[Ralf R. Radermacher]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

SO WHY ALL THE GUSHING PRAISE?

Because many people have grown up with analog tape, hiss, drop-outs,
phasing problems and distortion several orders of magnitude worse than
the cheapest Zoom?

Compared to my UHER Report of 20 or my DAT of 10 years ago, the H2 is
still a revelation.

Not everybody really needs a dynamic range of 120+ dB.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

[Mark]

On Mar 12, 6:21*pm, "geoff" wrote:
Soundhaspriority wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
m...
Soundhaspriority wrote:
Fair enough. May I make one suggestion? *Given that people like
Harvey Gerst have found virtue in the MXL603s, which uses cheap
capacitors,

Bob, why have you got this hang-up over the price of capacitors ? Tuely
excellent capacitors can cost next to nothing, and in
many/most cases 'cheaper' and lesser-spec ones are indistinguishable
in the real world. geoff1
The ones in the 603s's that I took apart were ceramics. I merely
followed the suggestions pioneered by others, and replaced them with
Wima polypropylenes. Garden variety ceramics, not the new fancy ones,
are very poor choices for audio coupling.

Do you know that they were used for coupling ? *Or PSU decoupling or opamp
freq compensation ?

Cernmaics can be better than anything else ( except glass/mica) in some
applications as they have lower inductance than foil caps.

You may have actually deteriorated your mics performance.

geoff- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

for most audio coupling applications, it really makes no difference,

unless you want it to..

Mark

[Steve Hawkins]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in
:


"rboy" wrote in message
.
..
But at the end of the day, the H2 is a slick little liar.


Bob (or whoever), if it claims to do something that it cannot then it
would be, but it's not. I'm just now re-reading an H2 ad a magazine
and it doesn't claim to do anything but make surprisingly good,
convenient recordings.

Rboy,
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. Obviously, an inanimate object
can't
"lie." But as a flawed device, demonstrations can be set up that
disguise it's rather severe weaknesses as a general recording device.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

Yet, you said you've never used one. The problem with judging an audio
device by it's specs is your ear is not a piece of test equipment
calibrated to a stable, verifiable reference in a controlled environment.
It's a flawed and limited receiver, colored by a subjective processor.

I can play the devil's advocate and state that the vast majority of
people can't hear the difference a high performance, expensive piece of
equipment should produce. Most folks are listening to MP3s these days!

Steve Hawkins

[Mike Brown]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

"Ralf R. Radermacher" wrote in message
...

Soundhaspriority wrote:


SO WHY ALL THE GUSHING PRAISE?

Because many people have grown up with analog tape, hiss, drop-outs,
phasing problems and distortion several orders of magnitude worse than
the cheapest Zoom?

Compared to my UHER Report of 20 or my DAT of 10 years ago, the H2 is
still a revelation.

Not everybody really needs a dynamic range of 120+ dB.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses


Not a problem, Ralf. But for the same money (+mikes, of course), one can get
a little firewire box with 22 dB more dynamic range. This is the point I'm
trying to make.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511



.. . . .and you have to carry a laptop round with you, which many of us
don't have.

My "outside" recordings are done in performance venues of one sort or
another, and I use an old Yamaha AW16G and transfer the files ont the
computer for editing. The Yamaha isn'e exactly small (not a lot bigger
than a laptop though), but it fits into a soft sports bag with a few
mics and cables.

MJRB

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

Not a problem, Ralf. But for the same money (+mikes, of course), one can get
a little firewire box with 22 dB more dynamic range. This is the point I'm
trying to make.

If, and only if, you already happen to own the mikes. Not to forget the
portable computer. And do make sure this external interface doesn't
require a mains connection. My EMU 1616 does.

Next, try fitting your firewire box with its computer into your shirt
pocket for some portable soundscape recording with OKMs or suspend it
from a hall's ceiling with two pieces of nylon string.

An excavator is a much more versatile vehicle than a family sedan.
Still, people buy family sedans.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

[rboy]

On Mar 13, 7:07*pm, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:
"rboy" wrote in message

...

But at the end of the day, the H2 is a slick little liar.

Bob (or whoever), if it claims to do something that it cannot then it
would be, but it's not. *I'm just now re-reading an H2 ad a magazine
and it doesn't claim to do anything but make surprisingly good,
convenient recordings.

Rboy,
* * *I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. Obviously, an inanimate object can't
"lie." * But as a flawed device, demonstrations can be set up that disguise
it's rather severe weaknesses as a general recording device.



