Cost of Recording Equipment

[electrodoc]

In an earlier post I mentioned the value of recording. I also suggested the Zoom H4 recorder (no I do not have shares in Zoom). It is an excellent quality recorder at a reasonable price and includes a pair of built in condenser microphones making it usable straight out of the box. The kit also includes a mains transformer (it can be used with batteries but they don’t last very long – useful for any outdoor recording but not so good for practice purposes). It also includes a plastic cradle that will mount on to a camera tripod but not on to a microphone stand. The only problem here is that if you place the tripod at any distance from the piano you will have to keep getting up to switch the recording function on and off. Finally, it includes sockets for external microphones.

The H4 is very easy to use and you do not have to be a geek to figure it out. It pays to read the instruction book first and make a couple of trial runs. The only minor criticism is that the memory card supplied is inadequate. It will only hold about 5 minutes recording time at CD quality. One can set the recorder to record at a lower quality or direct to MP3 format, thus getting more on to the card but at the cost of recording quality. This is probably OK for monitoring sections of practice but less good for making a final take. My advice is purchase a 2 gig SD card which is not too expensive.

The controls are easy to understand but somewhat fiddly to use. There is a small menu button on the front face that needs to be used in conjunction with a wheel on the side – inconvenient but easy enough!

When you have finished your recording session you can either keep the recording on the card, erase it, or transfer it to your computer via a USB port (cable and instructions are provided). To listen to the recording you need to listen via headphones or transfer to recording to your computer.

The kit also comes with Steinberg CuBase Lite for editing purposes although I prefer to use Audacity which is available for free from the web.

For higher quality recording I use a pair of Studio Project B2 microphones. If you decide to go down this route don’t forget to order a pair of microphone cables at the same time. You will also need two microphone stands. The B2’s are inexpensive, good quality mics.  An alternative would be a pair of Sure C3’s which are slightly more expensive.

So what is all of this going to cost? The H4 can be obtained for about £220; a 2 gig SD card is about £35. So for about £250 you have a good basic recording facility. Add on a camera tripod – varies according to quality and size; B2 microphones cost about £70 each; cables another £15 for a pair. Include microphone stands and you have notched up another £200 in total. If you plan to play back direct from the H4 via your HiFi then you will need one extra cable (e.g. phono to minijack). These cost about £3.

I do realize that many contributors to this forum are young and not yet earning and a budget of between £250 and £500 is impractical. However, I do suggest that you try to persuade parents or wealthier relatives that a good recorder is as important as the piano and that it is money well spent. Additional mikes, cables, stands, etc can wait until birthdays or Christmas comes along.

PS If anyone needs any help with using the H4, put your query on the board and I will try to respond.

PPS – Sorry about using pounds sterling as currency. The total converts to approx.  US $1,000.

[Bob]

How's the nosie though?  If you normalize it later or just add more gain overall, does it give you a lot of noise then?

[electrodoc]

Noise leel is very low. Best to set recording level at the start  - about 3 Db below 0. The gain can be normalised afterwards via "Audacity" with no discernable increase in noise level.

For interest I did post a recording made on the H4. This was to illustrate the sound of the Ymaha S6 rather than to display musical ability. See:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,24492.0.html

[miguelcatalao]

Noise leel is very low. Best to set recording level at the start  - about 3 Db below 0. The gain can be normalised afterwards via "Audacity" with no discernable increase in noise level.

For interest I did post a recording made on the H4. This was to illustrate the sound of the Ymaha S6 rather than to display musical ability. See:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,24492.0.html

3db below 0??? You're talking digital... And even so, you will peak your audio file too much times, on ff passages...

Poin to -12 dBfs and you'll do allright...

[steve jones]

Does he mean 'peaking' at -3dB?

Thats what I try to record around. The input gain obvious depends on the source though. But if you can record just hot enough to peak around -3dB, that would be good.

Ofcourse, if you're recording at 24bit, then you can record at a slightly lower level if you're worried about loud passages clipping. I dont like to use input compression when recording classical music, so Id rather record at a high bit depth / sample rate and drop the input gain slightly (then just dither down afterwards).

I wouldnt use Cubase Light for audio recording. Audacity is better. Use a dedicated audio editor if you can.

Your computer soundcard should be fine for amateur recordings (plenty good enough). The recording preamps might be iffy though. If you can stretch to getting a little desk, then that would be best. The Mackie 1402 is a great little desk with 6 lovely preamps (very clean, and perfect for your needs). They're cheap on Ebay.

