Topic: best point and shoot?

[sailcat]

I'm looking for recommendations on the best of the small recorders for point and shoot applications. I record live performances as well as rehearsals, mostly African percussion = pretty high spls. I'm suing the Zoom H2 now, and it's less than happy about the job. I've heard that the Tascam DR 1 has an analogue limiter and an extra-low gain setting, which may take care of these issues.

Anyone got any recommendations on how I should choose my next recorder for this specialized application? External mics usually not an option, by the way.

Thanks

[John Willett]

I still like the Olympus LS-10 - the Edirol R-9HR is also worth considering.

[flintstone]

What don't you like about the H2?  Just clipping at high SPL?  Or something else?

[sailcat]

What don't you like about the H2?  Just clipping at high SPL?  Or something else?

Well, I'm getting lots of mud in the low-mid ranges, and I've got to really boost the highs in post. Not really a clipped signal, but maybe some im distortion.  I still need to work more with placement, and haven't tried using all 4 mics in the center of a circle of players, say, to put the low drums on one side and the highs on the other for greater mixing flexibility, but I don't often have as much control of those variables as I would like. 4-8 African drummers at full tilt is a challenge.

to those who recommended R-09HR or the Olympus, why for this particular application? I've read here, for instance, that the Olympus doesn't handle very loud very well.

Anybody got anything on the Tascam?

I'd love to try all of the units and choose the best that way, but I'm on Zoom budget.

edit: I'm not totally ready to give up on the H2 yet - just hoping someone will pop up with a glowing recommendation. Point and shoot is not the common methodology here, so I was wondering who has some experience.

[flintstone]

Raimund Specht measured clipping level when mic sensitivity is set
to "low" and volume set to maximum:

Edirol R-09HR  clipping at -22 dBu

Olympus LS-10 clipping at -30 dBu

So the R-09HR can record sounds that are 8 dB louder before clipping.

http://www.avisoft.com/recordertests.htm

(note that unless specified otherwise, these recorder tests are
with mic sensitivity set to "high")

[digifish_music]

I'm looking for recommendations on the best of the small recorders for point and shoot applications. I record live performances as well as rehearsals, mostly African percussion = pretty high spls. I'm suing the Zoom H2 now, and it's less than happy about the job. I've heard that the Tascam DR 1 has an analogue limiter and an extra-low gain setting, which may take care of these issues.

Anyone got any recommendations on how I should choose my next recorder for this specialized application? External mics usually not an option, by the way.

Thanks

The consensus is that recording at 24 bit and using conservative recording levels is a better way to go than using limiters.

As for units, relying ONLY on the internal mics, the Sony D50 is guaranteed not to disappoint on audio quality (particularly self noise levels), articulation captured in the recording or build quality.



Strictly speaking, THE best from internal mics is the Sony D-1 but at ~ USD $1800 it's probably not what you were thinking of spending. The D50 is about USD $500.

I use an R09HR BTW.

digifish

[digifish_music]

Raimund Specht measured clipping level when mic sensitivity is set
to "low" and volume set to maximum:

Edirol R-09HR  clipping at -22 dBu

Olympus LS-10 clipping at -30 dBu

So the R-09HR can record sounds that are 8 dB louder before clipping.

http://www.avisoft.com/recordertests.htm

(note that unless specified otherwise, these recorder tests are
with mic sensitivity set to "high")

I have a lot of respect for the H2, for a long time it was one of the quietest (self noise internal mics) of any <$500 recorder on the market. I have heard many excellent ambient & instrumental recordings from the H2, but in direct comparison to some of the latest recorders the internal mics? fall down on higher frequency detail / transient capture. I wouldn't recommend recording percussion with it for that reason. However, OTOH placed in the middle of an ensemble with front + rear mics recording you could make a nice overall mix I think.

