Just bought a Korg MR-1 DSD recorder.

[Audio Empire]

I've been wanting to leave my computer at home when on-site recording for
quite a while now. When I saw a chance to purchase a Korg MR-1 at a fantastic
price ($250), I jumped at it.

I know there are some recording types here (Arnie, for one) so I thought this
might be of interest.

Just before Christmas, I was recording a holiday concert by a local and well
known wind orchestra (euphemism for band). They were accompanied by an also
well known local choir. I arrived at the venue (a huge, modern church with a
40 ft ceiling!) early and set up my microphones: A stereo Evantone CK-40
(looks almost exactly like a Telefunken M-216, except it's FET instead of
tube and the mike body is red instead of sandy/gray) was set in front of the
band in cardioid X-Y configuration and the choir, which was over the
stage-right side of the band in the choir loft, was miked with a pair of
Behringer B-2Pros on a T-Bar, also as a Cardioid X-Y pair. I usually use M-S
for symphonic bands and orchestras, but I wanted to avoid bleed-over between
the band and the choir as much as possible so I used the more isolating
cardioid patterns (with a portable mike baffle behind the choir mikes).

While I was setting up the rest of my stuff, the band arrived and started to
move larger instruments; drums, a harp, glockenspiel, piano, etc., on to the
stage. Meanwhile a local radio personality whom I have know for many years
but hadn't seen in ages showed up (to do a narration) and he started to chat
me up (I bet you can see where this is heading) as I connected things to my
mixer, connected it to my 24/96 ADC and finally, via Firewire to my laptop. I
launched Audacity (which I use to record at 32-bit floating-point and 96 KHz
sampling rate) and I finally was ready just as the conductor started to do a
"sound check". Listening through my Koss Pro-4 As (have still never found a
better headphone for isolating my ears from the direct sound of a musical
ensemble in the same room with my recording equipment) plugged in to the
Allen & Heath mixer I was using, for overall balance between choir and band,
I was ready - or so I thought.

As the music started to play, I noticed that the left and right "VU meter"
bars in Audacity were tracking EXACTLY together as were the right and left
waveforms on the screen as the two tracks were laid down. Jeez! I thought.
I'm recording in MONO! I was hearing stereo on my headphones, what was going
on? It was then, with a real sinking feeling, that I realized what had
happened. While chatting with my announcer friend and moving constantly to
give the musicians way to get their instruments on stage, I had failed to
switch the computer so that Audacity looked at the Firewire port and NOT the
microphone built into the laptop!. Luckily, I always use a Zoom H2 set to
24/96 as a backup and it was receiving the the stereo feed from the mixer,
just fine, so all was not lost.

But this REALLY taught me a hard won lesson. Using the computer as a capture
recorder is much too complicated with too many things to remember to do: Go
into preferences and switch the sound input from the internal computer
microphone to the Firewire input. Launch Audacity (or whatever). Set up two
tracks, set the sampling rate to 96 KHz and the bit depth to 32-bit floating
point, then set the levels with a 400 Hz tone to calibrate the meters on the
console with the meters in audacity, etc., etc. , etc. Get any one of these
things wrong, and it spells disaster.

My next couple of gigs found me using only my Zoom H2. It's a cute toy and an
excellent back-up recorder. But I find that there is something about the
sound that I don't like. It sounds much too strident in the midrange and
grainy in the highs. I mean, it's CHEAP, and while I realize that modern
electronics have made this stuff very affordable with excellent quality, I
suspect that the ADC in the little zoom is simply not up to snuff. I needed
another solution.

Then I stumbled across the Korg MR-1 (actually, I heard Bob Woods of Telarc
raving about the thing at the CES a couple of years ago, but it didn't really
register then as I wasn't doing much recording at that time). Since the
December fiasco with the computer, I had been negotiating with Korg to get
one at an accommodation price (usually half the list price) of about $450.
They were willing, but didn't have any in stock at the moment. Then I ran
across one on E-bay. I bid for it and got it $250 last week.


