Hi everyone,

I'd appreciate some advise on home computer recording and field
recording

This what I want to do:
1. I want to record instruments like an electric guitar amp, bass, a
keyboard etc (I'll record one track at a time mostly but perhaps 2 or 4
tracks might be usefull).

2. Transfer the tracks to a computer to edit, mix several tracks on a
computer.

3. I also want to record all kinds of different sounds outside or wherever,
with a portable recorder and transfer those tracks to a computer and edit
and mix them with pre-recorded tracks of other instruments, effects, sounds.


My main concern is to get high quality professional sound. I want to
get a portable recorder which will give me professional high quality sound
and something durable in all weather conditions and not too cumbersome to
carry. I want to be able to transfer those on a computer without losing any
quality.

I'm willing to invest several thousand dollars if I really have too
to get professional high quality sound. But if I don't really need to I'd
like to keep the cost down as much as possible by buying used equipment or
high
quality inexpensive equipment (around a $1000-$1500).

I've done some research on this and have come up with the following
though I'm not quite sure why these are recommended(I'm new to this) :

1. Soundcard: M-audioaudiophile 24/96

2. Microphone: Oktava MC012

3. Pre-amp (to boost signal to microphone):
M-Audio audio buddy dual preamp

4. Portable Recorder: Tascam Dap 1

5. Computer Audio Program: Steinberg Cubase




Let me know what you people think....

Thanks,
Mark

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 13:55:23 -0500, "mark"
wrote:

4. Portable Recorder: Tascam Dap 1

DAT is dead. Well, dying, anyway. I've heard it stated that no one
is manufacturing the transports anymore. And the most unreliable DAT
m/c I've ever used was a Tascam (DA60).


At the cheapest end of the market, there's nothing wrong at all with
consumer minidisc, even better if you use an external preamp and D/A,
therefore bypassing the MD analogue bits. Getting the MD into your
computer is a real-time process from the analogue out, no digital
output unless you also buy an MD deck with optical out.

Moving up on the MD ladder is the HHB Portadisc, a fully pro
implementation of MD.

Then there is the forthcoming Hi-MD format - 1GB of uncompressed audio
per minidisc plus relatively high speed uploading of audio recorded
via analogue-in (yeah, thanks Sony - still crippling the format, I
see). Wait until Sharp bring out their Hi-MDs though. Sony=s**t.

Also worth looking at are hard disk recorders, such as the iRiver iHP
series. Apparently the analogue in is/might be a bit suspect, but
there is an optical input, and it's a very cool mp3 player too.
(However, currently it doesn't have any input metering!!).


--
'Reply to:' is valid

m.
in Milton Keynes, UK

PGP key available

For field recording, I think hard disk recording is the way to go here.
Minidisc is compressed, so I wouldn't use it for recording. Uncompressed
audio will take up a lot of space, so a 1gb minidisc media for uncompressed
audio might not cut it. I would go with the Sound Devices 722 hard disk
recorder. It's not out yet, but will be soon. I know it's more than $1000,
but if you want professional sound, you should use what the professionals
use. The nice thing about hard disk recorders is that they are non-linear,
so it's a file transfer that you do via a firewire port, instead of a real
time transfer. You can load the files directly into your DAW, which is
really nice.

-Dave





Also worth looking at are hard disk recorders, such as the iRiver iHP
series. Apparently the analogue in is/might be a bit suspect, but
there is an optical input, and it's a very cool mp3 player too.
(However, currently it doesn't have any input metering!!).


--
'Reply to:' is valid

m.
in Milton Keynes, UK

PGP key available

Oh, about the mics you are interested in, the oktavas. I have a pair of
them, and I really like them. I think you can get a mic with three capsules
and a pad for around $100 new. I know people who will tear out the guts, and
put in new electronics to make them sound like a schoeps for $100. So for
$200, you get a mic that sounds like a $1200 schoeps. not bad if you ask me.
The only thing you have to be careful of, is that the quality control at
oktava is not the greatest, and you may get two of the same mic that sound
drastically different. But, if you replace the guts, that doesn't matter.

