this isn't quite what you asked for, but have you heard any recordings from the new ipods? I use my 30gb ipod (which can be found quite cheaply these days) with a belkin mic and it works amazingly well even on the low quality setting. I have a whole year's worth of lessons, concerts, and sessions, and I haven't had to delete anything yet. Another nice thing about them is that when you plug it into your computer iTunes recognizes that you have new recordings and asks if you want to import them. I'm sure the olympus is great too though...
To get files from tour Zoom H4 onto your computer, simply treat it like a external drive: connect it to your computer via USB and it should power up on its own using phantom power. It will then ask you in the display to select either "Audio In/out" or "Connect to PC". Select "connect to PC" and it should appear on your desktop as a external drive, so you can open it up, find the files, and copy them to your computer.
By the way, the Zoom H4 is a great recorder. Amazing sound quality and stereo spread, and fairly easy to use in basic stereo mode. I've made some great session recordings with it. It's also a full 4-track studio, although can get a bit tricky to use for the more complex stuff, due to the small screen. Still great tho!
I tried to put my recordings into the program I've been usng for years, Audio Cleaning Lab, but for some reason I can't seem to save the files even though the wave-form appeared in the program. Oh, well. I'll have another bash. The sound-quality is stunningly good but knowing exactly where to put it on the table in the pub is trial and error. It's a bit obtrusive, too, with that forbidding red eye when in recording mode. I'm thinking of calling it Hal.
Those of you who have the zoom H4, when all is done and you transfer to CD, do you actually get near CD or CD quality on it( given the fact that if it's a session recording it will never be 100% CD quality due to noise factors, mike placement not ideal etc.) How does it compare to a higher end Sony Minidisc recorder, those on the PCM setting are knockout on the high MD recorders, but the mikes are small and if you're not close in, the sound isn't usually ideal.
I am looking for something to possibly replace the cumbersome porta studio for some circumstances.... where there is no room to set up a whole mess of gear for example.
I like that the H4 has XLR inputs, but though they have Phantom power, for a condenser mike, I have heard they may say it's 48v, but there have been some power issues... or is that maybe only while running on batteries? Basically the ability to carry it and one large diaphragm condenser mike, cord and stand is the idea. Looking for something to capture more sound than the minidisc with its small stereo mike, for times when people want on site recording and there is little room. Also, how are the preamps on this thing if you plug in a mike? they are lousy on most porta studios, but it is not horrible if weak on H4 too, you can raise the volume in the editing.
I had been looking at the Zoom H2, the new smaller version, but without XLRs or phantom power, since it seemed to have a larger mike on top, but it is actually four little mikes inside. Where I shopped the clerk is very knowledgable on sound, and tries almost everything, and said it's OK, just OK, the Sony minidisc gives a better sound, don't bother. He said the H4 is better, though bigger, but wasn't sure how the sound stacks up to the Sony.... thinks with an external mike it would be a lot better.
so.... has anyone here done some serious recording with the H4 or can compare to the Sony MD? Or any other tips?
The little Olympus WS recorders are neat little things. Great for on the fly tune catching. If you want to edit them though, once on PC, if you use something like Audacity, you need to convert them to a proper wav. file first. Audacity doesn't recognize the format. You bring it into I-Tunes or similar to convert. It's not hard after you do it once.
I went for the H2 - a lot less threatening since it looks like an old fashioned studio mike. Also it's smaller so fits in my box bag, and it saved me a couple of bucks on the price of the H4.
Did some recording at a festival over New Year and it's great. Now I can remember the tunes so I can learn them by ear. I especially like the way you can select the pickup pattern for 90, 120 or 360 degrees and even record straight to mp3. Like Mike says, it's a straight USB transfer so I don't need to mess around to get the tunes out. They even give you free ear buds to listen using the in built headphone socket.
I just stood it on the floor (this was a camp site) using the screw in foot supplied and no-one paid it any notice. The batteries are still going strong - I've been really pleased with it.
Highly recommended - but shop around. I got mine for nearly 200 bucks less that the MRP, and it had only been available in Australia for a week or so.
