit you listed. I'd do some serious searching on the web for reviews. It may be fine, I dunno. It certainly is cheap. I looked at the photo of the back of the unit and it takes AC power so using batteries is out without an inverter. Maybe check http://www.naiant.com/studiostore/preamplifiers.html for a lightweight, portable 4 channel mixer.

The R-09HR is a bit more robust than the H2, and more respected. I have an H2 and have played with an R-09. The R-09 just plain feels more solid. But I have gotten good recordings out of the H2 both using the internal mics and using a Church-Audio preamp and mics running into the line in on the H2. I've also knocked my H2 off a bar onto a concrete floor with no damage. Its tougher than it appears.

I've seen two people have problems with the Microtrack II in the field. One had trouble getting it to recognize a CF card and the other had problems with it shutting down for no apparent reason. Maybe that was just two isolated incidents. I'd say of the three units, the R-09HR is the most popular right now.

For all of the units mentioned, all will accept two mics, you'll have to mix on the fly for more than two mics.

[Javier Cinakowski]

completely of-topic, but this SM Pro Audio company makes some interesting stuff.


Look at this:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=480178&Q=&is=REG&A=details

[Church-Audio]

The most important part of doing multichannel live into two tracks is MONITORING being able to hear what your mixing to your recorder because you will not have the isolation needed to get the balance correct. Because you will need to mix this on the fly... Not something that is easy to do in a live situation. You might be better off trying to run two recorders and sync them up later on then trying to mix on the fly to two track. I would find this task impossible in a loud situation if you were recording a quiet show it could be done.. The preamp your looking at has some pretty good specs -120 db noise pretty impressive. I dont know if the quality is good or if the specs are correct the distortion spec is misleading because we dont know at what signal level 0.5% is achieved. But for $79 it seems pretty cheap.

The other issue is you will need to power this preamp your looking at from an AC power source because the input voltage is AC not DC so for 100% portable applications, this will not work with out an inverter ( that will add noise ) to your recordings.

One method for syncing two recorders is to use a sharp noise like a hand clap or something that is very short decay time but you must use an external cd player with a Y cable so that the noise hits both recorders at the same time then you would leave both recorders on record and patch them in hot to the perspective preamps or mics. That way later on you can align both of them up to the clap. Then after that is done mix them down to two track. Once the tracks are locked in you can remove the noise and the patching in part and have two synced live sources..

There are also times when you want to delay one of the sources. For example you have aboard feed we can consider this to be at 0ms. Then you add room mics they were 60 feet in front of the mixing board we can add roughly 60 ms of audio delay to the mic feed and bring them back in time to where the board is so that the image is time coherent (because generally speaking the rough speed of sound is one ms per foot)

Remember there are no limits to what can be done in audio only your imagination. But everything costs money and do not be in a hurry to buy. Think about what it is you want to achieve and decide if its doable in a live situation.
ask lots of questions like your doing now.
Chris

[Church-Audio]

completely of-topic, but this SM Pro Audio company makes some interesting stuff.


Look at this:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=480178&Q=&is=REG&A=details

\

This is kinda strange though....

Dynamic Range Not specified by manufacturer
Frequency Response Not specified by manufacturer
THD + N Not specified by manufacturer

I wonder why? I mean specs dont mean everything but when there are no specs at all I see that as a huge red flag.

[cybergaloot]

Since you said "I'll mostly be recording chamber music/jazz" you ~might~ be able to hear the mix using the built in monitor features but Chris is right, in the field recording anything approaching electric band levels, forget it. You'll need a good set of headphones and a headphone amplifier and even then you wont hear well. You are better off capturing each channel you need then mixing them later when you can hear.

If you an afford it, you might consider an Edirol R-44. Its getting great reviews and you can grab four channels at once.

[Ozpeter]

Unless you are indeed skilled at getting a mix from multiple mics to stereo (usually with a small mixer) correct on location, then a multichannel recorder is the way to go.  The R-44 indeed offers good value for four channels, but if you want 8 mic channels you are looking at much more expensive devices if battery power is an essential feature.  If you don't really need battery power, the cheapest entry to the 8 channel world is probably the Korg D888 which I personally like a lot, or you could use a laptop and multichannel firewire interface (or Tascam offers an inexpensive USB one).

[gossling]

For all of the units mentioned, all will accept two mics, you'll have to mix on the fly for more than two mics.

Wait, how? I thought the Edirol and H2 each have one mic input? Or are you saying to plug a mic to the line in also? I don't know about the Edirol, but the H2 cannot record from both line in and mic in simultaneously. 

I will only use 4 microphones at home or in a studio.  I will be still using my portable recorder because I do not have an audio interface for my laptop, and setting up a laptop + audio interface is a pain.  The problem is that if I needed to record with 4 microphones, the SM Pro Audio PR4V could not output to the MTII with good results (unbalanced out).  So until I get a really nice preamp with 4 channels and a balanced output, I could not use the MTII with 4 microphones.  (Again correct me if I'm wrong).

Yeah, the R-44 looks great but I am not in a position to make such a large purchase. 

[cybergaloot]

For all of the units mentioned, all will accept two mics, you'll have to mix on the fly for more than two mics.

Wait, how? I thought the Edirol and H2 each have one mic input? Or are you saying to plug a mic to the line in also? I don't know about the Edirol, but the H2 cannot record from both line in and mic in simultaneously.

 Both the external mic jack and line in jack on both units are stereo. Stereo = 2 mics.

[gossling]

Both the external mic jack and line in jack on both units are stereo. Stereo = 2 mics.

Oh! That makes sense.  So if I output a 4-channel preamp to an Edirol R-09HR or H2, would the recorder be able to process all of the channels? If not, could I buy a 4-track mixer with onboard preamp and output that to one of these recorders?

Thanks, that cleared up a lot, I think.

[cybergaloot]

What goes into the H2 or R-09 will be two channels, i.e. stereo. The H2 is only four channel using the internal mics. There is a site somewhere on the web where a guy converted his H2 to input 4 channels but I wouldn't recommend it. Not only is it a tricky mod but not likely to work very well. For the hassle you would be better off with a four channel recorder like the R-44.

So, to input multiple mics (more than two) into the R-09 or H2 you will need an external preamp/mixer. The mics will have to be externally mixed down to two channels. The H2 is cheap enough that you might consider having two if you want to run four mics, then combine the two recordings. That does bring in a new level of problems though (phase & timing issues).

Also remember that if you use condenser mics you'll need phantom power. An inexpensive battery box will work for mini mics, for full 48v phantom power you'll need a more expensive battery box. The preamp/mixer ~may~ provide phantom power. Make sure it matches your mics.

Here's an external preamp that will power both mini-mics and full 48v phantom powered mics. So far I haven't found reviews that apply to what we do since it is a new product. It can only handle two mics though. You can use it as a computer audio interface or as a stand alone preamp. http://www.floridamusicco.com/proddetail~prod~tracker_pre~partner~googlesoundcards.htm

If you look at portable mixers, look to see if it can be run on external DC power. Some of the newer ones can be tied to a computer via USB or firewire.

[Ozpeter]

The only battery mixer that springs to mind at low cost with phantom is the Behringer one (IBB1002 I think) - but then again, have a rummage on the Naiant site and check out the range of customised small mixers there.  I suspect that four preamps plus a separate mixer is not going to be cheap, and there will be some function overlap between the two.  If you want something that takes four phantom mics and mixes them to stereo, that's a mixer.  Do make sure that whatever you spend overall isn't so close to an R-44 that you might as well have gone that route - it's a very neat little package and with four separate channels you can play with the mix afterwards in a DAW and really get it right.

[gossling]

Ok, so I'll go with a mixer then.  I was just browsing through zzounds and came across that Behringer UB1002, but it only has two onboard preamps. 

Non-battery powered 4-XLR inputs + 4 preamps w/ phantom I was able to find:
- Behringer XENYX 1202 Mixer
- Yamaha MG102C Stereo Mixer
- Peavey PV6 Mixer

Of the above, which brand typically has the best reputation in audio? Do mixers output balanced or unbalanced or does it vary? Is it assumed that the standard consumer-grade mixer mixes to stereo, unless otherwise stated? Do you guys know about how large these things are? I've looked for dimensions, but haven't found any specifics.