-Dave



mark wrote in message
...
Hi everyone,

I'd appreciate some advise on home computer recording and field
recording

This what I want to do:
1. I want to record instruments like an electric guitar amp, bass, a
keyboard etc (I'll record one track at a time mostly but perhaps 2 or 4
tracks might be usefull).

2. Transfer the tracks to a computer to edit, mix several tracks on a
computer.

3. I also want to record all kinds of different sounds outside or
wherever,
with a portable recorder and transfer those tracks to a computer and edit
and mix them with pre-recorded tracks of other instruments, effects,
sounds.


My main concern is to get high quality professional sound. I want
to
get a portable recorder which will give me professional high quality sound
and something durable in all weather conditions and not too cumbersome to
carry. I want to be able to transfer those on a computer without losing
any
quality.

I'm willing to invest several thousand dollars if I really have too
to get professional high quality sound. But if I don't really need to I'd
like to keep the cost down as much as possible by buying used equipment or
high
quality inexpensive equipment (around a $1000-$1500).

I've done some research on this and have come up with the following
though I'm not quite sure why these are recommended(I'm new to this) :

1. Soundcard: M-audioaudiophile 24/96

2. Microphone: Oktava MC012

3. Pre-amp (to boost signal to microphone):
M-Audio audio buddy dual preamp

4. Portable Recorder: Tascam Dap 1

5. Computer Audio Program: Steinberg Cubase




Let me know what you people think....

Thanks,
Mark

How would you go about replacing the guts of the Oktava? Is their a web-site
, etc which explains how to do this?

Mark
"Dave" wrote in message
ink.net...
Oh, about the mics you are interested in, the oktavas. I have a pair of
them, and I really like them. I think you can get a mic with three
capsules
and a pad for around $100 new. I know people who will tear out the guts,
and
put in new electronics to make them sound like a schoeps for $100. So for
$200, you get a mic that sounds like a $1200 schoeps. not bad if you ask
me.
The only thing you have to be careful of, is that the quality control at
oktava is not the greatest, and you may get two of the same mic that sound
drastically different. But, if you replace the guts, that doesn't matter.

-Dave



mark wrote in message
...
Hi everyone,

I'd appreciate some advise on home computer recording and field
recording

This what I want to do:
1. I want to record instruments like an electric guitar amp, bass, a
keyboard etc (I'll record one track at a time mostly but perhaps 2 or 4
tracks might be usefull).

2. Transfer the tracks to a computer to edit, mix several tracks on a
computer.

3. I also want to record all kinds of different sounds outside or
wherever,
with a portable recorder and transfer those tracks to a computer and
edit
and mix them with pre-recorded tracks of other instruments, effects,
sounds.


My main concern is to get high quality professional sound. I want
to
get a portable recorder which will give me professional high quality
sound
and something durable in all weather conditions and not too cumbersome
to
carry. I want to be able to transfer those on a computer without losing
any
quality.

I'm willing to invest several thousand dollars if I really have
too
to get professional high quality sound. But if I don't really need to
I'd
like to keep the cost down as much as possible by buying used equipment
or
high
quality inexpensive equipment (around a $1000-$1500).

I've done some research on this and have come up with the
following
though I'm not quite sure why these are recommended(I'm new to this) :

1. Soundcard: M-audioaudiophile 24/96

2. Microphone: Oktava MC012

3. Pre-amp (to boost signal to microphone):
M-Audio audio buddy dual preamp

4. Portable Recorder: Tascam Dap 1

5. Computer Audio Program: Steinberg Cubase




Let me know what you people think....

