Topic: Which mobile recorder? M10, H6, or R05?

[fmaderjr]

I eventually want to get a pair of mics from www.sonicstudios.com and it'd probably be worth investing in an external mic pre at some point rather than spending more money on a mobile recorder... which, then the nice preamp is stuck with the unit. Edit: If I had the money, maybe I would buy the D100.

I love Sonic Studios mics. I have an older model which is apparently medium sensitivity. It's never distorted on me, but I haven't used it for stack taping or at extremely loud shows. The M10 powers it perfectly without a preamp or battery box. You would only need an external pre for very quiet stuff (or maybe if you want to record acoustic with their extra low sensitivity mic). If you do need a pre, you must use a Sonic studio pre (or at least a Sonic Studios battery box into another pre with plug in power off).

[Argitoth]

good, good! fmaderjr, got any links to some recordings?

[fmaderjr]

No. I've only used them to record friends' bands.

[Ozpeter]

https://soundcloud.com/ozpeter/zoom-h2n-out-with-the-dogs

Posted here simply to contend that Zoom recorders are no disaster on the noise front using built in mics.  Also, the stereo image of this is way better than you'd get from the M10's mics.

This is a follow up to my similar recording posted several years ago, when I used the original H2.

This one was made with the H2N gain knob at 5 using the MS mics only set to "Raw" and decoded afterwards using equal amounts of mid and side. I used a "dead kitten" from a Rode SVM mic although the wind was actually pretty light.  No EQ or compression, just normalised (gain raised only 1dB though). A 44.1/16 wave recording converted in the DAW to mp3. Edited for length.

I recommend headphones for playback to get the best effect. At times it's quite a "binaural" sound coming from all round you.

The location is a suburban park somewhere in the suburbs of Melbourne (Australia), at about 4.45pm on a mild spring day.

First minute or so - the tapping sound is someone bouncing a ball on the grass. You hear some Australian birds, a small plane in the distance, and the dogs running around. Someone else's dog way off. The blackbird you can hear from about 1'40" was quite distant, just audible at the time.

At 2'30" there's a bit of a dog fight! I turned away... so the barking might actually sound behind you on headphones.

At 3'20", I'm off the grass onto a gravel path. Here you can set your playback level so that it sounds about as loud as it would do if you were on such a path yourself, for authentic reproduction.

At about 5'20", a train whistle from quite some way off.

At about 5'30" we get back in the diesel van, first the dogs in the back then me in the front.  Sliding doors at the back.  The H2N just sits on the front passenger seat leaning on the backrest.

6'16" engine on, fasten the seatbelt! Slow reversing then out of the car park. Now you hear some lower frequencies.

7'00", on the road. The journey is heavily edited for length (I don't drive short distances!). Some interesting thumps and bumps!

At about 8 minutes, the tick of the indicators as we turn then arrive at the house, and we move slowly into the garage.

Engine off, seatbelt off, open the driver's door, close the electric garage door. Open the back sliding door, let out the dogs.

My opinion is that the recording shows the H2N can turn in good results for ambient / nature recordings, if playback levels are not artificially boosted. I don't hear any noise at normal playback levels - does anyone?  My ears are pretty shot...

[Argitoth]

good recording. I did say Zoom recorders are noisy. I really meant to say they are noisier than M10. Yes, I don't hear any noise in the normal listening levels of your recording.
Edit: I will add that I still like how Zoom recorder internal mics sound.

[DSatz]

I got an M10 a year or two ago, and reported this in the M10-specific discussion thread: When I tested it using the line inputs, the noise floor of its 24-bit mode seemed to be only about 1 dB below that of its 16-bit mode. Thus I couldn't determine any potentially audible advantage in using the 24-bit setting.

I haven't had time to repeat this test or to try variations on it, e.g. with different settings of the record level control. Has anyone else here measured its dynamic range in the 16- vs. the 24-bit setting?

[Argitoth]

The advantage of 24-bit 96k or any other higher fidelity formats is when I do heavy digital signal processing, which I often do. If you're recording sound for use as sound effects/foley stuff, you'll want to record at 24-bit or else you will may hit the 16-bit noise floor when using noise reduction software... (a problem when you need make a really quiet sound really loud, or do heavy dynamic compression).

Edit: Not that you couldn't record at 16-bit and noise reduce past the 16-bit floor and export 24-bit later to get a 24-bit noise floor (yes, you can remove dithering from digital audio )

[Ozpeter]

24 bits of digital gives you way more than an analog preamp can provide in terms of available dynamic range.  So you'll encounter the limitations of the analog headroom of the device well before the limitations of the digital headroom.  How the analog vs digital headroom is arranged is up to the manufacturer usually, in other words, is it set so that the digital and analog stages clip at the same input level, or so that the digital clipping can't happen until well after the analog clipping has been encountered?

[Argitoth]

oh here's another reason to record 24-bit: if you happen to be recording quiet sounds and your gain is really low (maybe you're recording a huge dynamic range of sounds, or you forgot to set your gain properly, or overcompensating for loud peaks, or maybe the noise profile of your gear is better with low gain), you risk recording too close to the 16-bit noise floor. Had you recorded at 24-bit, that would be much less of a problem.

[bombdiggity]

Late to this but I've had both M-10 and R-05.  My R-05 crapped out after what I'd consider not to be very extensive nor long term use (and certainly no rough treatment).  The M-10 seems a lot better built (and I suspect more durable).  I like the wheel on the M-10 much more than the buttons on the R-05 for level adjustments.  I do like the full size SD cards better but also very much like the internal memory in the M-10. 