PS.... Sunnybear, the only place where the Olympus is not as good as the Sony MD, is in the transfer to CD, and then listening on a CD player. there is hiss, and it is not as clear. I hear this from many. Still, it is way more user friendly, when you want to grab that session tune quickly, it's easier to carry, it's always there right when you need it. The Sony, it's a bit of a setup ordeal, esp. if you don't have the LCD display.
I'd recommend if you can go a bit higher, and get the WS-300 or 310 at least, not only more memory, but a stereo option and light up display for those darker sessions! The price is down to about $60.00 at Radio Shack. If someone doesn't want to spend that much, it's about $20 more, I think it would be worth kicking in the extra if you can.
Iris - I haven't tried the four channel recording option yet since I only wanted an aide memoire for new tunes. The recording sounded good to me on headphones, but how would I tell if it was CD quality?
It also comes with a screw in microphone stand adapter (like the base of a mic so it can be mounted like one) and a wind cover.
When I get a chance I'll try to do some test recordings and let you know how it goes. It has an input for an external mic, but just electret so I wouldn't expect anything too amazing.
Are there any tests you'd recommend to put it through it's paces?
Eno.... have you tried the H2 compared to a SOny MD recorder?
I do a large amount of onsite recordings that need to go to a saleable CD. I don't use the MD for that, but a bulky Fostex MR8-HD and often four condenser mikes, stands, cords, a whole mess, never mind lugging it all. If I could find a place to buy the H2 or H4 and try, without those darned 15% "restocking fees" I would! Radio Shack is great on returns but they don't carry either.
In most cases I would use the usual bulky Fostex setup if I can, it gives wonderful results, but for those times where you can't, there's no room etc. Just wonder how these stand up soundwise for this music. Of course you can find wonderful soundclips all over the web, but they are talking mostly.
Does the H2 for example pick up everyone at a session, if it is in the middle, of say 20+ people or so?
The more I read, the more confusing it all gets! LOL!
I like the sound quality of the Sony MD, and I uplaod in ral time onto Audacity, then export the file directly as a wav format...if I want to export as mp3, then I have to run it through a converter program first...
all in all a bit of a hassle, but I have made some nice recordings with it..
someone at our session made me a cd of us playing using a WS 300...it sounded really good..
it looks like the DS 30 is an updated version of that, I am thinking
I have a H4 and have made three CD's of sessions so far. The background noise can still be heard but it doesnt interfere with the quality of the recorded music. I have been listening to these cd's for ages now, every time i'm diving and there is'nt one sound on it that annoys me. In fact, it records the sound so clearly that its like being back in the pub again.
All that said, I'm no professional, but I love the quality of the H4 and am really pleased with my purchase.
Sunnybear.... You can go to Audacity sit and download the MP3 converter, make sure it goes into the Audacity folder though, and you will be able to save to MP3 there as an option. It is likely greyoed out for you right now. Why they don't download all at once???? who knows.
The mikes look better on the DS than the WS. Depends what you want for the end result. I wouldn't do a pro-recording with one but they are very handy and everyone has them these days.
Savage.... thanks for the tip. I have been obsessing about these for the longest time!! I also worry about "what ifs" and if my board breaks when I am expected to record, it would be nice to have an easy to carry alternate too.
One thing about background noise... even if the volume sounds too low in your ear with headphones or ear buds, keep it low, it will zero in better on the more immediate sound of the music, and pick up the background less. You can raise it in the edits later.
My Fostex, I made the mistake of turning the trims to the max due to weak preamps in these porta studios in general. As a result our earlier recordings, while very good, you'd hear too much noise and the sound was harsh, and some clipping. I leave the trims about 2:00 o'clock now and worry later. It's softer, less noise, it's still there but really is very background. Try it!
Did you use an external mike, how are these mikes on top? Have you compared to any Sony MD recordings, with just the little mikes, nothing larger plugged in?
I've been using an H4 for a while and have cut multiple CDs with it. My technique (I use a MacBook):
1 - record in stereo mode - I usually use the 48kHz setting (do a sound check ahead of time to see which sensitivity setting to use) 2 - import the entire file into Audacity
3 - highlight each song and use "export to WAV"
4 - click and drag all the songs into a playlist in iTunes
5 - burn a CD
Every time I have done a CD, I have gotten rave reviews - from High School marching band to Christmas concerts to church choirs...
