Topic: Multiple External Microphones?

[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.