using a voice recorder to record music

[Andy Fish]

Hi,

I've recently started doing a bit of african drumming and I'd like to
record some bits of group drumming so that i can practice at home

i was wondering if a standard digital voice recorder that you can get
on ebay for about £30 would be up to the job. are they only designed
for talking straight into the machine or can they record sounds from
further away (say normal talking 10 feet away)? if not, what should I
use instead?

Just to be clear, I'm not looking for something of sufficient quality
to sample, or even to play back on the hi-fi and drum along to. I just
want to be able to play it back and remember how the rhythm goes -
preferably being able to hear what the teacher is saying

my phone (sony w660i) has a voice record feature but that was not up
to the task. I'd be prepared to spend up to £100 but not unless i have
a high degree of confidence that the results would be better than
this.

Thanks for any advice

Andy

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 03:18:44 -0800 (PST), Andy Fish
> wrote:

>I've recently started doing a bit of african drumming and I'd like to
>record some bits of group drumming so that i can practice at home
>
>i was wondering if a standard digital voice recorder that you can get
>on ebay for about £30 would be up to the job. are they only designed
>for talking straight into the machine or can they record sounds from
>further away (say normal talking 10 feet away)? if not, what should I
>use instead?
>
>Just to be clear, I'm not looking for something of sufficient quality
>to sample, or even to play back on the hi-fi and drum along to. I just
>want to be able to play it back and remember how the rhythm goes -
>preferably being able to hear what the teacher is saying
>
>my phone (sony w660i) has a voice record feature but that was not up
>to the task. I'd be prepared to spend up to £100 but not unless i have
>a high degree of confidence that the results would be better than
>this.


Up your budget a little and get the Zoom H2.

[Andy Fish]

On Jan 18, 11:20*am, Laurence Payne > wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 03:18:44 -0800 (PST), Andy Fish
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >I've recently started doing a bit of african drumming and I'd like to
> >record some bits of group drumming so that i can practice at home
>
> >i was wondering if a standard digital voice recorder that you can get
> >on ebay for about £30 would be up to the job. are they only designed
> >for talking straight into the machine or can they record sounds from
> >further away (say normal talking 10 feet away)? if not, what should I
> >use instead?
>
> >Just to be clear, I'm not looking for something of sufficient quality
> >to sample, or even to play back on the hi-fi and drum along to. I just
> >want to be able to play it back and remember how the rhythm goes -
> >preferably being able to hear what the teacher is saying
>
> >my phone (sony w660i) has a voice record feature but that was not up
> >to the task. I'd be prepared to spend up to £100 but not unless i have
> >a high degree of confidence that the results would be better than
> >this.
>
> Up your budget a little and get the Zoom H2.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks for that advice - I hadn't spotted that one in my hunting
round.

I'm very tempted by the zoom because it's aimed directly at my
requirements. It's definitely what I would go for if money wasn't an
issue.

However, it is 5 times the price of a simple voice recorder. Since i'm
not after particularly high quality sound, would the cheaper option be
an acceptable solution?

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

>However, it is 5 times the price of a simple voice recorder. Since i'm
>not after particularly high quality sound, would the cheaper option be
>an acceptable solution?

I don't think a cheap voice recorder is going to be any better than
your mobile 'phone.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
>
>>However, it is 5 times the price of a simple voice recorder. Since i'm
>>not after particularly high quality sound, would the cheaper option be
>>an acceptable solution?
>
> I don't think a cheap voice recorder is going to be any better than
> your mobile 'phone.

Depends on the phone and the available storage, a voice recorder will hold a
lot of hours of recordings even in high-quality mode. Either way would take
a few practice goes to get the positioning correct and echo might affect the
quality, but I reckon a voice recorder will do the job.

[Richard Crowley]

"Andy Fish" wrote ...
> my phone (sony w660i) has a voice record feature but that was not up
> to the task.

It would be very helpful if you would disclose exactly what it was that
you found "not up to the task"?

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:54:37 -0000, "Mentalguy2k8"
> wrote:

>> I don't think a cheap voice recorder is going to be any better than
>> your mobile 'phone.
>
>Depends on the phone and the available storage, a voice recorder will hold a
>lot of hours of recordings even in high-quality mode. Either way would take
>a few practice goes to get the positioning correct and echo might affect the
>quality, but I reckon a voice recorder will do the job.

Was the problem with the mobile lack of storage or lack of quality?

[Andy Fish]

On Jan 18, 3:20*pm, Laurence Payne > wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:54:37 -0000, "Mentalguy2k8"
>
> > wrote:
> >> I don't think a cheap voice recorder is going to be any better than
> >> your mobile 'phone.
>
> >Depends on the phone and the available storage, a voice recorder will hold a
> >lot of hours of recordings even in high-quality mode. Either way would take
> >a few practice goes to get the positioning correct and echo might affect the
> >quality, but I reckon a voice recorder will do the job.
>
> Was the problem with the mobile lack of storage or lack of quality?

the problem was audio quality - there was a lot of background noise
and the sound was just not clear - not much better than you would have
got by just listening over the phone. I suspect a low quality
microphone and limited frequency bandwidth were the cause. this is why
i was a bit dubious about using something termed "voice recorder".

