Getting up to speed

[6079]

I know this is a minidisc forum, so I assume most of you prefer minidisc to DAT, or other methods. I am only a beginner though.

To help me narrow down my search as to what audio recorder to look into, I'd appreciate your opinions.

My main priority is bootlegging concerts. What are the current top items?

What's around the corner that should be considered?

I'd like to buy a high-end, good quality recorder, but I don't want to buy it prematurely if something new and significantly better is coming out.

I used a Hi-Md Minidisc recorder and liked it. But I'm open to DAT, MP3, whatever else can do the job.

Thanks for reading.

[A440]

I used a Hi-Md Minidisc recorder and liked it. But I'm open to DAT, MP3, whatever else can do the job.

Depends on your price range, your needs and your patience.

Right now, Hi-MD is still my favorite little hi-fi recorder for price, fidelity, convenience and reliability. My workhorse concert recorder is a NH700; for superstealth I use the MZ-RH1, though I'm stlil coddling it.

How much fidelity do you want? Minidisc is 16-bit, and sounds good to me--look in Gallery to hear examples--but you can find higher-resolution 24-bit recorders if you're playing the music for your dog.

In the last year or so there have been some 24-bit flash recorders appearing like the Edirol R09 and the Zoom H4--mixed reviews--and the M-Audio Microtrack, getting mixed to bad reviews.

I think that in the near future, a flash recorder will be the optimum bootlegging device. But the ones appearing so far include cumbersome things like built-in mics. They also have fewer of the on-unit editing possibilities of minidisc--track marking in particular.

DAT is bulkier and tied to actual tape, which sooner or later wears out--it's growing obsolescent.

MP3 is a format, not a recording medium--you can record mp3 files to hard drive, flash, or whatever kind of storage your recorder uses. But .mp3 is a compressed format--it discards information to shrink the size of files--so what you want for best fidelity is a .wav or .pcm recorder: CD quality. Hi-MD records PCM, and one of its compressed formats--Hi-SP--gives good fidelity.

In a year, Hi-MD might not be the best choice, because sooner or later someone is going to make a flash recorder that has:

at least 4 GB of storage (rather than the 1GB of a Hi-MD disc) and a slot for additional/removable flash storage

controls that make sense when you're unable to look at the unit

good mic preamps (as MD does for the size)

track marking

level control that does not interrupt recording (Hi-MD has this--some flash recorders, amazingly, do not)

drag-and-drop transfer to computer (which MD does not have--we're still stuck with SonicStage or Mac Transfer)

a remote that shows recording level (the RM-MC40ELK)

a remote with a button that starts the recording (which MD does not have)

and probably some other features I can't think of at the moment.

Iriver made the H120 and H140, a little fatter than an old iPod, with hard drives that hold 20GB or 40GB and line and optical inputs and outputs. (Yes, optical out--a digital output--as well as easy drag-and-drop.) But iRiver marketed it as a player and included poor recording software so live recordings came out with regular clicking noises. It took a few years for the open-source geeks of Rockbox to come up with software that, actually, approximates MD capabilities, including track marking--by then, iRiver had stopped making H120/H140, though used and refurbished ones are around. I don't religiously update my Rockbox, but the last time I did a long line-in recording--an album in realtime-- there were little bursts of static about every 5-10 minutes (I didn't time them), so it seems there are still glitches.

I have confidence that the flawless flash recorder will arrive. But not yet. If you need it now, get the MZ-RH1.

Edited April 19, 2007 by A440

[6079]

First of all, thanks for the great response, when you could've easily told me to look it up myself. It can be frustrating trying to make huge purchases like this without getting to test them out first.

I am a cheap man, but in that same vein I want to buy something that will provide benchmark quality and be durable.

The things you listed for the upcoming flash recorders are nice, but don't seem to make a difference in actual recording. That's what matters most. I suppose that depends on the mic, doesn't it? Although mic settings on the recording device could be an important factor. But I don't really know. Let me ask you this: What does create a great recording? Venue? Mic? Or does it come down to something the user has to do while at the show? All I was aware of was setting the gain manually. Is there any way to adjust treble and bass recording?

The MP3 recorder I was thinking of, now that I hear your response and looked it up, must've been one of those flash recorders. The price isn't any better, but what is the major knock on these new line of recorders as far as quality and ease of recording?

[A440]

The MP3 recorder I was thinking of, now that I hear your response and looked it up, must've been one of those flash recorders.

What other recorder were you looking at? As I said, I think flash recorders will eventually replace MD once they figure out the right set of features.

