Digital Recording Equipment

[rachfan]

Hi,

I'm in a quandry!  I have some excellent recording equipment that has served me very well, all of it Nachamici.  I use a tuner/amp, a cassette tape deck, three (3) studio-quality electric condenser mics with stands--two cartioids mics (for up close) and one omni-directional (for ambiance), an external power supply for the mics (plus the mics have 9V batteries), and a mic mixing box.  The mixing box connects to the tape deck via red/white RCA cables.  To transfer taped recordings to the PC, I use a different RCA stereo cable from the tape deck to the PC mic input, and use AVS Audio Utilities software to convert wma format into mp3.

Problems: The tape manufacturers have phased out Type IV Metal Bias tape, which was the best for my application.  Type II Chome tape is OK, but not great, and Normal Bias tape is to be avoided.  So with Type IV gone, the tape deck will not have much more useful life.  As it is, I'm recycling old tape.  Also, with tape dithering you can get some very subtle pitch changes, making the piano sound a bit out of tune at times.  Another reason to switch to digital.

So, I'm ready to transition to the extent I need to.  My ideal objective would be to simply replace the tape deck with its digital descendant.  One thing I'd especially like to avoid is having to buy a laptop for direct recording.  I've heard too many people remark on drive noises on their created music files.  (My PC is too far away from the piano.)

The first thing I checked out was DAT stereo recorders (they use tape different from cassette tape), but DAT is still analog technology, and the industry seems poised to discontinue DAT products sooner than later.

For digital alternatives, I've ruled out the compact ZoomH2 and ZoomH4--too much of a quality compromise in recorded sound for me.  I'd never be happy with it. 

That brought me next to mini-disc stereo recorders, such as the Sony MZM200 MiniDisc Portable Audio Recorder, which gets very high consumer ratings.  Some good things: It has a recording level meter (like my old tape deck), a mini-disc can hold 34 hours of recording, uploads to the PC are through a USB cable with supplied software, which is great. 

But can the mic's external power supply and mixing box interface to the Sony (possibly through Radio Shack connector adapters)?  And is the sound really great?  These units go for about $350 to $400.  Although that's not a lot of money, it could become a waste of money if I run into either interface or sound quality issues. 

Then too, I wonder if I should be looking at something more fancy, without it being a highly complex "professional model" with 1,256 features of which I'll just be using three or four for my purposes?

These days, other than buying on line, the two sources seem to be Best Buy and Circuit City.  Just trying to find a clerk in those places, never mind one who knows something about the products, is really difficult.   

Any suggestions would be most welcome.  Thanks!   

[quantum]

Why not go direct to PC or laptop?  Less transfer would mean less chance of degrading the quality.  You could keep the fan noise under control by placing sound absorbent material around the tower or laptop.  The audition room posts I have of my home piano were done with the laptop right beside me on a chair adjacent to the piano bench - very little fan noise can be heard.

I have a MiniDisc.  I use it now mainly for portability.  MiniDisc is a proprietary compressed format so you know.  Only until recently has direct USB transfer come to market.  The model I have doesn't do that.  Newer models do uncompressed PCM.


A 2 channel interface would be around $300 - $400 (maybe even less).  With that, your audio goes direct to computer - no middle ground to transfer to and from. 
Mics > Mixer > Interface > Computer

The 2 channel interface I have is an Edirol UA-25.  Check Audition room for examples.

Since you have several mics, and you may want to move up to an interface with more channels.  Such as an FP10 or MOTU 8 pre.  Advantage is you can adjust each channel individually after recording, so you are not glued to the mix you set if you were recording  2 channels.  But then again you already have a mixer, so you may not need that many pres on the interface if you can output individual channels.  This could save you some $$$.

I've got a Firepod (FP10's predecessor).  I posted some of my Firepod tests in the audition room with the same mics.


If you want to hold off on the laptop, you could just run really long cables to your computer.  Balanced XLR would help here as it would minimize interference.  I think that is what Derek did for a while. 

[richard black]

OK, this is a field I'm pretty familiar with....

DAT is digital, the letters stand for Digital Audio Tape but it's pretty much a legacy format already, I wouldn't advise anyone to go with it for a new setup. Nothing wrong with it, it's just already semi-discontinued.

MiniDisc is also in danger of being discontinued outside Japan, which as far as I am aware is its only serious remaining market.

The Zoom recorders are not bad devices, and like the equivalents from Edirol (R-09) and Marantz (PMD620) record in MP3 or much better quality linear PCM on solid state storage. But for your purposes you may do better getting something like an Edirol R4. The best web site I know for factual comparisons of these devices is

https://www.solidstatesound.co.uk/

Yes, it's a UK-based shop and I gather you're in the USA, but models and facts will still apply.

By the way, you'd be better off using omnis for up close, y'know - it's the only microphone type that doesn't have 'proximity effect' bass boost.

[rachfan]

Hi richard,

Thanks for responding.  Yes, I too had known that DAT is all but passe now.  What I didn't realize though was that minidisc technology is also headed for obsolescence soon. 

I perused the solidstatesound link you had given me.  Thanks for that!

Earlier today I went to a website with brief sound clips (not classical piano unfortunately) from a half-dozen portable digital recorders including the Zoom H4, for example.  Of course, I'd heard posted recordings of the Zoom H4 before.  Quite honestly, I thought they were very good--but not excellent--in terms of full-bodied sound, clarity and presence.  As I listened to those comparisons, probably the most impressive was a Sony PCM50.  But I then read an independent review of it that was critical (and that to me had been the best of the portables lot!)  Their conclusion was that the unit might be great for interviews and conferences, but was not for audiofiles--and that's my application, classical piano music. There was also criticism of Sony's revolutionary technology of handling high gain, in which their method of resolving it is not all that transparent to the listener contrary to the sales hype.  All of this together reaffirmed my notion that portables are probably not for me.  Plus, the unit I eventually buy will sit plugged in all the time next to my piano in the living room--no real  need for any portability! 

On mics, the cartioids I use have a "lo-cut" setting to deal with any sudden bombast from the piano.  They haven't been problematic, and I've always liked the sound of my recordings.

