Topic: Microtrack II 1/8 mic in VS Sony RH1 line in

[(Evan)]

Quick question. I'm going to be recording something this weekend that requires me to use small microphones. So I purchased the Sound Professionals CMC-8 mics, along with their battery box.

I have two recorders. A Microtrack II, and a Sony MZ-RH1 HI MD recorder.

The show I'm recording is not particularly loud so I'm not worried much about clipping, however I was wondering which recorder and input I should use to get the best quality recording? Should I use the Microtrack II 1/8" input with the battery box, or the RH1 Line Input with the battery box? The Microtrack doesn't have a mini Line-In, so that's out of the question. I really want to be able to record in 24 bits, but I was told that the Microtrack's Mic-In is poor quality/inferior to Line-In on Sony.

Any recommendations? Thanks!

[boojum]

The battery box is not a pre-amp, so you may still need to use "mic-in."  The SONY RH1 has a very good front end, line-in, mic-in lo, and mic-in hi so you have three flavors.  Point: you can always make it louder.  You cannot get the clipping out once it is there.  You can play with it, smoothing the edges of the clip, but it will always be clipping.

I cannot vouch for the Microtrack, but I have a little RH1 and think it is sweet.

[(Evan)]

Yes I know it's not a pre-amp. And as I said, I'm not worried about clipping. I'm only worried about overall quality.

[willyp523]

Quick question. I'm going to be recording something this weekend that requires me to use small microphones. So I purchased the Sound Professionals CMC-8 mics, along with their battery box.

I have two recorders. A Microtrack II, and a Sony MZ-RH1 HI MD recorder.

The show I'm recording is not particularly loud so I'm not worried much about clipping, however I was wondering which recorder and input I should use to get the best quality recording? Should I use the Microtrack II 1/8" input with the battery box, or the RH1 Line Input with the battery box? The Microtrack doesn't have a mini Line-In, so that's out of the question. I really want to be able to record in 24 bits, but I was told that the Microtrack's Mic-In is poor quality/inferior to Line-In on Sony.

Any recommendations? Thanks!

Haven't owned an RH1 but in the past have used a Sharp MD with a nice front end, along with the same mics you have.  Much preferred that over running 1/8 in on a Microtrack 24/96.  Given the info you've provided...I think your chances for success are greater using the RH1, and I'd run "mic in"   

[fmaderjr]

Not even close. Sony MZ-RH1 all the way. Great mic preamp.

[nameloc01]

Go MD. Unless its acoustic, I'd go "line in", you can always add gain later if need be. The mic jacks are quite sensitive.

[dallman]

I would take 24 bit over 16 bit any time. I'm unfamiliar with the MT2 in terms of personal use, but on the Mt 24/96 (or MT1) the best move was to go through an adapter from 1/8 into 1/4 TRS. This may not be the best idea with the MT2 as there are issues with unbalanced 1/4 inch lines in, but I have made many outstanding recordings on the MT 1, and while I wish it were not true, from the first time I recorded 24 bit there was no turning back. The difference was too much to ignore even though it may require extra post work to dither it back to 16 bit.

If you are confiodent your 1/8 input will not overload, I would go MT.

[fmaderjr]

24 bit may be better than 16 bit, but most hand held recorders like the MT II do not have good enough built in preamps to get any benefit from 24 bit unless you use an external preamp into line in.

The RH1 has a better internal preamp and I think it would be a better choice for you until you get an external pre. You can get good results with your battery box using line in if the source is loud enough to give you decent levels. If not, go mic in. The RH1 has a great mic preamp.

That said, it's very possible that a recording with the MT II would sound equally good to one made with the RH1, but I'd be shocked if it sounded better and I think the RH1 is the safer choice.

[taper420]

as far as front-end and ADC the RH1 is the way to go. again, if it's loud, the preamp on the sony may clip (before the levels do), so the line in might be the best bet.
The ADC on the Sony is VERY high quality.

[fmaderjr]

as far as front-end and ADC the RH1 is the way to go. again, if it's loud, the preamp on the sony may clip (before the levels do)

I agree with taper420 to use line in if it's loud. That's what I do myself, but if you do need to use mic in, there's an easy way to tell if the mic in will clip before the levels indicate clipping. If you need to set the record levels below 12 to keep the meters from hitting 0 DB you will get brickwall distortion and must switch to line in. If you're going mic in, have the record level set at 12 or above, and the meters are peaking below 0 dB you won't clip. 



 

[(Evan)]

Thanks for all the replies! Looks like I'll be using the RH1 then.

That brings me to another question. Are there any portable 24/96 recorders that have mic inputs that are as good quality as the RH1?

[nameloc01]

IMO, a HI-MD deck typically sounds better than the other handhelds (MT,R9s,ect)
I just got my 2nd M100 deck today

[Falconidave]

Thanks for all the replies! Looks like I'll be using the RH1 then.

That brings me to another question. Are there any portable 24/96 recorders that have mic inputs that are as good quality as the RH1?

I would say that the Sony PCM-D50's mic/line-in inputs are as good as the RH1's.  The only problem with using the RH1 is that the maximum bitrate/resolution you can get is 16/44.1 when going PCM wave and then 90 minutes max on a 1GB Hi-MD disk.  I've never owned a MTII, so can't comment there.  But I do own both of the Sony's I mentioned.

[dallman]

24 bit may be better than 16 bit, but most hand held recorders like the MT II do not have good enough built in preamps to get any benefit from 24 bit unless you use an external preamp into line in.

I can hear a huge difference. I only use my MT for low pro situations, and the 24 bit is noticably superior to the 16 bit. Personal choice I guess, but I could never go back to an MD.

[fmaderjr]

I can hear a huge difference. I only use my MT for low pro situations, and the 24 bit is noticably superior to the 16 bit. Personal choice I guess, but I could never go back to an MD.

Sure it's a matter of personal choice and I admit the MT is capable of making excellent recordings, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You are comparing the MT to Hi-MD aren't you? If you hear a huge difference and are not using a preamp with your MT recordings, it would appear that there may be something going wrong with your MD recordings. IMO, at best, the 24 bit MT recordings (made without an external preamp) should sound about the same as the Hi-MD recordings and no way should they sound way better.

Plus as an added bonus the MZ-RH1 is way easier to use inconspicuously. You can put it in your shirt pocket and just look down into your pocket to check levels.