Mic wise, try to find a couple of capacitor mic's if possible. Or a stereo mic perhaps - I heard that the Rode NT4 is a useful mic for recording piano in a non professional setting. Mic setup and placement though if pretty specific to the room. If you have a good acoustic, then the best results will be achieved using close miking combine with some room mics.

A nice reverb will be useful if you're recording in a smaller room. Try a convolution reverb, there are some free one that work well. This way you can simulate the acoustic of a nice concert hall.

Myself, I record a terrible piano in a terrible, small room, lol. I use a single mic, as close as I can get it while recording the full range adequately. Then I use two convolution reverbs to simulate a nice acoustic space (one with a room setting, the other with a longer hall sound).

This can all be done in Audacity, along with any editing. The Zoom might be useful for location recording, but if the computer is available, it will be the best bet.

SJ

[quantum]

I went through all this recording gear research before the Zoom came out.  Here's my setup with prices in Canadian dollars:

Studio projects B1 mic $120.  I have two of these for stereo sound and I just love their sound.  The price is deceiving towards their quality.  Excellent for piano, and also larger ensembles of mixed instruments.  At home I use a close mic position: imagine an arc around the open end of a grand piano.  The mics are placed about 1 foot outside the rim along the imaginary arc.  In concert hall settings I have used AB positioning with good results.

Edirol UA-25 Interface $300.  Two built in pre amps.  Max quality is 24 bit / 96 kHz. The preamps are good quality, and for close micing I only need to turn the gain to 1.5 / 10.  For a concert setting 3 - 4 out of 10 is enough.   It is very small, and very portable.  USB hook up, with no external power needed.   

Two mic stands at around $30 each.  I stayed away from the really cheap flimsy ones. 

Initially I purchased 2, 25 foot Mic cables at around $20 each.  Then I realized it is much cheaper to make your own. 

I made two 50 foot cables for $26 each. 

Then there is the the computer of course.  The Edirol doesn't have heavy requirements and will run on an older computer. 

I use Adobe Audition for my recording software.  Audacity is also great.  I find Cubase to fiddly for just 2 track recording - too many steps to get your final audio product. 

----------

I'm thinking of upgrading to more mics for recording live piano concerts.  Maybe 4 or 6. 

Has anyone looked at the Firepod or what they now call the FP10?  I'm eying it.  It's around $600 now.  8 pre amps. 

For mics I'm undecided.  I'm looking for a small condenser with omni to compliment the Studio Projects B1 which are large diaphram cardioid.  Maybe the MXL 604.  Has anybody used one?

[daniloperusina]

I've used several different mics and things, and I have to fill in here with some observations:

The BY FAR best mics I've found for a low price is Behringer ECM8000!
They are extremely cheap, I guess $40 a piece or so.
The reason they are so good for recording piano/grand piano is that they are omnidirectional measurement microphones, i.e extended frequency response (lower than 20HZ and higher than 20kHz), extremely linear (almost no colouration), and a miniscule diaphragm (low mass, fast transients).
They really GROWL in the bass and give a really natural high treble.
Their sound characteristics are reminiscent of B&K, or DPA (as they are now called) because of similarity in design, but of course not as high quality as them.
In other words, the sound is a bit like Murray Perahia's recordings (with all the obvious differences, of course!)

Only issue is that they have bit more noise than large diaphragm mics. Otherwise, they work on phantom power too. Studio Projects B1 and B2 are a bit more fun in a way, because of their own sound and the warmth etc, and with a pair of B2's you also have almost all the stereo techniques to try, i.e. XY, ORTF, Blumlein, AB, M/S. That's very handy when recording chamber music etc, but for a superior sound for piano solo, ecm8000 are the easiest to use and the greatest sounding. On a budget, of course!

By the way, -3dB in digital must refer to peak level, of course! And the extra 3dB to make room for transients that are sometimes too fast to measure, so a sort of safety net!

Someone mentioned orhestra recording? I played with one in a church, and recorded all of us with just two ecm8000. I could post a snap of it if anyone wants...

Also, I think money is best spent on mic preamplifier and soundcard (or both in one) rather than a desk. Desks are designed for lot's of features, whereas a micpre will be more about good soundquality, which I think is more important for classical music.

[quantum]

I've been considering the ECM8000.  I've heard a lot of people saying it's a great mic for the money, but also some saying there is some noise.  I'd love to hear a recording. 