I saved the best for last.  While I was at solidstatesound, I came across a unit of real interest to me.  It's the Marantz PMD560 which is totally solid state and uses compact flash cards.  It does stereo mp3s at 128 kbps.  Has a USB port for transferring files to the PC, and even has RCA I/O ports, such that I could still transfer files from the line out to the line in jack on the back of the PC--either way, although the former would probably be faster.  The unit is entry level, so no 1,078 features which I would never use (or pay for).  And the price here in the U.S. is around $500.  The only drawbacks are 16 bit recording and a sampling rate is 44.1 khz.  For best results should I be confining myself to 24 bits (my PC sound card is 24 bits) and 96 khz?  Those units are more expensive, of course. 

Compatibility seems not to be an issue.  Check this out: I believe I'd simply remove the tape deck and substitute the new Marantz PMD560.  I'd continue to use the three mics (which all contain 9V batteries) which feed into a mixer box, which would now lead into the Marantz using the exisiting RCA (red/white) cables to connect to the line-in ports.  So much for that part.

I'm less certain about this part: The mixer box takes its power from an external power supply box, which gets it from a tuner/amp plugged into AC line current.  What I'm guessing is that I would, therefore, dispense with the tuner/amp and simply plug the power supply  box itself directly to the line current.  At that point, I believe I'd be ready to record.  But, I would if it's assumed that the Marantz would work in conjunction with a tuner/amp?  Is so, I'd just leave it in place.  Any guess on that?  Does all this sound logical? 

[rachfan]

Hi quantum,

On direct recording to the computer, I heard varying comments on it.  Some people like you and another poster I read today are enthusiastic.  Other complain about drive noise spoiling their recordings.  I really like the idea of an off-line unit and uploads to the PC.  Nevertheless, I'll keep your recommendation in mind in case I come back to that solution again.  Thanks!

So, getting back to recorders, after I investigated DAT (and found it to be obsolete), I turned next to mini disc; but that rapidly seems to be headed for discontinuation in the foreseeable future as well.

Now I'm investigating solid state compact flash card technology.  It's fascinating stuff and there are many products to choose from out there with a wide price range.  At least I'm narrowing down the options which is a good thing.

[gerry]

Hey, when you guys are through can one of you help me master my microwave oven

[rachfan]

Not me.  I've never used a microwave oven--too technical!   

[rachfan]

Hi Bob,

You know, there are people out there who say forget recording equipment altogether, compact flash included.  They advocate recording directly from the mic to the mixer to a channel interface to the PC or laptop, which is far cheaper, plus there is no degrading of sound in transfers from one system to another.  I've heard others say that they've had noise on their recordings doing that--fan hum, hard drive clicks and pops, etc.  The first group retorts that noise can be fairly well controlled.  Do you have an opinion on that method?

[quantum]

rachfan, your welcome.

gerry, if your not sure it's working try putting your head inside and turn it on.  I'm sure your head will give you input toward an answer 

[gerry]

rachfan, your welcome.

gerry, if your not sure it's working try putting your head inside and turn it on.  I'm sure your head will give you input toward an answer 

Yea, but do I push the "popcorn" button, the "baked potato" button, the "vegetable"...

[richard black]

Yea, but do I push the "popcorn" button, the "baked potato" button, the "vegetable".

There should be a button for 'potato-head' somewhere.

Joking (?) aside, rachfan, you don't need 24 bits, you won't be able to hear the difference between that and 16 bits. On the other hand, any MP3 is a big quality loss compared with full-format 16-bit audio.

Be aware that demonstrations of devices like the Zoom H4 will most likely use the built-in microphones. These may be quite good (I use the Edirol R-09 and the mics in it are actually astonishingly decent) but you will certainly get better results was good quality external mics. For instance, I use a Royer stereo ribbon with a dedicated mic amp straight into my R-09 and the results are good enough to issue on commercial CD.

That Marantz looks good - you can record linear PCM and although they quote recording times for 1GB memory cards, you can certainly get up to at least 8GB currently, with bigger capacities sure to follow. The Marantz's output will certainly drive your amp just fine.

The Sony D50 looks very similar to the Zoom/Marantz 620/R-09 models in terms of features, though I gather it uses Sony's proprietary Memory Stick technology rather than generic SD/CF cards. Sound quality is probably pretty good.

Personally I prefer to use a dedicated audio recorder for most jobs rather than a computer. It's just so much less hassle if you ever want to record on location.

[Bob]

Hi Bob,

You know, there are people out there who say forget recording equipment altogether, compact flash included. They advocate recording directly from the mic to the mixer to a channel interface to the PC or laptop, which is far cheaper, plus there is no degrading of sound in transfers from one system to another. I've heard others say that they've had noise on their recordings doing that--fan hum, hard drive clicks and pops, etc. The first group retorts that noise can be fairly well controlled. Do you have an opinion on that method?

I've heard of keeping the computer in a separate room from the recording equipment.  Computers have all that fan noise and you don't really want a computer overheat. 

I don't know about the clicking.  The computer has to be fast enough to deal with all the audio though.

And I think there is always a risk of lowering the quality with each connection made.  Whatever has the lowest quality is what sets the quality level for the whole set up.  If the mic is low quality, you start with low quality and might keep it pristine after that, but it started off low quality.  If the mixer is low quality, your great clean mic sounds get messed up when it goes through the mixer.  You supposed to have all the equipment on the same level of quality, I've heard.  Otherwise, you've overpaid for some piece of the set up that doesn't get fully used.

I would swear you're supposed to have a separate "sound card" or something if you're using a regular computer.  That the regular computer soundcard will create "cassette tape" level quality because that's all it was designed for.  Business, not professional audio recording.  Which would make it...
Mic -- preamp/mixer -- stand alone sound card -- computer.   Oh, I reread.  I think you have the channel interface in there.  Duh on me.  I don't know what to say.  I know wires will act as antannes once they're about three feet long.  Maybe that's it.  Or don't record to a computer.  You could record to something else and then transfer that digital material to a computer as an audio file.

[rachfan]

Hi Richard,

Thanks for your insight on bit stream.  If there's no perceptible difference between 16 and 24, that's great, because much of the mid-priced equipment offers 16.  Along that same vein, much of the expensive professional stuff is sampling frequency of 96 khz.  However, it's well known that the human ear listening to the more earth-bound frequency of 44 khz cannot possibly hear the upper reaches of it, nevermind the impossibility of hearing the ultra-high frequencies of 96 khz!  Thus, if I buy 44 khz and 16 bits, sounds like I should be in real good shape for recording. 

