Digital audio recording equipment

[Janner]

My apologies if this topic has been raised here before; if it has perhaps someone would be kind enough to direct me to the relevant posts. Failing that, has anyone any suggestions or experience regarding digital audio recording equipment suitable for recording organ, (mainly, though not exclusively)?

I am thinking of something small, portable and suitable for the amateur, a modern equivalent of the old portable reel to reel / cassette recorders.

Any suggestions welcome, also any tips regarding making recordings.

Many thanks.

[revtonynewnham]

Hi

There are a number of miniature portable digital recorders around, prices from around £70 to £500+.  I'd look at the units by Tascam (but there are other equally good brands) - ideally, go for one that allows you to connect decent external mics.  Take a look at a pro-audio supplier's website, e.g. Studiospares.com.  Alternatively, a pair of good mics, an external soundcard (I use a Tascam US122) and a laptop.  Not so portable as the all-in-one units - but no need to transfer the recordings if you want to edit them.

If you're happy to straight to CD, then Marantz, and IIRC, Tascam do portable CD recorders.

Every Blessing

Tony

[dragonser]

Hi,
that is a good question. As mentioned there are now stand alone recording units made by several manufacturers [ including Zoom and Roland ].
you need to look at the features / cost carefully as if you want to connect external mics  if the mics have xlr connectors you need a recorder with xlr sockets or would need you to use a small external mixer to do the same thing. But of course if you are starting out you may want to start by trying recording using the internal mics first.
most seem to allow you to play back the recordings on headphones and then you can transfer the recordings to a computer at a later date and save onto a cd should you want to.

regards Peter B

[Colin Pykett]

It's not an easy question to answer if you are strapped for cash (like most of us!).  Don't laugh, but I still use Minidisc for most of my digital recordings unless exceptional and professional standards are required (in which case I borrow or hire the necessary gear).  In my case this means if I need to record at better than 16 bits/44.1 kHz sampling rate.

Minidisc has come and (almost) gone over the last decade.  This has its upsides and downsides.  The downsides are that almost nothing can now be obtained new.  The upsides are that there is lots of second hand gear around.  Take a look at ebay - I've just done this by typing in a search for "minidisc recorder" and 124 hits came up. 

Quoting my own experiences, I bought a new Sharp MD portable recorder ('Walkman' type - model MD-MT280E) new in c. 2001 for nearly £100.  It was a good little item and I still have it.  But, fearing the looming obsolescence problem, I watched for a similar item on ebay a year or so ago, as a backup, and got it for £9.  This included lots of extras including two microphones, a set of discs and a carrying case.  And it was a later model than my earlier one!

If you do go this way, you must ensure you buy a stash of blank discs though, otherwise you'll have nothing to make recordings on as time goes on.  But as of today, there are still lots of these around, including on ebay.

The other obvious and cheap answer is just to use a laptop and record direct onto CD. 

I use both these techniques currently.

Hope this helps.

Regards

Colin Pykett

[David Pinnegar]

Hi!

Minidisc really has its uses when putting together a programme to play to people as part of a demonstration - easy to record and do simple edits. However the problem really comes when one needs to output a WAV file to accompany a video or other computer based medium.

For this reason, whereas before I used to record onto minidisc then copy onto CD then "rip" the CD onto computer, the Zoom H2 with built in microphones does a trojan job and puts a WAV file directly onto disc. Many pro sound people in the film industry keep one in their back pocket as a backup recording if other equipment fails.

Best wishes

David P

[revtonynewnham]

Hi Colin

You're not alone in using Minidisc - and pro rack-mount recorders are still readily available new (at least according to the catalogues).  I have a Sony portable and a couple of domestic Hi_Fi machines.  I use the portable for non-critical location recordings and the fixed units for casual off-air recording and as a backup recorder alongside either a CD recorder or, more frequently these days, a laptop, for live recording.  It's easy enough to tidy up MD recordings and "clone" vie the digital output on one of my machines direct to a CD recorder.  I guess that discs will be available for some time to come, but since I don't archive many MD recordings, I've got plenty in stock to last me quite some time.

