Topic: My first digital recorder... one foot in the water

[rastasean]

the R44 is very tempting but I think the price of it will come down pretty soon to make it more tempting BUT then you have to make sure you're using decent mics in it in order to balance out the price. Why spend $800 on a recorder and then $200 on a pair of mics. Don't get me wrong, you can get great sound from the $200 pair but don't spend $800 on a recorder then.

Quite honestly, all your choices are great and now its just a matter of the size you want to lug around. Owning the 2LE, its very light and probably about the same as D50.

- can't switch recording quality without changing or reformatting the CF card [on the 2LE]

I do understand that frustration but if you have a large enough card, format it the way you want (16/44, 24/48) and forget about it.

[stevetoney]

^ I'll differ a little bit on your 'why spend $800' comment above, Rasta.  The appeal of the R44 of course is 4 channels and most people use the second set of channels for the occasions that they can get SBD access.  If you matrix a SBD together with ANY ambient sound source, whether from a $200 pair of mics or a $2000 pair, the results usually sound really great!  It's pretty nice having those two extra channels available for the times when they might be needed.  The other thing is that the next more expensive 4 channel recorder is the 744, at $3600 or so!  I was actaully thinking for that reason that the price of the R44 might creep upward a bit...as it has since it was first introduced.  Demand still seems quite high for the R44 too.  But who knows?

There's also the benefit that the R-44s stock preamps have been critiqued by our members and they're reporting them as being very quiet and nice sounding, although I think the FR2LEs stock electronics hold their own also.

[sunjan]

The other thing is that the next more expensive 4 channel recorder is the 744, at $3600 or so! 

Don't forget about R-4 and R-4 Pro... But they're not as portable, I guess that disqualifies them in this respect.

[mark_ivan]

The R44 is getting more investigation/consideration, based on a the following few facts:

- I could spend up to about $1000 on a recorder or pre/recorder combo so it is within budget (R4 Pro and SD items are unfortunately too much for me right now)
- higher gain than the FR2LE (56dB vs 40bB I think) which would be handy for VERY quiet or distant sources, or quiet mics like my Sony ECM999 (-48dB)
- comments on the preamp quality put the R44 at or above the FR2LE
- digital in (not sure if I would use this, but like having the option)
- usb transfer (although reportedly a bit sluggish) vs firewire as on the HP-D2 (another interest)
- still pretty small and decent battery time
- like the idea of being able to set up two 'instrument' (?) mics and two 'room' (?) mics and mix together afterwards.

Four channels does however feel a bit like overkill for my first digital recorder, and distracting from the fundamentals of getting good sound from a stereo pair.

Still feel good about my Busman BSC1 mic decision, after a moments hesitation over the lower sensitivity (9mV from 94dB @ 1KHz). They should be in hand next week.
Ordering some Canare Quad and Neutriks from FullCompass to make cables, but the recorder selection is still a horse race....

[stevetoney]

- digital in (not sure if I would use this, but like having the option)

This is indeed a nice to have feature, if only to provide added flexibility for your recorder.

- still pretty small and decent battery time

I've had both and I'd say that the FR2LE and R-44 are pretty close to the same overall size.

- like the idea of being able to set up two 'instrument' (?) mics and two 'room' (?) mics and mix together afterwards.

For sure a nice feature.

Four channels does however feel a bit like overkill for my first digital recorder, and distracting from the fundamentals of getting good sound from a stereo pair.

I personally wouldn't consider it overkill or distracting...I mean you haven't considered going for a mic set with a full compliment of capsules to be overkill over distracting, have you.  I think it's good decision making whereas lots of us went through a progression to get to the point where you are now!  Look at it this way...basically for another couple bills you're adding two more channels.  Otherwise it's just a nice low profile recorder with a great feature set.  It's hard to argue with people that suggest that the R-44 provides the best bang for buck out there right now.

[notlance]

Still feel good about my Busman BSC1 mic decision, after a moments hesitation over the lower sensitivity (9mV from 94dB @ 1KHz).

Recording classical music with the Busman mics I have not had a problem with low sensitivity.  I you want low sensitivity, take a look at  some (but not all) of the ribbon mics out there.

[deadheadcorey]

the prices for the ua-5's are a freaking steal, pick one up if you can....


busman mics totaly kick ass

[mark_ivan]

An X2 came up on YS, so I bought it.

Have the impression, that although it does not have digital out, it is a very good sounding pre.
Not sure if it is better than a modded (not just digi) UA-5, but hoping it might be (?)

So.

BUSMAN BSC1 KIT >> X2 >> ??

Still hunting, FR2LE is a nice sounding recorder but is a bit bulky, H120 etc only has 16bit, MTII sounds like it comes with occasional freeze issues.

Would like to find something small with good sounding line inputs (XLR or 1/4" ideally, phantom not required), 24 bit capability, and that can function on its own as a good portable playback unit with headphones.

[Brian Skalinder]

For small with good sound, the Edirol R-09HR is tough to beat.  Two "drawbacks":  <1>  less robust 1/8" stereo input (though not really an issue, there are lots of people using this recorder!), and <2> you can't run your mics directly into the recorder;  you'll always have to use the X2 or other device(s) that provide phantom power and gain.  If you want the option of slimming down and leaving the X2 at home sometimes, you can't do it with this option.

In order of smaller to bigger, there's also the Tascam DR-100, Marantz PMD-661, and FR-2LE.  All three will allow you to slim down the gear -- leave the X2 at home -- for those occasions (if) you wish to do so.  All three devices support playback, but I can't speak to specific playback quality.  What kind of playback are we talking?  Monitoring recordings, listening to recordings in the field,  portable / personal music player?

[DSatz]

mark_ivan, I know nothing about Busman mikes, but 9 mV/Pa (1 Pa = ca. 94 dB SPL) is NOT a low level of sensitivity; it is an absolutely typical level of sensitivity for professional studio condenser microphones.

Let me see if I can put this into some perspective. Every mike preamp, and the mike input circuit of every recorder or mixer, has some voltage that is the maximum it can accept without distorting. The designers have some idea in mind as to how their equipment will be used and what kinds of microphones it will be used with, and they make their design choices on that basis, which may or may not be an accurate guess as to how you or I will use their gear.

The choices that they make vary all over the lot--some preamps and recorders overload at 50 - 100 mV because they were built on the assumption that consumer (dynamic or low-output electret) microphones would be used and/or only moderate sound levels would be picked up. Others who know the professional environment a little better might set that limit at around half a Volt; still others go even higher (I like those people)--there are even a few preamps that can take 10 Volts of "microphone-level" input without flinching.

Keep in mind that this input voltage limit can be (and very often is) completely independent of how the gain controls of the unit are set. When too high a voltage is coming in, the first active device in the circuit is being pushed into clipping, and in many/most microphone input circuits that's before the point where the gain control has any effect at all. So at that point you could say that the gain control is merely deciding how much to amplify an already distorted signal.

For example, with the portable Sony DAT recorders TCD-D7 and TCD-D8, if you have to set the gain knob below about 3-1/2 to prevent the meters from reaching 0 dB, the mike inputs are being overloaded. As far as sound quality is concerned, you're no better off reducing the levels on the meter, because the signals are already distorted just as badly at the first circuit stage. This unfortunately is typical of what happens when consumer recording equipment is used with microphones that have professional sensitivity levels.

Now, why would people want microphones to have even higher sensitivity? The reason most often given is to drown out the noise of a microphone preamp. People don't want to crank the gain up too high on their preamp or recorder because they'll hear some hiss that way. But the venue where you're recording has some ambient noise level and your microphones have an "ambient" noise level, and it's important to be realistic about those two sources of noise in relation to the preamp noise.