Internal mics skews this evaluation.  I don't use them and would not really recommend them (especially for very quiet sources).  The internal mics seem to me to be somewhat an afterthought on most recorders.  If you are going to use internals you need to pick the recorder based on their mics' performance relative to your intended use rather than picking the recorder based on recorder specs.  Get the one you think will have the mics that work best for your use (omni vs. card pattern, noise of the internal mics, and the sound signature relative to your taste). 

The mics are always the weakest link in the chain (so for example when I record really quiet stuff with my lower-end mics plugged in I will hear the self-noise from the mics long before I hear any noise from the recorder - and I didn't notice any real change in that limitation between the M-10 and R-05).  If things are quiet enough even with my Schoeps > R-44 I'll hear the ambient noise in the room (air ducts/fans/background noise) if things are quiet enough, so some level of noise is part of the background anyway, though with the high-end setup I hear the environmental noise over the self-noise of the mics, so the threshold or limitation changes, but the limitation is still around the mics and what they pick up rather than in the recording section of the recorder. 

Any recorder of a certain quality should be fine with mics plugged in (all the suggestions here good I think, though I'm not sure about the Zoom in practice).  If you're not plugging in mics the choice may be very different than the choice if internal mics are a non-factor.   

[Argitoth]

I was going to start a new thread for this, but might as well ask here first.

I am interested in using an X/Y mic setup for mobile recording. Right now I have a microphonemadness sennheiser capsul omni / binaural stereo mic which I was planning on using with the PCM-M10 even for sounds I want to capture close and dry. Listening to PCMD100 and Zoom H5/H6/H4n demos I discovered that I like the sound of 90 and 120 degree X/Y pair.

So I was thinking of buying this along with the PCM M10: http://microphonemadness.com/products/mmflexgoosca.htm
$200 for M10 + $150 for cardioid gooseneck mics = $350.

Is there a better way to spend $350-$450? And as bombdiggity wisely explained, there's something to be said about getting the right tool for the job.
Edit: Maybe the R26 is what I need as it would give me the XLR for proper mic and mini jack for the omnis I have, plus it would come with an xy pair although I didn't like the "quality" of the built in mics when I heard demos, but I could use the omnis to add width or use just the built in mics when I don't need width.

Edit: OK SOOOOO.... I called B&H and they said I could buy use and return the R26 if I really don't like it. So that's what I'll do... wonder if they'll let me buy/try both M10 and R26 and return one.

[bombdiggity]

^ Well this is nearly a different topic. 

I'd suggest spending some time researching threads on mic patterns

An X/Y pattern is typically used with highly directional mics. 

An omni mic probably won't benefit from that pattern, nor is an omni mic likely to give you a "close and dry" sound.  Omnis capture a wide field.  To my taste they tend to be too reverberant "big roomy" sounding, almost regardless of room placement, but especially at any distance.  Cards will usually be "drier", though IMO properly used their stereo separation can give you a unique sense of a directional soundstage, where an omni gives a more even blended (or smeared?) perspective.  Omnis are often used widely spaced to introduce more stereo perspective (two omnis as close together as the end of a recorder are IMO essentially going to converge to a mono perspective). 

X/Y setups are (usually? / always?) using cardioid or tighter patterns.  The general theory behind an X/Y pattern (in my interpretation) is partly an attempt to reduce cross-channel phasing that can occur with cards.  It should provide a somewhat drier, cleaner sound than some other potential patterns. 

I don't know a lot of people that use MM.  They may be a starter mic but that s/n ratio is pretty low AND they do recommend something else for loud sources (so may not be that good for quiet or loud?). 

You haven't really said what sort of music (and/or other things) you want this setup for? 

There are lots of choices.  In general letting your ears be your guide is a good approach though one needs to temper that with some comparison of the samples to the types of material, venues, and placement you are most likely to find yourself in.  An omni onstage sounds very different than an omni back by the board. 

[yltfan]

If you are going for small, cheap, cards, I like the Audio Technica 853. Also good and popular around here are the Church Audio CA-14. Omni versions of both are available. And you could easily set up something like the gooseneck mount you linked, or spread them out more...

[Argitoth]

So the closeness of the omni mics on the R26 would give more of a mono sound, which is demonstrated by the videos. R26 omni mics therefore seem pointless. Also, when combining the R26 omni and XY mics, from what I hear of the demos, sounds like the phase interaction is all wrong. The only thing that sounds "right" to me is the XY by itself.

This confirms my suspicion, "omni mics" don't sound omnidirectional all the time:
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=171145.0
More words of wisdom about omni mics of PCM M10:
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/all-things-audio/486377-sony-pcm-m10-vs-pcm-d50.html#post1580883
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=130924.msg1723226#msg1723226

Just incase it was lost in all the text now in this thread: I need a low noise setup. I will be recording mostly quiet sounds at close distance for dryness. One potentially good setup for me may be my external omni mics I already own plus R26 XY mics.

Apparently the Audio Technica 853 is discontinued and the U853A is the replacement, which is $313 * 2 (for stereo) and would be $626 + $200 for M10 = $826, so that's out of range for me right now.
So Yltfan, $139.99 for CA-14 + $200 Sony M10 = $340 is within the $350-$450 range. My target level of noise is the PCM-M10 internal mics. How would the CA-14 with M10 compare to that? If CA-14 is low noise, that sounds like an ideal way to spend the money.

[2manyrocks]

there were a pair of NOS AT853s in the Yard Sale here on TS for $135 shipped that just sold over the weekend.  It's a good idea to keep an eye on what is listed there unless you want to end up forking out full retail price for gear elsewhere.