I am very pleased with the sound-quality of my H4 so far. There is one niggle for anyone who (like me) has used a portable MD recorder until now. You cannot split tracks on the H4 to tidy up your recordings before transferring to the computer, unlike with MD. You have to do all track editing on your computer. All you can do on the H4 is delete tracks. To make a new track in a session, for example, you have to stop the recorder and hit record again for a new track. You could just let the thing run without stopping, if you have a big enough SD card, but then you have to wade through everything after uploading it, not before. Silly omission I feel.
it aint cheap but the sound quality is something else...."
I have one of those. It's not multi-track and it doesn't have as many features as the H4, but for for just recording the music around you exactly as it sounds it's excellent.
The sound quality is much better than I expected. A recording in high-quality WAV format sounds like it was recorded with a professional mic set-up. Plus, it's extremely small and lasts for hours on two AA batteries.
But the H4 does a lot more so it's a close call. But if you don't need the extra features the sound quality on the R-09 is excellent.
Oh, just to add, the built-in mics on the R-09 have a very flat frequency response, which is really good for recording things like fiddle, flute, whistle, etc. It doesn't have the harsh edge that you can get with some microphones.
Sunnybear, keep in mind that the Olympus is a conference recorder. It's designed for recording voice, not music, so it won't sound quite so great for recording music.
Field recorders like the H4 and R-09 offer much better sound quality for recording music. But they are much more expensive too...that's the kicker.
Sunnybear,,, maybe the H2 would be a good solution? It is made for music rather than voice. You can get them for under $200.
What do you mean what level do I record at? not the highest, on a round dial, like a clock, about 2:00. It will vary from one machine to another. On the MD , about 2/3 up on the volume level. Depends on the type mike too.
I have a DS-30. For sessions, I've had decent luck using the middle level setting. The lowest one is for holding it up to face for dictation. The highest setting is for lectures and the like where you want to pick up distant voices.
"Oh, just to add, the built-in mics on the R-09 have a very flat frequency response, which is really good for recording things like fiddle, flute, whistle, etc."
Screetch, Where did you find a frequency response graph for the R-09? I've been searching for it. The Edirol/Roland folks couldn't provide me with any such details.
Here is a site that did a direct comparison of several of the higher-quality devices with sound samples of acoustic instruments. Many of the recordings seem to have been done simultaneously on several devices. It is a shopping site for sure, but I believe the owner is an acoustic musician. I found it useful
Highly recomend the H4, 96Khz, 24bit wav files plus many other options, drag and drop. Phantom power, SDcard memory, great little yoke. Could be a bit smaller perhaps.... but Cheap and cheerfull. Delighted with mine. Quality beats MD by far. And I was very happy with my MD for years.
My favourite recording, was waking up at dawn in a forest and recording the dawn chorus. Put head phones on and you can locate each bird.
And no disc noise, all solid state.
I'd stay well away from the Edirol RO-9. Both mic and line sockets are very flimsy and poorly fitted. While they have locating lugs they do not form any mechanical connection to the (multi-layer) pcb. And, as it's multi-layer, the solder lugs simply attach to pads on the top surface - again no mechanical connection. The result? The slightest bit of force or lateral movement when inserting/withdrawing the jack plug will break the solder joints. In short, the design is appalling for something costing £250. When they work, I find the internal mics produce a dull sound. They, too, are poorly fitted and rattle around in their housing. It takes a brave man, but if you buy an RO-9, the first thing to do is strip it and apply a potting adhesive to lock down the mics and jack sockets. Better still, just don't buy one, it will let you down.
The Zoom H2 produces excellent results with both internal and external mics.
You might be right about the jacks, but the microphones on mine aren't poorly fitted and don't rattle around.
I don't find the sound from the mics to be dull, they sound neutral and accurate to me. I listened to samples of all of the recorders before I chose one, and the R-09 sounds at least as good as the H4 to me. The only ones I like the sound of better are the super-expesive Sony ones.
I don,t know about the DS 30 I've got an Zoom H2 and it's great. There are lots of forums on the H2 with lots of practical recording info and I bet the Olympus has its share of user forums also-
Misread your last post for a minute there, Sunnybear.