You can listen to the Zoom H2 compared to other recorders here...

http://www.wingfieldaudio.com/portable-recorder-sound-samples.html

and

http://www.wingfieldaudio.com/portable-recorder-sound-samples-2.html

digifish

[sailcat]

Thanks everyone for your replies so far.

Digifish - I've lusted after the Sony D1 since it came out, and the D 50 looks very, very good. And I'll still keep working on the H2 in various placements. I understand about 24 bit and conservative levels, but there's no control over levels with internal mics other than LMH gain switch on most of these units. Do any of them have adjustable analog gain? That would definitely solve some of the issues.

Still hoping someone can tell me something about the Tascam unit. On paper, it looks like it would compete favorable with the Sony, but I'd love to hear from someone who's used it.

[digifish_music]

Thanks everyone for your replies so far.

... Do any of them have adjustable analog gain? That would definitely solve some of the issues.

Everything but the H2 has variable gain

digifish

[Ozpeter]

The H2 has three-step analog gain.  Or something like it.  There's some mystery over the high and medium settings, which seem to give the same signal to noise ratio.  Fortunately the mid setting is very well chosen and produces good results with almost all non-amplified music.

[stantheman1976]

I make another vote for the D50.  I had the H2 and it wasn't bad, but it didn't fit my needs.  The D50 is made well, has dedicated controls for almost everything, and low self noise.  I also like the switchable mic positions.  That gives a little more versatility for me.

[nolonemo]

I also moved from the H2 to the D50.  The D50's sound is definitely a step up, plus if you ever want to use an external mic, there is simply no comparison, the D50's pres blow the H2 away.  Money well spent, IMO, if you can swing it.

[dallman]

While I agree that the D50 is likely a better unit, but in reading your comments, it seems that there is a placement issue based on the sound you get. Both units will give very nice recordings if placed properly which is often difficult. This is why most of us use external mics whenever possible. Quality is one reason, yes, but placement and placement flexibility is an equally important feature of external mics.

I would look to solve that issue first before shelling out more money. It could very well be the high SPL issue and perhaps a lack of balance between the spl's of the various instruments, but I would listen to samples of others using the Zoom H2 to see if that matches your issues sonically.

I think most of the units we know of perform very nicely in the correct environment and with the correct placement. For example, I have had success in tight spots using my MT 2496. I am not recommending it (or not not recommending it  ), but I will say as an example, that when using Church mics I can set the LMH swith usually to "M" or "H", and then adjust my gain, but with my AT 853's, I have to stay in the "L" position. (BTW, I always go thru the TRS jacks on my MT, so if someone uses the 1/8 jacks they will have very different results still.) Same recorder, very different results, lots of possible use combinations. The internal mics are what they are on any unit, so determining if they will not work with the music you record should be less difficult. The T-mic my MT came with is different still (omni vs Cardioid for one), so that has different settings that seem to optimize recording with that mic, but placement is always critical. I have a Belkin Tunetalk  recording add-on for my iPod. I have some great recordings from that when well placed. It is the least flexible and a step down, but I have made great recordings in a pinch taping (isn't that why we are called tapers) it up on a wall.

I guess my point is, do the research and don't be hasty. You have a very good recorder, and it may or may not be right for you, but if the issue is improper placement, any recorder will be disappointing.

[Chilly Brioschi]

I'm no Sony fluffer, but I must concede that the D50 is a great sounding and well-designed unit.

I think that it doesn't use CF or SDHD cards, however. I didn't have much time to play with it.

[stantheman1976]

It does use Sony sticks which are more expensive than regular SD or CF cards.  That is really my only complaint against it. 

[John Willett]

I would probably agree that the Sony PCM-D50 is the best quality.

My short-list was the Sony, the Edirol R9HR and the Olympus LS-10.

In the end I went for the Olympus based on the "feel" (it just felt perfect in the hand) the ease of use and the size.

It is the size that it easily slips into a pocket and I carry it with me all the time - the other two are slightly larger and carried the risk that I would leave it at home (just when I needed to use it of course - Murphy's Law).