Audio playback for demos, etc I tend to do from a computer - I've found a couple of free programmes that allow tracks to be played "on demand" without the hassle on the normal media players that normally go on to the next track in the list.

The church has an M-Audio card recorder, which we use mainly for services - mainly because it's easy to drop onto a computer and top & tail for service recordings.  Even the obviously budget mics that came with it produce reasonable results, although for anything important I'd got for decent external ones (or, more likely, go direct to laptop).  (We use the line-level inputs for the church services).

Every Blessing

Tony

[barniclecompton]

I use a zoom H4N which has always given very good results, it allows you to connect 2 external microphones and allows you to record with the zooms own microphones and the external ones simaltaneously.

[KB7DQH]

Sorry guys, but good luck finding blank minidisc media in ANY retail outlet here in the USA :o  :( >:( :'(

A few years ago one could walk into nearly any store with electronic goodies and find them but I tried that last summer, and, now, nothing... NOTHING :o :o

One can still buy ferric-oxide audiocassettes, but none of the chromium-oxide or metal-particle tape stock is being offered, and when NOS metal cassette material becomes available certain audiophiles into "old technolgy" will no doubt buy them in whatever quantity they can afford or are made available :o :o :o :o

Digital Audio Tape may still be available at larger stores catering to musicians but may now have to be purchased from "commercial customer" suppliers.

I, too, have a collection of portable minidisc recorders for the reasons mentioned above and still have a limited supply of media on hand, however there is a limit to the number of times the media can be
"recorded over" before this no longer becomes possible.

After my failed attempt at finding blank minidisc media available in retail outlets I have chosen to archive material on the computer, and record direct to the computer whenever possible, and from there I can "burn" a CD for use in a CD player...

Where I have run into problems is in encoding into MP3 format... So I don't any longer... until I find software that actually WORKS without murdering the audio quality completely!

Eric
KB7DQH

[Holditch]

I use a Marantz PMD661. This is a very portable (size of an A5 piece of paper) SD recorder. It will record in full 48kHz quality or varying different qualities of MP3 format . The advantage of recording straight into MP3 format means you can plug the machine into your PC via a USB cable and just drag the file across, and if necessary straight onto the internet!

I use a couple of Audio Technica AT8010 omni condenser microphones, which plug directly into the XLR mic inputs on the PM661

Here is a link for the product information
http://www.d-mpro.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=4405

There are a couple of recordings on my website which just use the internal mics on the PMD661
www.thecavendishorgan.com

[KB7DQH]

The cool thing about the PMD 661 is the removable SD memory... Not that under most field conditions one would fill up the memory of something like a Zoom H2/H4... but with the ability to change out the memory, plus the variety of input connections in a form factor not much larger than the Zooms or similar products... I guess I would have to seriously look at the other limiting factors like battery life and price :o ;D

Too many unrelated devices use SD memory for that to become obsoleted anytime soon, one would hope :-\

Eric
KB7DQH

[revtonynewnham]

Hi

I normally go to a pro audio supplier for media that I'm liakely to use a lot - and even some quite obscure formats remain available if you're prepared to buy a box at a time.  I rarely used CrO2 cassettes - a well set-up machine will do almost as well on ferric tape.  I still have a number of blank cassettes in stock that I will need to dispose of sometime, when I get round to sorting out my storage areas and studio. 

Also, I never record to mp3 - why throw information away?  I always record as WAV files, then convert if I need to, either to mp3 or ATRAC (my son gave me his old Sony walkman).  The M-Audio unit in church, and my USB converter both allow 96k/24bit recording.  I use 24 bit occasionally as it means that normalising prior to converting to 16 bit for CD doesn't increase the noise floor significantly - I've yet to try higher bit rate though. When I do convert to mp3 I always use the highest bit rate that I can get away with reasonably to try and maintain quality.  Low bit-rate mp3 sounds horrible.