[Andy Fish]

On Jan 18, 6:10*pm, Andy Fish > wrote:
> On Jan 18, 3:20*pm, Laurence Payne > wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:54:37 -0000, "Mentalguy2k8"
>
> > > wrote:
> > >> I don't think a cheap voice recorder is going to be any better than
> > >> your mobile 'phone.
>
> > >Depends on the phone and the available storage, a voice recorder will hold a
> > >lot of hours of recordings even in high-quality mode. Either way would take
> > >a few practice goes to get the positioning correct and echo might affect the
> > >quality, but I reckon a voice recorder will do the job.
>
> > Was the problem with the mobile lack of storage or lack of quality?
>
> the problem was audio quality - there was a lot of background noise
> and the sound was just not clear - not much better than you would have
> got by just listening over the phone. I suspect a low quality
> microphone and limited frequency bandwidth were the cause. this is why
> i was a bit dubious about using something termed "voice recorder".

to clarify my requirement a bit more - i would be happy with the sound
from the built in microphone on a cassette recorder like i used to
have in the 70's, but the sound recorded from my phone was well short
of this

[Richard Crowley]

"Andy Fish" wrote:
> the problem was audio quality - there was a lot of background noise

But that has much more to do with WHERE the microphone is than
with the "quality" of the microphone. The best microphone ever made
will pick up a lot of background noise if it isn't in the right place. Note
that microphones often need to be closer to the sounds than our ears
would need because microphones aren't hard-wired to brains.

> and the sound was just not clear - not much better than you would have
> got by just listening over the phone.

So maybe limited frequency response. Although it still isn't clear why
THAT would be a problem when capturing only the rhythm?

Or maybe high distortion because what you are trying to record is
much louder than typical close-up speech?

> I suspect a low quality
> microphone and limited frequency bandwidth were the cause. this is why
> i was a bit dubious about using something termed "voice recorder".

Indeed, if it is those "voice recorder" characteristics that are making
your recordings unsuitable, then it seems unlikely that any "voice
recorder" will do what you are asking.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 11:24:54 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
> wrote:

>> the problem was audio quality - there was a lot of background noise
>
>But that has much more to do with WHERE the microphone is than
>with the "quality" of the microphone. The best microphone ever made
>will pick up a lot of background noise if it isn't in the right place. Note
>that microphones often need to be closer to the sounds than our ears
>would need because microphones aren't hard-wired to brains.

Maybe we should think less pedantically about what he might mean by
"background noise".

[Richard Crowley]

"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
> "Richard Crowley" wrote...
>>But that has much more to do with WHERE the microphone is than
>>with the "quality" of the microphone. The best microphone ever made
>>will pick up a lot of background noise if it isn't in the right place.
>>Note
>>that microphones often need to be closer to the sounds than our ears
>>would need because microphones aren't hard-wired to brains.
>
> Maybe we should think less pedantically about what he might mean by
> "background noise".

In a sense, it doesn't matter if "background noise" means surf or traffic
or audience or woodwind section in HIS (undisclosed) context. In any
case, moving the microphone to a more suitable spot will mitigate any
and all of those "problems".

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 12:56:30 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
> wrote:

>>>But that has much more to do with WHERE the microphone is than
>>>with the "quality" of the microphone. The best microphone ever made
>>>will pick up a lot of background noise if it isn't in the right place.
>>>Note
>>>that microphones often need to be closer to the sounds than our ears
>>>would need because microphones aren't hard-wired to brains.
>>
>> Maybe we should think less pedantically about what he might mean by
>> "background noise".
>
>In a sense, it doesn't matter if "background noise" means surf or traffic
>or audience or woodwind section in HIS (undisclosed) context. In any
>case, moving the microphone to a more suitable spot will mitigate any
>and all of those "problems".

You're still thinking "in the box". A recording can be noisy. That
noise didn't HAVE to come in through the microphone.

[Michael Black[_2_]]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Laurence Payne wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 12:56:30 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
> > wrote:
>
>>>> But that has much more to do with WHERE the microphone is than
>>>> with the "quality" of the microphone. The best microphone ever made
>>>> will pick up a lot of background noise if it isn't in the right place.
>>>> Note
>>>> that microphones often need to be closer to the sounds than our ears
>>>> would need because microphones aren't hard-wired to brains.
>>>
>>> Maybe we should think less pedantically about what he might mean by
>>> "background noise".
>>
>> In a sense, it doesn't matter if "background noise" means surf or traffic
>> or audience or woodwind section in HIS (undisclosed) context. In any
>> case, moving the microphone to a more suitable spot will mitigate any
>> and all of those "problems".
>
> You're still thinking "in the box". A recording can be noisy. That
> noise didn't HAVE to come in through the microphone.
>
Then it's not "background noise".