I thought you said you WOULDN'T like an H4...
That Wingfield Audio site has some great comparison stuff on it. Some of the specs for the H2 are better than the H4 - you can tell it's a later product.
I have the Edirol R1 (predecessor to the R-09) and am very happy with it. It is a little bulky, uses Compact flash (annoying) and isn't hugely battery friendly (adequate, just not good). And I can't say much about the quality of the connectors since I use it almost exclusively with the built in mics.
Placement is very critical to the quality of the sound - experimentation is necessary - either on the next table or in the middle of an even circle works best for me - as close to equidistant from all the musicians as I can get. Don't put it diretly on the table (beer glass sounds...) but put it on some kind of padded mat (e.g. the neoprene case that comes with it). Sound quality astounds my unsophisticated ears every time. (Levels are set with the help of a meter - get everyone to play as loudly as possible for a few seconds to set it.)
If buying a new device now, I would shop around a bit and get one of the slightly newer devices, but I am still happy with the device as it is.
This, or some equivalent device filling the same role, is an essential aid to active sessioning.
I attend a Slow Jam and find it very handy to record the tunes so that I can learn them at home. I use an iPod Nano and a Belkin Tune Talk Stereo microphone. You just plug the microphone unit directly into the iPod and it is immediately ready to record.
I do not know how the sound quality compares to H4 being discussed here but the whole setup, including the iPod and the microphone is much cheaper than the H4, and you get the iPod as part of the deal. I find the sound quality to be astonishing given the compact size and simplicity of the iPod/Belkin setup. It is more than adequate for my purpose.
Choose an iPod such as the Nano that has solid state memory, the hard drive noise of the larger iPods interferes with the sound quality. I am told that the new iPod Touch does not support sound recording so the cheaper iPod models might be the best for this purpose.
for those who use a digital recorder
for those who use a digital recorder
I am anticipating receiving an Olympus Ds 30 for my birthday to replace my Sony minidisc..
I am really looking forward to the ease of uploading and editing tunes on the 'puter.
What recording level seems to work the best on these recorders?
# Posted on January 12th 2008 by Sunnybear
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
this isn't quite what you asked for, but have you heard any recordings from the new ipods? I use my 30gb ipod (which can be found quite cheaply these days) with a belkin mic and it works amazingly well even on the low quality setting. I have a whole year's worth of lessons, concerts, and sessions, and I haven't had to delete anything yet. Another nice thing about them is that when you plug it into your computer iTunes recognizes that you have new recordings and asks if you want to import them. I'm sure the olympus is great too though...
# Posted on January 12th 2008 by airport
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
thanks airport...that is sorta what I was looking for...both of my kids have i-pods and they are great little devices...
# Posted on January 12th 2008 by Sunnybear
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
I've just acquired a Zoom H4 and I can't work out how to get my recordings on to my computer. But that's what I'm like.
# Posted on January 12th 2008 by Steve Shaw
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
To get files from tour Zoom H4 onto your computer, simply treat it like a external drive: connect it to your computer via USB and it should power up on its own using phantom power. It will then ask you in the display to select either "Audio In/out" or "Connect to PC". Select "connect to PC" and it should appear on your desktop as a external drive, so you can open it up, find the files, and copy them to your computer.
Hope this helps!
Mike
# Posted on January 12th 2008 by Mike C
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
By the way, the Zoom H4 is a great recorder. Amazing sound quality and stereo spread, and fairly easy to use in basic stereo mode. I've made some great session recordings with it. It's also a full 4-track studio, although can get a bit tricky to use for the more complex stuff, due to the small screen. Still great tho!
Mike
# Posted on January 12th 2008 by Mike C
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
I tried to put my recordings into the program I've been usng for years, Audio Cleaning Lab, but for some reason I can't seem to save the files even though the wave-form appeared in the program. Oh, well. I'll have another bash. The sound-quality is stunningly good but knowing exactly where to put it on the table in the pub is trial and error. It's a bit obtrusive, too, with that forbidding red eye when in recording mode. I'm thinking of calling it Hal.
# Posted on January 12th 2008 by Steve Shaw
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
someone at our session showed up with an H4 last week...I thought she was gonna tazer me
they look pretty sweet, but more $ than I wanted to spend..