I'll keep in mind total expenses and make sure it doesn't approach the R-44, but I doubt it'll get even close...all I would really need to buy is a relatively inexpensive recorder (160-260) and mixer (100-200), right? Functionally, what's the difference between a single R-44 and an H2/Edirol/MT2 with an external mixer/preamp combo? Outside of the portability.  How long would the R-44's batteries even last with 3-4 phantom powers turned on?

The two H2 prospect seems interesting, but the mic inputs suck...maybe double internal mics? Then you could have eight microphones at once! How much would an extra four internal H2 microphones help the overall mix, would you estimate?

Just to clarify: a single stereo mic is essentially two microphones in one? And XLR stereo mics output with dual XLR cables or mini-XLR cables?


Well it will probably be a while before I will buy the mixer, so for now the best option would the the MT2 with its phantom powered 1/4" inputs.  I could record with two separate high quality condensers which would suit most of my purposes for a while.  Or, for only a little more, I could buy the mixer now and save money by sticking with the H2 (about 70 dollars less than the MT2).  But, whenever I only need two microphones, I would have the option with the MT2 to just take the recorder and not have to lug a mixer around.  With an H2, I'd pretty much always need my mixer.  If I was stealth or portable recording, I'd be stuck with the H2's internal mics (not bad by any means), whereas with the MT2 I could bring along a small dynamic or electret microphone and stash the recorder in my pocket and probably get better results.  But with the MT2, I wouldn't be able to record directly from my unbalanced electronic keyboard directly.  And I know the MT2's battery life is not good, but I came across this, which should solve battery issues: http://www.batteryspace.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=2970


Agh, dilemma...Are there any options I've overlooked?

On a pretty much unrelated note, how good is the Sony ECM-MS907 compared to the internal mics of these devices (specifically of the H2 and T-mic of the MT2)? I have it and I was wondering if it would be a decent substitute for the noisy T-mic of the MT2 for small recordings.

Thanks again!

[Ozpeter]

I was just browsing through zzounds and came across that Behringer UB1002, but it only has two onboard preamps. 

Five surely??  Maybe someone can clarify.  Gotta go... more tomorrow.

[cybergaloot]

Do make sure that whatever you spend overall isn't so close to an R-44 that you might as well have gone that route - it's a very neat little package and with four separate channels you can play with the mix afterwards in a DAW and really get it right.

Cost is certainly one factor, convenience is another. Having those separate components and their associated wiring and power requirements can be a real hassle and has many possible points of failure. You might be able to save one or two hundred dollars but a year from now you might wish you had spent the extra bucks.

One factor in going the multiple component route is versatility. You could carry only what you need.

I think the R-44 is the best route. It may seem like too much money but I think its worth it in the long run. It has better preamps than the H2, you only need to worry about powering one unit, it is a well designed, relatively small package, all channels will be in sync, and if later you think you want more channels you can chain two of them together.

[sailcat]

sounds like you want the R-44, or another deck that records at least 4 channels. Otherwise, you're trying to mix your multiple mics down to 2 channels on the fly -- difficult in most situations, as others have mentioned, and also requires constant, or at least frequent, attention, which can be a pain if you want to enjoy the show.

You're right that even buying a small 4 channel mixer + recorder will still not equal the cost of the R44, but IMO, you're not getting nearly the functionality either. If you're going to use more than 2 mics, you've got way more options in post if you can record each mic separately. Save up for the R44, or consider a used R4 - you'll be happier i n the long run. Or, record in stereo for a while and see whether it meets your needs.

[cybergaloot]

Ok, so I'll go with a mixer then.  I was just browsing through zzounds and came across that Behringer UB1002, but it only has two onboard preamps. 

Non-battery powered 4-XLR inputs + 4 preamps w/ phantom I was able to find:
- Behringer XENYX 1202 Mixer
- Yamaha MG102C Stereo Mixer
- Peavey PV6 Mixer

Of the above, which brand typically has the best reputation in audio? Do mixers output balanced or unbalanced or does it vary? Is it assumed that the standard consumer-grade mixer mixes to stereo, unless otherwise stated? Do you guys know about how large these things are? I've looked for dimensions, but haven't found any specifics.

Try looking at the manufacturer's web sites for more detailed specs. I can't say which is best since I haven't used any of them. I've heard both Behringer and Peavey sneered at for other things they make but that doesn't really mean anything. Most companies have good stuff and some crap. Harmony.com might have some reviews worth reading.

I'll keep in mind total expenses and make sure it doesn't approach the R-44, but I doubt it'll get even close...all I would really need to buy is a relatively inexpensive recorder (160-260) and mixer (100-200), right? Functionally, what's the difference between a single R-44 and an H2/Edirol/MT2 with an external mixer/preamp combo? Outside of the portability.  How long would the R-44's batteries even last with 3-4 phantom powers turned on?

Look at the team R-44 section of this forum for info about battery life.

The two H2 prospect seems interesting, but the mic inputs suck...maybe double internal mics? Then you could have eight microphones at once! How much would an extra four internal H2 microphones help the overall mix, would you estimate?

Yes and no. Remember that the H2 has two mics facing one way and two facing backwards. Its intended for surround sound.

Just to clarify: a single stereo mic is essentially two microphones in one? And XLR stereo mics output with dual XLR cables or mini-XLR cables?

Yes, a stereo mic is two mics in one. They can have any of an assortment of connectors including some proprietary stuff but the most common is 1/8" (3.5mm) TRS (Tip Ring Sleeve, AKA a stereo plug), XLR and mini-XLR. XLR is good because it is balanced and is a very common connector. For the H2 & R-09 they use the 1/8" (3.5mm) TRS. The mini-XLR is fine, just not as common and may need an adapter at times.

Well it will probably be a while before I will buy the mixer, so for now the best option would the the MT2 with its phantom powered 1/4" inputs.  I could record with two separate high quality condensers which would suit most of my purposes for a while.  Or, for only a little more, I could buy the mixer now and save money by sticking with the H2 (about 70 dollars less than the MT2).  But, whenever I only need two microphones, I would have the option with the MT2 to just take the recorder and not have to lug a mixer around.  With an H2, I'd pretty much always need my mixer.  If I was stealth or portable recording, I'd be stuck with the H2's internal mics (not bad by any means), whereas with the MT2 I could bring along a small dynamic or electret microphone and stash the recorder in my pocket and probably get better results.  But with the MT2, I wouldn't be able to record directly from my unbalanced electronic keyboard directly.  And I know the MT2's battery life is not good, but I came across this, which should solve battery issues: http://www.batteryspace.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=2970


Agh, dilemma...Are there any options I've overlooked?

On a pretty much unrelated note, how good is the Sony ECM-MS907 compared to the internal mics of these devices (specifically of the H2 and T-mic of the MT2)? I have it and I was wondering if it would be a decent substitute for the noisy T-mic of the MT2 for small recordings.

Thanks again!

I haven't used a Sony ECM-MS907 so I have no opinion. I'm personally very happy with the Church-Audio mics and preamps. Not that other folks don't also make good gear, but Chris Church's stuff is a good bang for the buck. Here's a sample for you I recorded last weekend using the new Church-Audio CA-14-omni mics, into a CA-9000 preamp into the line in on an H2:
http://yodaslai.ipower.com/bradfordvilleblues/media/ChrisDuarte-2008-11-22-CA-14omni-Set1--3.wav
The mics were setup at stage lip.

If you are interested in buying Chris's gear, contact him through the retail section of this forum. It will save you a few bucks off what he charges on eBay. Watch for sales, deals on shipping, etc. Occasionally there is some used stuff in the yard sale and he does have a program where he sells some of his preamps that have been used. Also allow PLENTY of time for delivery. He's not the speediest guy on the planet but you WILL get the stuff and he stands behind it. BTW, I get nothing for this testimonial! I just like his stuff.

[rastasean]

While I don't have an experience with the R44, I wouldn't mind having one. 

Why do you want to take FOUR mics and mix them down to two channels? Most boards at shows are far, far more than two or four channels. Most people on here have two channel recorders and have their mics plugged into it, not into a mixer.