At 2.5" wide, 4.75" long and about 1" deep, this thing isn't much bigger than
the Zoom H2. But it records to 2.8224 MHz 1-bit DSD (that the SACD "raw"
format) and can hold about 6 Hours of DSD recording. It has a 20 Gig HDD in
it and has Li-ion battery power (which I'll likely never use) for about
two-and-a-half hours. It has low distortion and noise (at least on the
line-level inputs) and will handle a line level of +6 dBv through it's
balanced TRS 1/8" mini jacks, which is, essentially pro level.

The best part is that the MR-1 comes with software that allows one to
convert, using one's computer, this DSD recording to ANY format currently
being used in audio. That's everything from 24-bit, 192 KHz all the way down
to MP3! That should be more than good enough for anything that comes up.


It seems really well made and Bob Woods, who was Telarc's chief recording
engineer and producer, says that he has used one often to capture rehearsals
of the Cincinnati Pops Orchestra in preparation for recording them for a
number of Telarc SACD release. He said that he and Mike Bishop used both the
MR-1 and the bigger and more feature-laden MR-1000 for "field evaluations"
for lots of Telarc recording sessions, and found the results of both
recorders good enough to release as a commercial SACD (except, of course,
that Telarc SACDs have surround sound tracks, which neither Korg recorder
does, being strictly two-channel).

Haven't played with it much, but I'm set to record a Jazz quintet next
Thursday, and we'll see how it goes. I have connected it to my other
equipment and it certainly seems quiet and seems to work as advertised. We'll
see.

Of course, the biggest downside to this recorder is that although it RECORDS
to SACD format, one cannot easily burn SACDs from the resultant file. This
requires special, software that is EXTREMELY expensive. The cheapest I've
seen is about $5,000. But I can burn DVD-As at 24-bit 192 KHz using the
included conversion software, and I think that's probably more than good
enough.

I''ll let you all know how well the recording turns out. Might even post it
so that you guys can give a listen.

Cheers!

[Bill Noble[_2_]]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...
> I've been wanting to leave my computer at home when on-site recording for
> quite a while now. When I saw a chance to purchase a Korg MR-1 at a
> fantastic
> price ($250), I jumped at it.
>
> I know there are some recording types here (Arnie, for one) so I thought
> this
> might be of interest.
>
lots of good discussion snipped

while I don't do live recording, I did find that I needed (about 18 months
ago) to transfer some tapes to CD, and at that time I found that my trusty
TASCAM 5000 recorder would only work with 1x CDs - so I bought an external
firewire attached box made by PreSonus (called "Inspire), connected it all
up and made the transfers - all was well until this week when I needed to
transfer some more tapes - in the meantime I had upgraded my computer and
was running windows 7 not XP as I had before. So, you can probably see
where this is going - I was able to find new drivers on the company's web
site and actually get the device itself to work, but the mixer software they
included would not work correctly, and when I put it into "XP emulation
mode", the sound was wildly distorted. Some communication with the company
back and forth and they said "buy our new software for $250" - well, that's
more than the whole unit cost new, and it's more than the whole unit sells
for new now also, so it struck me as worse than unreasonable, it struck me
as customer abuse, and quite frankly, it annoyed the heck out of me.
fortunately, I can afford to throw the thing away (well, I didn't throw it
away, it's up on ebay starting at 99 cents, we will see what the market
thinks it's worth), because I have in the interim replaced the TASCAM 5000
with a new unit - and, unlike PreSonus, TASCAM recognized that they had
created a problem and offered a significant discount on the new unit of my
choice if I returned by 10 year old recorder.

So, what's the point of the above - well, several - first, with computer
based stuff you are on a much faster obsolescence track than with a pure
hardware solution. Second, with computer based stuff, it is hard in advance
to tell what the company's attitude towards after sales support is, the
above paragraph illustrates the two extremes - "customer be dammed, we have
your money" and "the customer is important, we make accommodations for you".
And, of course, the thing I got was probably overkill for my specific needs,
maybe I should have just stuck to a cable and the internal sound card, but I
wanted to "do it right". So, if you are spending $ on computer based stuff,
if possible, check into the policy of the company towards upgrades, and if
you are considering either of the brands I mentioned, you can take my
experience into account. For sure, I will not purchase nor recommend
PreSonus stuff to anyone.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:08:45 -0800, Bill Noble wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I've been wanting to leave my computer at home when on-site recording for
>> quite a while now. When I saw a chance to purchase a Korg MR-1 at a
>> fantastic
>> price ($250), I jumped at it.
>>
>> I know there are some recording types here (Arnie, for one) so I thought
>> this
>> might be of interest.
>>
> lots of good discussion snipped
>
> while I don't do live recording, I did find that I needed (about 18 months
> ago) to transfer some tapes to CD, and at that time I found that my trusty
> TASCAM 5000 recorder would only work with 1x CDs - so I bought an external
> firewire attached box made by PreSonus (called "Inspire), connected it all
> up and made the transfers - all was well until this week when I needed to
> transfer some more tapes - in the meantime I had upgraded my computer and
> was running windows 7 not XP as I had before. So, you can probably see
> where this is going - I was able to find new drivers on the company's web
> site and actually get the device itself to work, but the mixer software they
> included would not work correctly, and when I put it into "XP emulation
> mode", the sound was wildly distorted. Some communication with the company
> back and forth and they said "buy our new software for $250" - well, that's
> more than the whole unit cost new, and it's more than the whole unit sells
> for new now also, so it struck me as worse than unreasonable, it struck me
> as customer abuse, and quite frankly, it annoyed the heck out of me.
> fortunately, I can afford to throw the thing away (well, I didn't throw it
> away, it's up on ebay starting at 99 cents, we will see what the market
> thinks it's worth), because I have in the interim replaced the TASCAM 5000
> with a new unit - and, unlike PreSonus, TASCAM recognized that they had
> created a problem and offered a significant discount on the new unit of my
> choice if I returned by 10 year old recorder.
>
> So, what's the point of the above - well, several - first, with computer
> based stuff you are on a much faster obsolescence track than with a pure
> hardware solution. Second, with computer based stuff, it is hard in advance
> to tell what the company's attitude towards after sales support is, the
> above paragraph illustrates the two extremes - "customer be dammed, we have
> your money" and "the customer is important, we make accommodations for you".
> And, of course, the thing I got was probably overkill for my specific needs,
> maybe I should have just stuck to a cable and the internal sound card, but I
> wanted to "do it right". So, if you are spending $ on computer based stuff,
> if possible, check into the policy of the company towards upgrades, and if
> you are considering either of the brands I mentioned, you can take my
> experience into account. For sure, I will not purchase nor recommend
> PreSonus stuff to anyone.

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.

[Harry Lavo]

"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.

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.

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!

[Audio Empire]

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!

[Arny Krueger]

"Bill Noble" > wrote in message


> I bought an external
> firewire attached box made by PreSonus (called "Inspire),
> connected it all up and made the transfers - all was well
> until this week when I needed to transfer some more tapes
> - in the meantime I had upgraded my computer and was
> running windows 7 not XP as I had before. So, you can
> probably see where this is going - I was able to find new
> drivers on the company's web site and actually get the
> device itself to work, but the mixer software they
> included would not work correctly, and when I put it into
> "XP emulation mode", the sound was wildly distorted.
> Some communication with the company back and forth and
> they said "buy our new software for $250" - well, that's
> more than the whole unit cost new, and it's more than the
> whole unit sells for new now also, so it struck me as
> worse than unreasonable, it struck me as customer abuse,
> and quite frankly, it annoyed the heck out of me.
> fortunately, I can afford to throw the thing away (well,
> I didn't throw it away, it's up on ebay starting at 99
> cents, we will see what the market thinks it's worth),
> because I have in the interim replaced the TASCAM 5000
> with a new unit - and, unlike PreSonus, TASCAM recognized
> that they had created a problem and offered a significant
> discount on the new unit of my choice if I returned by 10
> year old recorder.