....Steve, if this thing is as obtrusive as you say, I could think of another name to call it....
# Posted on January 12th 2008 by Sunnybear
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
Those of you who have the zoom H4, when all is done and you transfer to CD, do you actually get near CD or CD quality on it( given the fact that if it's a session recording it will never be 100% CD quality due to noise factors, mike placement not ideal etc.) How does it compare to a higher end Sony Minidisc recorder, those on the PCM setting are knockout on the high MD recorders, but the mikes are small and if you're not close in, the sound isn't usually ideal.
I am looking for something to possibly replace the cumbersome porta studio for some circumstances.... where there is no room to set up a whole mess of gear for example.
I like that the H4 has XLR inputs, but though they have Phantom power, for a condenser mike, I have heard they may say it's 48v, but there have been some power issues... or is that maybe only while running on batteries? Basically the ability to carry it and one large diaphragm condenser mike, cord and stand is the idea. Looking for something to capture more sound than the minidisc with its small stereo mike, for times when people want on site recording and there is little room. Also, how are the preamps on this thing if you plug in a mike? they are lousy on most porta studios, but it is not horrible if weak on H4 too, you can raise the volume in the editing.
I had been looking at the Zoom H2, the new smaller version, but without XLRs or phantom power, since it seemed to have a larger mike on top, but it is actually four little mikes inside. Where I shopped the clerk is very knowledgable on sound, and tries almost everything, and said it's OK, just OK, the Sony minidisc gives a better sound, don't bother. He said the H4 is better, though bigger, but wasn't sure how the sound stacks up to the Sony.... thinks with an external mike it would be a lot better.
so.... has anyone here done some serious recording with the H4 or can compare to the Sony MD? Or any other tips?
The little Olympus WS recorders are neat little things. Great for on the fly tune catching. If you want to edit them though, once on PC, if you use something like Audacity, you need to convert them to a proper wav. file first. Audacity doesn't recognize the format. You bring it into I-Tunes or similar to convert. It's not hard after you do it once.
The Olympus WS gizmos
# Posted on January 12th 2008 by irisnevins
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
I went for the H2 - a lot less threatening since it looks like an old fashioned studio mike. Also it's smaller so fits in my box bag, and it saved me a couple of bucks on the price of the H4.
Did some recording at a festival over New Year and it's great. Now I can remember the tunes so I can learn them by ear. I especially like the way you can select the pickup pattern for 90, 120 or 360 degrees and even record straight to mp3. Like Mike says, it's a straight USB transfer so I don't need to mess around to get the tunes out. They even give you free ear buds to listen using the in built headphone socket.
I just stood it on the floor (this was a camp site) using the screw in foot supplied and no-one paid it any notice. The batteries are still going strong - I've been really pleased with it.
Highly recommended - but shop around. I got mine for nearly 200 bucks less that the MRP, and it had only been available in Australia for a week or so.
Eno
# Posted on January 12th 2008 by bc_box_player
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
PS.... Sunnybear, the only place where the Olympus is not as good as the Sony MD, is in the transfer to CD, and then listening on a CD player. there is hiss, and it is not as clear. I hear this from many. Still, it is way more user friendly, when you want to grab that session tune quickly, it's easier to carry, it's always there right when you need it. The Sony, it's a bit of a setup ordeal, esp. if you don't have the LCD display.
I'd recommend if you can go a bit higher, and get the WS-300 or 310 at least, not only more memory, but a stereo option and light up display for those darker sessions! The price is down to about $60.00 at Radio Shack. If someone doesn't want to spend that much, it's about $20 more, I think it would be worth kicking in the extra if you can.
# Posted on January 12th 2008 by irisnevins
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
Darn.... sorry... I am not awake.... I thought you were talking WS-30.
They are better than WS so I hear.... have you tried them or heard them transferred to CD?
# Posted on January 12th 2008 by irisnevins
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
Iris - I haven't tried the four channel recording option yet since I only wanted an aide memoire for new tunes. The recording sounded good to me on headphones, but how would I tell if it was CD quality?
It also comes with a screw in microphone stand adapter (like the base of a mic so it can be mounted like one) and a wind cover.