Bob, you're treating it like it's a $2,000 box that doesn't fulfill
its hype.

Have a spoonful of perspective : )

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Soundhaspriority wrote:

"rboy" wrote in message
...
But at the end of the day, the H2 is a slick little liar.


Bob (or whoever), if it claims to do something that it cannot then it
would be, but it's not. I'm just now re-reading an H2 ad a magazine
and it doesn't claim to do anything but make surprisingly good,
convenient recordings.

Rboy,
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. Obviously, an inanimate object can't
"lie." But as a flawed device, demonstrations can be set up that disguise
it's rather severe weaknesses as a general recording device. I understand
this principle very well, I've been trying to disguise my mental health
weaknesses from these groups by pretending to be an audio intellectual. The
fact that I've never had a job in my 56 year life and still live with my now
decrepit father, slowly siphoning every last dollar of his, should be of
little consequence to those that are impressed by my intellectual prowess.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

Please, just TRY to not be a forger. Just try.

[Zapbranagan]

On Mar 13, 7:57 pm, Soundhaspriority wrote:
"rboy" wrote in message

...

But at the end of the day, the H2 is a slick little liar.

Bob (or whoever), if it claims to do something that it cannot then it
would be, but it's not. I'm just now re-reading an H2 ad a magazine
and it doesn't claim to do anything but make surprisingly good,
convenient recordings.

Rboy,
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. Obviously, an inanimate object can't
"lie." But as a flawed device, demonstrations can be set up that disguise
it's rather severe weaknesses as a general recording device. I understand
this principle very well, I've been trying to disguise my mental health
weaknesses from these groups by pretending to be an audio intellectual. The
fact that I've never had a job in my 56 year life and still live with my now
decrepit father, slowly siphoning every last dollar of his, should be of
little consequence to those that are impressed by my intellectual prowess.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511



What? Why are you on here then?

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:30:27 -0700 (PDT), Zapbranagan
wrote:

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511



What? Why are you on here then?

Bob has a whacked-out stalker crossposting from buzzardnews
(usually...) under his name.

We all need to just get used to it. Buzzard seems determinedly
disinterested. Life in the fast lane, I guess.

Even if your newsreader can block whack-jobs by address, you'll
still have to read responses from folks who can't. If
sufficiently offended, you'll then be compelled to
respond second-hand to the whacko. Life just isn't fair, but
there it is.

All good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck
Death to scammers. Stake out on anthill; anterior incision on abdomen;
allow drinking water as needed to sustain.

[Zapbranagan]

On Mar 13, 11:21 pm, Chris Hornbeck
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:30:27 -0700 (PDT), Zapbranagan

wrote:
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

What? Why are you on here then?

Bob has a whacked-out stalker crossposting from buzzardnews
(usually...) under his name.

We all need to just get used to it. Buzzard seems determinedly
disinterested. Life in the fast lane, I guess.

Even if your newsreader can block whack-jobs by address, you'll
still have to read responses from folks who can't. If
sufficiently offended, you'll then be compelled to
respond second-hand to the whacko. Life just isn't fair, but
there it is.

All good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck
Death to scammers. Stake out on anthill; anterior incision on abdomen;
allow drinking water as needed to sustain.


Well, even the whack jobs get an opinion. Maybe we should look at why
we have these whack jobs? Maybe we should focus more on the cause
instead of dealing with the symptons by handing out drugs.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:38:45 -0700 (PDT), Zapbranagan
wrote:

Well, even the whack jobs get an opinion. Maybe we should look at why
we have these whack jobs?

Wow, are you the guy? If so, you've finally posted something
entertaining - cool beans and congrats. I never doubted ya.
Well, maybe just a little.

Maybe we should focus more on the cause
instead of dealing with the symptons by handing out drugs.

So, now that we're friends, where are they handing out the drugs?
Just between us, natch.


Chris Hornbeck
Death to scammers. Stake out on anthill; anterior incision on abdomen;
allow drinking water as needed to sustain.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:05:46 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

Please, just TRY to not be a forger. Just try.

The forgery is actually less offensive than the attempt
to be droll. Nothing sadder than the failed attempt
at subtle humor.

Humor requires a purity of spirit that's earned. If the
Buzzard forger were to work on that first, all else
would follow.

Life's short. There's no time to waste. Not a single
second.