If anyone wants to hear a B1 I've got several recordings in the Audition Room already. 

[m]

I've used several different mics and things, and I have to fill in here with some observations:

The BY FAR best mics I've found for a low price is Behringer ECM8000!
They are extremely cheap, I guess $40 a piece or so.
The reason they are so good for recording piano/grand piano is that they are omnidirectional measurement microphones, i.e extended frequency response (lower than 20HZ and higher than 20kHz), extremely linear (almost no colouration), and a miniscule diaphragm (low mass, fast transients).
They really GROWL in the bass and give a really natural high treble.
Their sound characteristics are reminiscent of B&K, or DPA (as they are now called) because of similarity in design, but of course not as high quality as them.
In other words, the sound is a bit like Murray Perahia's recordings (with all the obvious differences, of course!)

Only issue is that they have bit more noise than large diaphragm mics. Otherwise, they work on phantom power too. Studio Projects B1 and B2 are a bit more fun in a way, because of their own sound and the warmth etc, and with a pair of B2's you also have almost all the stereo techniques to try, i.e. XY, ORTF, Blumlein, AB, M/S. That's very handy when recording chamber music etc, but for a superior sound for piano solo, ecm8000 are the easiest to use and the greatest sounding. On a budget, of course!

For money ECM8000 is a great mic. It however suffers from two main problems, esp. as used for piano recording:
1) Too much of internal noise
2) Overload capabilitiy is very limited, which can lead to severe distortions with some pianos played on forte.

It is a very widespread fallacy that the ECM8000 design reminds B&K/DPA/Gefell microphones.
I've owned B&K 4004, 4133, DPA4011, 4006, Gefell MK202, 221, as well as a few ECM8000s highly modified  to overcome their problems.
There is nothing in common in their sonic characteristics and the only thing to share is that both called "a microphone".

People keep refering to Studio Project B2. To my knowledge there was no such a model--only B1 and B3. IIRC, Behringer had B2.

I'd suggest to look at Studio Project C4. Unlike B1, B3 and C3 it is a small diaphragm microphone and as such has a greater accuracy and much more suited for acoustic instruments, piano, and classical recordings. It comes with two sets of interchangable capsules--cardioid and omni, which gives much greater opportunities with different microphone techniques, including Jecklin disk, which gives by far the best stereo separation. 

[daniloperusina]

"1) Too much of internal noise"
Maybe for professional release, but for demo or posting high-quality rec here, their noise-level will be virtiualy inaudible.

"2) Overload capabilitiy is very limited, which can lead to severe distortions with some pianos played on forte."
Maybe if you put them right on top of the strings and play fff (which I haven't checked), but in normal use they are NOWHERE near overloading!

"There is nothing in common in their sonic characteristics and the only thing to share is that both called "a microphone"."
Compared to Studio Projects B1-B3, C1-C3, or any other large-membrane mic they have very much in common with B&K/DPA (why did you mention gefell?), or there is something severly wrong with my ears:). Mind you, I'm not talking hair-splitting differences here, just sonics at large.

"People keep refering to Studio Project B2. To my knowledge there was no such a model--only B1 and B3. IIRC, Behringer had B2."
You are right...

"cardioid and omni, which gives much greater opportunities with different microphone techniques, including Jecklin disk, which gives by far the best stereo separation. "
Never tried the Jecklin, but I think for stereo experiments multi-pattern large-membrane mics have many more possibilities, see my post above.

Also, noise-level depends a lot on the mic-pre, so with a quiet one, the ecm's will be quite fine.

I'll post something soon.

[m]

"2) Overload capabilitiy is very limited, which can lead to severe distortions with some pianos played on forte."
Maybe if you put them right on top of the strings and play fff (which I haven't checked), but in normal use they are NOWHERE near overloading!

Well, again, maybe for amateur recording it is true.
I believe I know this mic quite intimately--many years ago I started a big thread about modification of this mic. I published a lot of technical information, including reverse engineered schematics, detailed capsule construction with complete descritpion, and also designed completely new schematics, posted sound files, etc.
Have a look, if you are interested:

https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=111051

Compared to Studio Projects B1-B3, C1-C3, or any other large-membrane mic they have very much in common with B&K/DPA (why did you mention gefell?), or there is something severly wrong with my ears:). Mind you, I'm not talking hair-splitting differences here, just sonics at large.