Michael

[Cyberserf]

On Jan 18, 7:54*am, Andy Fish > wrote:
> On Jan 18, 11:20*am, Laurence Payne > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 03:18:44 -0800 (PST), Andy Fish
>
> > > wrote:
> > >I've recently started doing a bit of african drumming and I'd like to
> > >record some bits of group drumming so that i can practice at home
>
> > >i was wondering if a standard digital voice recorder that you can get
> > >on ebay for about £30 would be up to the job. are they only designed
> > >for talking straight into the machine or can they record sounds from
> > >further away (say normal talking 10 feet away)? if not, what should I
> > >use instead?
>
> > >Just to be clear, I'm not looking for something of sufficient quality
> > >to sample, or even to play back on the hi-fi and drum along to. I just
> > >want to be able to play it back and remember how the rhythm goes -
> > >preferably being able to hear what the teacher is saying
>
> > >my phone (sony w660i) has a voice record feature but that was not up
> > >to the task. I'd be prepared to spend up to £100 but not unless i have
> > >a high degree of confidence that the results would be better than
> > >this.
>
> > Up your budget a little and get the Zoom H2.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Thanks for that advice - I hadn't spotted that one in my hunting
> round.
>
> I'm very tempted by the zoom because it's aimed directly at my
> requirements. It's definitely what I would go for if money wasn't an
> issue.
>
> However, it is 5 times the price of a simple voice recorder. Since i'm
> not after particularly high quality sound, would the cheaper option be
> an acceptable solution?

All IMHO,

The mic in these "voice' recorders is equal to a phone mic...If that
quality is ok for you then Yes...otherwise, obviously the answer is
No...it won't do.

These cheap units are meant for close source, no background noise (and
even if you get some, it doesn't matter 'cuz your secretary can bail
you out). They are good for directly talking into the unit...do you
follow?

I you want anything even close to "fidelity" at a live (remote source)
venue, you will "need" at least the Zoom or some equivalent (Sony,
Presonus, Nagra, name your price point...this is what you can get for
a high bit/high bitrate stereo condensers in a known configuration
with credible storage). Quality costs...that's the bottom line. Five
times the price...get over it...5x "close to nothing" is still not a
bad price (currently under 2K for a decent location Sony PCM-D1, 1/4
that for a MZ-R900...1/8th for the Samson Zoom, you can also look at
Neuros, iRiver, iAudio, Marantz, Edirol or M-Audio offerings for
equivalent quality remote portable recorders at similar price
points).Keep in mind, 10 years ago, it would have costs you 80 times
what these units cost for the way lower quality.

If you need real directional (got yourself bad seats) recording with a
low noise floor, then try begging a stereo feed from the main board.
You get what you pay for...this last option can grab you a Grammy.

-CS

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:26:27 -0500, Michael Black >
wrote:

>> You're still thinking "in the box". A recording can be noisy. That
>> noise didn't HAVE to come in through the microphone.
>>
>Then it's not "background noise".

It's noise in the background of the recording. Maybe that's what he
meant. 20 points to us for insisting on the correct terminology.
Minus 500 points for not looking beyond the wording to maybe discover
the real problem.

[Geoff]

Andy Fish wrote:
>
> I'm very tempted by the zoom because it's aimed directly at my
> requirements. It's definitely what I would go for if money wasn't an
> issue.
>
> However, it is 5 times the price of a simple voice recorder. Since i'm
> not after particularly high quality sound, would the cheaper option be
> an acceptable solution?

You pays yer money and makes yer choice. Voice recorders are liley to be
similar quality to your phone.

Do you havew a laptop by any chance ?

geoff

[Richard Crowley]

"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
> Michael Black wrote:
>
>>> You're still thinking "in the box". A recording can be noisy. That
>>> noise didn't HAVE to come in through the microphone.
>>>
>>Then it's not "background noise".
>
> It's noise in the background of the recording. Maybe that's what he
> meant. 20 points to us for insisting on the correct terminology.
> Minus 500 points for not looking beyond the wording to maybe discover
> the real problem.

This is always an issue. Unless we know who we're dealing with
words like "noise" are effectively undefined.
+200 points for at least making an educated asumption to keep
the dialog moving along.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Richard Crowley wrote:

> +200 points for at least making an educated asumption to keep
> the dialog moving along.

Indeed, keeping the ball rolling until it gets clear what it is about can be
a tough chore.

For serious sound recording, ie. ""usable"", the initial contraption today
is kinda like a H2 or H4 from Zoom. If whatever it is/was the OP tried to
use is cheaper than the cheapest of those, then it is likely to be money
wasted. As for using a mobile phone .... the wordlength reduction, whatever
it may be ... may provide something that is akin to 8 bits actual
resolution.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen