[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:02:02 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:21:17 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...


[ Excessive quotation snipped. -- dsr ]


Well it's true that obsolescence in the computer world is often spoken
of
in
terms of months, rather than years. And sometimes incompatibilities
occur
with regard to the interface between hardware and software that seems to
defy
all understanding. Like Digital Audio Workstation interfaces that will
work
with one company's Firewire implementation, but not another's. Or OS
upgrades
that break said interfaces and require elaborate work-arounds, new
drivers,
or, simply cannot be made to work at all.

While no can argue that the computer isn't a worthwhile tool, for many
tasks,
I just don't feel that they are worth the effort sometimes. Will I edit
audio
on my desktop? Absolutely. Will I output it to CD and DVD from the
desktop?
You bet!, but will I use a computer as an audio recording device again?
Not
if I can help it.

I've felt the same way. For the current Rach/Ravel piano project I am
working on with my friend Barbara, I am using the Zoom H4n (I don't know
the
H4 that you found wanting, but the H4n seems to have none of those
problems). Marvelous way to work....not much different than tapeing, and
then a direct USB copy to the computer for editing.

Just for the record, it wasn't an H4 that I found wanting, it was an H2.
And
don't get me wrong. There is nothing really WRONG with the sound of the
H2,
it just isn't quite as clean (we're talking 24/96 here) as the
simultaneous
recording made on Mac G3 laptop using Audacity. I doubt that any client
would
notice it except on direct comparison.

Since she has a pretty decent audio system in her house adjacent to the
studio, we can stop occassionally and listen on the big system directly
from
the Zoom....much as I like my Pro4AA's, there is no substitute for
listening
on what are in effect room monitors....and with the Zoom it is just a
short,
convenient walk.

Agreed. I see that you use Pro4AAs as well. They might not be super
accurate
by today's headphone standards, but they're certainly good enough and the
super isolation is what keeps them in recording kit bag.

The effect on alternative recording devices has certain felt the impact
of
these little recorders.....my three DATs are worth now about $40 apiece,
and
the Ampex and Scully recorders not much more than double that......
blah!

Well, I was over a friend's house this afternoon who owns a very nice baby
grand piano and plays it quite well (mostly Bill Evans style jazz) and we
used the piano to fiddle around with Korg, MR-1. When I got home and
played
the recording back on my home system (Martin Logan Vistas, dual Athena
powered subwoofers, Krell KAV-300iL Integrated amp) I was blown away! The
MR-1 sounds fantastic, it seems much cleaner than the stuff I have
recorded
on my Mac using a Behringer FCA-202 ADC. I think that this is going to
work
out really well!

I considered the Korg....I am partial to DSD/SACD. And I would have if I
had convinced Barb to allow me to produce a hybrid SACD. But she wouldn't
go for it, and I felt the Zoom was quite good, and the new model had
controls that were understandable. I've got a presonus preamp for direct
input recording, and I feel the preamps in the Zoom are actually better than
those in the presonus, so that was a factor (I could get user reports on the
Zoom preamps, but not on the Korg).

All the reviews of the Korgs that I have seen say they sound magnificent.
Criticisms seemed confined to awkward level setting (which I do not find
awkward at all!) and perhaps not the best microphone preamps (in the MR-1)
nor is the included stereo electret mike all that good. But I'll likely NEVER
use the mike preamps (or the included microphone) because I will only use the
thing connected to my Mixer through the balanced hi-level line inputs, which
have been reviewed to be excellent (and indeed. my own test recording seems
to bear this out).

But I agree with your basic premise. Arnie has for years been promoting the
use of direct computer recording, and I gave it a try, but as I suspected
from fooling around with editing program, it was much more complicated and
error prone than using the Zoom. From my old semi-pro days, I developed not
only an appreciation for having a backup and being prepared for anything,
but also of "Keep it simple, stupid". In mic configurations, and in
recording gear. I really miss having my old 440B and preamps in their
two-case "portable" configuration despite their size and weight. They were
simple, reliable, and very, very good sounding.


Absolutely agreed. When I used to record a major municipal symphony orchestra
using a Sony 880P 2-track at 15ips with a Tapco mixer and a pair of Sony C37P
microphones on a stereo "T" bar, the equipment was heavy, cumbersome, and
took up a lot of space, but at least it was SIMPLE, and the recordings made
with that outfit still satisfy to this day. They're reasonably quiet, have
great frequency response and image like gangbusters with a wide, expansive
sound stage. There is much to be said for simplicity in recording.