Topic: Recorder advice for an amateur noob on a tight budget

[F.O.Bean]

In my experience on-board mics sound pretty horrible. Start saving now for some externals. ...I'm warning you now...once you're hooked your $$$ will start evaporating.

[DavidNJ]

I would probably use these in your situation, but it is probably out of your budget:

http://www.soundman.de/

[sebastianF13]

I was actually kind of sold on earmonger's suggestions from SoundProfessionals and I'd already go ahead with the order if I could make sure that they would arrive in time. The concert has anonther 20 days before it's over and I doubt that either the sony m10 or the SoundProfessionals kit would arrive in Greece by then. That's why I'm taking a chance with the Tascam (because it was in-stock and at an affordable-though-much-more-than-it-would-have-cost-if-I-ordered-it-from-the-States price). Anyhoo, since you've all been very kind to grace me with your input and advice (of which I'm sure I'm gonna be needing more soon) I thought I'd give you an oportunity to laugh  at my first attempt to put together a noob recording get-up.

Firstly, here are my home made windscreens (I cut up a sponge and made holes. The red band is a velcro tape to keep em' in place) The store had the original windscreens at about $50 and I didn't think it was worth it. Right?


And here's the recorder-hat integration:


Basically I sew an old army sock (as a case )on the cap and used velcro tape to "latch" the front so it doesn't fall.


Not very stealthy  I know!   
The festival is taking place at a big park with lots of people so I don't think anyone's gonna single me out from the various 'freaks' that are gonna attend (it's a rock festival). And of course I'm not gonna go in wearing it.

Here's another question: It's gonna be a long festival. Around 8 hours. The 2gB card is good for about 2hrs of 48kHz 24bit wav recording or for 15hrs of 320kbps 44.1kHz Mp3 recording. I've read in the forum that I should choose WAV but I don't understand why. Would WAV give me better quality or is it just easier to tamper with later?

Thanks again

[DavidNJ]

I doubt it will be effective outside. You will need some sort of fur.

The is the Soundman solution:

[achalsey]

Would WAV give me better quality or is it just easier to tamper with later?

Yes .wav is better quality than MP3, it doesn't make a difference in post editing.  MP3 is a 'lossy' format meaning you lose some digital information that you wouldn't recording in .wav.  Its a much larger file size so you won't get nearly as much recording space as MP3, but I would be very surprised if anyone here even entertained the idea of recording in MP3.

Also, some people might jump all over you for posting your hat techniques, but as a non-stealther that looks awesome.  Definitely good job with the windscreens.  My only opinion on possible improvement would be to wonder if sewing a piece of camo fabric over the whole thing (not just using the sock) might make it less conspicuous.

Though it brings up the question of how you'll be checking levels and recording time....

[sebastianF13]

Ok! So I made my first recording!!! It's a definite improvement on what I got until now with the camera's internals.
Here's a sample

This is the video with the sound from canon's internal mics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vAPehJqOYc

And this is with Tascam's internals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgkEXPnw_Io

What I'm wandering now, is how I should proceed. I have another 5 days to return it. Should I do that and use another $150 to get the sony (would the sony's internals be such a great improvement over what I got with the tascam above?) or should I keep the Tascam and use the $150 to get a battery pack and a couple of mics from SoundProfessionals? (I only have $150 to spare)

[achalsey]

Sounds surprisingly good, but as a newbie my self and not at all wrapped up in the technical aspect of it all, I'd say keep the tascam and go with some church mics.  Cards and BB for 140.00 US.

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=141135.0

edit:  just for reference for the Church mics here's my 16 bit Church source (though with his 9100 preamp) and a Schoeps source for the same spot:

http://www.archive.org/details/GPN2011-05-19.mk4v.flac16
http://www.archive.org/details/GPN2011-05-19.CA14.flac16

[tay666]

I agree.
Keep the Tascam and work on getting some good external mics.
I've heard plenty of good recordings from Tascam equipment.

[sebastianF13]

I made my second test last night and got mixed results
Here's what I got from Flogging Molly, an irish punk rock band (Small stage, front row between the woofers and the speaker stack) I'm not very happy with it
g12's internals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65fYl7i68aM
Tascam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wgx08U4pxwk

And here's what I got from Prodigy, heavy on drum and bass techno (big stage, front row, again between the woofers and a huge stack of speakers)
g 12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJVHRbLz75U
tascam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoDDeegwJAk

Any ideas on why the more organic show gave me a worse recording than the electronic show?

edit:  just for reference for the Church mics here's my 16 bit Church source (though with his 9100 preamp) and a Schoeps source for the same spot:

http://www.archive.org/details/GPN2011-05-19.mk4v.flac16
http://www.archive.org/details/GPN2011-05-19.CA14.flac16

I really liked your recordings. How far (or near) from the stage do you record? Was it an open or a closed venue?