I'm not too concerned about the capacity of the memory card, as my routine (with tape) is to upload it to the PC and then erase it from the tape anyway.  So I would view the compact flash recorder as just that--a recorder to capture music for uploading, but not as a storage unit per se.  So the 1 gig should be fine.

I totally agree with you on preferring the standalone recorder for ease of use.  Plus it gives you ultimate control over the recording sessions.  I keep the equipment on an extra piano bench  against a wall and at my immediate left.  So when something goes wrong, I just turn a bit and hit the stop button pronto.  If I had to jump off the bench and run up the hall to the PC room, that would drive me nuts.

With the good quality advice I'm getting here, I believe I'm on the right track to getting the right equipment (flash card technology) that will integrate well with my other components.

Yeah, I too HATE mp3, where the compression robs fidelity.  Unfortunately, sites like PianoStreet and PianoWorld insist on it to maximize available server storage space.  I understand their rationale, but I still dislike having to convert to the inferior mp3 format.  Probably for rock 'n roll it's ok, (as those listens seem more interested in noise than music), but it does violence to classical recordings, and audiofiles definitely notice it.  Nobody is critical here, because we all have to tolerate the same dip in sound quality when we post our recordings.  C'est la vie!

Out of curiosity, I'm going to look at the stereo ribbon style mic you mention.  I've seen others mention it also, so I should familiarize myself with it.

Thanks again.

David

[rachfan]

Hi Bob,

If I had to record with the PC, it is in a room at least 35 feet up a hallway from the living room piano, so I'd be scurrying back and forth.  That wouldn't be my idea of fun! I agree on that.  Yes, I do have a separate 24 bit SoundBlaster card in my PC, and if you're going to use a long cable from the piano to the PC, you can get a "shielded" cable to avoid that antenna or interference you mention.  But I've concluded that I really don't want to do direct input to the PC.   Rather, I'd much prefer the ready convenience of a standalone recorder and upload files to the PC which is quick and easy.

You're right about the "weak link in the chain" totally dictating audio quality.  That's why when I bought my recording gear, it was a total system of all-Nachamici components on the same high level of quality.  So everything blends great. 

[cygnusdei]

I just posted a recording made with a battery-powered condenser mic fed directly to laptop computer:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,28740.0.html

I don't think hard drive noise is an issue in my case. I had to do noise reduction though, for normal noise (hiss).

The mic is actually stereo, but the mic jack on my laptop is mono. In the future I will experiment connecting the mic to my camcorder, which accepts stereo line in (I think).

[pianolearner]

Thanks for your insight on bit stream.  If there's no perceptible difference between 16 and 24, that's great, because much of the mid-priced equipment offers 16.  Along that same vein, much of the expensive professional stuff is sampling frequency of 96 khz.  However, it's well known that the human ear listening to the more earth-bound frequency of 44 khz cannot possibly hear the upper reaches of it, nevermind the impossibility of hearing the ultra-high frequencies of 96 khz!  Thus, if I buy 44 khz and 16 bits, sounds like I should be in real good shape for recording. 

24 Bit will have less quantization noise than 16 Bit. The dynamic range and overall Signal to Noise ratio improves when the sampling size is larger (more bits). As for sampling frequency, it isn't so much about what the human ear can hear (the upper range is 20Khz by the way and not 44.1 Khz). It has to do with sound envelopes and harmonics.

Although the fundumental frequency of a sound may only be 10Khz (well within human hearing), there are many harmonics within this sound that give it tonal quality, timbre etc. Unless you are talking about a pure tone, like a sine wave, you will definitely detect a difference between a 10 Khz sound sampled at 22.05Khz, 44.1khz, 48Khz, 96Khz.

The Nyquist theorem stipulates that the sampling rate minimum is two times the bandwidth. Middle C on a piano is 261.626Hz, however if you sampled at the Nyquist minimum, 523.252hz it will sound detectably different to the original because you will miss out all the harmonics.

Also, to prevent aliasing errors, an anti-aliasing filter is used before a signal sampler to restrict the bandwidth of a signal to approximately satisfy the Nyquist sampling theorem. If the sampling frequency is only double the bandwidth ie/ the Minimum, the filter that needs to be used will have a very sharp cut off which can induce phase distortion. Therefore higher sampling frequencies are used so that the anti-aliasing filter response can be more gentle and not induce any phase distortion.

[rachfan]

Hi cygnusdei,

Given the compromises you mentioned, the recording came out surprisingly well.  I didn't detect any drive noises in there either.  Nice job in playing that piece too.  First time I had ever heard it.

[rachfan]

Hi pianolearner,

Thanks for that excellent explanation!  Sounds like you're really into the technical aspects of recording!

From what you say, it seems that for better results I'll need to look at a digital flash card recorder in the $1,000+ range to get the 24 bits and 48 khz.  One of the problems I'm encountering in the equipment market is that most of the flash card recorders are portable (as they can charge extra $ for portability), whereas I'm looking for a permanent installation, as I have no need for portability. 

I'll have to keep shaking the apple tree until I find the right product.

[cygnusdei]

Rachfan - thanks for the feedback!

Well, the mic only cost me $70. It will have to do until I can afford more professional gear.

[rachfan]

Hi Cynusdei,

I hear you!  I could afford a more professional flash card recorder (although some get up around $2,000!), but I have some other pressing spending priorities.  That's why I had hoped to succeed on this quest at around the $600 level.  But to get 24 bits and 96 khz for best fidelity, no way will that happen. 

There's really nothing wrong with my Nachamichi cassette tape deck.  It's of excellent quality and makes really good room recordings.  The downer is that because cassette technology is disappearing, you can't get quality cassette tape anymore.  Type IV Metal is off the market, and Type II Chrome just isn't as good.  Here's a thought too.  Maybe if I can continue on for awhile with the cassette tape deck, the pricing of flash card technology will come down as it becomes more competitive (it always does).  I might be able to find better deals later on.

The other thing that bugs me about this is that analog sound seems to have a warmer quality to it than digital sound.  A lot of people agree with that.  But, progress is progress I guess.