Thanks,
Mark

Oh, about the mics you are interested in, the oktavas. I have a pair of
them, and I really like them. I think you can get a mic with three
capsules
and a pad for around $100 new. I know people who will tear out the guts,
and
put in new electronics to make them sound like a schoeps for $100. So for
$200, you get a mic that sounds like a $1200 schoeps. not bad if you ask
me.
The only thing you have to be careful of, is that the quality control at
oktava is not the greatest, and you may get two of the same mic that sound
drastically different. But, if you replace the guts, that doesn't matter.

But wouldn't the diaphrams be different too? Has anyone really tested to
see how closely matched a tweaked pair is that was previously not well
matched?

I'm not so sure that the Oktava can be mod-ed to sound like a Shopes
for $100 of
extra parts. Yes, the Oktava's can be made to sound nicer than the the
stock GC versions but
it's a bit of a stretch to compare even the moded Oktava to a Shoeps
IMHO.

peace and balance,
chris
wavetrap



"Dave" wrote in message link.net...
Oh, about the mics you are interested in, the oktavas. I have a pair of
them, and I really like them. I think you can get a mic with three capsules
and a pad for around $100 new. I know people who will tear out the guts, and
put in new electronics to make them sound like a schoeps for $100. So for
$200, you get a mic that sounds like a $1200 schoeps. not bad if you ask me.
The only thing you have to be careful of, is that the quality control at
oktava is not the greatest, and you may get two of the same mic that sound
drastically different. But, if you replace the guts, that doesn't matter.

-Dave



mark wrote in message
...
Hi everyone,

I'd appreciate some advise on home computer recording and field
recording

This what I want to do:
1. I want to record instruments like an electric guitar amp, bass, a
keyboard etc (I'll record one track at a time mostly but perhaps 2 or 4
tracks might be usefull).

2. Transfer the tracks to a computer to edit, mix several tracks on a
computer.

3. I also want to record all kinds of different sounds outside or
wherever,
with a portable recorder and transfer those tracks to a computer and edit
and mix them with pre-recorded tracks of other instruments, effects,
sounds.


My main concern is to get high quality professional sound. I want
to
get a portable recorder which will give me professional high quality sound
and something durable in all weather conditions and not too cumbersome to
carry. I want to be able to transfer those on a computer without losing
any
quality.

I'm willing to invest several thousand dollars if I really have too
to get professional high quality sound. But if I don't really need to I'd
like to keep the cost down as much as possible by buying used equipment or
high
quality inexpensive equipment (around a $1000-$1500).

I've done some research on this and have come up with the following
though I'm not quite sure why these are recommended(I'm new to this) :

1. Soundcard: M-audioaudiophile 24/96

2. Microphone: Oktava MC012

3. Pre-amp (to boost signal to microphone):
M-Audio audio buddy dual preamp

4. Portable Recorder: Tascam Dap 1

5. Computer Audio Program: Steinberg Cubase




Let me know what you people think....

Thanks,
Mark

In article . net writes:

Uncompressed
audio will take up a lot of space, so a 1gb minidisc media for uncompressed
audio might not cut it.

Well, that represents about 1.5 hours of 44.1 kHz 16-bit stereo per
disk. You think maybe you can't afford two HD Minidisks? How much do
they cost, anyway?

I would go with the Sound Devices 722 hard disk
recorder. It's not out yet, but will be soon. I know it's more than $1000

Well, as long as we're talking about things that you can't get yet . .
.. and it's CONSIDERABLY more than $1,000.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Martin Tillman" wrote in message
news
DAT is dead. Well, dying, anyway. I've heard it stated that no one
is manufacturing the transports anymore. And the most unreliable DAT
m/c I've ever used was a Tascam (DA60).

At the cheapest end of the market, there's nothing wrong at all with
consumer minidisc, even better if you use an external preamp and D/A,
therefore bypassing the MD analogue bits.

One nasty problem with MD relates to processing the same audio through
multiple layers of dissimilar perceptual coders. Someplace along the line
just about every piece of music gets MP3d. The audible degradation of MP3
processing on uncompressed wave files is generally significantly less than
the audible degradation of MP3 processing on files that have already been
compressed some other way.