Intersting. I picked up an Inspire a few months back. Seems a likable enough
tool. Unlike you I am in total control of my destiny, and can run whatever
OS I wish. You have given me one more reason to keep my laptop booting XP.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 07:25:19 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Bill Noble" > wrote in message
>
>
>> I bought an external
>> firewire attached box made by PreSonus (called "Inspire),
>> connected it all up and made the transfers - all was well
>> until this week when I needed to transfer some more tapes
>> - in the meantime I had upgraded my computer and was
>> running windows 7 not XP as I had before. So, you can
>> probably see where this is going - I was able to find new
>> drivers on the company's web site and actually get the
>> device itself to work, but the mixer software they
>> included would not work correctly, and when I put it into
>> "XP emulation mode", the sound was wildly distorted.
>> Some communication with the company back and forth and
>> they said "buy our new software for $250" - well, that's
>> more than the whole unit cost new, and it's more than the
>> whole unit sells for new now also, so it struck me as
>> worse than unreasonable, it struck me as customer abuse,
>> and quite frankly, it annoyed the heck out of me.
>> fortunately, I can afford to throw the thing away (well,
>> I didn't throw it away, it's up on ebay starting at 99
>> cents, we will see what the market thinks it's worth),
>> because I have in the interim replaced the TASCAM 5000
>> with a new unit - and, unlike PreSonus, TASCAM recognized
>> that they had created a problem and offered a significant
>> discount on the new unit of my choice if I returned by 10
>> year old recorder.
>
> Intersting. I picked up an Inspire a few months back. Seems a likable enough
> tool. Unlike you I am in total control of my destiny, and can run whatever
> OS I wish. You have given me one more reason to keep my laptop booting XP.
>
>

XP like all versions of Windows is just bloody awful, but it certainly is
more compatible with the most hardware of all Windows releases. And let's
face it, Windows hasn't changed much since NT. It's still a poorly designed,
poorly implemented kludge consisting of a myriad of GUI elements "borrowed"
over the years from a host of other operating systems, ranging from DEC,
Amiga, Apple, to NeXT, and Be, etc. Win 7 is just Microsoft's latest attempt
to put a new shade of lipstick on the same old pig.

But I agree with you. If you MUST run Windows, stick with XP - at least it
makes no pretensions about being anything other than a pig. OTOH, That still
doesn't mean that all DAW interfaces will work with it. If you need Firewire,
you still need to contact your DAW interface maker and ask their technicians
to recommend a specific PCI Express (or PCMCIA) Firewire card that is known
to work with their equipment, will fit your computer, and works under XP.

[Harry Lavo]

"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).

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.

[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.

[Bill Noble[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Bill Noble" > wrote in message
>
>
>> I bought an external
>> firewire attached box made by PreSonus (called "Inspire),
>> connected it all up and made the transfers - all was well
>> until this week when I needed to transfer some more tapes
>> - in the meantime I had upgraded my computer and was
>> running windows 7 not XP as I had before. So, you can
>> probably see where this is going - I was able to find new
>> drivers on the company's web site and actually get the
>> device itself to work, but the mixer software they
>> included would not work correctly, and when I put it into
>> "XP emulation mode", the sound was wildly distorted.
>> Some communication with the company back and forth and
>> they said "buy our new software for $250" - well, that's
>> more than the whole unit cost new, and it's more than the
>> whole unit sells for new now also, so it struck me as
>> worse than unreasonable, it struck me as customer abuse,
>> and quite frankly, it annoyed the heck out of me.
>> fortunately, I can afford to throw the thing away (well,
>> I didn't throw it away, it's up on ebay starting at 99
>> cents, we will see what the market thinks it's worth),
>> because I have in the interim replaced the TASCAM 5000
>> with a new unit - and, unlike PreSonus, TASCAM recognized
>> that they had created a problem and offered a significant
>> discount on the new unit of my choice if I returned by 10
>> year old recorder.
>
> Intersting. I picked up an Inspire a few months back. Seems a likable
> enough
> tool. Unlike you I am in total control of my destiny, and can run whatever
> OS I wish. You have given me one more reason to keep my laptop booting XP.

my point was not about compatibility, nor about XP versus Vista versus Win
7 - that's my choice, and it doesn't bother me that stuff stopped working -
I have spare computers, if it had been important to me I could have used a
different computer - what pushed me over the edge was the lack of
consideration for their customer - PreSonus could easily have told me that I
could purchase the software that they offer with their unit for $25, or $50,
and I probably would have bought it, and they could have kept a customer,
instead they wanted me to pay more than the current list price of a new
Inspire unit just for the software that comes "free" with the unit. That is
just plain not acceptable to me. I contrast it to TASCAM (Toshiba) who
after a much larger time offered a very attractive "warranty exchange' for a
new unit because their early unit wouldn't work with modern CDs -

Now, given that, which company would you do business with in the future?
So, yes, I'm kinda "down" on PreSonus - they deserve it - I'm not down on
windows 7, I find it a nicer experience (mostly) than XP - but that is not
the subject of this group.

[Harry Lavo]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:02:02 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
> (in article >):
>
"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:02:02 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
> (in article >):
>

>snip<

> 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.

My backup machine was the Teac 7030...a 15ips recorder similar to your
Sony...and capable of the same results. I cobbled it into a portable
case...and my friend Barbara and her husband Herb later bought it from me
for archiving performances, and use it to this day for playing old tapes.

I used to use a pair of Schoeps 3-ways (can't remember model number) and a
pair of Neumann KM-86 3-ways as my mic mainstays. The Schoeps, particularly
in their omni configureation, were absolutely marvelous for choral
work....and the Neumanns were wonderfully versatile....usually used in an
ORTF configuration or an X-Y configuration. Given four mics of this
versatility and quality, I could record almost anything. Would that I have
them today... :-9 (lickin' my chops).

Ah well, to be young(er) and wealthy(er).

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:09:18 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:02:02 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:02:02 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>
>> snip<
>
>> 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.
>
> My backup machine was the Teac 7030...a 15ips recorder similar to your
> Sony...and capable of the same results. I cobbled it into a portable
> case...and my friend Barbara and her husband Herb later bought it from me
> for archiving performances, and use it to this day for playing old tapes.
>
> I used to use a pair of Schoeps 3-ways (can't remember model number) and a
> pair of Neumann KM-86 3-ways as my mic mainstays. The Schoeps, particularly
> in their omni configureation, were absolutely marvelous for choral
> work....and the Neumanns were wonderfully versatile....usually used in an
> ORTF configuration or an X-Y configuration. Given four mics of this
> versatility and quality, I could record almost anything. Would that I have
> them today... :-9 (lickin' my chops).
>
> Ah well, to be young(er) and wealthy(er).
>

I still have my Sony mikes. Unfortunately, they don't sound anywhere near as
good as my current mikes (the Behringer B-2 Pros and the Avantone CK-40
stereo mike [35mm capsules, about 1.4 inches]) The current mikes' electronics
are quieter, and I suspect that with modern sputtering techniques, the
diaphragms are lighter, quicker and have a resonance frequency that is quite
a bit above the audio spectrum. Anyway, they seem smoother in the upper
midrange, have better bass, and are a lot less "hot" sounding on the top end.
Drums, brushes, high-hat, and other percussion effects are a lot less
"high-fi" sounding and more realistic. The Sonys' came with an individual
frequency response graph from 20-20KHz and they are down about 3 dB at 20 Hz
and have a huge, almost 8 dB peak, at around 16-18 KHz. starting to rise at
about 7 Khz. Great in 1972, I guess, but pretty mediocre now. I am nonplussed
to find that they are still in great demand (along with the "legendary" C500)
and fetch high prices.

The microphones that I wish that I had kept were a pair of AKG 451s with both
the omni and the MATCHED stereo cardioid capsules. I had stopped recording
(got tired of lugging all that heavy equipment around) and a friend offered
me a good price at the time for the AKGs and, in a moment of weakness, I
accepted his offer. I could kick myself every time I think about it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bill Noble" > wrote in message


> my point was not about compatibility, nor about XP versus
> Vista versus Win 7 - that's my choice, and it doesn't
> bother me that stuff stopped working - I have spare
> computers, if it had been important to me I could have
> used a different computer - what pushed me over the edge
> was the lack of consideration for their customer -
> PreSonus could easily have told me that I could purchase
> the software that they offer with their unit for $25, or
> $50, and I probably would have bought it, and they could
> have kept a customer, instead they wanted me to pay more
> than the current list price of a new Inspire unit just
> for the software that comes "free" with the unit.

