Topic: Portable Recorder Recommendations

[Mike Sarnovsky]

Short of reading this whole forum, I thought I would ask you guys for recorder recommendations.  I bought the 722 when it first came out and haven't looked back since and also have not been following the portable recorder market.  At this point I'm trying to put together a 2nd field rig to do some comparisons. 

Assuming I'm going to most likely run an outboard preamp and a/d, what would be a fine choice for an additional recorder?  I don't want a piece of shit, but don't think I need another 722 either.  I would like some type of S/PDIF input.  Size doesn't need to be a factor in your recommendations as I continually punish myself with a heavy gear bag.

So for reference, my main setup is:  KM140s -> v3 -> 722. 

I am trying to get this going:  184s -> TBD transformer based pre (anyone selling?) -> Oade Mod SBM-1 -> recorder TBD

Oh... and call me old school but I've got a bunch of fresh SLAs that I still carry so powering said recorder these would be preferrable but not required. 

[guysonic]

Of course you could try for something entirely different, since you have one of the heaviest configured rigs possible, why not go for the slightest rig possible that doesn't sacrifice quality?

My suggestion is unique based on Sony PCM-M10 and my company's mic systems as a two-piece stereo-surround outfit with 10-45,000 cycle bandwidth.

The rig using full bandwidth precision matched pickups, custom star-quad wiring, and custom molded hard gold-over-nickel plated jack-safe output plug is shown below.

Windscreened configured mic working this same deck:

More info on other DSM models shown in the chart linked to a few of the many available recordings in Retail Section:
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=83254.0

Another favorite recorder choice of mine having (important to me) missing on Sony decks 88.2K rate is best with small external preamplifier (as shown below using same brand of mics) tech reviewed here: http://www.sonicstudios.com/r09hrrev.htm

Sample Recordings using these configurations at www.sonicstudios.com/mp3.htm and http://www.sonicstudios.com/mp3_2slp.htm

[su6oxone]

If you need a digi-in, you could go with the Sony PCM D50 which has optical in or the Marantz PMD 661 which has a digital coax in.  I'm sure others will chime in with other models that have digital inputs...

[rastasean]

edirol r44 has digi in and you can get this modded, if you would like.

[Todd R]

You mention comparisons -- if you're trying to do controlled comparisons of one mic or one mic/preamp combo to another, you might want something like the Edirol R44 (either stock, oade-, or busman-modded), or newer Tascam DR680 (stock or busman-modded).

If you're just wanting a second rig that you can run and decide later whether you like that second rig compared to your 140>v3 rig, then maybe consider the marantz pmd-661 or tascam hd-p2, both of which have a digi-coax in.  I've got the sony D50 and love it.  If you're V3 is opti-modded (or if you don't mind sending it to grace for the optical output), the D50 works great as a digi-in recorder with the V3, so you could switch around what you're thinking and do 140>V3>D50 and 184>?>sbm1>722.

Also, A/D stages of recorders have come a long way in the last 10-15 years, so you might consider skipping the modsbm1, and run 24 bits right into a recorder.  I actually like the D50 A/D stage quite a bit and it can sound very nice just with an analog preamp in front of it.  I run a transformer EAA PSP2 into my D50 all the time and like it quite a bit.

Whether or not you keep the sbm1 in the chain, you might consider the Naiant littlebox preamp with the optional transformer output.  I ran a controlled comp of milab vm44-link mics split to my PSP2 and to my output-transformer modded littlebox, all into a Tascam 680.  I preferred the PSP2 over the tranfo littlebox, but only by a very slight amount.  Both sounded very similar, but the PSP2 seemed a bit more coherent.  I need to listen more, but it may be that the PSP2 has just a bit more output in the upper-bass or lower-mids, which seems to pull together the recording a bit.  Still though, the much cheaper and way easier to purchase tranfo littlebox sounded very, very good.

[Mike Sarnovsky]

Todd, one reason I rarely (practically never) run the A/D on my recorder and use it as a bit bucket is the ability to run the entire chain I'll say "hot as balls" so that I basically don't have to post-process anything and can run the show with no worries of audible clipping.  I'll use audible loosely for the purposes of this forum in general.  One of my pet peeves is a quality recording that I really have to max out the volume on my playback system to hear and/or enjoy thoroughly.  When I ran the MP-2 -> mod-sbm1 -> d100 I could run it hot.... mics -> 722 not very forgiving.  However putting the v3 in front of there and using the 722 as a bitbucket... my recordings are hot, sound good, and have some meat and volume to them.  The frustration level of clipping something running analog in just isn't worth it... perhaps I've recorded incorrectly for 10+ years, but that's the style that I enjoy. 

I will take a look at the Tascam unit though.   Thanks for the reply. 

Mike

[fmaderjr]

Todd, one reason I rarely (practically never) run the A/D on my recorder and use it as a bit bucket is the ability to run the entire chain I'll say "hot as balls" so that I basically don't have to post-process anything and can run the show with no worries of audible clipping. 

It sounds like doing it that way is what you are comfortable with and you aren't about to change.

Nevertheless, running "hot as balls" was the was to go with 16 bit recordings. Now that we can record in 24 bits, we can add up to 15-20 dB of gain in post without any audible noise being recorded (and 0 danger of clipping). How much trouble is it to do some post if you basically just want to add some gain and maybe tracks? I couldn't repeatedly listen to a recording without tracks anyway, so I must do some post work.

At some point you might want to consider trying a few recordings that way and see what you think.

[Todd R]

Recording systems and recording technique is really a personal choice thing, so obviously you should do what you like and what you are comfortable with.

That said, I don't really think there should be a difference in running a system with an outboard A/D unit and running a system where the A/D function is inside the recorder.  If you run a system with an outboard A/D to the point of digital clipping (or beyond), it should be the exact same as running a system with the A/D inside the recorder to the point of clipping.

If you get into the realm of digital clipping (>0dBFS), either way you get a waveform with the peaks squared off once you start clipping.  Seems to me like it should sound exactly the same, no matter which system type you're running.  On that basis, it seems to me like you could run either type of system hot as balls.

[Mike Sarnovsky]

Maybe it was a low gain / high gain issue when I ran 184 -> 722 many years ago... I always knew that when I put a v3 in front I could smoke the 722 digital input and basically hear no clipping even if there is visually clipping when looking at the waveform.