When I get a chance I'll try to do some test recordings and let you know how it goes. It has an input for an external mic, but just electret so I wouldn't expect anything too amazing.
Are there any tests you'd recommend to put it through it's paces?
# Posted on January 12th 2008 by bc_box_player
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
Eno.... have you tried the H2 compared to a SOny MD recorder?
I do a large amount of onsite recordings that need to go to a saleable CD. I don't use the MD for that, but a bulky Fostex MR8-HD and often four condenser mikes, stands, cords, a whole mess, never mind lugging it all. If I could find a place to buy the H2 or H4 and try, without those darned 15% "restocking fees" I would! Radio Shack is great on returns but they don't carry either.
In most cases I would use the usual bulky Fostex setup if I can, it gives wonderful results, but for those times where you can't, there's no room etc. Just wonder how these stand up soundwise for this music. Of course you can find wonderful soundclips all over the web, but they are talking mostly.
Does the H2 for example pick up everyone at a session, if it is in the middle, of say 20+ people or so?
The more I read, the more confusing it all gets! LOL!
# Posted on January 12th 2008 by irisnevins
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
iris...
I like the sound quality of the Sony MD, and I uplaod in ral time onto Audacity, then export the file directly as a wav format...if I want to export as mp3, then I have to run it through a converter program first...
all in all a bit of a hassle, but I have made some nice recordings with it..
someone at our session made me a cd of us playing using a WS 300...it sounded really good..
it looks like the DS 30 is an updated version of that, I am thinking
# Posted on January 12th 2008 by Sunnybear
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
I have a H4 and have made three CD's of sessions so far. The background noise can still be heard but it doesnt interfere with the quality of the recorded music. I have been listening to these cd's for ages now, every time i'm diving and there is'nt one sound on it that annoys me. In fact, it records the sound so clearly that its like being back in the pub again.
All that said, I'm no professional, but I love the quality of the H4 and am really pleased with my purchase.
# Posted on January 12th 2008 by session savage
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
Sunnybear.... You can go to Audacity sit and download the MP3 converter, make sure it goes into the Audacity folder though, and you will be able to save to MP3 there as an option. It is likely greyoed out for you right now. Why they don't download all at once???? who knows.
The mikes look better on the DS than the WS. Depends what you want for the end result. I wouldn't do a pro-recording with one but they are very handy and everyone has them these days.
# Posted on January 12th 2008 by irisnevins
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
Savage.... thanks for the tip. I have been obsessing about these for the longest time!! I also worry about "what ifs" and if my board breaks when I am expected to record, it would be nice to have an easy to carry alternate too.
One thing about background noise... even if the volume sounds too low in your ear with headphones or ear buds, keep it low, it will zero in better on the more immediate sound of the music, and pick up the background less. You can raise it in the edits later.
My Fostex, I made the mistake of turning the trims to the max due to weak preamps in these porta studios in general. As a result our earlier recordings, while very good, you'd hear too much noise and the sound was harsh, and some clipping. I leave the trims about 2:00 o'clock now and worry later. It's softer, less noise, it's still there but really is very background. Try it!
Did you use an external mike, how are these mikes on top? Have you compared to any Sony MD recordings, with just the little mikes, nothing larger plugged in?
thanks for any advice!
# Posted on January 12th 2008 by irisnevins
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
Two reviews here, of the H4 and H2. The chap knows what he's on about.
http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/2007/02/01/review-zoom-h4-handy-recorder.html
http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/2007/09/13/review-zoom-h2-surround-recorder.html
# Posted on January 12th 2008 by Steve Shaw
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
My two cents...
I've been using an H4 for a while and have cut multiple CDs with it. My technique (I use a MacBook):
1 - record in stereo mode - I usually use the 48kHz setting (do a sound check ahead of time to see which sensitivity setting to use) 2 - import the entire file into Audacity
3 - highlight each song and use "export to WAV"
4 - click and drag all the songs into a playlist in iTunes
5 - burn a CD
Every time I have done a CD, I have gotten rave reviews - from High School marching band to Christmas concerts to church choirs...
Pat
# Posted on January 12th 2008 by plunk111
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
Thanks Steve, Thanks, plunk!
Will check further....
Afraid we have hijacked Sunnybear's original question.... sorry for that, but hope it's given you some good recording info too!
# Posted on January 12th 2008 by irisnevins
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
I don't know about the olympus, but I highly recommend this...
http://www.rolandus.com/products/productdetails.aspx?ObjectId=757
it aint cheap but the sound quality is something else....
# Posted on January 12th 2008 by Luidín
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
not a hijack, just a discussion...no worries...
but what level DO you record at?
# Posted on January 12th 2008 by Sunnybear
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
I am very pleased with the sound-quality of my H4 so far. There is one niggle for anyone who (like me) has used a portable MD recorder until now. You cannot split tracks on the H4 to tidy up your recordings before transferring to the computer, unlike with MD. You have to do all track editing on your computer. All you can do on the H4 is delete tracks. To make a new track in a session, for example, you have to stop the recorder and hit record again for a new track. You could just let the thing run without stopping, if you have a big enough SD card, but then you have to wade through everything after uploading it, not before. Silly omission I feel.
# Posted on January 12th 2008 by Steve Shaw
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
"I don't know about the olympus, but I highly recommend this...
http://www.rolandus.com/products/productdetails.aspx?ObjectId=757
it aint cheap but the sound quality is something else...."
I have one of those. It's not multi-track and it doesn't have as many features as the H4, but for for just recording the music around you exactly as it sounds it's excellent.
The sound quality is much better than I expected. A recording in high-quality WAV format sounds like it was recorded with a professional mic set-up. Plus, it's extremely small and lasts for hours on two AA batteries.
But the H4 does a lot more so it's a close call. But if you don't need the extra features the sound quality on the R-09 is excellent.
# Posted on January 13th 2008 by Marklar
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
Oh, just to add, the built-in mics on the R-09 have a very flat frequency response, which is really good for recording things like fiddle, flute, whistle, etc. It doesn't have the harsh edge that you can get with some microphones.
# Posted on January 13th 2008 by Marklar
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
Sorry, adding something else...
Sunnybear, keep in mind that the Olympus is a conference recorder. It's designed for recording voice, not music, so it won't sound quite so great for recording music.
Field recorders like the H4 and R-09 offer much better sound quality for recording music. But they are much more expensive too...that's the kicker.
# Posted on January 13th 2008 by Marklar
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
yes screetch, exactly,
which is why I asked what recording level have most folks had some success at
# Posted on January 13th 2008 by Sunnybear
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
Sunnybear,,, maybe the H2 would be a good solution? It is made for music rather than voice. You can get them for under $200.
What do you mean what level do I record at? not the highest, on a round dial, like a clock, about 2:00. It will vary from one machine to another. On the MD , about 2/3 up on the volume level. Depends on the type mike too.
good luck and happy birthday!
# Posted on January 13th 2008 by irisnevins
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
I have a DS-30. For sessions, I've had decent luck using the middle level setting. The lowest one is for holding it up to face for dictation. The highest setting is for lectures and the like where you want to pick up distant voices.
# Posted on January 13th 2008 by boxist
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
perfect!!! somewhere to start...thanks csharpd
and thanks, Iris...I"ll be 45...celebrate with a session tomorrow, german chocolate cake and shrimp curry with some stout beer first...
in that order, too!
# Posted on January 13th 2008 by Sunnybear
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
"Oh, just to add, the built-in mics on the R-09 have a very flat frequency response, which is really good for recording things like fiddle, flute, whistle, etc."
Screetch, Where did you find a frequency response graph for the R-09? I've been searching for it. The Edirol/Roland folks couldn't provide me with any such details.
# Posted on January 13th 2008 by Bob himself
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
"Where did you find a frequency response graph for the R-09?"
It's on the back of the box. I took a picture of it:
http://home.comcast.net/~e.holt331/R09.html
# Posted on January 13th 2008 by Marklar
Audio sample comparison
Here is a site that did a direct comparison of several of the higher-quality devices with sound samples of acoustic instruments. Many of the recordings seem to have been done simultaneously on several devices. It is a shopping site for sure, but I believe the owner is an acoustic musician. I found it useful
http://www.wingfieldaudio.com/index.html
Avi
# Posted on January 13th 2008 by improziv
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
Highly recomend the H4, 96Khz, 24bit wav files plus many other options, drag and drop. Phantom power, SDcard memory, great little yoke. Could be a bit smaller perhaps.... but Cheap and cheerfull. Delighted with mine. Quality beats MD by far. And I was very happy with my MD for years.
My favourite recording, was waking up at dawn in a forest and recording the dawn chorus. Put head phones on and you can locate each bird.
And no disc noise, all solid state.
# Posted on January 13th 2008 by the wicked hacker
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
I'd stay well away from the Edirol RO-9. Both mic and line sockets are very flimsy and poorly fitted. While they have locating lugs they do not form any mechanical connection to the (multi-layer) pcb. And, as it's multi-layer, the solder lugs simply attach to pads on the top surface - again no mechanical connection. The result? The slightest bit of force or lateral movement when inserting/withdrawing the jack plug will break the solder joints. In short, the design is appalling for something costing £250. When they work, I find the internal mics produce a dull sound. They, too, are poorly fitted and rattle around in their housing. It takes a brave man, but if you buy an RO-9, the first thing to do is strip it and apply a potting adhesive to lock down the mics and jack sockets. Better still, just don't buy one, it will let you down.
The Zoom H2 produces excellent results with both internal and external mics.
# Posted on January 13th 2008 by bigdee
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
You might be right about the jacks, but the microphones on mine aren't poorly fitted and don't rattle around.
I don't find the sound from the mics to be dull, they sound neutral and accurate to me. I listened to samples of all of the recorders before I chose one, and the R-09 sounds at least as good as the H4 to me. The only ones I like the sound of better are the super-expesive Sony ones.
# Posted on January 13th 2008 by Marklar
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
like I said,
I am "anticipating"
an Olympus DS 30, so obviously I will stay away from the Edirol and the H4
not that I would not want an H4
# Posted on January 14th 2008 by Sunnybear
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
I don,t know about the DS 30 I've got an Zoom H2 and it's great. There are lots of forums on the H2 with lots of practical recording info and I bet the Olympus has its share of user forums also-
# Posted on January 14th 2008 by edorian
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
Misread your last post for a minute there, Sunnybear.
I thought you said you WOULDN'T like an H4...
That Wingfield Audio site has some great comparison stuff on it. Some of the specs for the H2 are better than the H4 - you can tell it's a later product.
# Posted on January 14th 2008 by bc_box_player
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
I have the Edirol R1 (predecessor to the R-09) and am very happy with it. It is a little bulky, uses Compact flash (annoying) and isn't hugely battery friendly (adequate, just not good). And I can't say much about the quality of the connectors since I use it almost exclusively with the built in mics.
Placement is very critical to the quality of the sound - experimentation is necessary - either on the next table or in the middle of an even circle works best for me - as close to equidistant from all the musicians as I can get. Don't put it diretly on the table (beer glass sounds...) but put it on some kind of padded mat (e.g. the neoprene case that comes with it). Sound quality astounds my unsophisticated ears every time. (Levels are set with the help of a meter - get everyone to play as loudly as possible for a few seconds to set it.)
If buying a new device now, I would shop around a bit and get one of the slightly newer devices, but I am still happy with the device as it is.
This, or some equivalent device filling the same role, is an essential aid to active sessioning.
Chris.
# Posted on January 14th 2008 by Crackpot
Re: for those who use a digital recorder
I attend a Slow Jam and find it very handy to record the tunes so that I can learn them at home. I use an iPod Nano and a Belkin Tune Talk Stereo microphone. You just plug the microphone unit directly into the iPod and it is immediately ready to record.
I do not know how the sound quality compares to H4 being discussed here but the whole setup, including the iPod and the microphone is much cheaper than the H4, and you get the iPod as part of the deal. I find the sound quality to be astonishing given the compact size and simplicity of the iPod/Belkin setup. It is more than adequate for my purpose.
Choose an iPod such as the Nano that has solid state memory, the hard drive noise of the larger iPods interferes with the sound quality. I am told that the new iPod Touch does not support sound recording so the cheaper iPod models might be the best for this purpose.
# Posted on July 19th 2008 by robertf