God bless us, every one,


Chris Hornbeck

[Matthew B. Tepper]

ENOUGH!!!!!!

--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
War is Peace. ** Freedom is Slavery. ** It's all Napster's fault!

[Matthew B. Tepper]

GO AWAY!

--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
War is Peace. ** Freedom is Slavery. ** It's all Napster's fault!

[Matthew B. Tepper]

NOBODY CARES!

--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
War is Peace. ** Freedom is Slavery. ** It's all Napster's fault!

[Steve Hawkins]

Soundhaspriority wrote in
:

wrote in message


"Soundhaspriority" wrote in
:


"rboy" wrote in message

m. ..
But at the end of the day, the H2 is a slick little liar.


Bob (or whoever), if it claims to do something that it cannot then
it would be, but it's not. I'm just now re-reading an H2 ad a
magazine and it doesn't claim to do anything but make surprisingly
good, convenient recordings.

Rboy,
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. Obviously, an inanimate object
can't
"lie." But as a flawed device, demonstrations can be set up that
disguise it's rather severe weaknesses as a general recording
device.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

Yet, you said you've never used one. The problem with judging an
audio device by it's specs is your ear is not a piece of test
equipment calibrated to a stable, verifiable reference in a
controlled environment. It's a flawed and limited receiver, colored
by a subjective processor.

This is logic that an intellectual and scientist like me cannot abide.

Good thing we have Engineers and Bean Counters.

You can absolutely define an audio product by the specs, as long as
the specs are truthful.

heh, heh....I've been in test equipment manufacturing for over 30 years,
what a spec says is based on how you got there and the final numbers
always belong to Marketing. They're always "truthful", how they relate
is another issue.

I've been doing this for years with nary a
problem. Besides, most clients are more interested in expensive
hardware, or the illusion thereof. That's what I try to provide.

When I talk to a supplier, I explain my application, expect to be offered
a range of solutions to choose from and will ask for a recommendation,
before making up my mind.

Steve Hawkins

[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 13, 7:22 pm, Steve Hawkins
wrote:

Yet, you said you've never used one. The problem with judging an audio
device by it's specs is your ear is not a piece of test equipment
calibrated to a stable, verifiable reference in a controlled environment.

The real problem with judging an audio device by its specs is that the
specs look pretty good on all of them until you get to the extremes,
and most applications don't call for working near the extremes. For
those that do, by all means, include the applicable test data in your
decision matrix.

[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 14, 1:21 am, Chris Hornbeck
wrote:

Bob has a whacked-out stalker crossposting from buzzardnews
(usually...) under his name.

Crackpot or not, there's some badly directed good arguments presented
here and innocent readers (there are some who come here looking for
advice) should know that there's a difference between theory and
practice, ideal, and practical, quest-for-the-best-always and works-
for-me.

[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 13, 7:04 pm, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:

Mike, all good points. Let's not get too serious here. I doubt that our
recommendations would differ that much. If the recordist doesn't have a
laptop, which is almost rare these days, then the Zoom is a forced choice.

That's a pretty limited view. It's not a matter of whether the
recordist has a laptop or not, it's whether that's appropriate for the
job. If I'm at a music camp and hear a tune that I want to learn, I'm
not going to go back to my car, get my laptop computer, hook it up to
the interface and mics, chase down the fiddle player, and say "sit
down and play that tune for me that we played in the jam session a
couple of hours ago while we were waiting for lunch outside the dining
hall. You know, the one just before you played Devil's Dream." No, I'm
going to reach over to my case, pull out my Zoom, switch it on, and
catch a couple of minutes of the tune while he's playing it, and
before I switch it off, I'll ask him for the name of the tune. There's
nothing "forced" about the choice of the Zoom, it's just obvious,
assuming that I have one.

Unfortunately for this discussion, I don't do reviews, so I can't
authenticate my opinions to your satisfaction. I go by general electrical
theory, and the posted reviews of others on the web, which point to obvious
deficiencies with the sound quality of the H2.

Well, you can't believe everything you read on the Web, not even from
me. When I do a review, I often start off with some lab tests just to
see if there's anything outrageous - for instance discovering that the
"high impedance" instrument input on something I had once that was
about 15K ohms. Then I'll put it to use. If I hear anything odd, I'll
take it back to the bench to try to find an explanation for the
problem. But if I don't hear any problems, I focus on the practical
side of how easy it is to use in likely applications, and what
limitations it has for certain applications and what cautions and work-
arounds are necessary. For example, the easily-overloaded input stage
on these portable recorders means that it would be a good idea to
carry attenuators if it's going to be plugged into a mixer,
particularly someone else's mixer.