The 64 bit/Windows 7 drivers for the Inspire is *free*, downloadable from

http://www.presonus.com/media/downloads/PreSonus_iNSPiRE_1394_Installation.exe

I've tried them on my Win7 Pro 64 bit machine and they seem to be just fine.

[Bill Noble[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Bill Noble" > wrote in message
>
>
>> my point was not about compatibility, nor about XP versus
>> Vista versus Win 7 - that's my choice, and it doesn't
>> bother me that stuff stopped working - I have spare
>> computers, if it had been important to me I could have
>> used a different computer - what pushed me over the edge
>> was the lack of consideration for their customer -
>> PreSonus could easily have told me that I could purchase
>> the software that they offer with their unit for $25, or
>> $50, and I probably would have bought it, and they could
>> have kept a customer, instead they wanted me to pay more
>> than the current list price of a new Inspire unit just
>> for the software that comes "free" with the unit.
>
> The 64 bit/Windows 7 drivers for the Inspire is *free*, downloadable from
>
> http://www.presonus.com/media/downloads/PreSonus_iNSPiRE_1394_Installation.exe
>
> I've tried them on my Win7 Pro 64 bit machine and they seem to be just
> fine.

indeed, I found the updated drivers themselves, but the "free software",
something I've since deleted from my computer in disgust, wouldn't recognize
the new driver - the problem may have been completely solvable, but the
attitude of the company didn't sit well with me - if they had said "oh, you
just need to do a,b,c and then it will work, that would have been fine, if
they had said, you can have the new "free" software for $20, that would have
been fine, but to say "you can have the new free software for $250" is not
something I care to put up with. this actually could have been a user
issue, but their attitude certainly didn't help at all

but on an interesting aside, I got an email from TASCAM today pushing a new
pair of audio recorders, (DR-08 and DR-2d) The DR-2D records the track
twice - the second recording at much lower level, so if you mess up and over
drive the system you still have a good recording - I thought that was a
clever feature to help avoid a total mess up

[Arny Krueger]

"Bill Noble" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Bill Noble" > wrote in message
>>

>>> my point was not about compatibility, nor about XP
>>> versus Vista versus Win 7 - that's my choice, and it
>>> doesn't bother me that stuff stopped working - I have
>>> spare computers, if it had been important to me I could
>>> have used a different computer - what pushed me over
>>> the edge was the lack of consideration for their
>>> customer - PreSonus could easily have told me that I
>>> could purchase the software that they offer with their
>>> unit for $25, or $50, and I probably would have bought
>>> it, and they could have kept a customer, instead they
>>> wanted me to pay more than the current list price of a
>>> new Inspire unit just for the software that comes
>>> "free" with the unit.

>> The 64 bit/Windows 7 drivers for the Inspire is *free*,
>> downloadable from

>> http://www.presonus.com/media/downloads/PreSonus_iNSPiRE_1394_Installation.exe

>> I've tried them on my Win7 Pro 64 bit machine and they
>> seem to be just fine.

> indeed, I found the updated drivers themselves, but the
> "free software", something I've since deleted from my
> computer in disgust, wouldn't recognize the new driver -
> the problem may have been completely solvable, but the
> attitude of the company didn't sit well with me - if they
> had said "oh, you just need to do a,b,c and then it will
> work, that would have been fine, if they had said, you
> can have the new "free" software for $20, that would have
> been fine, but to say "you can have the new free software
> for $250" is not something I care to put up with. this
> actually could have been a user issue, but their attitude
> certainly didn't help at all

I'm not getting this story, because I only paid $99 for my Presonus Inspire
in the first place.

Secondly, recording software literally grows on trees - you can download
Audacity any time you want to and it does all the basic jobs involved with
recording.