I'm not saying that preamp noise is never a factor, but I am saying that (a) the level of hiss you hear when you turn up the gain on a recorder with no microphone connected (which is what a lot of people use as their point of reference) can be much higher than the hiss you would hear if an impedance similar to that of a microphone was plugged in to the mike inputs of the recorder, so one's fear of turning up the gain knob can get exaggerated that way; (b) good studio condenser microphones may well have output noise levels 15 to 20 dB higher than the input noise levels of good preamps, especially at low and mid frequencies; by the time you account for this, there isn't nearly as much difference among the combined noise levels of microphone and preamp combinations as you might expect if you consider the two components separately; and (c) the noise of almost any live recording venue I've ever worked in (and I'm a classical music engineer) swamps both of those other noise sources by a country mile, especially if there's an audience.

So I don't wish that my microphones had higher sensitivity. I actually have recorded a lot of early music, including instruments such as the clavichord which never put out more sound volume than a quiet speaking voice, but I'm not fool enough to mike them from 30 feet away with a pair of Beyer M 160s (1 mV/Pa ribbons which are actually very nice mikes, apart from that) and if I were fool enough, I wouldn't blame my equipment. Nor would select my equipment so that I could make such a foolish engineering choice, at the cost of not being able to record things at normally high volume levels.

Does that make sense?

--best regards

[mark_ivan]

Thanks very much for the information.

I think my earlier statement was based on my limited knowledge:
- Rode NT1A have 25mV sensitivity
- Oade site recommends mics with at least 15mV sensitivity for 'ambient' recording
- I have a Fostex FR2LE temporarily in my clutches, and it has only 40dB gain (I think)

In some of the recording situations that I anticipate, I might not always be able to close mic the acoustic instruments I would like to record, and thought that higher sensitivity mics would 'compensate' for the low(?!) gain of the fostex pre.

Recently I have purchased a used Wendt X2 pre, which I am hoping will provide clean gain in excess of what the Fostex (if that is what I end up buying) would provide for situations of low volume recording with insufficient access to the source.

I recently found out about the open circuit preamp noise vs mic loaded noise issue, and made some 500ohm stubs to listen to a Sony DC50s internal noise, and you are right, there is a big difference.

However, if looking for manufacturing variations between the same products (two D50s lets say, and there were significant differences), wouldn't comparing unloaded mic noise from one unit to the other be as valid as loaded noise to see if one is overall quieter?

In the end though, your sobering comments about overall system noise (inherrent mic noise etc.) would appear to make a search for low noise, beyond a reasonable point (the noisiest link in the chain), wasted cost and effort.

I guess at this point I am looking for a recorder with :
- digital input (just in case)
- excellent sound using line in (for with the X2)
- phantom would be nice but not required
- xlr or 1/4" inputs (balanced ideally) would appear to be more reliable over time
- USB 2.0 transfer
- 24 bit (sounds like there are good reasons to go this way if it is available)
- ability to act as a stand alone portable playback system with high quality headphone amp

Alternatively, if I can find a smokin deal on an FR2LE, I might get that AND a used H120 for portable quality playback of wav/mp3 and potential recording.

[DSatz]

mark_ivan, I think you understood everything I was saying quite well, and your list of features you want in a recorder makes good sense to me, too.

I own a number of professional-quality mike preamps, some of which are highly portable and others of which are, shall we say, "luggable" at best. Not long ago I set up an experiment in which I measured the noise of about ten different models, when all of them were set for the same level of gain--around the gain level I most often find myself using for live concert recording.

What I connected to the inputs of all the preamps was an actual microphone body with a "measurement test head" (basically, a well-shielded capacitor with the right connectors attached) substituted for the capsule. Not only does this present the same output impedance to the mike preamp as would usually be in place during a recording, but the phantom powering was turned on, so the microphone was actually generating the same noise levels that it always does.

The result was that under those conditions, to my surprise, all the preamps came out within 2 dB of one another in their unweighted rms noise voltage. If weighting was applied, the differences increased somewhat, and the particulars of the weighting could determine the relative ranking of the preamps. But there were no "night and day" differences, despite rather large differences in cost and reputation.

I think a big part of the reason is that I wasn't using extreme gain settings. Most preamps get their best noise specifications at their maximum gain settings, so that's what you always see listed on the spec sheet. But I was operating some 20-25 dB below that in general, as I think most people do most of the time. So I find that the search for the very quietest preamp may be less important than it might seem.

--best regards