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

[mnkiwi]

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

[earmonger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ozpeter]

Tricky one, this. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers!

[flintstone]

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

[earmonger]

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

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

[John Willett]

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

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

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

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

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

[mnkiwi]

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

[John Willett]

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

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

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

[earmonger]

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

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

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

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

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

[DigiGal]

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

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

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

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

[John Willett]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[DigiGal]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[John Willett]

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

The AETA MIXY has an optical output.

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

[Gutbucket]

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

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

[Church-Audio]

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