I have used the Sony mic and its pretty cool since it has 180* and 90* (I believe) but I didn't and wouldn't buy it new. I picked it up in a pawn shop for about half the new price. The shape of the mic quite weird and the mic mount is pretty useless since its got a huge hole in it. I wouldn't expect great results from a jazz show with it.

good luck

[gossling]

Why do you want to take FOUR mics and mix them down to two channels? Most boards at shows are far, far more than two or four channels. Most people on here have two channel recorders and have their mics plugged into it, not into a mixer.

Do these boards even output to stereo? If not, the whole idea wouldn't work.  If so, I would record at line level with the H2 or Edirol straight to the board, no mixer involved.

Anyways, since most of these handheld recorders are two-channel (H2, Edirol, MT2), is there any way to use two separate external microphones.  Would it be possible, for instance, to record cello with one mic and piano with another...without an external preamp? Would some sort of an adapter do the job? Like 2 female XLR - 1/8"?

I see now why Edirol R-09HR is the highest regarded handheld recorder.  I've always regarded mic input as a non-factor because I thought I'd be using an external mixer, but now I know better.  Not that an external mixer with an H2 is no longer an option, it's just that with four separate channels, like you all mentioned, there are lots more options in post production.  The problem with the R-09HR is that I have no way of connecting high quality condensers to the recorder, because it lacks phantom power. 

I probably would go with the R-44, only you basically need to bring a microphone and the R-44 with you everywhere even for small, unimportant recordings, because the internal microphones are not up to par.  With that kind of money, I expect portability, sound quality, and functionality.  It seems to only fully deliver on two of the three. 

Thanks.

[Kevin T]

Forget the externals your making your life too complicated:) Buy 2 H2's. Set one up in room using 2 rear 120degree mics. Take the second  & send it the board out to stereo Line in It will be "stereo" if the board is mixed as such. input & align both files on PC with Audacity. Done:)

[cybergaloot]

Do these boards even output to stereo? If not, the whole idea wouldn't work.  If so, I would record at line level with the H2 or Edirol straight to the board, no mixer involved.

Anyways, since most of these handheld recorders are two-channel (H2, Edirol, MT2), is there any way to use two separate external microphones.  Would it be possible, for instance, to record cello with one mic and piano with another...without an external preamp? Would some sort of an adapter do the job? Like 2 female XLR - 1/8"?

I see now why Edirol R-09HR is the highest regarded handheld recorder.  I've always regarded mic input as a non-factor because I thought I'd be using an external mixer, but now I know better.  Not that an external mixer with an H2 is no longer an option, it's just that with four separate channels, like you all mentioned, there are lots more options in post production.  The problem with the R-09HR is that I have no way of connecting high quality condensers to the recorder, because it lacks phantom power. 

I probably would go with the R-44, only you basically need to bring a microphone and the R-44 with you everywhere even for small, unimportant recordings, because the internal microphones are not up to par.  With that kind of money, I expect portability, sound quality, and functionality.  It seems to only fully deliver on two of the three. 

Thanks.

If your board has a pan control, it outputs stereo.

You can run two separate mics with H2 & R-09, you'll just need an adapter. You can hook up mics requiring full phantom power if you use the appropriate battery box.

Most of us aren't concerned with the internal mics in the R-44. Most of us forego the internal mics in favor of externals so that we get the type of mics we want (make & model, type of caps, etc.), the placement we want (on a stand or clamped to a rail, etc.) and the mic configuration we want (X-Y, A-B, ORTF, DIN, etc.). I find both the internal mics and the speaker in the R-44 to be of little interest to me. Four channels with decent preamps and phantom power in a nice package, now that's what's interesting!

[gossling]

It seems like few you of you actually ever need or use phantom power.  So many of you guys love the R-09HR and it doesn't have phantom.  So what kind of microphones do you use? Are they acceptable for use outside of field recording? I've looked at the AKG C1000 accepts a 9v battery in addition to phantom power.  Are there any other condensers like this? This would help me choose between purchasing a recorder with or without phantom power...I'd rather not use an external box for phantom power.

Thanks

[cybergaloot]

It seems like few you of you actually ever need or use phantom power.

Not true. Most of us run condenser mics that require phantom power. Most of us use some sort of external power supply for those mics or have a recorder that can provide phantom power. For the R-09 or the H2 we use either a battery box or a small preamp that also powers the mics. When you get into full sized mics that require higher voltages we are usually using a different rig.

I run two different rigs:
CA-11 mics>CA-9000 preamp>H2, (here the preamp powers the mics and all the H2 does is the A/D conversion and acts as a bit bucket)
or my main rig
Studio Project C4 mics>Edirol UA-5(run as a computer interface)>laptop, (here the UA-5 provides full 48v)

That E-MU unit I posted the link to will power either mini-mics or mics requiring 48v. Its the only unit I've seen that will do that. It can also be used as a computer interface or as a stand alone preamp. It can be powered by an external battery pack. And its cheap. It would allow you to run just about any mics and output to a small handheld recorder or use a laptop. The only problem is that I don't know how good the preamp actually is soundwise but reviews so far say its ok. That's if you trust the reviews, I'd like to see more from people who are into field recording.

The external mic input on the R-09 and the H2 will power mini-mics. The line in does not. It will not provide a full 48v though.

Somewhere you are going to have to make compromises. You are not going to get a tiny package for little money that does everything very well and runs all night on a couple of AA batteries. I'd suggest downloading some stuff from the Live Music Archive, looking at the gear the taper used (most list it) and see what sounds good to you. Remember that there are factors besides gear like where the mics are positioned and how they are positioned. Was the PA mix good? That sort of stuff. A good book to read up on some of this stuff is Barrett's "Recording Music on Location." Maybe find a taper in your area and get them to show you what they do. I know that one of the members here that lives in my area was very helpful when I got into this (and still is). And keep reading here and keep asking questions!

[gossling]

If you want to use phantom-powered mics, why are you interested in onboard mics?  I'm getting confused . . . but the H4 has both options, anyway.

Haha, ok: my device should serve two functions.  One will be to make high quality recordings with either good onboard preamps or an external mixer/preamp and external microphones.  The second will be to record lessons, practice, rehearsals, and concerts with little setup involved (i.e. with internal microphones). 

You might ask some studio types what they think of the C1000 

Should I take that to mean that it's not considered to be a good microphone by studio-oriented engineers?

That E-MU does look interesting.  What's the difference, functionally, between that and just getting a 2-channel mixer with preamps? I know it can be also used as an audio interface but:

One thing I never understood was the difference between running these mixers and preamps into a laptop + audio interface vs. running them straight into a portable recorder.  Does it have something to do with the fact that these recorders are limited by stereo whereas laptops are virtually unlimited track-wise?

And keep reading here and keep asking questions!

Will do.

[cybergaloot]

That E-MU does look interesting.  What's the difference, functionally, between that and just getting a 2-channel mixer with preamps? I know it can be also used as an audio interface but:

A mixer usually has more controls, i.e. an EQ section and maybe some onboard effects. They are usually intended to accept multiple inputs of varying types, places to hook up outboard effects and may provide several outputs. Read the specs carefully! Often a stand alone preamp will have better sound than a mixer. You tend to get what you pay for.

One thing I never understood was the difference between running these mixers and preamps into a laptop + audio interface vs. running them straight into a portable recorder.  Does it have something to do with the fact that these recorders are limited by stereo whereas laptops are virtually unlimited track-wise?

A recorder usually either has no operating system software or more likely now has some stripped down & embedded flavor of Linux. Recorders are dedicated devices where as a computer can do many other things. Sometimes a dedicated device is better. You are not likely to "blue screen" a recorder and most of the ones we have been talking about have no moving parts. Moving parts are both a common point of failure and draw a lot of power. A recorder is usually lighter than a laptop, doesn't take as long to boot and doesn't cast a lot of light in a darkened venue. A recorder is also quieter, no fans!

Most of the computer interfaces are mono or stereo but there are multiple channels ones. Presonus makes an eight channel one that a lot of musicians use in their home studios. That doesn't mean its great (I have no idea), its just affordable. But you have to watch the computer interfaces in regarding to how they hook up (USB or Firewire) and how they are powered. Some are powered via the USB cable, some require AC. If it draws from the USB cable, the laptop battery life will decrease. Usually you can not hook up more than one interface at a time. A computer can handle many "channels" but it will depend on the CPU and memory as to how well it will work. I mean, 16 channels into a old 600MHz computer with 256MB of RAM just isn't going to work real well.