Every Blessing

Tony

[Colin Pykett]

I agree with everything Tony has said.  Unlike him, I do not have a background in professional broadcast and audio engineering, but I've nevertheless done a lot of it in my time - from live organ performances to generating sample sets.  But his experience is valuable and should be listened to IMHO.

Starting with real history, the biggest problem I now have with legacy cassettes (from the 1970's and 80's) is 'binder ooze', whereby certain cassettes will simply not play at all or only with ludicrous wow as the tape slips on the capstan.  This causes me a lot of grief because some of my old cassettes are valuable, not monetarily of course, but because of their contents.  But funnily enough, I have only found binder ooze to exist on pre-recorded retail tapes, not blank ones which I've then recorded myself.  This suggests there must have been a major quality difference between the two in those days.

Keeping one's cassette decks going is also a problem, particularly when the belts go.  However one or two suppliers still stock a range, and I've also used rubber bands from time to time.  These seem to work remarkably well though they probably won't last too long.  You can't lay in a few spares either, as they seem to perish over time whether you are using them or not.   But good old ebay has come to the rescue here, because if I spot a second hand machine identical to mine I snap it up usually for next to nothing.

As for digital recording, I choose the medium to suit the job, and for my purposes Minidisc is often optimum as I said before.

But, please, not direct to mp3 surely?!! 

Best

Colin Pykett

[Holditch]

MP3 format recorded at 320bps,which the Marantz unit can do, is pretty good. I would definitely consider even this compressed format to be better than compact cassette recording.

I am not trying to convince anyone that it is as good as WAV/CD quality recording however the advantage of a considerably reduced file size compared with WAV must be of some use especially when uploading media to the web. Each type of recording format has its pros and cons obviously

My home hifi set up is rather pro-audio orientated being a Yamaha mixer, QSC power amplifier and a pair of RCF ART300 loudspeakers. I can not tell the difference between 320bps MP3 and WAV, however I'm sure if I were listening to music through a pair of Tannoy Westminsters driven by Krell amplification and a Conrad Johnson front end, then the difference would probably be alarming

[KB7DQH]

Everybody ought to read the article the following link will take you to...

http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/index.html

And from this http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/56 it appears that Sony minidisc machines employ ATRAC digital compression... not entirely lossless... but by my ears better than
mp3...  The other assertion being made is that with the degradation of the quality of "source" material
there really is no point to developing better amplifiers and loudspeakers...

I would have to agree as the quality of the amplifiers and speakers employed in my home reproduction facility are not what most in the "audiophile" community would consider "high quality"...  and on this system I can tell the difference between the various digital schemes employed... 

Eric
KB7DQH

[David Pinnegar]

Hi!

Yes - whilst minidisc is great and often has higher signal to noise ratio, the digital recorders can put 3 hours of continuous uncompressed WAV to CD quality stereo onto a 2Mb disc . . . which certainly works usefully for me . . .

Best wishes

David P

[revtonynewnham]

Hi

Dealing with some of the comments made earlier this afternoon:-
10.  "sticky tape" - or more usually known as "sticky shed syndrome".  this is a problem with certain brands of tape (both cassette and open reel) from the 1970's.  The chemical compound used as a binder to hold the magnetic particles to the plastic backing absorbs water from the atmosphere, and after a number of years (usually 10 plus)  the binder ceases to function properly.  I have seen cases where the tape physically vibrates - and even stalls a professional open-reel machine where the tape has become so sticky.  The resultant mess takes a lot of cleaning off - and the tape is destroyed as it's the magnetic material that's being shed.  If you come across one - stop the machine immediately and give the heads, guides and rollers a very good clean with Isopropyl alcohol (or your preferred cleaning solvent)  The prime culprit for open reel tapes was Ampex (although some other makes also show some symptoms - and others are no problem whatsoever!)  The tape can be rescued by gentle heat - but it needs to be very gentle - if the recording is valuable/irreplaceable then get it done by a specialist company.  I have used a domestic fan oven on the very lowest heat setting - but the danger is melting the backing.  After a couple of hours of gentle baking, the tape is usually playable for a short period - maybe up to a couple of days if you're lucky - but at least long enough to make a copy.  Obviously, you can't replace any sections that have lost the oxide completely!  this is a very major problem for record companies as sometimes irreplaceable masters and session tapes have been affected.