I considered the possibility of replacing it with the Sony PCM-D50, and
possibly a lighter mike (the Rode NT-4 weighs a pound, and I hand-hold it
motionless for as long as an hour!) So I carefully examined the few user
reports of recording with this unit. One report characterized it as having a
"typically thin ENG sound", comparing it unfavorably with the Sound Devices
gear.

What the heck does that mean? And as I pointed out, the PCM-D50 has
cheaper mics than the PCM-D1, which may not even have as good mics FOR
YOUR APPLICATION as the Rode that you're using now. I believe that the
new Sony ECM-957PRO uses the same capsules that the D1 uses. Perhaps
your cellist friend would like the D50 better with that mic.

I don't believe I'm insulting Hank's acoustic guitar by saying that the
guitar is harmonically rich. This richness seems to disguise signal paths
that have a lot of high-order harmonic distortion. Perhaps this is not
technically the right reason.

I think that's not at all the right reason, and you really shouldn't
state things like this as fact. It's very misleading.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message


The real problem with judging an audio device by its
specs is that the specs look pretty good on all of them
until you get to the extremes, and most applications
don't call for working near the extremes. For those that
do, by all means, include the applicable test data in
your decision matrix.

An example of what you're talking about Mike, would be the original
Microtrack. I've never had a problem using it with microphones, but most of
the people I know who have tried to use it to record line-level sources run
into overload problems due to the fact that its input attenuator lacks
adjustment range. So, there's an example of an usage at an extreme that the
specsheet did not warn most people about when they read it.

The input overload problem with line-level sources was so pervasive that the
PR for the Microtrack 2 specifically says that they addressed this situation
when they redesigned it. I use my Microtrack with a patch cable that puts a
couple of XLR mic attenuators into the circuit when I record line-level
sources. About 20 dB attenuation works a treat.

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message


"Ralf R. Radermacher" wrote in message
...
Soundhaspriority wrote:

SO WHY ALL THE GUSHING PRAISE?

Because many people have grown up with analog tape,
hiss, drop-outs, phasing problems and distortion several
orders of magnitude worse than the cheapest Zoom?

Thing is, there are lots of people around for whom that was never part of
their world.

Compared to my UHER Report of 20 or my DAT of 10 years
ago, the H2 is still a revelation.

Not everybody really needs a dynamic range of 120+ dB.

In fact, anybody who is smart enough to know how to set levels properly can
get by with a tad more than half as much dynamic range. IOW, people recorded
the best quality audio available at the time with devices ranging from
Edison's tin foil recorder to SOTA magnetic tape in the early 60s, all of
which had 60 dB or less dynamic range. We still enjoy some of those
recordings.

Not a problem, Ralf. But for the same money (+mikes, of
course), one can get a little firewire box with 22 dB
more dynamic range. This is the point I'm trying to make.

And the firewire is attached to what device that is as portable as an H2 or
a Microtrack?

[[email protected]]

I went out and bought one too! So far it's a pretty impressive little
piece of technology. I jammed a little on my Martin M38 in the living
room and the bathroom and it sounds exactly like my Martin in the
living room and in the bathroom.

Gantt

On Mar 12, 12:32*pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
On Mar 12, 1:25 pm, (hankalrich) wrote:

Hell, I haven't even tried it @ 24 bits yet.

Bah! Waste of memory space.

Glad you're liking it. I have one coming here myself, in time for
music camp season. Placement and balance at jam sessions will be kind
of arbitrary (where it fits and won't get stomped on) but I might try
it hanging upside down from a mic stand.

[Kevin T]

On Mar 12, 1:49*pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
Soundhaspriority wrote:
"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
[snip]

Henceforth, the eternal newbie questions, what cheap mics, what pre,
blah blah, if asked me by any solo artist now, will get the
recommendation to get an H2 and learn:

- how to position oneself in a room
- where to put the "mics"
- how to deliver a balanced performance

[snip]

Farewell, r.a.p., you have outlived your purpose

LOL! But I am serious; this thing sounds far better to me than the
typical cheap condenser cheap mixer pre cheap convertor chain.