One trick of the E-MU Tracker Pre is that it will produce 48v phantom power off USB power. That's pretty slick! To get 48V out of it without a computer you will need an external battery pack like an external DVD battery.

The USB on the H2 & R-09 is not intended to power anything. I don't know about the R-09 but the H2 can be used as a recording interface of sorts (internal mics only) by hooking it to a computer via USB. I haven't tried it yet. No need since I run better mics with my DAW setup. But it might be fun to play with one day.

[gossling]

Just verifying that all of these setups are possible (which, do you think would yield best reults?):
1. Any Mic -> E-MU Tracker Pre (bus-powered) -> Laptop USB port
2. Any Mic -> E-MU Tracker Pre (external power) -> H2 line input
3. Any Mic -> E-MU Tracker Pre (external power) -> Edirol R-09HR line input
4. Condenser Mic (with adapter) -> MT2's phantom powered 1/4" inputs

Would I get noticeably better results with an Edirol R-09HR at the end of the chain than the H2? I know the H2's line input is extremely sensitive, but I've read that problems can be avoided by controlling the output of the source.  To what extent does this hold true in practice? Also, just to confirm, the second chain would rely on the H2's A/D converter, right? Is this not as good as the E-MU's converter? How much better are the E-MU's preamps be than the MT2's external mic preamps?

Here are some specs for the E-MU's preamps:

Combo Preamplifiers (2)
Type: E-MU CurrentMorph combo mic preamp and Hi-Z/line input

A/D converter: AK5385

Max Level: +6.4dBV bal/unbal (+6.9 dBu)
- Hi-Z/line balanced input: +6.9dBV bal/unbal (+9.1dBu)
- Microphone Preamplifier: +6.4dBV bal/unbal (+8.6dBu)

Frequency Response (min gain, 20Hz-20kHz): +0.0/-0.03dB

Dynamic Range (A-weighted, 1kHz, min gain): 112dB

Signal-to-Noise Ratio (A-weighted, min gain): 112dB

THD+N (1kHz at - 1dBFS, min gain): -102dB (.0007%)

EIN (20Hz-20kHz, 150ohm, unweighted): -127dBu

Input Impedance:
- Hi-Z/line balanced input: 1 Mohm
- Microphone Preamplifi er: 1.5 Kohms

Anyways, I am still having difficulty understanding the pros of using a computer over one of these portable recorders.  Can't you take the recordings you made with the portable recorder, transfer them to the computer, and edit them then? Why is this less effective? What is meant by "processing" on a DAW? Does this have any effect on the overall sound quality? Is the portable recorders' software simply not effective enough to process all of the information it is receiving perfectly?

Anyone know where I can find the "optional 5v power supply" for the E-MU Tracker? Could any 5v power supply work?

Thanks!

[Ozpeter]

the H2 can be used as a recording interface of sorts (internal mics only)

The H2 can be used as a PC audio interface with its own mics, external mics (with usual disappointing noise...) or line input.

That E-MU device looks pretty neat I have to say - I'd not come across it before.

I don't think that used with the H2 you'd find the result disappointing - but I've not used the R-09HR so I'm not prepared fully to comment.  You should have no trouble controlling levels at the E-Mu to suit the H2 input.  The H2 is a great little point and shoot stand alone device for rehearsal recording (at the price).

The laptop thing really is just a matter of the convenience.  Portable recording gear can be used hung round your neck.  Laptops can't.  PC's are great for post production or for use with multichannel interfaces on location where bulk isn't a problem.

[cybergaloot]

the H2 can be used as a recording interface of sorts (internal mics only)

The H2 can be used as a PC audio interface with its own mics, external mics (with usual disappointing noise...) or line input.

I stand corrected. I haven't used it as a computer interface myself.

That E-MU device looks pretty neat I have to say - I'd not come across it before.

I'm not pushing the E-MU unit, just pointing it out. The issue about sound quality is still out but I bet its acceptable, just not superior. Of course what's acceptable depends on the user. For $140 how good can it be? I doubt the E-MU unit is the best by any means but may be a very affordable way to get some versatility when starting out and the sound quality is probably acceptable within reasonable limits. You can get three of the E-MU units for the cost of one of the much anticipated Five-Fishes preamps and whole pile of them for the cost of a V3.  Why do those units cost so much more? Once you get past a certain point in basic quality, every step up costs an increasing amount on a geometric scale. To get twice the sonic quality of the E-MU unit you may spend four times as much or probably more.

I don't think that used with the H2 you'd find the result disappointing - but I've not used the R-09HR so I'm not prepared fully to comment.  You should have no trouble controlling levels at the E-Mu to suit the H2 input.  The H2 is a great little point and shoot stand alone device for rehearsal recording (at the price).

Exactly. There is obviously better gear but I know you can get decent recordings with an H2. Maybe not superior but certainly acceptable. You can get bad recordings too if used incorrectly but that goes for any recorder. As compared to cassettes and mini-discs, I think it beats them hands down. Its a whole lot less expensive and cumbersome than a DAT recorder and a whole lot cheaper than most other recorders. I'd consider the R-09 a bit of a step up in quality but you lose the four internal mic capability and I'm not sure if it can be used as a computer interface.

Referring to the H2 as a "point and shoot" is a good analogy. There's a reason there are $100 point and shoot digital cameras and pro level digital cameras costing 10 times as much or more. The H2 is a point and shoot. You can get good "pictures" within its limits. It takes good snapshots. If you want pro level you will have to spend pro dollars.

[cybergaloot]

Just verifying that all of these setups are possible (which, do you think would yield best reults?):
1. Any Mic -> E-MU Tracker Pre (bus-powered) -> Laptop USB port
2. Any Mic -> E-MU Tracker Pre (external power) -> H2 line input
3. Any Mic -> E-MU Tracker Pre (external power) -> Edirol R-09HR line input
4. Condenser Mic (with adapter) -> MT2's phantom powered 1/4" inputs

With #1 the Tracker Pre will be acting as both a preamp and an A/D converter, the laptop is just a bit bucket and doesn't affect sound quality much if at all.

With #2 & #3 the tracker Pre will just be acting as just a preamp and the recorders will be doing the A/D conversion. The line in on the units ~could~ affect sound quality.

With #4 the MT2 will be the preamp and will be doing the A/D conversion.

As far as which will give you the best results, that's hard to say. First you have to assume the same mics for all the set ups. I've never used a MT2 so I can't say anything about its sound quality. I have heard some good recordings made with one though. I've only played with an R-09 and can't really comment there either but I've heard many recordings and it seems to be fine. I've made many recordings using the H2 line in but with a CA-9000 preamp and they have been pretty good!

While sound quality is obviously high on our priorities when evaluating a unit, so is a number of other factors like size & weight (H2 beats the R-09 here), power (consumption and how to power it in the field), construction quality (R-09 beats the H2 here), what media it uses (I like SDHC cards), price, features, ease of use, stability (MT 2 looses here from what I've seen), etc. What format and sound quality ranges are you wanting? Want to record to MP3 sometimes or always record as wav files? Do you want to stick to CD quality (44.1KHz/16 bit) or do you want to go higher? How high? I recommend recording at 24 bit wav. You can always down-sample it in post processing to whatever you want. And don't get to hung up on price (easy for me to say!). Think about the long run. That $100 difference between an H2 and a R-09HR is piddly when factored over a couple of years.

I haven't heard ANY recordings with the Tracker Pre in the chain. Its a relatively new unit. I may get one as an all around backup unit since it is so versatile and cheap. It would backup both my CA-9000 and my UA-5 and would allow me to hook up my C4 mics to my H2 if I wanted or allow me to hook up my CA-11 mics to my laptop.  Currently I have a M-Audio MobilePre as the backup to my UA-5. Its just ok, nothing great. It WILL NOT work as a stand alone preamp, it must be hooked to a computer.