Another feature I didn't mention: batteries. My one complaint about the MZ-RH1 is that is has an internal rechargeable battery. That lasts a while, but eventually it needs to be swapped out, and you need to have another little gumstick battery charged. (Or carry an external battery pack with 4 AAs.) I prefer my NH700, which takes a regular AA battery--it's a lot easier to find another AA. Some flash units have built-in rechargeables that you can't swap out--when the battery dies, you're done for the night. That's a dealbreaker for me.

New units are appearing all the time, and for all I know there may be one that was introduced last week I'm not aware of. Check out its features, its controls and its user reviews.

Gee, here's another one due later this month:

http://www.soundman.de/englisch/dr2.html

Dorky looking but has potential: 2GB (but not expandable, so you'd have to keep emptying the recordings into your computer. With MD, you can do that and reuse the discs, or you can just store on the discs themselves). Depends on how usable the controls are, however.

Watch out for "mp3 recorders." A recorder that records ONLY mp3 will not be as good as a current MD unit, which records higher-fidelity PCM, and which has a processor that's made to handle a lot more information per second. There are a lot of little mp3 recorders around that are basically made for speech/interviews/dictation, not music. The heart of any recorder is its DAC--digital-analog converter--which turns the mic signal into numbers (and does the reverse for playback), and those vary in quality. Hi-MD has a good one.

Yes, your recording is going to depend above all on your mics and on where they are placed. You need decent mics. They are not vastly expensive (though you can get super quality if you are willing to pay for it) but you can't take the mic that came with your computer to a concert and get a good recording out of it. My basic stealth mics are the Sound Professionals BMC-2, or if you're in Europe there are Greenmachine's little mics (see Affordable Mics thread under Liver Recording) , and both are well under $100.

You need to have your mics where the music sounds good. You could have the best recorder in the universe and if you don't get a a good signal to record, you'll get a hi-fi reproduction of garbage. The best mic placement might not be where you can see best, and it's definitely not next to someone who's having a conversation throughout the show. When you get into recording, you quickly learn to judge a space with your ears as much as your eyes.

You mentioned setting treble and bass, which would alter the signal going into the recorder. Little portable recorders don't have that option, and for a good reason. Generally it's better to get the most accurate recording possible going into the recorder. Then you can play with various settings on playback, but you still have the original sound.

A really great photographer might use colored filters or special lighting to set up a shot, and studio engineers do use recording consoles to tweak sounds as they are being recorded, but for a live show--where you can't monitor what you're getting--I think it's better to keep things simple.

People here are, obviously, fond of minidiscs. But the battle over the best live recorder also rages elsewhere. If you're rich and have a lot of tolerance for bickering, take a look at http://www.taperssection.com .

Note that a lot of them go to a concert with backpacks full of recording equipment--recorder, Digital-Analog-Converters, external power packs, etc.--rather than a little pocketsized gizmo and a couple of mics. They like to use the recorders themselves as "bit buckets," collecting the digital signal from a fancier external processor rather than having the recorder do the work, as I do in stealth situations.

Here's what they're saying about the Microtrack, which seems to have improved firmware since last I checked:

http://taperssection.com/index.php?PHPSESS...p;topic=82810.0

Oh, and one more thing: People are generally satisfied with whatever recorder they get. They may whine about features or glitches, they may wish for more battery life or different button placement or 24-bit instead of 16 bit. But they learn the workarounds for whatever they use--as we minidisc users have learned to deal with SonicStage rather than drag-and-drop. (It doesn't hurt that Sony has gradually improved SonicStage.) A lot of people are getting first-rate, hi-fi recordings from tiny equipment.

Edited April 19, 2007 by A440

[6079]

Hey, thanks for the enlightening responses. It's good to know my limits of what I can expect to record quality-wise at a show. What I ended up with was pretty decent, considering what I heard in the venue wasn't an especially great, spacious sound.

It seems like there isn't a huge demand for most of these recorders, so I wish they'd let the damn price drop a little bit.

Have you ever tried recording with a video camera at a taper-friendly show? My friend has a great camera and mentioned it also uses a similar manual gain control.

I haven't looked into these "bit buckets" methods as you described them. Is this a more intensive, expensive way that generally produces the best bootlegs?

[A440]

Manual gain is necessary because Automatic Gain Control circuits are designed to even out speech recordings and often freak out with loud music. Manual gain isn't so much a guarantee of a good recording as protection against a bad one. Equipment with manual levels also trusts the user more, which tends to be a sign of better equipment.

With the video camera, you have the same questions: How good is the mic? How good is the DAC? Is the recording compressed or uncompressed? Other people on this board know a lot about video equipment, so maybe they will comment on that.