[pianolearner]

Hi pianolearner,

Thanks for that excellent explanation!  Sounds like you're really into the technical aspects of recording!

From what you say, it seems that for better results I'll need to look at a digital flash card recorder in the $1,000+ range to get the 24 bits and 48 khz.  One of the problems I'm encountering in the equipment market is that most of the flash card recorders are portable (as they can charge extra $ for portability), whereas I'm looking for a permanent installation, as I have no need for portability. 

I'll have to keep shaking the apple tree until I find the right product.

Rachfan,

I worked as a maintenance technician in a broadcast environment where they used the very latest in digital recording equipment. I am also interested in digital sampling and recording and I researched it a great deal.

As for how much you should spend and what you should buy...It all depends on how important the recordings are to you. Do you make money from your music? If so, then definitely, buy the best you can afford, don't compromise. Don't buy the best recording equipment and the cheapest microphone. If you want the best, everything needs to be the best.

However, there is more to consider than just the digital aspects. Remember, humans are analogue, and so analogue to digital and digital to analogue converters are used in digital recording equipment. The best thing you can do is narrow down your choices then go out and LISTEN to them...in a REAL shop, don't just buy one off the web!

[richard black]

It's true that 24-bit recording has a lower noise floor than 16-bit but the simple fact is that if you're recording in the real world off real microphones etc. etc. 16-bit recording is not the limiting factor. If you're recording in multi-track with the possibility of subsequent substantial gain boosts on particular channels and so on, then yes, more than 16 bits is a useful thing to have, but we started off talking about relatively modest kit and in that context 24-bit recording is a complete irrelevance.

As for sampling rate, 44kHz is in fact adequate for human hearing if it's done right, which is isn't always. Our hearing is limited to 20kHz (at best) including harmonics and in fact you can't hear the difference between 10kHz with harmonics and 10kHz without, I've tried. The highest fundamental note on the piano - and in the normal orchestra - is approx. 4184Hz and we can hear that and harmonics two to four, but no more.

I used to think that higher sampling rates were necessary, but my faith in that started to falter around the time that Bob Katz, one of the world's leading mastering engineers, started reporting results which indicated that he and his colleagues couldn't hear anything better (or indeed different in general) about 96kHz sampling AS LONG AS the anti-alias and anti-image filtering in 44kHz-sampled recording was done right. Sadly that's not usually the case (I test CD players for part of my living so I've got miles of evidence on this) but even then the difference is very, very marginal. In fact I wrote the definitive paper on why this is true, for an Audio Engineering Society conference a few years ago!

[rachfan]

Hi painolearner,

No, I won't be selling any of my recordings, just posting and preserving them.  Thus, I could make some reasonable compromises.

I do believe that my Nachamici electret condenser mics with power supply and mixing box are studio quality and produce really nice recordings.  So I really don't want to scrap fine equipment if I don't have to.  The receiver/amp is a Sony in great shape as well.  So the big weak link is the Nachamici tape deck, which is becoming obsolete--no more Type IV cassette tape out there. 

So what I really want to do is come up with the ideal and cost effective flash recorder with connectivity (RCA cable input jacks for the mics mixer box and output jacks to the receiver) and a headphone jack for monitoring.  Where I use three mics, does that mean I need a stereo or three-track recorder?  The third mic is an omni for ambiance farther back from the two stereo cartioid mics at the piano.  My vision would be to seamlessly and transparently unplug the connectors from the cassette tape recorder and pack it up, and substitute the new flash player simply reconnecting the RCA cables to the proper ports, and turn on the switch.  If 16 bit (or 24 bit) and 44 khz would do the job nicely, I be all for it.

Unlike the Greater Boston area, or even southern NH, ME really doesn't have any specialized audio shops (except for car audio  ).  As much as I'd like to go listen to some units, there are no places to go here except the Internet.       

[rachfan]

Thanks for that extra analysis.  I really appreciate it.  Sounds like from your extensive research that 16 bit 44 khz setup would work just fine for my application.  If you wrote a paper on this for AES, that's good enough for me!  Thanks again.

[pianolearner]

Thanks for that extra analysis.  I really appreciate it.  Sounds like from your extensive research that 16 bit 44 khz setup would work just fine for my application.  If you wrote a paper on this for AES, that's good enough for me!  Thanks again.

Rachfan,

As Richard pointed out, it isn't always about bits, bytes and Khz because it is very academic. Ultimately it comes down to what SOUNDS good to you when you listen to it. If you have CD quality sampling as a minimum then you shouldn't be disappointed.

[ksnmohan]

Hi rachfan!

This is nothing new to all of us - I started in the early 1950's with the 1/4" Spool tape (TELEFUNKEN & GRUNDIG), moved on to Cassettes and then to DAT, Minidisc, CD Roms, Computer Hardiscs and now am with Flashdrives. I do not know what is coming next! So, as the manufacturers drop system after system, we users have no choice but to change along with them.

And I have preserved all the old recording hardware for posterity - along with my Commodore VIC 20&C 64 and the Casio PT1 keyboard (1980). The VHS Recorder for Video is also dead in India and just yesterday Toshiba announced  dropping of its HD DVD System (another obituary!) since Blu-Ray DVD (Sony/Panasonic) seems to have won the race.

So would suggest Flashdrives recording  - for the time being!. At $ 300 to 500 you get good Flash recording devices with 2 to 8 channel mixing facilities, incl for microphone inputs.

Prof Narayanan
Madras/India

[rachfan]

Hi Prof,

Yes!  From the 1950s, for real-to-real tape in the U.S. we used Ampico, which before that sold metal wire machines as the recording medium, which was still around at that time too  !  You mention the march of technology.  Before I discovered flash card technology, I had gravitated toward mini-disks that you also mentioned, only to discover than except in Japan, they're already obsolete!

So right now I'm considering the Marantz PMD560 stereo flash recorder with 16 bits and 44 khz for $660 US marked down to $500 US.  From the looks of it, I will be able to unplug the Nachamici cassette tape deck, substitute the Marantz, integrate it into my recording system, and that should do it.  Let's hope!