While it isn't the Schoeps + Great River + MIO, it also didn't cost
seven grand (and all that other stuff has been plenty worth what I paid
for it). If an artist could deliver a balanced performance in a decent
space and have both recorder and artist in good spots, no reason one
couldn't track a solo CD to this thing.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


This "it records way better than it deserves to" is exactly what I've
been saying for months now. My friend started this site
www.zoomheads.com

But back when I bought there was no HOT New market with all the
options that now exist even so not much for ~$200 can top it

Kevin T

[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 14, 8:13 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
An example of what you're talking about Mike, would be the original
Microtrack. I've never had a problem using it with microphones, but most of
the people I know who have tried to use it to record line-level sources run
into overload problems due to the fact that its input attenuator lacks
adjustment range.

You probably also were not using mics that had a problem with its 30V
phantom power. I can't recall if that was in the spec sheet, but it
was one of the first complaints that I heard about the original
MicroTrack. The purist would probably reject it because of this
characteristic, but the practical person would say "hey, my mics work
fine with it."

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

On Mar 14, 8:13 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
An example of what you're talking about Mike, would be
the original Microtrack. I've never had a problem using
it with microphones, but most of the people I know who
have tried to use it to record line-level sources run
into overload problems due to the fact that its input
attenuator lacks adjustment range.

You probably also were not using mics that had a problem
with its 30V phantom power.

Agreed, and they fixed that too, in the Microtrack II.

I can't recall if that was in
the spec sheet, but it was one of the first complaints
that I heard about the original MicroTrack. The purist
would probably reject it because of this characteristic,
but the practical person would say "hey, my mics work
fine with it."

"Hey, my mics work fine with it." ;-)

[William Black]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Chel van Gennip" wrote in message
...
Soundhaspriority wrote:

This is what it means, in terms of dynamic range:

Mastering level: currently, the wall is at 123 dB dynamic range,
A-weighted, directly into the converter.
The best portable recorders: 114 dB (Sound Devices and possibly a few
others)
A good prosumer interface: 112-113 dB
A $500 buck prosumer mixing desk, Tascam FW-1082: The AKM converters in
this unit are specced at 107dB dynamic range.

Just some other raw facts, as we are recording, so it is nice to look at
the source too:

Microphones have a noise figure of about 10dB or worse.
Halls with musicians and audience have a noise figure of about 50dB or
35dB with only musicians.
To get a dynamic range of 120 dB therefore sound levels of 130, 155, or
even 170dB are needed.
Normal sound levels are 110dB or less, leaving a possible dynamic range
of 60-75dB for recording music made by musicians, often less.


Chel van Gennip (chel vangennip nl)
Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com

But Chel, using the numbers in this way completely negates the value of
better equipment. If you choose to use this line of argument, you should
also explain why this does not, in fact, occur.



The major problem with low level noise is noise in the earthing system.

Proper studios have great big copper earths buried in a place where they can
'water' them with the appropriate chemicals now and again, and can dig them
up every ten years or so and replace them...

Domestic premises and most theatres use the ordinary safety earth, which is
always rubbish as regards noise because that's not what it's for...

Even with a proper signal earth when you actually get the gear installed in
a studio you'll be lucky to get over 90dB of dynamic range.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 14, 7:39*am, Mike Rivers wrote:
On Mar 13, 7:22 pm, Steve Hawkins
wrote:

Yet, you said you've never used one. *The problem with judging an audio
device by it's specs is your ear is not a piece of test equipment
calibrated to a stable, verifiable reference in a controlled environment..

The real problem with judging an audio device by its specs is that the
specs look pretty good on all of them until you get to the extremes,
and most applications don't call for working near the extremes. For
those that do, by all means, include the applicable test data in your
decision matrix.



Specs are only relevant in the first 15% of a unit's application, the
55 to 64%, the 83 to 89% depending, and then only sometimes the 90 to
94%.

They should be ignored otherwise.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Black wrote:

The major problem with low level noise is noise in the earthing system.

This is frequently the case.

Proper studios have great big copper earths buried in a place where they can
'water' them with the appropriate chemicals now and again, and can dig them
up every ten years or so and replace them...

Domestic premises and most theatres use the ordinary safety earth, which is
always rubbish as regards noise because that's not what it's for...

Unfortunately this only addresses having a good system reference. This is
important, but it's by no means the most important part of the system.

A lot of folks spend money on a good reference, but they don't spend any
money or time in making sure that the grounding system is properly designed
and that everything has one and only one path to everything else in the
signal chain no matter how things are patched in.