It is unfair to compare them to large diaphragm microphones, just for the reason of having completely different polar pattern.
Even with B3/C3 in omni they are completely different animals, where ECMs are "true pressure transducers", as opposed to B3/C3 capsules being a Braunmuhl-Weber design, where two cardioid signals summed for omni pattern.
Besides, being a SDC mics, because of their physical size the high frequency behavier is very different.

The reason I mentioned Gefell is that their capsules are analogs of B&K instrumental ones. Even as such they sound very different, mainly due to a submicron Nickel membrains, vs. 5 micron stainless steel B&Ks.
For that reason Josephson C617 in fact use Gefell capsules.

The construction of ECM8000 capsule and B&K/Gefell is very different, where B&K has a big back chamber and large spacing between backplate and diaphragm, which along with very high bias voltage (200V) result in extremely low distortions and very linear capacitance/voltage transfer characteristics. The stiffness control for correct pressure operation frequency response is achieved by using of metal diaphragm and its very high tention (tuning undumped frequency of 23KHz for cutoff corner of 40KHz).

In ECM8000 there is no backchamber whatsoever and stiffness operation is maintained by a  very high amount of acoustical dumpening.

And last but not the least, if you take apart B&K capsule, it is a wonder of high precision, and marvel of extremely tight tolerances, as opposed to a subdollar WM60 capsule(*), when you buy it in quantity of 10.
To me the difference in their sound is like a difference between Ferrari and (excuse me) Subaru.
But that's true, both will bring me from my house to a local supermarket.

(*) the one ECM8000 is based on.

Never tried the Jecklin, but I think for stereo experiments multi-pattern large-membrane mics have many more possibilities, see my post above.

I won't argue with that, as it is rather personal preference.
For piano I use only small diaphragm mics, or in some situations ribbons. Certainly, "true pressure" omnies provide the most natural sound, but cannot be used in every situation and very often we are forced to make compromises, depending on piano, hall, repertoire, or even performer.

The bottom line, the most important is not even the mics, but how one uses them.
Even with crapy mics a good sound engineer can make excellent recordings.
Unfortunately, most of the time the situation is quite opposite.

Best, M 

[electrodoc]

Many thanks to all of you tech. people who have added to this post. SOme really good and useful info.

However, my purpose in placing this post was to get at parents and those suffering with technophobia. So often a musically unaware parent will (after some persuasion) by a piano for a child. Very often it is an inferior instrument but "it will be good enough to learn on." These parents, in all innocence do not realise that the quality and feel of the instrument is important. They then pay for music lessons and assume that the job is done. No more is necessary.

If the young person is really motivated as most contributors to this forum are, then I believe that provision of recording equipment and self criticism becomes essential - not a luxury. I hope that these comments will helps parents to appreciate that a little more expenditure will be a great help in furthering musical progress!

I suggested the Zoom H4 because it is good quality recording strainght out of the box with no additional microphones. It is quite easy to use, and it does not require a computer next to the piano and additional microphones with numerous trailing leads (not always practical in a domestic environment).

I do agree that 'Audacity' is better than CuBase.

Electrodoc

[steve jones]

"1) Too much of internal noise"
Maybe for professional release, but for demo or posting high-quality rec here, their noise-level will be virtiualy inaudible.

Indeed. I would wager that noise from cheap preamps (not to mention ambient noise) would exceed that from the microphone itself.

That said, if you're going to spend money on anything, the microphone stage is the most important with respect to your equipment. So if you can afford a better mic, cant hurt!

SJ

[daniloperusina]

Just a quick quizz then...how easily can you tell which is which? Beethoven Tempest, start of 2nd mvt. One of them is that famous pianist, one is moi..

[counterpoint]

Just a quick quizz then...how easily can you tell which is which? Beethoven Tempest, start of 2nd mvt. One of them is that famous pianist, one is moi..

ex2 is slightly better, but ex1 is very good too 

[m]

Both are excellent performances.
Soundwise, to me no.2 is better and much more natural.
No.1 has much higher noise level. The reverberation sounds like a software one.
At appr. 0:30 I hear severe distortions on chords, but it is possible that it is my laptop with cans doing that.

In any case, for demo purposes No.1 would be perfectly fine, considering most of the commercial recordings are not much better in quality.

[daniloperusina]

Right, both of you! The reverb is genuine though. I don't hear any distortion. Do you have any means of checking graphically?

I think I used an M-Audio audiobuddy + ecm8000 + jvc dat. That's a noisy micpreamp. I also discovered that it can't provide both channels with 48V.

Perahia's recording is with Shoeps.