Fortunately, most of the vintage EOCS recordings that I'm (slowly) remastering seem to be old enough to pre-date the problem period - so far I've only found I that exhibited symptoms - but fortunately, I have cassette copies of all the open reel tapes, so I used that in preference to risking heat treatment.

D-I-Y heat treatment is at your own risk!!!!

2. Minidisc - yes, this does use ATRAC compression - similar in concept to mp3 in that it throws away information that the system thinks that the ear won't be able to detect.  I once had the opportunity to do a direct comparison of a live recording of an orchestral concert that was recorded for a delayed broadcast on a RSL radio station I was helping run.  The main recording was on DAT - 16bit linear (no compression) at 44.1kHz sampling rate (IIRC - it might have been 48k).  The engineer also ran a Minidisk machine as a backup, taking the same feed.  In the studio we played out from the DAT, but I also ran the Minidisc at the same time, with the fader down - but the monitor switching on the desk enabled me to compare the 2 - and I could hear subtle differences - most noticeably, the MD recording had truncated the reverb tails - but there were also other subtle effects.  However, as both Colin and I have said, MD is often quite adequate.  I suspect the higher background noise that David is hearing could be down to the different mic pre-amps - portable minidiscs were not renowned for having high quality mic pres on board - but, realistically, in live recordings, the room ambience is often higher than the noise floor of the recorder any way.  I like MD for portable recordings (until a solid-state recorder reaches the top of my "wish list" because it's very easy to add track markers and transfer digitally to CD for archiving.  I've not kept track of the number of record/play/erase passes my discs have had, but I've not yet had a failure, and some of my discs are 10 or more years old (I'd can't remember when I bought my first MD recorder - but it was well before we moved here in 2003.

3. Cassettes - I no longer use cassettes - although I do listen to some of my collection of pre-recorded and live recordings sometimes.  I did run a few cassette copies of my last CD - there are still a few people around who haven't bought a CD player!  I'm not too worried at present about CD players, as I have quite a number left from the days of conference recordings (pre-CD) where we would sometimes be recording in 4 or 5 seminars simultaneously - plus I had a bank of 4 basic machines for real-time duplication, so that little lot should last me a good few years!

4. Recording teqchniques - I would suggest that you try and get hold of "On-Location Recording Techniques" by Bartlett (Focal Press)  There are dozens of options!  My normal method for classical live recordings (straight to stereo) is a crossed pair of cardiod mics - either Blumheim settings (mics at 90 degrees to each other and the capsules as close as posisble) or ORTF - cardiods spaced about the width of the human ears apart and angled outwards slight wider than 90 degrees (this gives a slightly more diffuse stereo image - helpfulf with many amateur choirs as it does help disguise who is singing out of tune!)  The Blumhein system usually gives pin-point stereo accuracy.  Mic position is down to listening - and a degree of experience (and in live concerts with an audience, what is possible and not too unsightly!)

Every Blessing

Tony

[Janner]

Many thanks for all the replies. I have a feeling that there is a wealth of information there and I shall be rereading them carefully.

I did a little recording, nearly forty years ago, in the days when a Uher reel to reel was about the best portable machine that even the wealthiest of amateurs could aspire to, (they were used by professionals too). I used the Sony equivalent which, if I recall correctly, was only about half the price. I still have it, and the last time I tried it, with some of the tapes from that time, it still worked.

As with so much else, advances in engineering have changed everything. Clearly I have a lot of catching up to do.