Also, I'd like to know your opinion on the SoundProfessionals combo that earmonger suggested. They have really great rates for intenational shipping and are a little cheaper than your suggestion (Church). Is there a noticeable difference between the two?

Since you and tay666 both suggest keeping the Tascam and getting externals I'm now at a loss on what to choose.

Again, thank you very much for taking the time to check out what I've done and for giving me your advice.

[jbou]

Any ideas on why the more organic show gave me a worse recording than the electronic show?

It could be your location more than anything. From your first sample it seems that you were further back compared to the new samples where your were right in the front. Usually being right in the front isn't where it sounds the best.

[achalsey]

To be fair, my Grace recording I linked was a pretty prefect setup, so isn't a totally fair example.  It was a nice outdoor stage, totally open and we were pretty much in the sweet spot (if not a little far back).  Centered, maybe 30 feet back or so, mics about 7 ft in the air.

I don't know anything about the SP mics but you can always check out archive to see if you like them over the Church stuff.  A few with the SP battery box into tascams

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=SP-BMC-2%20AND%20collection%3Aetree

[sebastianF13]

Any ideas on why the more organic show gave me a worse recording than the electronic show?

It could be your location more than anything. From your first sample it seems that you were further back compared to the new samples where your were right in the front. Usually being right in the front isn't where it sounds the best.

That's exactly what I would have figured. Except that in both instances I'm located in front row (a little left from the center). And the prodigy track (which is super-satisfactory) was recorded in the Main Stage with the huge amps and stacks. The Flogging Molly track was from a much smaller stage. Wouldn't it be more logical if it was the other way around? (meaning the prodigy song to be distorted and the Molly track satisfactory?)

[tay666]

I don't think your Molly recording is all that distorted.
I am assuming that the stacks at the Molly stage were on the far sides, or up above you.
Which means you weren't getting any of the sound from the stacks
Most of the instruments you are picking up are the monitor feeds that the band listen to.
The main purpose of the monitors is so that the band can hear what they are playing.
They are nice and amplified, so they can also be heard by those in the front rows.
But the vocals are usually sent to an in-ear monitor as most singers are all over the stage.
The problem is, in your location, the vocals are muddy at best. As the vocals aren't usually prominent in the musician's monitors. They want to hear the instrument 'they' are playing.

With the other group. With it being bigger, and more bombastic, I'll bet they had some stacks towards the back of the stage as well. So those in the front, on the floor, in the pit, etc, can hear everything.

This is one of the reasons, that a lot of people think opening acts get a crappier mix than the headliners at shows. Sure, sometimes that is true. But a lot of the time, it is because the opening act doesn't have the amount of gear as the headliner.  So with only part of the amps or stacks, they can't fill the room with sound like the headliner can.

I've been to shows where you couldn't hear any vocals at all for the opening act if you were in the pit.
There just weren't any sources for the sound to come from.
10 or 12 rows back you could hear them just fine. But close to the stage, there was nothing at all.

[sebastianF13]

I don't think your Molly recording is all that distorted.
I am assuming that the stacks at the Molly stage were on the far sides, or up above you.
Which means you weren't getting any of the sound from the stacks
Most of the instruments you are picking up are the monitor feeds that the band listen to.
The main purpose of the monitors is so that the band can hear what they are playing.
They are nice and amplified, so they can also be heard by those in the front rows.
But the vocals are usually sent to an in-ear monitor as most singers are all over the stage.
The problem is, in your location, the vocals are muddy at best. As the vocals aren't usually prominent in the musician's monitors. They want to hear the instrument 'they' are playing.

With the other group. With it being bigger, and more bombastic, I'll bet they had some stacks towards the back of the stage as well. So those in the front, on the floor, in the pit, etc, can hear everything.

This is one of the reasons, that a lot of people think opening acts get a crappier mix than the headliners at shows. Sure, sometimes that is true. But a lot of the time, it is because the opening act doesn't have the amount of gear as the headliner.  So with only part of the amps or stacks, they can't fill the room with sound like the headliner can.

I've been to shows where you couldn't hear any vocals at all for the opening act if you were in the pit.
There just weren't any sources for the sound to come from.
10 or 12 rows back you could hear them just fine. But close to the stage, there was nothing at all.

Thank you very much tay666! This actually explains a lot. The only trouble is that it kind of makes me have to choose whether I want to get a good audio recording or just enjoy the show from the front row. And there's also the problem that 10-15 rows back, it's much harder to remain still (for filming a video) when everyone around is going crazy. Tough call.
Anyway, tonight is Judas Priest/Whitesnake night. It's gonna be interesting (recording-wise)

[tay666]

That is the choice that all tapers have to make.
Sacrifice some fun for the good of the recording.
Or sacrifice the recording and have some fun.

Not all shows will present the problem you ran into.
Just remember. Generally, your recording will only be as good as what you are actually hearing yourself.
So, if you can't hear the vocal. More than likely, your gear isn't going to pick them up either,
There are exceptions. But better to just assume your gear won't get it, if your ears don't.