The UA-5 is a much respected computer interface that can be run off external batteries. But it really wants to be connected to a computer. There is what they call a "digi-mod" where the unit is altered to run without a computer but its output is digital and wont run into the line-in on any of the recorders we have been discussing (except maybe the R-44). You'll see where a lot of people use a modified UA-5 to record into a modified MP3 player like the JB3 or the H120. That works well but as a newbie you may not want to go this route as it involves several modifications, a couple of power packs, a digital cable, etc. It gets a bit complicated.

Post-processing: That's where we edit the recordings using DAW software on a computer. I use Audacity. It works and its free. But there are certainly many other options that cost from free to whatever you are willing to spend. Some work better for some things than the others. Audacity may work for you or you may find that you need ProTools. You may have recorded directly to the computer or you may have to copy the files from a recorder. For post-processing it really makes no difference. Editing involves removing any unwanted parts, applying any Normalization, amplification, EQ or compression (etc.) and tracking the files (cutting the long recording up into songs). You can get fancy and add fade ins, faded outs, cross-fades and lost of other effects. I go as simple as possible and rarely alter the original sound with EQ or compression. The last step is saving the songs in whatever format you choose. If you want to burn them to CD they will have to be 44.1kHz/16bit. But if your computer is tied into your stereo you might leave them at the highest quality and play them back that way. Or you might save them as MP3, wma files, etc. for portable players. Or you may want to save them in all of the file versions. No reason you can't. There is a learning curve for ANY DAW software and what works for one person may not be the solution for the next. Its what works for YOU. Always save your raw recordings unmodified because you may want to revisit them later when you know how to process them better.

[cybergaloot]

I think before you go adding an external pre, you ought to select the mics and the recorder you want to use.  The E-Mu seems clever, but it has max power consumption of 5W--it probably won't hit that unless you have two thirsty phantom-powered mics and headphones on full blast connected, but that's its rating--and that will mean a good-sized battery pack.  Now you've increased the size of your rig considerably, and you still only have two channels.  You'd have to compare that rig to the R44 in terms of feature set.

If I remember correctly the 5W spec is what was marked on the back of the unit where a wall-wart would be plugged it. That's the spec for the wall-wart, not actual power consumption. 5W is a lot! At 5V that is a 1 amp draw. That thing would be shedding some serious heat if it used that much. In comparison the power draw for a UA-5 is only 450 mA. But I could be wrong and often am. Power consumption could be its Achilles heel.

[Church-Audio]

Gossling have you ever recorded a concert before?

Chris

[gossling]

Gossling have you ever recorded a concert before?

Nope.

I think the reason I am looking at preamps and mixers before I've even bought my microphones and recorder is that I want to make sure my choices will be as versatile and functional as possible.  I want to have my plan all worked out beforehand.  I don't want to regret my choices down the road.  I am definitely not afraid to spend the extra bucks on the R-09HR, if it actually provides better results for my purposes.  I don't think it will.  The internal mics are more versatile on the H2 and the line-ins are basically equal. 

I wish I could hear some recording comparisons of MT2 with external microphones vs. Sound Device or a sound card connected to a computer using the same microphones.  If I can't tell the difference, then I would know for sure that the MT2's preamps and A/D converter are sufficient and meet my expectations.

So a computer is better for dealing with many tracks.  But if I'm dealing with just 2-4 track recording, would a computer/laptop be any more effective during the actual recording than a recorder? I have a computer to do post-processing on after the fact.  I will never be recording straight to mp3.  I'll probably go 24-bit wav. 


Any microphone recommendations to be used with a MT2 or that E-MU (or other mixer) -> H2? Could I get equally good sounding results with battery/plug-in powered microphones into an R-09HR? Basically, which would I be better off with in terms of sound quality:
1. Battery/plug-in powered condenser -> R-09HR
2. Condenser -> MT2

Are battery/plug-in powered mics ever acceptable outside of field recording situations (e.g. home recording)? Are studio-oriented microphones ever acceptable in the field? I'm sure there is some overlap among microphones.  Any pointers on what specs I should be looking at when determining if a microphone could be used for both? For home recording, I'm leaning towards a small-diaphragm (because most can also be used for live sound reinforcement.  Would any of these be acceptable for field recording?

If I was recording a concert in which I was performing and had access to the soundboard, which of these recorders would you recommend? The MT2 has digital in...is this important for this application?

Thanks

[Church-Audio]

Gossling have you ever recorded a concert before?

Nope.

I think the reason I am looking at preamps and mixers before I've even bought my microphones and recorder is that I want to make sure my choices will be as versatile and functional as possible.  I want to have my plan all worked out beforehand.  I don't want to regret my choices down the road.  I am definitely not afraid to spend the extra bucks on the R-09HR, if it actually provides better results for my purposes.  I don't think it will.  The internal mics are more versatile on the H2 and the line-ins are basically equal. 

I wish I could hear some recording comparisons of MT2 with external microphones vs. Sound Device or a sound card connected to a computer using the same microphones.  If I can't tell the difference, then I would know for sure that the MT2's preamps and A/D converter are sufficient and meet my expectations.

So a computer is better for dealing with many tracks.  But if I'm dealing with just 2-4 track recording, would a computer/laptop be any more effective during the actual recording than a recorder? I have a computer to do post-processing on after the fact.  I will never be recording straight to mp3.  I'll probably go 24-bit wav. 


Any microphone recommendations to be used with a MT2 or that E-MU (or other mixer) -> H2? Could I get equally good sounding results with battery/plug-in powered microphones into an R-09HR? Basically, which would I be better off with in terms of sound quality:
1. Battery/plug-in powered condenser -> R-09HR
2. Condenser -> MT2

Are battery/plug-in powered mics ever acceptable outside of field recording situations (e.g. home recording)? Are studio-oriented microphones ever acceptable in the field? I'm sure there is some overlap among microphones.  Any pointers on what specs I should be looking at when determining if a microphone could be used for both? For home recording, I'm leaning towards a small-diaphragm (because most can also be used for live sound reinforcement.  Would any of these be acceptable for field recording?

If I was recording a concert in which I was performing and had access to the soundboard, which of these recorders would you recommend? The MT2 has digital in...is this important for this application?

Thanks

My best advice is to get a good pair of mics that will work with a battery box and a r09hr and see what is possible with two mics before you go spending all kinds of money on gear. Grasshopper one must learn to crawl before one can walk  I don't know you skill level but as a sound engineer I would never do a mix down type recording with no way to monitor was was going to my recorder. And that's not possible with most live concerts. And I have heard some great tapes with just two mics.. I would spend the most on your recorder then get a good set of mics and a battery box. Don't waste your money on Zoom products to be honest they are junk.

[gossling]

My best advice is to get a good pair of mics that will work with a battery box and a r09hr and see what is possible with two mics before you go spending all kinds of money on gear. Grasshopper one must learn to crawl before one can walk  I don't know you skill level but as a sound engineer I would never do a mix down type recording with no way to monitor was was going to my recorder. And that's not possible with most live concerts. And I have heard some great tapes with just two mics.. I would spend the most on your recorder then get a good set of mics and a battery box. Don't waste your money on Zoom products to be honest they are junk.

If I really wanted to go minimalist, wouldn't the best option be MT2 + condensers? Especially since I'm planning to use my mics at home in addition to in the field.  Any recommendations for this setup?

[Church-Audio]

My best advice is to get a good pair of mics that will work with a battery box and a r09hr and see what is possible with two mics before you go spending all kinds of money on gear. Grasshopper one must learn to crawl before one can walk  I don't know you skill level but as a sound engineer I would never do a mix down type recording with no way to monitor was was going to my recorder. And that's not possible with most live concerts. And I have heard some great tapes with just two mics.. I would spend the most on your recorder then get a good set of mics and a battery box. Don't waste your money on Zoom products to be honest they are junk.

If I really wanted to go minimalist, wouldn't the best option be MT2 + condensers? Especially since I'm planning to use my mics at home in addition to in the field.  Any recommendations for this setup?