Getting the MD into your
computer is a real-time process from the analogue out, no digital
output unless you also buy an MD deck with optical out.

Moving up on the MD ladder is the HHB Portadisc, a fully pro
implementation of MD.

Then there is the forthcoming Hi-MD format - 1GB of uncompressed audio
per minidisc plus relatively high speed uploading of audio recorded
via analogue-in (yeah, thanks Sony - still crippling the format, I
see). Wait until Sharp bring out their Hi-MDs though. Sony=s**t.

Also worth looking at are hard disk recorders, such as the iRiver iHP
series. Apparently the analogue in is/might be a bit suspect, but
there is an optical input, and it's a very cool mp3 player too.
(However, currently it doesn't have any input metering!!).

I think you've got things right - putting the here-and-now-and
cost-effective consumer hard drive recorder above any of the MD formats.
Besides the IHP-120 & 140 there is also the Creative Labs Nomad Jukebox 3.
Nothing suspect at all about the analog inputs for field equipment.

Here's a technical test of an iRiver iHP 100:

http://www.ixbt.com/multimedia/iriver-100.shtml

(Sorry about the Russian, but the interesting part in the universal language
of technical specs can be near the bottom)

There is also optical digital I/O.

Here's a technical test of a Nomad Jukebox as a record/play device:

http://audio.rightmark.org/test/crea...ebox3-rec.html

There is also optical digital I/O.

In the case of the NJB3, this is a readily-available well-understood box
that records uncompressed audio for 6-8 hours on field-replicable internal
batteries and runs well under $300.

In article ,
Sugarite wrote:
Oh, about the mics you are interested in, the oktavas. I have a pair of
them, and I really like them. I think you can get a mic with three
capsules
and a pad for around $100 new. I know people who will tear out the guts,
and
put in new electronics to make them sound like a schoeps for $100. So for
$200, you get a mic that sounds like a $1200 schoeps. not bad if you ask
me.
The only thing you have to be careful of, is that the quality control at
oktava is not the greatest, and you may get two of the same mic that sound
drastically different. But, if you replace the guts, that doesn't matter.

But wouldn't the diaphrams be different too? Has anyone really tested to
see how closely matched a tweaked pair is that was previously not well
matched?

If you buy the capsules from the Sound Room, they are reasonably well matched.
If you buy them from Guitar Center, they are probably not matched but you
might be able to match a pair by ear in the store if you can use a small
console with a channel invert switch.

The diaphragm tensioning and backplate machining varies considerably in
quality from one mike to another, but the Oktava folks at least know
some of the seemingly-secret procedures to properly tension the diaphragms
(which neither Chinese facility seems to understand).

The electronics upgrades aren't that difficult. But even with properly
matched capsules and upgraded electronics, they aren't in the same league
as the Schoeps, or even close. Then again, for $200 they don't have to be.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I've A/B'd em, and they sounded darn close.



Chris Seifert wrote in message
om...
I'm not so sure that the Oktava can be mod-ed to sound like a Shopes
for $100 of
extra parts. Yes, the Oktava's can be made to sound nicer than the the
stock GC versions but
it's a bit of a stretch to compare even the moded Oktava to a Shoeps
IMHO.

peace and balance,
chris
wavetrap



"Dave" wrote in message
link.net...
Oh, about the mics you are interested in, the oktavas. I have a pair of
them, and I really like them. I think you can get a mic with three
capsules
and a pad for around $100 new. I know people who will tear out the guts,
and
put in new electronics to make them sound like a schoeps for $100. So
for
$200, you get a mic that sounds like a $1200 schoeps. not bad if you ask
me.
The only thing you have to be careful of, is that the quality control at
oktava is not the greatest, and you may get two of the same mic that
sound
drastically different. But, if you replace the guts, that doesn't
matter.

-Dave



mark wrote in message
...
Hi everyone,

I'd appreciate some advise on home computer recording and field
recording

This what I want to do:
1. I want to record instruments like an electric guitar amp, bass, a
keyboard etc (I'll record one track at a time mostly but perhaps 2 or
4
tracks might be usefull).

2. Transfer the tracks to a computer to edit, mix several tracks on a
computer.

3. I also want to record all kinds of different sounds outside or
wherever,
with a portable recorder and transfer those tracks to a computer and
edit
and mix them with pre-recorded tracks of other instruments, effects,
sounds.


My main concern is to get high quality professional sound. I
want
to
get a portable recorder which will give me professional high quality
sound
and something durable in all weather conditions and not too cumbersome
to
carry. I want to be able to transfer those on a computer without
losing
any
quality.

I'm willing to invest several thousand dollars if I really have
too
to get professional high quality sound. But if I don't really need to
I'd
like to keep the cost down as much as possible by buying used
equipment or
high
quality inexpensive equipment (around a $1000-$1500).

I've done some research on this and have come up with the
following
though I'm not quite sure why these are recommended(I'm new to this) :

1. Soundcard: M-audioaudiophile 24/96

2. Microphone: Oktava MC012

3. Pre-amp (to boost signal to microphone):
M-Audio audio buddy dual preamp

4. Portable Recorder: Tascam Dap 1

5. Computer Audio Program: Steinberg Cubase




Let me know what you people think....

Thanks,
Mark

Mike Rivers wrote in message
news:znr1077761991k@trad...



Uncompressed
audio will take up a lot of space, so a 1gb minidisc media for
uncompressed
audio might not cut it.

Well, that represents about 1.5 hours of 44.1 kHz 16-bit stereo per
disk. You think maybe you can't afford two HD Minidisks? How much do
they cost, anyway?


Well, I never record at that sample rate and bit depth, but if someone wants
to, then that might be adequate. What if he wants to do more than two tracks
of audio? What if he wants higher resolution? From what I last heard, the
media is acutally pretty cheap. But, how much is the recorder going to be?

I would go with the Sound Devices 722 hard disk
recorder. It's not out yet, but will be soon. I know it's more than
$1000

Well, as long as we're talking about things that you can't get yet . .
. and it's CONSIDERABLY more than $1,000.

Well, I think it's worth the extra expense. He won't need an external mic
pre, which can get costly. He won't need to spend money on mini discs. He
can connect the recorder directly to a computer via firewire, and just
transfer the files, rather than a real time transfer, which can take a long
time. Also, Sound Devices will be doing a firmware upgrade in the future
that will allow the user to mirror to an external firewire drive while
recording to the internal hard drive. That way, the user doesn't have to
take the machine to a computer. They can just burn a DVD-R, and import the
files from there. I also think it's worth the wait. He can rent a DAT
machine for now to get by. Plus I don't know when Sony plans on doing
anything with their HD minidisc either...but I really haven't researched any
info on a realese schedule with them, so I can accurately say.

I know $1000 extra is a lot of money, but you get what you pay for, and I
think, in the long run, it is definitely worth it.

Arny Krueger wrote:

In the case of the NJB3, this is a readily-available well-understood box
that records uncompressed audio for 6-8 hours on field-replicable internal
batteries and runs well under $300.

For both the Nomad JB3 and the iRiver iHP-120, if you add a good quality
front end (mic pre-amp/A-to-D converter) like the Denecke AD-20 or our
Core Sound Mic2496, you'll have a DAT killer.


--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912

In article .net writes:

Well, that represents about 1.5 hours of 44.1 kHz 16-bit stereo

Well, I never record at that sample rate and bit depth, but if someone wants
to, then that might be adequate.

What kind of snob are you anyway? That's the CD standard. It's not
good enough for field recording when there's only $1000 to spend?

I guess Hank's right in suggesting that the Real World exists in
theory only.

What if he wants to do more than two tracks
of audio? What if he wants higher resolution?

What if he gets a real budget? Actually if I haven't mixed up threads,
he didn't specify resolution, but said he wanted to record four
tracks (or channels, actually, since we're talking digital).

From what I last heard, the
media is acutally pretty cheap. But, how much is the recorder going to be?

That's another question. The usual thing is that the recorder is
pretty cheap and the media is fairly expensive. This was the case with
Minidisk when it first came out (think cost per minute, not cost per
disk), and then there's inkjet printers.

I would go with the Sound Devices 722

Well, I think it's worth the extra expense. He won't need an external mic
pre, which can get costly. He won't need to spend money on mini discs. He
can connect the recorder directly to a computer via firewire, and just
transfer the files, rather than a real time transfer, which can take a long
time. Also, Sound Devices will be doing a firmware upgrade in the future
that will allow the user to mirror to an external firewire drive while
recording to the internal hard drive.

Why not ask if the original poster wants to work this year or next
year? That might be much more important than any of your talking
points.

I know $1000 extra is a lot of money, but you get what you pay for, and I
think, in the long run, it is definitely worth it.

That's for someone else to decide. If the 722 was available today, I'd
be more inclined to support your point. It was introduced at the NAB
show last year, and this year's show is coming up in a couple more
months. That MIGHT be their next target date, but on the web site
they're still showing alpha and beta test models and performance data.

I really wanted one last Summer, but when it didn't come out, and it
didn't look very promising at the AES show (they showed an empty box)
I kind of stopped dreaming and started looking for a preamp for my
Jukebox. If I needed an upgrade tomorrow, I'd probably spring for the
Core Sound preamp and use its digital output into the Jukebox (and
continue to love stereo mics), but not having a profitable project to
pay for it, I can afford to wait.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 07:48:57 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

At the cheapest end of the market, there's nothing wrong at all with
consumer minidisc, even better if you use an external preamp and D/A,
therefore bypassing the MD analogue bits.

One nasty problem with MD relates to processing the same audio through
multiple layers of dissimilar perceptual coders. Someplace along the line
just about every piece of music gets MP3d. The audible degradation of MP3
processing on uncompressed wave files is generally significantly less than
the audible degradation of MP3 processing on files that have already been
compressed some other way.

I've just recorded 1KHz tone from -96dB to 0dB onto MD via analogue
in, transferred that to my PC digitally and encoded it to mp3 using
LAME -aps.

Care to do a DBT?

It certainly beats me. (However, the Fraunhofer encoder supplied with
Adobe Audition, using a high variable bitrate similar to LAME -aps,
makes a right pigs ear of it).

--
'Reply to:' is valid

m.
in Milton Keynes, UK

PGP key available

Martin Tillman wrote:



I've just recorded 1KHz tone from -96dB to 0dB onto MD via analogue
in, transferred that to my PC digitally and encoded it to mp3 using
LAME -aps.

Care to do a DBT?

It certainly beats me. (However, the Fraunhofer encoder supplied with
Adobe Audition, using a high variable bitrate similar to LAME -aps,
makes a right pigs ear of it).


Martin, such a test signal would survive most any perceptual
encoder virtually unchanged. It is when there is a wide
spectral content that things start disappearing from it.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 14:47:16 -0800, Bob Cain
wrote:

Martin Tillman wrote:



I've just recorded 1KHz tone from -96dB to 0dB onto MD via analogue
in, transferred that to my PC digitally and encoded it to mp3 using
LAME -aps.

Care to do a DBT?

It certainly beats me. (However, the Fraunhofer encoder supplied with
Adobe Audition, using a high variable bitrate similar to LAME -aps,
makes a right pigs ear of it).


Martin, such a test signal would survive most any perceptual
encoder virtually unchanged. It is when there is a wide
spectral content that things start disappearing from it.

Fair enough, but as I said, the Fraunhofer codec made a real mess of
it. And the noise at -70dB seemed pretty accurate in the LAME version
;-)

--
'Reply to:' is valid

m.
in Milton Keynes, UK

PGP key available