But I would be happy with any of the three.

[sailcat]

Thanks again everyone for your input. Dallman - you're rigtht on the money - more experimentation with placement is the key for sure. Of course, this requires getting a bunch of other people to participate in my agenda when theirs is different, but I'll have to do it. Just as an aside - notice that I didn't post in "ask the tapers", but went immediately to the idea of buying something else to solve my problem. I've done enough studio work to know that mic placement is often the greatest part of getting the sound you want, but some part of my brain was secretly hoping that one of these boxes would do it all for me.

I wonder how much interest there is in more point-and-shoot discussion? Some of us just have to work that way, and some of the manufacturers are using much better built in mics and pres. Just askin'

[rastasean]

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug08/articles/edirolr09hr.htm

I read this review last night from the magazine in person! It was a pretty good article and a fair review, but you can't read the review online for free. Go to your local book store and read it but don't buy the magazine since they don't offer reviews to be posted online for free.

[Ozpeter]

Go to your local book store and read it but don't buy the magazine since they don't offer reviews to be posted online for free.

Why should they?  They're a business, and reviews are the most expensive part of their content to produce.  It's a bit like saying "go to band X's concert and listen from outside, but don't go in as they don't let people have free tickets".

[rastasean]

Go to your local book store and read it but don't buy the magazine since they don't offer reviews to be posted online for free.

Why should they?  They're a business, and reviews are the most expensive part of their content to produce.  It's a bit like saying "go to band X's concert and listen from outside, but don't go in as they don't let people have free tickets".

Fair enough but all the other reviews I've read have been online for free. If you want to buy the magazine, I won't stop you. I just didn't find it worth my mom to buy.
That's all.

[John Willett]

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug08/articles/edirolr09hr.htm

I read this review last night from the magazine in person! It was a pretty good article and a fair review, but you can't read the review online for free. Go to your local book store and read it but don't buy the magazine since they don't offer reviews to be posted online for free.

You are quite wrong here.

Sound On Sound certainly *do* let you read the magazine on-line for free.

Just not the latest issue.

On-line magazine content is locked to subscribers only (and you *can* get a cheaper on-line only sub. if you want) for about three months - after this it can be read by anyone.

I think this is entirely reasonable - reviews and magazines are expensive to produce.  So why should any mag. put up everything free on-line immediately?

I think Sound On Sound are very good here - if you want to be a cheapskate and read it for free, just wait a couple of months or so.

[rastasean]

I think Sound On Sound are very good here - if you want to be a cheapskate and read it for free, just wait a couple of months or so.

But I've already read it.

[dallman]

I wonder how much interest there is in more point-and-shoot discussion? Some of us just have to work that way, and some of the manufacturers are using much better built in mics and pres. Just askin'

I think it is a great topic. I really dislike having to "hide" my mics, but there are times I do, and while some of what then happens is luck, some is from experience. I have recorded putting my MT in my shirt pocket with a t-mic on it and done very well. Some critical pieces for me when I do this are that I have a battery box than snaps on top of the unit and converts the 1/8 jack to 1/4TRS. This is important on the MT1 is the 1/8 jacks are too sensitive, but it also gives the deck more height to stick out of my shirt pocket. And the T-mic is attached to an "L" shaped adapter (1/8 to 1/8) that gives me the ability to swivel the T-mics.

The biggest issue (always) is the noise and talking around me...

I much prefer to use the unit plugged into my church mics that are in croakies so they are on my glasses. Mics higher up, and depending on my relation to the sound source, even if I have chatty folks around me, sometimes putting the glasses atop my head, allows a straighter path to the sound source and minimizes my pickup of the crowd talking. I do not mind crowd buzz (don't love it, but can deal with it) but really dislike picking up individual conversations while recording. Those are my usual issues.

There are other situations that I handle differently, but I always try to anticipate factors such as where am I sitting, where will the sound souce be, how much crowd is in front of me, and how critical is it that the mics not be seen.