If your trying to use full size mics you cant use a MT2 because the  MT2 does put out 48 volts but the current is low and the preamp is pretty noisy if you want a quiet recorder the best out there under $400 is the R09HR and if you want to be able to record shows in the open and privately then you want small mics. Not large ones that must only be used for "open taping" If you want a versatile rig GOOD set of mics + battery box + R09HR = Good sound with little hassle. In the end you can buy what ever you want but that's my recommendation. You want this complicated setup but you have never taped a show learn to tape first then expand your collection of gear the gear I suggested will be a good foundation and you will be able to use this gear in any situation and get good sound. There are my mics the ca-14 they are $129 a pair you can also check out AT 853 mics and DPA 4060 or 4061. You can spend between $129 to $900 on a set of small mics. Just because they are small does not mean they will not sound great. If you want large condenser mics you can spend between $100 per pair and $6000 per pair..What do you want to record exactly when your at home and at concerts?

Chris

[cybergaloot]

Are battery/plug-in powered mics ever acceptable outside of field recording situations (e.g. home recording)? Are studio-oriented microphones ever acceptable in the field? I'm sure there is some overlap among microphones.  Any pointers on what specs I should be looking at when determining if a microphone could be used for both? For home recording, I'm leaning towards a small-diaphragm (because most can also be used for live sound reinforcement.  Would any of these be acceptable for field recording?

For live onstage mics most people use dynamic mics for vocals and often everything else. Condenser mics don't like to be handled. They are more sensitive and would pickup handling noise. Most dynamic mics don't need phantom power and can handle rough handling. That's not a condenser mic that Roger Daltry was swinging by the cable at Woodstock! You'll see some bands occasionally using condenser mics for mic'ing amps or for drums overheads. You can sing into a condenser, just not hand hold it. Condensers don't like people blowing into them either. They also don't like moisture. Of course, like everything in the world there are exceptions, this is in general.

So, yes, you can use your condenser mics in the studio. Most of the mics we use in the field ARE studio mics. I bet like most people, you will become very protective of your condenser mics. You want a matched pair if possible.

I can't speak intelligently about the merits of large diaphragm mics over small diaphragm. From what I've read I gather that large diaphragm mics tend to be more sensitive. Its NOT a matter of big diaphragms handling lows better or small diaphragms handling highs better.

Here's a suggestion, go to the Live Music Archive (archive.org) and read the text files for a bunch of the shows. Most will list the gear used. You will see patterns. Maybe copy and past those lists to a text document to review later. You'll find the same makes and models of gear over an over again, often in the same combinations. Those are the combinations that people have found that work well. Look up the gear. Often the listing is cryptic looking but usually if you plug in the term in Google, you'll find the gear. Some you will eliminate because its more expensive than your budget will allow. What is your budget?  

Another thing you can do is Google a model number and see if it shows up associated with a live recording. If it doesn't, why not? Might be new, but probably because its not good for that use. if it comes back associated with a lot of live recordings, its good field gear. Maybe not good for you though.

Once you have your list of affordable field recording gear, then you have to compare features. A spread sheet can help with that. Features that matter to you along one axis, models down the other. Put check marks where the features match the model. The evaluate and cull out the stuff that doesn't meet your criteria. Finally search the web for reviews of your short list.

Don't forget to include the cost of the other stuff you'll need like stands, cables, shock mounts, adapters, bags to carry all that stuff around, etc. Those costs mound up fast. And some of what we use you wont find in a Musician's Friend catalog. For stands many of us use stands intended for photographer's lights. Why? HEIGHT! We are trying to get into clean air well above the crowd's heads and away from their yapping mouths. If you don't get your mics up, you will soon hate everyone around you at concerts. They are also usually lighter than standard onstage mic stands. Get a B&H Photo catalog to shop stands but search the web before buying from them. They are good people with fair prices but often you can beat their price. Many of us use custom made mic cables. Commercial cables will work, just don't buy cheap cables, they will bite you in the end. If you get cables from Guitar Center, buy the good ones! Not the stuff on bargain basement sales. Use shock mounts and good windscreens on your mics when possible. Reason? Why have your recording messed up because some yahoo bumps into your stand or there is an air conditioner draft blowing on your mics. It happens.  

Oh, mic specs. SPL rating if you are going to be recording loud shows. And "loud" doesn't mean heavy metal. I've seen bluegrass bands that were blasting. What frequency range can it handle and how well does it do that across the spectrum? Flat across the board is good but some folks like a bump at one end or the other. What level phantom power does it need. I heard of one model mic that required MORE than 48V. Obviously that would be a problem.
More:
http://emusician.com/tutorials/emusic_mic_specs_demystified/
http://broadcastengineering.com/mag/broadcasting_reading_microphone_specifications/

Just Google "microphone specs"

[cybergaloot]

There are my mics the ca-14 they are $129 a pair you can also check out AT 853 mics and DPA 4060 or 4061. You can spend between $129 to $900 on a set of small mics.

I've tested the CA-14-cardioids and am currently testing the CA-14-omni's. They are great mics, well worth the cost. Couple that with a CA-9100 (better than the CA-9000 I have) and a R-09HR and you have a great affordable and very portable rig for live recordings.

To clarify something Chris said, You will EITHER need a battery box to power the mics OR a preamp like the CA-9100 to power the mics. You don't need both. Going with the mics and the battery box (Chris makes a inexpensive small one) into the R-09 would be cheaper but if you can afford the CA-9100, consider getting one. It gives you more control. A CA-9000 will also power the mics if you want to save a few bucks but the 9100 IS better.

[gossling]

Sorry, I should have specified what I will be doing. 
At home: strings, piano, various woodwinds, percussion (not rock drums).  Usually not simultaneously.  The most I see myself recording at once would be 5-6 instrumentalists.  I will be using up to four microphones (if I can fit them all into my setup) at home.  I could probably get by with two, but I think my setup would be more versatile with two extra slots.
Live recording: jazz-type volume and setting, classical music (symphonic and chamber), occasionally a rock concert.  I'm hoping for good quality in the jazz-esque and classical recordings but I doncare about quality for rock concerts.  I will probably be recording both stealth and open, but my stealth recordings don't need to be great.  By "don't have to be great" I still want to hear all the instruments, but it doesn't have to sound semi-pro or anything.  I will never be using more than two microphones for live sound recording.  For live sound recording I would definitely prefer to not have to bring a preamp or mixer along.  I will never be an official taper of these concerts.  I just want to record what I hear and review it myself (and maybe friends and family) later.
Live recording with mixing board: I just want to be able to feed the information the mixing board going into the mixing board to the recorder and record straight to line-in.
Live sound reinforcement: I really just need one microphone to reinforce my cello in live sound situations (when I'm performing, that is). 

The home recordings would be tricky with only two mics so, unless there are just 1-3 instrumentalists, I probably won't record individuals.  Do you think I could get by recording 6 musicians with just two microphones? Of course, it depends on the quality I'm expecting, but I want the average consumer to not be able to tell that I was only using two microphones. 

If the MT2's preamps are noisy then I definitely won't buy it.  I wasn't aware that they were (for balanced sources).  Also, wouldn't || microphone -> preamp -> H2 || be just as effective as || microphone -> battery box -> R09HR || ? Which would last longer in terms of battery life? By battery box, did you mean 48v or 9v?

I couldn't find the CA-14 or a 48v phantom power battery box on the CA's ebay page.  If someone could link it to me that would be great.  What power do these microphones accept? Also, the microphones I did see on CA's ebay page look similar to the DPA's which can be used for live sound reinforcement.  Can these also be used for live sound reinforcement? How far can you separate each microphone of the stereo pair? Are these CA mics acceptable in the studio? If I was double miking my cello, I could probably use one of these microphones up close and personal and one to capture the airy sound of the instrument. 

I'll start checking out archive.org, thanks for the recommendation.

[Church-Audio]

Sorry, I should have specified what I will be doing. 
At home: strings, piano, various woodwinds, percussion (not rock drums).  Usually not simultaneously.  The most I see myself recording at once would be 5-6 instrumentalists.  I will be using up to four microphones (if I can fit them all into my setup) at home.  I could probably get by with two, but I think my setup would be more versatile with two extra slots.
Live recording: jazz-type volume and setting, classical music (symphonic and chamber), occasionally a rock concert.  I'm hoping for good quality in the jazz-esque and classical recordings but I doncare about quality for rock concerts.  I will probably be recording both stealth and open, but my stealth recordings don't need to be great.  By "don't have to be great" I still want to hear all the instruments, but it doesn't have to sound semi-pro or anything.  I will never be using more than two microphones for live sound recording.  For live sound recording I would definitely prefer to not have to bring a preamp or mixer along.  I will never be an official taper of these concerts.  I just want to record what I hear and review it myself (and maybe friends and family) later.
Live recording with mixing board: I just want to be able to feed the information the mixing board going into the mixing board to the recorder and record straight to line-in.
Live sound reinforcement: I really just need one microphone to reinforce my cello in live sound situations (when I'm performing, that is). 