A bootleg is never going to sound like a studio album because you're not recording it in an ultra-quiet studio with microphones chosen for each instrument/voice and individual tracks equalized to make each part sound best. A recording isn't going to magically fix the mix. The best you can get is a recording of what you heard.

Current CDs are 16-bit, like minidisc. Fancy CDs, like SACD, are 20-bit. Recording studios use 24-bit or better, and then down-sample it when the CD is mastered. But they're not recording a PA system in an auditorium full of noisy people through one pair of mics.

You can go crazy thinking about numbers, specifications, sampling rates, etc. And up to a certain point, like using PCM instead of compressed formats--though I generally rely on Hi-SP so I don't have to change discs during a concert--that can be good. But eventually it's a game of diminishing returns. You can spend hundreds or thousands of dollars more for fancier equipment to get a marginally better recording of something that wasn't designed for recording, but for live enjoyment. (Even in one of those posts on taperssecion, someone does grudgingly admit that 16-bit is good enough for concerts.)

I like carrying one little recorder and a pair of mics, and I'm very impressed with the quality of the recordings I can get with that setup. Listen to some of the things people have posted in the Gallery.

On the technical level, the recordings I get are not as high-resolution as they would be if I had a pair of Schoeps microphones, a 10-foot-high mic stand with shock mounts to perch them above the audience, a 24-bit DAC and a high-speed laptop or a bit bucket with an optical input. Still, their recording and mine both have that drunken guy going "WHOOOOOOOOOOOO!" over the last notes of every song, though he's a little louder on mine.

Take a look at taperssection if you want to be carrying all that stuff to a concert, and if you are willing to take out a large bank loan for equipment. Search "external DAC" or "bit bucket." Someday I would love to do a blind test between a minidisc PCM recording and a super-duper 24-bit external DAC/optical setup using the same mics, and see if any of them could tell the difference. Maybe they can.

"The best bootlegs' is a judgment call. Some people like soundboard recordings if they can persuade the sound guy to let them plug in--though then you have to be sure all the instruments are going through the soundboard, and the lead guitarist isn't just using her amplifier onstage and bypassing the soundboard, or the soundboard mix doesn't have the vocals WAY UP FRONT. Some people think soundboard recordings sound way too flat and sterile, and try to sync in the sound of the music in the room--like Grateful Dead "matrix" live recordings. Me, I prefer recording what was in the room (or field) if the sound is good.

Also, the best bootlegs are the ones you get to make. And if you show up with a suitcase full of equipment at a concert where they don't want you to record, you won't be recording at all. Whereas with the MZ-RH1 in your pocket...

[Strungup]

ZOOM , Tascam , HHB, all have just come uut with the next gent Flash based recorders,

I Agree with 440 about whatever you get there will be the Battery issue , they ALL suck juice pretty fast , so a Battery pack is a Must Have.

I have the RH1 and a Lithium USB power pack so that gives about 9 hours of recording , which coincidently is the HiMD Lp mode on a Standard 80 minute MD .

Built in mics are getting better , but have never really been very good . You get what you pay for. If the Mic pres of the recorder suck so will your audio.

[6079]

I've been looking a lot at taperssection.com at their various rigs and it blows my mind. Of course, the first question I ask myself, somewhat cynically, is it really worth it?

Based on my limited experience and assumptions, won't that hi-tech, pro rig not sound significantly better than a Sony MD? Especially in concert halls where you're in noisy areas. At the end of the day, do you really hear any more nuances? I don't know, that's why I have to ask. Isn't that suited to more of an acapella, close-access method?

Even more so, it seems like the difference in quality amongst portable DAT, minidisc, and flash recorders would be comparably minute.

When quality is the bottom line, is there a fair consensus to reach regarding these differences?

[tekdroid]

Even more so, it seems like the difference in quality amongst portable DAT, minidisc, and flash recorders would be comparably minute.

When quality is the bottom line, is there a fair consensus to reach regarding these differences?

Differences between recording quality of Hi-MD recorders recording in PCM seems to be nil to me (at least the first-generation ones I own). It comes down to features, size, usability for recordings (and of course mic choice and placement). People have tested Hi-MD units from past and present and commented on their low-noise pre-amps, etc. All I know is this format satisfies my requirements. Of course we always want more, but I haven't found anything better for recording for the price and size, really. I have no real reference point outside of Sony but others have tried similarly-priced recorders and found them coming up short, overall. Whether it's sound quality, battery life, pre-amp noise, in-built mics, size of unit, bugs, price, etc...

So for me it's a case of living with some minor MiniDisc-related weaknesses for all the good it brings.

I personally wouldn't spend gobs of cash on anything that restricted the ease at which I could make a recording on the go. The best stuff is caught unobtrusively, IMO.