Home Free Library Store
Free Catalog



Save with a Two Year Membership

To post in the forums see the Forum Guidelines.
Join or Renew Today.
New Benefits for all VU Members
Forum Guidelines and FAQ
Main Index Search Posts
Who's Online Log In



Home: Video University Forums: Audio For Video:
Audio Quality between these digital recorders...

 

 


McKnightVideo
User


Aug 6, 2008, 7:27 PM

Post #1 of 7 (2151 views)
Shortcut
Audio Quality between these digital recorders... Can't Post

I need to buy an all-purpose digital recorder and am curious what folks think about the sound quality between the following units:

Zoom H4, Edirol R09HR, Tascam DR-1, M-Audio Microtrack II.

I have searched on the boards and have found info about the individual units (and lots about the H2) but not much in the way of sound quality comparisons (if I'm wrong, please forgive me - I'll keep lookin' fer the threads...) They are all about $300. The main thing they will be used for is connecting to a DJ or band mixer and needs to record two tracks continuously for two hours at 48K, 24 bit. I can compare all the specs just fine, but I want to get the best preamps, quality, etc. at this price point and could really use the opinions of folks on the board.

While the mixer application is the main thing, it would also be used with built in mics where available for string quartets and such. I think the H4 is the only one with XLR in and that is attractive, but not if one of the other ones sounds better.
Also, with respect to continuous recording, I've read where some units split the recording into separate files and that would not be good for my application.

So...whatcha think? Do they all sound about the same at this price point? Any standouts? Do I need to provide more info??

Thanks in advance!
David

ps, I've been using iRivers and minidisc. This will replace the minidisc and in some cases an iRiver (not for groom mic though).


<edit> I see now where the edirol r-09HR is $100 more than these others...and probably worth the extra bill. But, I need to choose one of the ones at $300


(This post was edited by McKnightVideo on Aug 6, 2008, 8:33 PM)


Mark Foley
Veteran


Aug 7, 2008, 6:43 AM

Post #2 of 7 (2132 views)
Shortcut
Re: [McKnightVideo] Audio Quality between these digital recorders... [In reply to] Can't Post

If I was going to give you a recommendation for a recorder that can be successfully be used to connect to a DJ board or band's mixer, I would have to pass on all of them.

I believe you'd be money ahead saving a bit more an go with the Edirol R44. This gives you the option of having very great latitude with signal input (especially form a band's mixer) to having additional channels to feed a ambient mic from or use the internal mics if need be. Seamless recordings and another important option...a great limiter when the DJ loses his minds start dumping a very hot signal to you.
_________________________
Mark






MLiebergot
Veteran


Aug 8, 2008, 6:43 AM

Post #3 of 7 (2116 views)
Shortcut
Re: [McKnightVideo] Audio Quality between these digital recorders... [In reply to] Can't Post

David, I would have to agree 100% with what Mark said.
For your needs the R-44 is the best choice. It has great pre amps and manual controls, has (4) balanced XLR 1/4 TRS inputs, digital line and analog line out, a good pair of internal condenser mics, which can be used in conjunction with 2 additional XLR channels. SO you can use the internal mics and take a stereo board feed at the same time. While larger than teh above mentioned recorders, it is also the msallest 4 track recorder that you may ever work with.

If the R-44 is too large and too rich for your needs, then I might seriously suggest taking a look at the Sony PCM-D50. It's built like a tank and has a great pair of rotatable internal condense mics (90 or 120 degreee pickup pattern), as well as excellent manual controls and per amps, and more. It's about as large as the H4 so placing it on a person is a no go, but is great for board feeds and live micing when needed. The only knock on it by people seem to be the lack of built in XLR inputs. This can be remedies if desired by picking up an XLR adapter like the Sony XLR-1XLR, or even a beachtek type adapter would work. but by doing this you are moving up into the realm of the R-44, and should go this direction.

The reason that I am recommending the D50 over the H4 with it's built in XLRs, is that the 1/8 input is much queiter than the H4's XLR inputs. That's right, the 1/8 input is quieter than the H4's XLRs. As the Zooms have noisy pre amps and ciruitry, while the Sony is reeeal quiet.

Now if you want a multipurpose recorder that can be placed on a person, has good internal mics, use external mics, and take line feeds, then sorry there is no Holy Grail recorder that does all of these great. But if dual XLR inputs aren't a necessity for yo then I would say g for the Edirol R09HR or the Marantz PMD620. End of discussion.

All of the above units taht you laisted ahve some galring weakenesses, as the Zooms are greta for various purposes, but have poor per amps and not so great manual controls. The M-Audio and Tascams, while good units use internal battery power, which I HATE. I will take replacable batteries anytime of the week. And while the Tsacam can be swapped out for a propiretary rechargable battery, the cost is too high for me.

So if you want the best recorder for the money, then the R-44 should be your choice.
If you want the best recorder that doesn't have XLR input adn can be used for field recording and noard feeds, then the Sony D50 is the choice.
If you want a gerat all around recorder without XLR inpus, then the Edirol R09HR or Marantz PMD620 is your choice.

Michael

Cameras: (3) Sony FX1, Canon HV20
Audio: Marantz PMD620, Edirol R44, ZoomH4N, ZoomH2, Sennhesier G2
Mics: Rode NT5, Rode NT3, Rode M3, Rode NTG2, Shure SM57, AT822
Software: Sony Vegas, Final Cut Studio
Computer: MAC BABY! MacPro, MacBook Pro


RT Steele
Veteran


Aug 8, 2008, 4:57 PM

Post #4 of 7 (2089 views)
Shortcut
Re: [McKnightVideo] Audio Quality between these digital recorders... [In reply to] Can't Post

You can check out some audio comparisons here.

- RT


MLiebergot
Veteran


Aug 8, 2008, 5:19 PM

Post #5 of 7 (2087 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RT Steele] Audio Quality between these digital recorders... [In reply to] Can't Post

Excellent find, Rick.

Michael

Cameras: (3) Sony FX1, Canon HV20
Audio: Marantz PMD620, Edirol R44, ZoomH4N, ZoomH2, Sennhesier G2
Mics: Rode NT5, Rode NT3, Rode M3, Rode NTG2, Shure SM57, AT822
Software: Sony Vegas, Final Cut Studio
Computer: MAC BABY! MacPro, MacBook Pro


McKnightVideo
User


Aug 11, 2008, 6:08 AM

Post #6 of 7 (2011 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MLiebergot] Audio Quality between these digital recorders... [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks Everyone for the excellent info. I'm going to increase my budget and get either the Edirol R09HR or Marantz PMD620.

Your input has been MUCH appreciated.



McKnightVideo
User


Oct 28, 2008, 4:00 PM

Post #7 of 7 (1362 views)
Shortcut
Re: [McKnightVideo] Audio Quality between these digital recorders... [In reply to] Can't Post

Took delivery of the PDM620 last week and have used it on two projects. Very Nice.
Big display, easy to read, obvious controls, etc.

Anyone who is still using minidisc, I highly advise to get one of these or at least search this forum for similar units. This one can access a 2TB (!) memory card. No split files or anything like that. Plus it sounds better than the Zoom units.

Me likey.