A lot of places spend money on big heavy ground busses behind the racks,
but then have equipment with internal ground loops due to the pin 1 problem.

Even with a proper signal earth when you actually get the gear installed in
a studio you'll be lucky to get over 90dB of dynamic range.

Sure, but 90 dB is a whole hell of a lot. You get to that point and you
are more worried about thermal and 1/f noise on the front end than anything
else.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Black]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
William Black wrote:

Even with a proper signal earth when you actually get the gear installed
in
a studio you'll be lucky to get over 90dB of dynamic range.

Sure, but 90 dB is a whole hell of a lot. You get to that point and you
are more worried about thermal and 1/f noise on the front end than
anything
else.

Absolutely.

I worked with professional communication's receivers for over ten years and
the operators were delighted with anything over 80dB, and their gain and
noise requirements make audio applications look trivial.

In the end it's about money.


--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message


Nevertheless, the gushing praise for
these units that has recently appeared is out of place.
In any measurable way, these units are at the bottom of
the barrel of consumer offerings.

Huh?

Ever checked the performance of the record side of a consumer MP3 player?

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message

"Chel van Gennip" wrote in
message ...
Soundhaspriority wrote:

This is what it means, in terms of dynamic range:

Mastering level: currently, the wall is at 123 dB
dynamic range, A-weighted, directly into the converter.
The best portable recorders: 114 dB (Sound Devices
and possibly a few others)
A good prosumer interface: 112-113 dB
A $500 buck prosumer mixing desk, Tascam FW-1082: The
AKM converters in this unit are specced at 107dB
dynamic range.

Just some other raw facts, as we are recording, so it is
nice to look at the source too:

Microphones have a noise figure of about 10dB or worse.
Halls with musicians and audience have a noise figure of
about 50dB or 35dB with only musicians.

Agreed.

To get a dynamic range of 120 dB therefore sound levels
of 130, 155, or even 170dB are needed.

It's not going to happen with acoustic instruments. Shows that use
electronic instruments generally have quite a bit of added residual noise of
their own.

Normal sound levels are 110dB or less, leaving a
possible dynamic range of 60-75dB for recording music
made by musicians, often less.

Not surprisingly, 65-75 dB are what we see in the best commercial
recordings. 73 dB is my personal best.

But Chel, using the numbers in this way completely
negates the value of better equipment.

Bob, ever check the dynamic range of the recordings that you're getting with
"better equipment"?

If you choose to
use this line of argument, you should also explain why
this does not, in fact, occur.

What do you mean by, does not in fact occur?

I can see why there is an advantage to using equipment that has a noise
floor 10-20 dB that of the room. But, that is what my daily drivers do.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Black" wrote in
message

The major problem with low level noise is noise in the
earthing system.

Not in my experience. My typical setup has noise floors in the -95 dB or
better range, before I turn phantom power on.

Proper studios have great big copper earths buried in a
place where they can 'water' them with the appropriate
chemicals now and again, and can dig them up every ten
years or so and replace them...

I've done a modest number of gigs with a Microtrack and two mics - no earth
ground anywhere to be seen.

Domestic premises and most theatres use the ordinary
safety earth, which is always rubbish as regards noise
because that's not what it's for...

The most common situation is where HVAC equipment sets the noise floor.

Even with a proper signal earth when you actually get
the gear installed in a studio you'll be lucky to get
over 90dB of dynamic range.

I do better than that with my live sound rig and about 30 microhphones and
other sources attached.

[[email protected]]

All tweak-head issues aside, you need to remember the "fun" factor.
Cheap little boxes that you can point and shoot (so to speak) and
still end up with pretty good representation of what you pointed and
shot at are FUN. I'm not taking a laptop and an interface and a mic
pre and a pair of KM84's to my gig tonight. That would not be fun.
I'm taking my new H2.

Gantt

On Mar 14, 8:12*am, Mike Rivers wrote:
On Mar 13, 7:04 pm, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:

Mike, all good points. Let's not get too serious here. I doubt that our
recommendations would differ that much. If the recordist doesn't have a
laptop, which is almost rare these days, then the Zoom is a forced choice.