The home recordings would be tricky with only two mics so, unless there are just 1-3 instrumentalists, I probably won't record individuals.  Do you think I could get by recording 6 musicians with just two microphones? Of course, it depends on the quality I'm expecting, but I want the average consumer to not be able to tell that I was only using two microphones. 

If the MT2's preamps are noisy then I definitely won't buy it.  I wasn't aware that they were (for balanced sources).  Also, wouldn't || microphone -> preamp -> H2 || be just as effective as || microphone -> battery box -> R09HR || ? Which would last longer in terms of battery life? By battery box, did you mean 48v or 9v?

I couldn't find the CA-14 or a 48v phantom power battery box on the CA's ebay page.  If someone could link it to me that would be great.  What power do these microphones accept? Also, the microphones I did see on CA's ebay page look similar to the DPA's which can be used for live sound reinforcement.  Can these also be used for live sound reinforcement? How far can you separate each microphone of the stereo pair? Are these CA mics acceptable in the studio? If I was double miking my cello, I could probably use one of these microphones up close and personal and one to capture the airy sound of the instrument. 

I'll start checking out archive.org, thanks for the recommendation.

This is what I recommend my 9100 preamp + my ca-14 omni mics. I will pm you with a price. Please dont just take my word for it listen to samples of the mics and decide for your self I am also a musician so I understand your application.
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,108829.0.html You can also get on the T.S loaner section and try these mics out before you buy. The DPA 4060 would also be a great mic both could be powered with a battery box or my 99100 preamp the R09HR is a great recorder the preamp is very quiet if you want even less noise for your application my 9100 with the HR will provide a dead silent recording option. But again dont just take my word for it I sell this gear so I am a bit biased but both the DPA and my mics would be good depending on how much your willing to spend.
http://yodaslai.ipower.com/bradfordvilleblues/media/ChrisDuarte-2008-11-22-CA-14omni-Set1--3.wav

Chris

[Ozpeter]

Do you think I could get by recording 6 musicians with just two microphones?

Many classical recordings are made with just a single stereo pair, if a natural balance can be obtained.  (If there is a natural balance, then it's not up to the recording engineer to mess with it).

Something that might interest you in that respect -

http://www.2090.org/zoom/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=11501

[gossling]

Those H2 open recordings more than meet my needs.  Both the symphony orchestra one from Ozpeter and the bands from cybergaloot with the H2 alone are great for me.  I can't see myself ever complaining with that kind of quality for live recording. 

That CA-9100 is still definitely an option for the battery power alone.  How long is this supposed to last on battery power? I assume this would be fine for home recording also. 

Ozpeter, do you think I could record a cello sonata (cello + piano) in a recital hall (or church) with just one stereo pair and get decent results? I've seen videos of professional cellists being professionally recorded and it looks like they have eight or nine microphones! I'm guessing they don't actually use all of these in the final mix, but it still seems like a lot of work to pick up these two instruments' complex sound radiation.  Also, is artificial reverb for classical instruments an automatic no-no?

Thanks everyone!

[cybergaloot]

That CA-9100 is still definitely an option for the battery power alone.  How long is this supposed to last on battery power? I assume this would be fine for home recording also. 

The CA-9000 runs about 20 (or was it 40?) hours on one 9V battery powering the CA-11 mics. I'd bet the CA-9100 will have about the same battery life. Its plenty of life. You can run a whole day with no issues.

The H2 however runs about 2 hours on two AA batteries. You may get a bit more with Li-ions. If you use the backlight or the monitor, that cuts into the battery life. I set mine to run the backlight for 30 seconds and no monitor unless I'm using the wall-wart. The monitor function is useless in the field for me anyway, I can't hear it. It is cool to listen to the shows on the way home though with a pair of headphones or earbuds. You could hook the H2 to a battery pack for longer runs. I ~think~ it will seamlessly fail over to the internal batteries if the externals get too low. I can't say for sure since I've never run that way but I have had the wall-wart come unplugged and it switched to the internals with no problems.

Also the H2 will make a file up to 2GB then stop and start again on a new file. There will be a gap. For most shows that isn't a problem. I record a set, save the file and record the next set. Most sets I record run 90 minutes. If you run 4 channel or max quality you may start bumping into that barrier though.

[ghellquist]

Ozpeter, do you think I could record a cello sonata (cello + piano) in a recital hall (or church) with just one stereo pair and get decent results? I've seen videos of professional cellists being professionally recorded and it looks like they have eight or nine microphones! I'm guessing they don't actually use all of these in the final mix, but it still seems like a lot of work to pick up these two instruments' complex sound radiation.  Also, is artificial reverb for classical instruments an automatic no-no?

Thanks everyone!

Not Ozpeter, but doing quite a bit of classical recordings. And, yes, definitely, a stereo pair of microphones is a very good way to record cello plus piano. It can give totally stunning results. I often record full symphony orchestras, soloists or choirs with basically only two mics.

People coming from the pop recording school of things generally has difficulties recording classical music. They believe that every instrument has to be separated from each other and miced with its own mic. Not so here. Most of us in the classical realm instead work with a good room and careful placement of players and microphones. Two microphones for mainpart of the sound. Perhaps a few extra for ambience or to improve the definition of a few instruments.

The issue with two mic recordings is that it takes skill to become really good. You need a bit of experience and has to spend a good bit of listening to find just the right place for the musicians and the microphones. How far behind the cello do you place the piano? How far back on the stage do you place the cello? Exactly where do you place the microphones? How high? What mic setup should you use in this exact situation? But once everything is setup, press record and let the players do the work. No mixing needed. Interestingly, in this setup the most important tool is ears and listening. On the other hand, for a perfectly useable archive recording, simply place the mics where they usually go and press record.

So what you should do once you get your recording equipment is to experiment a lot with placement, record a lot and listen even more. Listen and learn to recognize what sounds good to your ears in different situations. Listen to a lot of recordings done by others as well. And decide on your own ideals. Do you like the sound of the cello close up - the artist breathing and the bow jumping on the strings? Or do you preferr the sound in a good natural reverb? Both are valid but taste varies.

Gunnar.

PS: artificial reverbs, why not? It takes a lot of listening to get it right though. So less is better.

[cybergaloot]

Plus up close mic'ing of acoustic pianos is very tricky from what I've read. Best to back up a bit.

[gossling]

Not Ozpeter, but doing quite a bit of classical recordings. And, yes, definitely, a stereo pair of microphones is a very good way to record cello plus piano. It can give totally stunning results. I often record full symphony orchestras, soloists or choirs with basically only two mics.

People coming from the pop recording school of things generally has difficulties recording classical music. They believe that every instrument has to be separated from each other and miced with its own mic. Not so here. Most of us in the classical realm instead work with a good room and careful placement of players and microphones. Two microphones for mainpart of the sound. Perhaps a few extra for ambience or to improve the definition of a few instruments.

The issue with two mic recordings is that it takes skill to become really good. You need a bit of experience and has to spend a good bit of listening to find just the right place for the musicians and the microphones. How far behind the cello do you place the piano? How far back on the stage do you place the cello? Exactly where do you place the microphones? How high? What mic setup should you use in this exact situation? But once everything is setup, press record and let the players do the work. No mixing needed. Interestingly, in this setup the most important tool is ears and listening. On the other hand, for a perfectly useable archive recording, simply place the mics where they usually go and press record.

So what you should do once you get your recording equipment is to experiment a lot with placement, record a lot and listen even more. Listen and learn to recognize what sounds good to your ears in different situations. Listen to a lot of recordings done by others as well. And decide on your own ideals. Do you like the sound of the cello close up - the artist breathing and the bow jumping on the strings? Or do you preferr the sound in a good natural reverb? Both are valid but taste varies.

Gunnar.

PS: artificial reverbs, why not? It takes a lot of listening to get it right though. So less is better.