[ksnmohan]

Hi rachfan,

Yes...the first WIRE recording machines  by TELEFUNKEN & TELEGRAPHONE....... a bit of nostalgia

"By the 1930s, electronics had progressed to the point where the mechanism could be turned into a successful audio wire recorder. In the years before World War II, a number of these recorders were built and used by German radio broadcasting stations. But not many people saw the need to record much of anything in the doldrums of the Great Depression, so only a few copies of the German machines were made in other countries. They typically needed about a mile of very thin steel wire to record 10 minutes' worth of audio. From a practical standpoint this was difficult to handle, so somebody applied the same principle to a flexible steel tape which ran at a much slower speed. A few of these original tape recorders were built and used by the German government during the war.

Afterwards, several American manufacturers introduced wire recorders to the consumer market. RCA's version was highly notable in that its wire was an endless loop inside a removable metal cassette. It was the common ancestor of all cassette-type audio and video recorders. But the wire recorder descendants of the Telegrahone were destined to enjoy only a brief life in the market"

Minidisc continues to be popular in Japan. And there is this US e-Stores  specialising only on this format

MINIDISC ACCESS
www.minidiscaccess.com
1-866-464-3472

from where I get decent deals - Recorders as well Blank Discs/Racks/Accessories.

But as I said before, how long still, I don't know.

The MARANTZ PMD 560 seems to be a good selection. Plenty of other Flash Drive models are available at MUSICIANS FRIEND - look up the ROLAND CD2, it has both the Flash + CD recording features

"The CD-2 records directly onto CDs as well. So start playing, and as soon as you're done, you'll have a finished, professional CD! For extra-long recording times (complete concerts, church services, etc.), the CD-2 offers recording to CompactFlash media, and supports up to 2 GB capacity for approximately 6 hours of recording time at 16-bit/44.1 kHz linear mode.

A high-quality stereo microphone is built in for top-grade, on-the-spot recording; additional mics can be plugged in as well.

When recording to CompactFlash, your audio can be edited using functions such as Audio Level Adjustment, Song Erase, and Trim for cutting out silence between songs. 

Students will appreciate the CD-2's usefulness as an educational/practice tool, thanks to its built-in stereo speakers, speed/pitch control, tuner, and metronome"

At $ 700 may be beyond your budget - but there is this $ 21 per month installment alternative. I have more faith in ROLAND as a "musical instrument" manufacturer (e.g pianos)  than Marantz which is more of  a "consumer electronics" company.

Prof Narayanan
Madars/India

[rachfan]

Hi Prof,

That was an interesting history of wire recorders.  Thanks for sharing that!

Also, I'll definitely check out the Roland line as Musicians Friend, and I'm grateful for your tip on it being more suitable for musical performances.  I'm not sure though how realistic the direct CD recording would be though.  Usually, I have to do several "takes" to get a recording that satisfies me.  Then I upload it to the PC, change wma format to mp3 with software, and store it.  Then if I want to create a CD, I transfer the file to the CD.  I suppose though that one could use a re-writable CD on the Roland for that purpose with over-writing of the several "takes", yes?  The $700 expense is feasible.

Great information.  I'll definitely look into it.  Thanks again!

David

[ksnmohan]

Hi rachfan,

Thanks for the appreciative words. Yes, I checked just now the latest model ROLAND CD-2e SD/CD Recorder and it has a CD-RW facility, which will solve your trial recordings problem.

Prof Narayanan

[rachfan]

Thanks again--great information!

[m]

So far, the most advanced digital recording technology on the market is a 1bit  DSD. I used the Tascam DVRA1000HD and it beats everything and anything. The internal software conversion to PCM is superior than any hardware AD converter, including Mytec, Lavry, etc.

There are a couple protable devices using the technology--Korg MR1 and MR-1000. I did not use those but some of the reviews from people I know and trust are extremely positive.

Best, M

[ksnmohan]

Agree with marik. TASCAM is no doubt the top end of audio equipment - I am using now for years  2 Tascams recorders - a DAT and a MINIDISC. Highly reliable, robust and supreme quality, really high end. But so is the price. The Tascam DVRA1000HD lists for $ 2400 but is offered around $ 1800.

If rachfan can afford this, why not?

[rachfan]

Hi marik,

Thanks for the suggestion.  Gives me another option to examine, which I will definitely do.  Incidentally, I really enjoy your recordings--outstanding!

[rachfan]

Hi ksn,

Thanks for that affirmation of marik's endorsement of Tascam.  I'll take a look at its flash card recorder.

[m]

Rachfan,

Thanks for good words.
I had a very good experience with Tascam HDP2 and could recomend it.
BTW, even Zoom H4 can be quite usable and very handy, esp. for live self recordings, or just listening to your practice. With good mics the quality can be pretty reasonable. I posted here a couple recordings with it--one with internal mics and another with external.

Over the time I had quite a few digital recorders, including multitracks, etc., but if I were to buy a recorder again and it had to be a portable, it would've been Korg MR1000. It is 1 bit 5.6MHz DSD (direct stream digital) and everyone reports exceptional  "analog like" quality of sound, with excellent built-in preamps.

Everything depends on your budget, though. In fact, I'd suggest you to look at the mics, as well.
But the bottom line, not tools record music, but people.  Even the very best equipment does not ensure a good recording.
The right microphone positioning IMO, is much more important and I'd say is about 50% of success, where another 49% are left for quality of the performance, and only 1% for the quality of the equipment (of course, providing it does not completely suck  ).

Best, M

[rachfan]

Hi marik,

Yes, thanks for that extra input.  The technology advances so quickly!  Just as I thought I was safe concentrating on flash cards, along comes DSD!  I'll look at the Tascam HD-P2  you mentioned. 

I definitely agree with you on the issue of positioning of microphones (I've been using three).  Years ago, in my previous home, after I bought my Nachamici system, I spent considerable time doing mic placement tests, playing from Ravel's "La vallee des cloches", mapping the various placement schemes on paper, and then making observations about results.  I was astonished by the dramatic differences!!!

As I look at recorder specifications, it appears that mic pre-amps are built right into some of these units along with a "phantom" mic power supply as well.  It leads me to believe that I might, therefore, not even need a receiver/amp anymore or the external mic power supply, so could retire them both.  The remaining system then would be mics feeding directly into the recorder, yes? 

I do notice though that XLR mic inputs are becoming standard (I still use unbalanced RCA connectors).  The Tascam HD-P2 you mention also has the RCA inputs as well, which is nice.  The Korg MR1000 though has XLR inputs only.  An electronics store might have adapters to interface RCA cable inputs with XLR inputs.  The only problem is that the more "gizmos" you place in the electronic recording path, the greater the possibility of sound degradation.  With the Korg, the other option would be new mics, but thereby adding expense.  Am I wrong to believe that a portable unit will generally have some compromises such that it will not be quite as good as a stationary unit in producing the better recording?  You mention the Zoom H4, but aside from portability (should that be essential for someone, but not me), I cannot imagine that the Zoom could match a more robust stationary unit.  I've listened to some recording samples, and it's very good but not the last word.

I agree with you that the pianist has to be able to play.  No recorder can create a miracle in that regard.          

[m]

Rachfan,

It might be somewhat confusing and can end up quite disappointing, so I think it is good to clear up a few things.

First, XLR input is a modern standard for MOST of professional microphones connection, and provides balanced operation and is also important for so called "phantom power"--the way MOST of modern mics are powered (except of tube and some speciality mics).

All other inputs like RCA, or 1/4" jacks are LINE inputs, and have wrong input impedance for mic input, as well as do not provide enough gain working with mics as a source.

Indeed, some time ago some cassette decks had 1/4" inputs for mics--those days are long gone, and those were intended for some amateur recording.

If you get something like aforementioned Tascam, Korg, or Marantz units you MUST have some pro quality mics with XLR connection. Heck... even Zoom H4 provides only XLR inpout...
Well, I have to be fair and point out that still Minidisk, as well as some other recorders still do have 1/8" stereo jack as a mic input, which does not talk about exceptional quality...

To be honest, I am little bit suspicious about your mics, as "studio quality" electrets along with 1/4" jack suggest rather a mic for amateur recording. You should remember that your equipment quality is only as good as your weakest link and in this case I don't really see the point of getting some expensive piece of gear like HDP2, or MR1000 if your mics are not up to that standard.

Lately I am doing my living by recording commercial CDs with some quite "high profile" artists, as well as work as an electronic engineer, servicing, modifying, and designing microphones--both condensers and ribbons (two models of my ribbon mic designs should be out on the market pretty soon and will be issued by one pretty famous company).
Depending on the model of your mics and providing you are in US it might be no problem at all for me to convert them into XLR phantom powered, and it won't be even expensive--just contact me privately for more details, if you are interested.
On the other hand, lately there are so many cheap (and some excellent) options on the market that I'd hate you to waste your money on the conversion, rather than to buy a nice pair of condensers (or even ribbons) and maybe even have a different pattern option for even better accomondation to your room acoustics.

Indeed, a lot to think about, but if you could tell your absolute max budget (and maybe some later income for possible future upgrades) it might grteatly help to advise how could you invest your dough in the best possible way.

Best, M

[rachfan]

Hi marik,

I just studied my mics in more detail.  Actually, at the back of each electret condenser tube mic, there is a Cannon JAE XLR-3-11C three-prong female receptical connector.  Matching that  is a male three-prong plug (attached to mic coaxial cable).  At the other far end of the coax is a standard 1/4" stereo phone plug (1 3/16 inches long) that plugs into the mics mixer box jack.  Elsewhere on the mixer box is the RCA output that leads through RCA cable to the unbalanced RCA input jacks on the cassette tape deck. 

Specs for the existing two cartioid mics (tube style):

Frequency range = 30 - 18,000Hz +- 3.5dB
Output impedance = 200 ohms balanced
Sensitivity = -76dB +- 2.5 dB
Attenuation pad = -10dB
Signal to noise ratio (weighted) = > 50dB
Maximum SPL at 3% distortion = 138 dB
Current consumption = < 1mA
Operating voltate = 7V - 10V DC
Battery = 9.1 V mercury
Dynamic range = > 114dB
Low cut = -10dB/100Hz (I use the lo-cut switch for the cartioids close up to the piano.)

For the 1 omni-directional mic farther back in room:

Frequency range = 20 - 16,000Hz +- 3.5dB
All other specs are identical to above.

A few technical questions: Does "phantom power" take the place of an 10V DC external power supply box, or the 9.1V mic batteries, or both?  As for the mixing box and the amp, could I dispense with both?  I know a flash player does stereo 2-track mixing on its own, and has a preamp.  Is the preamp sufficient without a separate amp?  I guess what I'd be left with would simply be the mics and the recorder?  It would sure simplify things!

I'm beginning to see that buying new mics might well be the superior option.  I already have the stands (adjustable pole on the weighted circular base type).  May I assume that the fitted mic holders to be mounted on the tops of the stands usually come with new mics?

Also, if you are thinking of a particular condenser mic that exceeds the existing specs I listed above, that would certainly enhance fidelity, and be reasonably priced, I'd be eager to know about it.  Also, when you yourself use standing condenser mics to record, do you prefer cartioids or omnidirectionals?  And which feature works better--low cut setting on the mics themselves, or a gain control on the recorder?  Finally, would I get better results ditching the 3rd ambiance mic and just work with the two stereo mics?

I don't know if you've ever listened to any of my recordings in the Audition Room (I have a lot over there), but my artisty is probably 1/10th of yours (on a good day).    Also my Baldwin L is 6' 3".  If I were recording a 7' or a 9' piano, that would up the ante on the recording equipment to capture the richer and more powerful sound.  But where my goal is to create electronic music files for myself as I work through repertoire, and occasionally post them in the Audition Room here, my thinking is that I need not get overly fancy.  If I were creating/marketing CDs like you, my thinking would be identical to yours, of course.  I don't do any editing, just wma to mp3 conversions, so I wouldn't need all kinds of robust editing on the recorder or many other bells and whistles. 

One of the features I loved on the TASCAM HD-P2 (don't laugh) was the instant retake button.  What a ton of time that would save me!!!  As it stands now, it's stop tape, rewind, toggle reverse/forward to get odometer to proper start point, reset the record button, press start, take a breath, play again.... One touch of a button sounds pretty good!

Budget: I'd like to keep the whole thing at $2,000 or less and attain better sound than I currently have if possible.

Sorry for the million questions.  What are your thoughts?

Thanks again!  I appreciate your ideas.

[quantum]

Rachfan,

If you want to listen to the Studio Projects B1 mic just look at my posts in the Audition Room.  They ran me about $120 each, but that was before the recent upgrades they made.  Great sound for the price.

Technical details here:
https://www.studioprojectsusa.com/b1.html

[rachfan]

Hi quantum,

I listened to your Central Heating improv.  Neat!  Yes, your mics do sound quite good, at a very reasonable price too. 

What piano/model did you play for the recording?

[m]

I am still not sure what your mics are. If you really like them and believe they are good then there is no much sense to change them. On the other hand, I am completely confused by many things--you call your mics "tube", but then tube type mics should have a vacuum tube inside, separate power supply. I heard only one single tube mic using an electret capsule.
The use of battery as well as need for an external power supply in your case is another mistery. Usually, it is one way or another (although battery powered elctrets are the most common).
Also, the female XLR on a mic is something that I've never seen.
I am afraid, I just do not have enough information to comment on your mics--what brand and model are they? 

It is very hard to suggest something between cardioids and omnies, as it will depend on your room, but usually, pair of omni mics (esp. with Jecklin disk, which you can make yourself) is the most natural sounding solution for piano. Ribbons can be spectacular, but also are trickier in use and generally, are less all-round.

I made a search and had a brief listen to your Liszt Petrarca Sonet recording and you seem to mic the piano very up close, which is not usually how classical piano is miked and distant miking is much more preferable.
I always found the pair of well positioned mics work the best. The third mic usually introduces more problems than what it cures and can create severe and unpredictable phase problems.

As for other mics, as I have already mentioned there are some excellnt budget choices. For piano I always prefer whether small diaphragm condensers or ribbons. I could suggest Studio Projects C4. It comes as a matched pair with interchangable cardioid and omni capsules. I would not even be afraid of getting those from ebay, where they go fro $200-300.
To get a noticalbe sound improvement over those you will need to significantly raise the price point.

Those mics work from phantom power and all you will need to make recordings is stands, mics, cables, recorder, piano, and... pianist.

Best, M

[rachfan]

Hi Marik,
 
Some clarifications:
 
The electret condenser mics are in the shape of straight tubes.  Imagine a black, straight cylinder of 3/4" diameter that only tapers a little bit at the far end away from the capsule where the XLR connection is for the mic cable.  The inside of the mic body contains, in this order, the capsule, the attenuator housing, the 9.1V battery, and finally the XLR male plug for the female XLR cable connection. 
 
So you can visualize this better, I've sent some pictures.  They're worth 5,000 words.
 
NOTE: This Nachamici recording system relies on BOTH the 10V DC external power supply AND the individual 9.1V battery in each mic simultaneously for recording. 
 
Does all this clear up the mysteries, or is it all still confusing?
 
I can dispense with the third mic easily enough.  Thanks for that information!
 
Speaking of that, understand that these mics are now 24 year-old technology--although perhaps condenser mic technology hasn't changed much?  There's no way for me to tell.  When I listen to someone's mics online, those folks are also using digital recording equipment, while I have analog.  So I can't judge objectively how my mics would sound with their recording equipment or vice versa.  Do you think mics this old are still fine and good, or would it be better to replace them?  If so, thanks a lot for the Studio Project and Octava recommendations. 
 
When I was reading about the Studio Project C4, there was a criticism claiming that the mics are not very good for frequencies below 500Hz.  Having a powerful and clear bass for a piano recordings is really essential.  I do like getting the economy of a matched pair!!!  Any thoughts on that bass frequency issue?  Also, for piano recording applications, is a small diaphragm condenser mic better than large diaphragm mics for piano?  Is large diaphragm more suited to vocal rather than piano recording?  I believe mine are small diaphragm and have provided good service in the past. 
 
Yes, I do record with mics just off the rim of the piano.  (Some people even put mics inside the piano!  I tried that but disliked the result.)  My reasoning for up close recording (with low-cut activated to compensate for proximity) is that I can set the RIGHT track mic at the start of the rim curve to capture tenor and treble string sounds.  The LEFT track mic goes down toward the tail and focuses on bass strings.  Thus, I achieve real stereo, just like the pianist hears it from the piano bench. 
 
I also saw an engineering suggestion to place both mics down near the tail (supposedly the "sweet" spot for recording piano), then point the LEFT track mic downward toward the center area of the bass strings.  The RIGHT track mic is then cranked leftward toward the center of the treble bridge of the piano.  I experimented with this earlier in the week.  In the end, I didn't like it nearly as much as my routine method.
 
It would seem to me that if you put the mics farther out into the room (and how far should that be usually--five feet or 20 feet or experimentation?), you would then have two mics basically hearing pretty much the same total sound, but from two slightly different vantage points depending on their separation.  How can you obtain a true stereo effect that way?  Or should piano music sound more monaural in recordings? 
 
The reason I like your recommendation of the Korg MR-1000 is that it's state of the art DSD.  It does format conversion from SACD to WAV.  I already have software that can then transfer the WAV into mp3 for postings, so that should be easy.  If they don't include the USB cable for transfers to the PC, will one at Radio Shack with gold prongs do, or will I need something more special?  (I'd hate to make a fine recording only to have it degraded by a mediocre USB cable!)
 
One thing about the TASCAM HD-P2 (although I loved the one-step retake button!) is that it uses FireWire for transfers to the PC.  My PC is a Dell, and I've read comments that FireWire works poorly (if at all) with Dell.  So I should probably avoid that option.  Plus, Flash Card is a step behind DSD anyway.  The Korg shifts me more into the future.
 
Finally, on cables, thanks for your recommendations.  Where you like quad technology (which is reputed to produce the most exacting sound), there is a product out called Blue Kiwi.  In the reviews, users of Canare and Mogami highly endorse Blue Kiwi.  Here is the link if you're interested:
 
https://www.sweetwater.com/store/search.php?s=mic+cables&sb=popular&pn=1
 
Can I assume that whatever cable I pick these days that it should be XLR male and female connectors on each?  Is that now standard with microphone technology?
 
I guess that's it.  I look forward to your response.  Thanks again!
 
David   

[m]

Ah, I see.
I am glad you sent me pics, as it immediately revealed that your mic is a Nakamichi CM-300.
Some more info, including schematics can be found here:

https://www.coutant.org/nakamich/index.html

The XLR connector on the mic is actually MALE (if you know the difference )

Now, YOU DO NOT NEED YOUR POWER BLOCK for normal operation. It does not make any sense. All power the mic receives from the internal battery.

You get your Korg, connect your mics into it, and you even don't need a phantom power, however, those mics can be converted to work from phantom power.

Keep your omni capsule and try to find a matching pair (they appear on ebay frequently), so it will be much more versatile combo.

The kind of miking you are talking about maybe good for pop or even jazz, but not for the classical.
You don't want to get sound of the strings. what you want to get is the sound which is a fusion of strings, sound reflected from the the open lid, and sound of the room. Usually, it is at least 5'-6' away. With each individual piano/room you will need to find the position experimentally, changing height, angle, and positioning around the rim.

Best, M

[rachfan]

Hi marik,

Yeah, sorry about mixing up the XRL connectors!  I was doing it from memory (should have looked), so the male/female piece got reversed.  I noticed my error today when I was setting up the picture for the connectors side by side, but hoped that you hadn't noticed, ha-ha!   

OK, so I'll proceed with the Korg MR-1000 for sure, and likely order it tomorrow.

I think I'll go with the Canare Star-Quad Black mic cables from Sweetwater.  The Blue Kiwi are recommended only for certain brands, none of which apply to my situation.  I'll call Sweetwater tomorrow to order, as Canare cables are custom cut to length. 

I'll get the Belkin Gold A/B USB 2.0 cable from RadioShack and try it out for the transfers to PC. 

Sounds like you're advocating that I stick with my Nakamichi mics with just the battery power.  They came with spare capsules.  I actually have three cartioids and three omni-directionals on hand here.  Tonight I already retired the 3rd mic and the remaining two for left/right are now equipped with omni capsules.

Cylindrical 9V transistor batteries are getting harder to find these days.  The only brand I can still locate now is Eveready carbon zinc at either the Rat Shack or Battery Central Mall--not great.  On the other hand, if I were to use the Korg's phantom power, I'd never have to scrounge for batteries again.  But given conversion cost, wouldn't it be just as well to get new mics when the time comes?  Because I can get a couple of fresh batteries now, I'll at least start out with those in the Nakamichi's and see how the new system sounds. 

Thanks for explaining proper mic positioning.  I'll set it up next time the way you suggest.  I've figured out the probable best mic positions given the room and furniture configuration.  I should be good to go.

In the relative near future I'll post a new recording, and everyone who's been following this discussion and deliberation can hear the new sound for themselves.        

[m]

Sounds like you're advocating that I stick with my Nakamichi mics with just the battery power.  They came with spare capsules.  I actually have three cartioids and three omni-directionals on hand here.  Tonight I already retired the 3rd mic and the remaining two for left/right are now equipped with omni capsules.

Considering you have spare omnies, and the fact you like them and they work for you, I don't really see a good reason to change your Nakamichis for now.

They are fine mics and for non-studio use should be more than adequate.

[rachfan]

Today was very productive.  I ordered the Korg MR-1000, two premium  XLR to XLR mic cables, a Belkin USB 2.0 cable with gold plugs (for file transfers to the PC), and a couple of fresh 9V cylindrical transistor batteries for the Nakamichi CM-300 condenser mics, which I'll continue to use for the time being, as they are still of fine quality, their age not withstanding.  So everything is in the works and will be arriving mid- next week.  I can't wait to dismantle the old system and set up the new!  Then I can experiment with mic placement. 

Thanks again to everyone who contributed to this thread to help me in my quest to go digital!  It was an interesting journey exploring all the various technical options and products suggested.  I'll post my "inaugural" recording using the new equipment as soon as I'm able.  Let's just hope that the superb fidelity isn't far better than the pianist, ha-ha! 

[quantum]

Hi quantum,

I listened to your Central Heating improv.  Neat!  Yes, your mics do sound quite good, at a very reasonable price too. 

What piano/model did you play for the recording?

Rachfan,

That particular recording was done at home with a Yamaha C3 - 6'1.  I've got a couple other recordings on different pianos with the same mics.  Some on the Kawai EX concert grand.  Let me see if I can dig up the links.

[quantum]

Ok here:

Yamaha C7:
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,24824.0.html

Kawai EX:
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,14237.0.html


Here's a good comparison. Same piece, same mics, different pianos.
C3 at home:
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,23083.0.html
Kawai Ex:
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,24673.0.html


3 pianos: Kawai EX, Kawai EX, Kawai GS-80:
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,15887.0.html

[rachfan]

Hi quantum,

Studio Project makes really good stuff.  Most of the articles I've read advocate small diaphragm condensers with omni-directional capsules for recording classical piano.  Yet you get a fine sound from that large diaphragm B1s with the cardioid capsules. 

Thanks for posting the comparisons.  To tell you the truth, I like your home C3 better than the C7.  The Kawai EX beat out the Yamaha due to its size and power.  But I've never been too keen on Kawai.  It has a neutral, plain vanilla tone that seems to lack a characteristic signature.  Some pianists also find the action too firm.  Didn't hinder you though!

Your improv was impressive--high energy and rhythmic drive as well as reflective moments.  Something else!  For the woman composer's recital, you did really well.  You seem to have quite an affinity to contemporary music.  I give you credit for being able to read the score, make sense of the notation, come up with an interpretation, nevermind executing it well, including the string brushing and other effects.  Cool!

The three-piano ensemble live improv was interesting.  You must have had fun with that one.

When my recording gear arrives next week, I'll be experimenting for quite awhile: mic distance positioning, mic orientations (A-B, X-Y), stand heights, mic panning angles, omni/cardioid capsules, etc.  The combinations are infinite it seems.  I'll have to make a room schematic, number the experiments, map them, record the settings used, comment on out-takes, etc. in finding the "sweet spot" in the living room.  There are also room/furniture limitations which will be a practical determinant as well.  marik urges me to get the mics farther back and use the omnis instead of the cartioids, which will be new to me.  I'll give it a shot.  Of course, in interpreting results there is unavoidable subjectivity too.  It's not science, rather trial and error.  I read a ton of articles today, and it seems that every recording engineer has his own favorite method with no agreement among the lot of them.   So I'll have my work cut out! 

Cheers!