Recording Quality

[pablito]

didn't get any responses in the other thread, so I decided to start a new on here.

I'm looking very closely at the second generation hi-MD, especially the rh10, precisely because I'm interested in the recording possibilities. I play classical guitar and it would be nice to make decent, easy, cheap recordings of practicing, ensemble rehearsals and performances.

Now, there are more and more HD-based players that have recording functions. Most notable are the iRiver H3??, Archos and Creative... My question for the group is, how does the live recording function of these hard-drive based players compare to the minidisc? Will one or the other clearly provide better "field" recordings?

Another quick question--I assume the Sonys can be purchased with extended warranty in case something goes wrong with the unit?

Thanks y'all.

[The_Stamp]

the recording quality of MDs is very very good, paired with a good mic. Basically, if youre not recording from a studio, the bottleneck of quality pretty much is in the mic- up to a certain point. (and im talking in the hundreds of dollars canadian pricetags on mics)

[Ipaqman]

With the HDAPs available, the recording function ranges from barely acceptable to very good. IMHO, only the NJB3 is very good. These players are designed for playing. They lack various recording functions such as level meters, mic input, editing functions. I have the NJB3 and IHP-120. The MZ-NH1 is much better than either of them. The Iriver does not have level meters and its mp3 encoding algorithm is not good. Its battery life for recording is low.

Only the Sony Hi-MD recorders are fully functional recorders unless you count the larger professional recorders from Edirol, Marantz, and Denon. They were designed as a replacement for the cassette recorder. My Sony MD recorders have been very reliable.

[pablito]

Thank you very much for that informative response Ipaqman..... that's exactly the kind of info I was looking for. Now, among the 2nd-generation hi-mds, would you say the rh10 will perform as well as your nh1 or is there another unit you would recommend especially for the kind of recording I'm interested in? Thanks again.

[dex Otaku]

The recording quality difference between basically -all- HiMD recorders is essentially nil. There may be minor improvements in the hardware codecs in 2nd-gen units, but the analogue side is pretty much identical throughout the entire range.

This narrows the real decision down to features, such as backlit remote [NH1], OLED display [RH10], and timestamping [NH1 and RH10 only].

[flyingpylon]

The recording quality difference between basically -all- HiMD recorders is essentially nil.  There may be minor improvements in the hardware codecs in 2nd-gen units, but the analogue side is pretty much identical throughout the entire range.

This narrows the real decision down to features, such as backlit remote [NH1], OLED display [RH10], and timestamping [NH1 and RH10 only].

←

Are you sure the RH10 does timestamping? I'm pretty sure I'm going to be getting the RH910 because I don't really need the OLED. But if the RH10 really does timestamping I might reconsider. I could probably use that feature.

[dex Otaku]

There are conflicting reports on the RH10 and timestamping. The specs say one way on some sites and the other on others, and some don't say at all.

As the 2nd-gen "top of the line" model it would make sense for it to inherit this from the NH1, though.

Perhaps some of the RH10 owners out there could confirm or deny this for us.

[Taaronk]

Hi,

Another thread I read said that no time stamp on 2nd gen. acording to someone who owns it. Its in the 2004 vs 2005 thread.

I've got an MZ-NH700 and 900 and both record outstandingly well.

I use it for acoustical recording all the time: Piano, vocal and I've done some guitar and it is incredible! I love PCM, especially using Marc's renderer. Plus, most HDD's won't let you record in PCM, so that is something to cosider as well.

Hope that helps.

[Christopher]

I honestly cannot think of a single under $300 - 400 solution for live recording other than Hi-MD with similiar quality.

[silence]

The recording quality difference between basically -all- HiMD recorders is essentially nil. There may be minor improvements in the hardware codecs in 2nd-gen units, but the analogue side is pretty much identical throughout the entire range.

Are you saying that there is no audible difference between the units such as the 900 and the 910?

How is Sony able to bring and update at nearly $ 100 dollars less without compromising the quality?

Are the (audio) specs - S/N gain type of A/D Etc of this units posted anywhere?

I see a lot of discussion on the look and feel of all the units and some about how much better the new units sound but I have yet to see one post about whether either unit functions better at recording. I am interested in PCM recording How it looks and how it feels is secondary to my goals. - a professional sounding recording that I can transfer to CDR and distribute- is there anyone here doing this successfully? If the battery last more than one disc I'm happy to trade battery life for low noise preamps and reliable uploading to the PC.

Thanks in advance

[dex Otaku]

I make ambient recordings with some regularity, using an NH700.

The principle differences I'm aware of between the models are on the output side. It would be helpful to get the service manuals/schematics for the other units, to verify exactly what the differences are on the input side, if any.

[bigboki]

I'm also really interested if there are any differences in recording quality between 1st and 2nd generation units. Please, owners of both, can you enlighten us?

Thanks in advance

[streaml1ne]

Give me an hour or so I can post flacs of the same song recorded optically on an NH1 and the RH10.

[edit: results]

Ok, spectral of Floyd - Time, recorded in Hi-SP on the NH1:

[attachmentid=193]

And on the RH10, again, in Hi-SP:

[attachmentid=194]

Both were recorded on the optical out from my Harman AVR with the Denon 2200 playing the CD via optical in. Sync recorded with the CD player stopped then given the track number to play. The OMA sizes were identical. The output clearly is not though. Here are the flacs of each recording as rendered with HiMDRender:

http://canopus.syphen.net/hi-md/rh10_vs_nh1/

All you abx people knock your socks off...

[robin726]

I'm looking very closely at the second generation hi-MD, especially the rh10, precisely because I'm interested in the recording possibilities. I play classical guitar and it would be nice to make decent, easy, cheap recordings of practicing, ensemble rehearsals and performances.

←

I doubt there would be any significant change in recording quality between the generations.

I presume you are using a microphone mostly since you are recording classical guitar. The factors that will influence the quality of the recording are:

1. room characteristics

2. microphone positioning

3. microphone quality

4. microphone power (plugin -> battery box -> phantom)

5. preamp (built-in -> external)

6. A/D converters (built-in -> external)

7. file format (MP3 -> ATRAC -> PCM)

As you move to the right past the arrows you (generally) get better quality.

MD units have too low power to get the most out of a mic, the preamps are cheap, and the A/D converters low-end. Remember that this is a consumer piece of gear. The same applies to any of the HD recorders. Plus they have additional issues like no record meters, dropped bits, etc.

I think for "decent, easy, cheap recordings" you are best with a MD unit. But don't forget it is far from a professional recorder. For your requirements it will likely be good enough, esp. if you invest in a good mic and battery box.