Very informative.  Thanks!

Back to preamps for a second: Nady DMP-2: http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/Nady-DMP2-Dual-Mic-PreAmp-?sku=180156

I'm a little weary that it has absolutely no reviews anywhere that I could find.  How do those specs look? If this is any better than the R-09HR's external mic preamps, I'm happy.

[Ozpeter]

Ozpeter, do you think I could record a cello sonata (cello + piano) in a recital hall (or church) with just one stereo pair and get decent results? I've seen videos of professional cellists being professionally recorded and it looks like they have eight or nine microphones! I'm guessing they don't actually use all of these in the final mix, but it still seems like a lot of work to pick up these two instruments' complex sound radiation.  Also, is artificial reverb for classical instruments an automatic no-no?

If you are using just a stereo pair, then you place it accordingly - where it should pick up an authentic balance between the two instruments, and an authentic sound of each.  There is also the matter of the image of the instruments in the context of the acoustic - and here the H2's rear mics can be added to the mix in post production to assist in making the most appropriate use of the natural reverb available (if free of traffic noise etc!).  I'd emphasise that it's important to record 2 x stereo to do that - you want to have freedom of choice afterwards.  In any reasonable DAW you can use an effect such as Voxengo MSED to allow you to manipulate the effective width of the front and rear images if you want, and that gives further control over the overall finished sound.

Adding reverb can help if the natural acoustic is unsympathetic or if you have to record a bit close to maximise the music signal vs traffic noise or whatever.  Nothing wrong with it in tasteful moderation!

However - I have to say that these days I'd tend to record any solo-plus-piano combo using a stereo mic placed slightly too close to the solo element, plus a spot mic (stereo or mono, depending on my mood!) at the tail of the piano.  That allows me to ensure I have the means in post-production to get an ideal balance.  That's working with an R-44.  I do it because I can - it's not an essential way to work.  (How many pairs of ears did our Maker give us, one might ask?).

The H2 however runs about 2 hours on two AA batteries. You may get a bit more with Li-ions. If you use the backlight or the monitor, that cuts into the battery life.

I use rechargeable batteries, 2560mAh, and get way more than that.  For instance, if recording a concert using a suspended H2, it has to be winched up before the audience comes in, and only comes down again still running after 90 or more minutes of music plus an interval.  I can't now recall the running time, but that's because it's not a concern to me in practice.

[cybergaloot]

The H2 however runs about 2 hours on two AA batteries. You may get a bit more with Li-ions. If you use the backlight or the monitor, that cuts into the battery life.

I use rechargeable batteries, 2560mAh, and get way more than that.  For instance, if recording a concert using a suspended H2, it has to be winched up before the audience comes in, and only comes down again still running after 90 or more minutes of music plus an interval.  I can't now recall the running time, but that's because it's not a concern to me in practice.

I believe two hours is the spec in the manual. I've run past that in real life but I wouldn't count on it. Best to stay within a safety margin if you can or you are just gambling. I try to gamble only when I have a backup running. If I wanted to run more than say, 2 1/2 hours I'd use a battery pack.

Also running over two hours runs the risk of hitting that 2GB file size barrier, esp. if you are running 4 channel or a higher quality setting. If you run 44.1/16 or even 44.1/24 you would be safe for over two hours but three hours would be pushing it. I had a Dumpstaphunk get split when they played two hours plus and I was running 44.1/16. I think the H2 manual has a list of how big the file gets for each setting.

[Ozpeter]

The figures are the same for all recorders - http://www.sounddevices.com/calculator/index.html is a handy calculator - 3 hours 23 minutes is the running time for 2GB at 44.1/16 in stereo.  No difference of course for stereo x 2 as it's the file size for each file that's the limit.  As for battery life, well, it's best to run some personal tests with the batteries and recording configuration you're likely to use.

[gossling]

Correct my calculations if they are wrong:
Current Drain (of the above NADY preamp on 9V battery):
Phantom Power Off ............................................................................................24mA no signal,
27mA max signal
Phantom Power On ............................................................................................27mA no signal,
40mA max signal

therefore,

500 mAh (battery capacity) / 24 mAh (preamp consumption) = 20.83 hours
or, with phantom power at max signal:
500 mAh / 40 mAh = 12.5 hours

I'm sure it never works this cleanly, but does this at least give a reasonable estimate of the preamp's battery life?

I'm running a test now on my H2's battery life at 44.1/16 WAV with just the rear microphones.  Will post results when it finishes.  I don't think I'll ever be limited by the 2GB file limit.  I can always just make a new track during intermission or in between sets (though a file splitting feature would be nice...).

Just to clarify, I could fill up my 4GB card with just one 4-channel recording (2GB per file)? If I was recording 4-channel on the H2, the correct storage space for the calculator would be 4GB? And the number of tracks would remain at 2? So at WAV recording settings the limiting factor is almost always going to be the 2GB limit? Except maybe 2-track 44.1/16 (estimated 3 hours and 23 minutes according to the calculator) in which case the H2's battery may die before the 2GB file limit is reached.

Would it be possible to record piano and cello (assuming good acoustics) with just the H2's internal microphones and get good results (as good as that symphony clip you posted)?

Thanks

[Ozpeter]

When recording 2 x stereo you'll fill the card up twice as fast as 1 x stereo but you won't hit the 2GB per file limit any faster.

You might have to tweak the H2 recording in a DAW afterwards for best results (playing around with the stereo image and a bit of eq to taste) but for the simplicity of operation and the quality of the outcome at the price, especially in 4 channel mode, IMHO it's hard to beat.  For acoustic music you've just got to set it to "M100", position it, press the red button twice, and there you are.

Well, OK, you've got to turn it on first.

If you used an R-44 with some first class mics, you would get a better result of course, but it would set you back rather more!

For best results with the H2, don't ever use any of the bells and whistles - eg limiting or compression - they're in there for marketing rather than usefulness, unless you've really got no way to use a PC on the result afterwards.

[cybergaloot]

For best results with the H2, don't ever use any of the bells and whistles - eg limiting or compression - they're in there for marketing rather than usefulness, unless you've really got no way to use a PC on the result afterwards.

Oz is right about the bells and whistles, and absolutely do NOT use the Automatic Gain Control. That might be ok for recording a lecture or something but it flat out sucks for music. If you want compression, apply it in your post processing. I generally don't though. I do as little as possible to the recording in post. Usually just normalizing or amplifying if needed.

[Church-Audio]

Holy complicated.... Get a good pair of stereo mics and a RO9HR and start from there. Don't make this more complicated then it needs to be.

Chris

[gossling]

Results from battery test:
44.16/16 got 7.7 or 7 hours and 42 minutes of battery life (had to dump files off of 4GB card to run the whole test).  This includes three power-ups and power-downs.  I used 2,000 mAh NiMH AA batteries.  Bottom line, if you're recording wav with a 4GB card, your limiting factor is the 4GB, not the battery life.   

The problem I have with the stereo microphones -> R-09HR is that none of the microphones I am planning to use would actually work with the recorder.  I will be using almost exclusively studio condensers which require phantom power.  The only way to use these condensers are either with the MT2, which isn't very stable, or with an external preamp -> whatever other handheld recorder.   If I'm using an external preamp, I'll be going line-in, negating the importance of a good mic in.  So I might as well go with the H2 which has superior internal microphones and is much less expensive.  If my logic is faulty, let me know.

[Ozpeter]

Holy complicated.... Get a good pair of stereo mics and a RO9HR and start from there. Don't make this more complicated then it needs to be.

I must say I don't follow that at all.  You'd need a mixer to connect any pair of stereo mics to the R09HR as it isn't a four channel device,  so instead of a single hand held device needing no setup, you'd be connecting up two stereo mics to a mixer (and probably needing a stand for them), adjusting the mixer, connecting mixer to recorder, adjusting recorder, and generally considerably increasing cost and complexity.

[gossling]

^^I'm guessing he meant one stereo microphone (or a pair of mono microphones).

[Church-Audio]

^^I'm guessing he meant one stereo microphone (or a pair of mono microphones).

That's exactly what I was saying...If your going for a live sound two mics will be just fine if you want to make it more complicated then it needs to be by all means add lots of mics.