That's a pretty limited view. It's not a matter of whether the
recordist has a laptop or not, it's whether that's appropriate for the
job. If I'm at a music camp and hear a tune that I want to learn, I'm
not going to go back to my car, get my laptop computer, hook it up to
the interface and mics, chase down the fiddle player, and say "sit
down and play that tune for me that we played in the jam session a
couple of hours ago while we were waiting for lunch outside the dining
hall. You know, the one just before you played Devil's Dream." No, I'm
going to reach over to my case, pull out my Zoom, switch it on, and
catch a couple of minutes of the tune while he's playing it, and
before I switch it off, I'll ask him for the name of the tune. There's
nothing "forced" about the choice of the Zoom, it's just obvious,
assuming that I have one.

Unfortunately for this discussion, I don't do reviews, so I can't
authenticate my opinions to your satisfaction. I go by general electrical
theory, and the posted reviews of others on the web, which point to obvious
deficiencies with the sound quality of the H2.

Well, you can't believe everything you read on the Web, not even from
me. When I do a review, I often start off with some lab tests just to
see if there's anything outrageous - for instance discovering that the
"high impedance" instrument input on something I had once that was
about 15K ohms. Then I'll put it to use. If I hear anything odd, I'll
take it back to the bench to try to find an explanation for the
problem. But if I don't hear any problems, I focus on the practical
side of how easy it is to use in likely applications, and what
limitations it has for certain applications and what cautions and work-
arounds are necessary. For example, the easily-overloaded input stage
on these portable recorders means that it would be a good idea to
carry attenuators if it's going to be plugged into a mixer,
particularly someone else's mixer.

I considered the possibility of replacing it with the Sony PCM-D50, and
possibly a lighter mike (the Rode NT-4 weighs a pound, and I hand-hold it
motionless for as long as an hour!) *So I carefully examined the few user
reports of recording with this unit. One report characterized it as having a
"typically thin ENG sound", comparing it unfavorably with the Sound Devices
gear.

What the heck does that mean? And as I pointed out, the PCM-D50 has
cheaper mics than the PCM-D1, which may not even have as good mics FOR
YOUR APPLICATION as the Rode that you're using now. I believe that the
new Sony ECM-957PRO uses the same capsules that the D1 uses. Perhaps
your cellist friend would like the D50 better with that mic.

I don't believe I'm insulting Hank's acoustic guitar by saying that the
guitar is harmonically rich. This richness seems to disguise signal paths
that have a lot of high-order harmonic distortion. Perhaps this is not
technically the right reason.

I think that's not at all the right reason, and you really shouldn't
state things like this as fact. It's very misleading.

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message


Your reply is very reasonable. I might have a slightly
different view, since in converters, there appears to be
a close correlation between dynamic range, and distortion.

This tends to be true for SOTA converters, but is not a general rule. It is
pretty common for THD+N to a much poorer spec than dynamic range for
mainstream converters.

But you're not really going up against your own
argument. I'm still looking at the thread in the context
of the quality of the Zoom H2. Some people have argued so
strongly for the H2 that they appear to negate the
advantages of better equipment.

I think that the good subjective performance of equipment like the H2 draws
into question, the alleged advantages of better equipment.

Most equipment gives
dynamic range specs A-weighted. The CD has 96 dB raw, 106 dB A-weighted
dynamic range. The Zoom H2 has
93 dB A-weighted dynamic range, probably much less.

Why probably much less? Do you think the published specs are false?

Since
some headroom must be allowed for recording, the Zoom
can't even fill the dynamic range of a CD; in fact, it
falls far short.

93 dB is not far short of CD quality. It's pretty close.

John Atkinson, editor of Stereophile
Magazine, also owns the Stereophile label. I respect his work very much.
He
explained that, in good concert halls, the requirement
for low noise equipment is actually extreme, because the
ambience of a good hall is strongly "red." This
highlights that noise /=. noise /= noise. Real world
noise is not a constant. Red noise does not mask blue
noise.

Since when does any of these portable recorders have a noise floor that is
well characterized as being blue noise?

Far more likely, this equipment has a noise that is similar to what we
observe in other audio gear.

[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 14, 1:00 pm, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:

I'm still
looking at the thread in the context of the quality of the Zoom H2. Some
people have argued so strongly for the H2 that they appear to negate the
advantages of better equipment.

I don't think anyone has said that because there's an H2 there's no
need for anything better. The point is that the H2 does a very good
job at doing what it does. And for many things, there's no compelling
need to do it any better. It's an 'enabling' thing, just like the
simple audio interface and computer allows a singer/songwriter to
record and publish his own music. He couldn't do it any better if
someone gave him an SSL console, because his music and engineering
knowledge isn't any better. When he outgrows the simple stuff, he'll
recognize that (hopefully).

Same with handy, pocket sized recorders. When people start paying me
$750 a pop to record casual music, I'll buy a Sound Devices recorder
because THEN I'll be a 'professional' and I can justify owning a
professional tool. As a hobbyist, I'll save my money and use hobbyist
tools. You, as a hobbyist, have made a different choice, I guess
because it makes you feel good. Nothing wrong with that. But are you
really making better recordings because you have a $2,000 recorder? I
guess you'll never know.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 14, 1:00 pm, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:
I'm still
looking at the thread in the context of the quality of the Zoom H2. Some
people have argued so strongly for the H2 that they appear to negate the
advantages of better equipment.


That's like saying it's ridiculous to have a eggs at the diner for
$3.75 when you could go down to Peter Luger's and have a sirloin steak
for $60.

[Ed Edelenbos]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message


But you're not really going up against your own
argument. I'm still looking at the thread in the context
of the quality of the Zoom H2. Some people have argued so
strongly for the H2 that they appear to negate the
advantages of better equipment.

I think that the good subjective performance of equipment like the H2
draws into question, the alleged advantages of better equipment.


Except for that reply, I don't remember anyone implying anything that
"appears to negate the advantages of...." I think everyone has carefully
tiptoed around that. Everyone seems to be stating the advantages
(portability and sound quality not commensurate with it's price) of the Zoom
and in most cases acknowledging the advantage(s) (potential to get better
recordings) of the better equipment. In a few cases, the non-portability
and the features that are not of use (or are of limited use) of the better
equipment is pointed out. I don't think anyone has suggested filling a
dumpster with old expensive equipment and replacing it with a Zoom H2. If
they are, please email me the address.

Ed

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message

"Chel van Gennip" wrote in
message ...
Soundhaspriority wrote:
"Chel van Gennip" wrote in
message ...
Soundhaspriority wrote:
"Chel van Gennip" wrote in
message ...
Soundhaspriority wrote:
[snip]

I have no comments on the Zoom H2, I am a Microtrack
user. I record piano most of the time, but also both
live and in the studio other classical music and jazz.
When recording acoustical music on a fair distance the
sound level often is about 100dB, good microphones give
you white noise at about 10dB, that leaves about 90dB to
be recorded. That are the technical limitations. a
recorder with 120dB dynamic range won't help you
further.

Yes, but as I mentioned, there is no real world white
noise. It is not universally true that preamp noise will
mask mike noise. It depends upon the spectrum of both.

It also depends on the relative levels of each. But the noise floor of most
recordings is set by neither the preamp nor the recorder, but rather the
room. IME room noise is more than 30 dB higher than preamp + recorder
noise.

The Microtrak has the potential to be better than the
Zoom, because it has a larger power supply, balanced
inputs, and a higher sampling rate. In general, it
appears to be a uniquely sophisticated device for the
price. I hope M-Audio follows with a device that has a
removable battery. I would then consider purchase.

A MicroTrack can be upgraded to use a a small external battery for about $20
and a trip to the nearest Walgreen drugsto

http://www.walgreens.com/store/produ...id=prod2614592

[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 14, 4:18 pm, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:

My watchword is high fidelity. I know it's going out of style, but I'll hold
the fort.

My watchword is "will it pay for itself?"

I'm going to add a matched pair of MKH8040's. If the lower
distortion of these microphones results in just a tiny bit of added detail,
it's worth it to me, and possibly to some of the people I work with.

Since it's unlikely that anyone but me will hear the recordings I make
with the thing, and I'm likely to save probably less than 5% of what I
record (not because it's not a good recording, but because it's served
its purpose) my only concern for those who I "work" with is that I
don't get in the way and spoil their fun. This is for ME, it's not for
THEM.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 14, 4:35*pm, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:

That's like saying it's ridiculous to have a eggs at the diner for
$3.75 when you could go down to Peter Luger's and have a sirloin steak
for $60.

I don't think so, because there is no objective reason to prefer steak over
eggs. There is a metric called the "protein utilization factor", which is
similar for each. See the chart hehttp://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/AA040E/AA040E08.htm

The utilization for egg is 97%, while the utilization for meat is 94%.
Thus, unlike the Zoom, the "performance" of the $3.75 egg meal is actually
superior to the far more expensive alternative.

I eat eggs for dinner occasionally. Delicious!


Oy vey! I give up!! : )