<p>The discussion on concert attire and laptops leads me to another question. What specifications should we be looking for in a digital audio recorder? As a non-music music mom with equally little understanding of newer technologies, I'm at a loss on where to begin. There seems to be a wide range of options. </p>
<p>This seems like a perfect item to add to the graduation present wish list. Thanks for the help!</p>
<p>My D and S use a device that attaches to their ipods/itouch that allows them to record their lessons and then they can listen back to it later like any other song on their ipods. If I remember right, since they already had the ipods, it was a lot cheaper than buyer a separate recorder.</p>
<p>We use Zoom H2 recorders, they are around $150, excellent and easy to use.</p>
<p>I have a Zoom H4n, excellent sound and easy to use. It still doesn’t produce as good results as a trip to the recording studio, but for its size and convenience it’s very very good sound.</p>
<p>They have a new product out called the Zoom Q3 that shoots youtube-quality video and supposedly has the same mikes as the H4n so the sound quality is still very good. Doesn’t have as many audio features, but I am intrigued… might be very useful for doing quick audition dvds.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not necessarily a bragging/marketing point. ;)</p>
<p>Some pretty lousy video quality out there.</p>
<p>We have the Zoom Q3 and have used it to record S2’s rock performances. For a small camera, the results have been good. The alternative would be to go with an HD camera with an external mike, but the cost would be 2-3 times more. The video we’re been able to get has been OK, mostly limited by the low light in clubs. It’s probably the best audio for the price if you also want video.</p>
<p>What I would look for in a digital recorder:</p>
<p>1) The ability to use external microphones in place of or in addition to any that may be provided, which could be achieved by providing two XLR inputs with phantom power, or by providing two mono or one stereo line level input. (Professional line level, not consumer-grade RCA jack inputs). Bonus points for balanced TRS inputs.</p>
<p>2) A USB2 or later interface to a computer that allows the unit to appear as a disk drive when connected. Bonus points if it can be used as a portable hard drive for non-audio computer files.</p>
<p>3) Ability to record to standard WAV files in CD format (44.1 kHz, 16 bit PCM stereo). Bonus points for higher sampling rates, larger sample sizes and the ability to work with more than two tracks at once.</p>
<p>4) Both battery and AC power options. Bonus points if the AC plug is on a cord and not molded into a “wall wart”.</p>
<p>5) Headphone out jack. Bonus points if it can drive a set of 600 Ohm monitor headphones to reasonable levels, at least when AC powered.</p>
<p>6) Recording level controlled by a physical dial or button, not implemented in software and buried several levels deep into a series of menu screens. If AGC (automatic gain control) is provided, it MUST be defeatable and should not have to be turned off every time the unit is powered up. Bonus points if there is a separate level control knob or button for each track so that I can adjust two at a time.</p>
<p>7) If it has built-in mics, then it should also have the ability to be mounted on a tall microphone stand. Bonus points for remote control capability that allows the user to set levels and control recording functions without having to stand on a ladder.</p>
<p>8) If the unit uses an LCD or similar display for any important functions, it must be readable in the dark but not so bright as to draw undue attention to itself.</p>
<p>9) Digital inputs and outputs in either S/PDIF or optical format.</p>
<p>10) Compatibility with a standard timestamp format (e.g. BWF) that allows files recorded on the portable unit to later be synchronized with professional studio equipment.</p>
<p>11) Uses removable, non-proprietary solid state storage media, e.g. SD cards. Bonus points if it can be inserted directly into a laptop or card reader and be read directly by the computer.</p>
<p>I have not found the perfect portable unit yet, but the Marantz PMD620, the Tascam DR-100 and the Zoom H4n are all worth consideration.</p>
<p>We have the Zoom Q3 - sound is fantastic, video is just above a cell phone while filming in concert-type lighting. If it had even flipvideo quality, it would be The Device for me. (I chose the Q3 over the audio-only models, knowing some video is better than no vide (and the audio is the same as he H models). </p>
<p>Supposedly an HD video one is coming out next. I will buy it the second it does.</p>
<p>We have had a zoom H2 since pretty much it came out, and it is a pretty nifty unit. The built in mics are fantastic, and it records really, really well. It uses sd cards, so you can pretty much have as much storage as you want (I think current S uses it with an 8 gig ultra sd card), it can record in MP3 at various levels or full wav. </p>
<p>If zoom comes out with an HD video unit, I’ll buy it if it is within my budget. The H2 is a great unit for a really good price.</p>
<p>I’ve been looking up examples of Q3 video on youtube, and admittedly it’s not great… I’d been wondering if I should sell off the H4n and get a Q3 instead. Every other school/summer program seems to want DVDs rather than CDs these days, and also I think it’s always good to record yourself say once every two weeks or so. Visuals can be helpful in pinpointing issues.</p>
<p>But now I’m thinking that it is probably better to buy something like the Kodak Zi8 and put the sound and video together later for an audition disc, or simply feed the sound out from the H4n into the camcorder if it’s just for practice purposes (since I know this will probably degrade the sound a little). One advantage is that you can place the sound and video recorders in different places. You sacrifice the convenience of course of having an all-in-one device…</p>
<p>I was also wondering if there is any point in having a 4-track recorder and using external mikes when you are only recording say one instrumentalist and piano – I was told by the recording studio guy last year that for such recordings really one good condenser well placed is the best arrangement. Is this true?</p>
<p>It depends on what you want from the recording and what instrument in addition to the piano is being recorded. One condenser will not give you a stereo image unless it is actually a stereophonic microphone (actually two or more microphones in the same package). By having external inputs on the recorder, you always have the option of using better microphones than the recorder provides (the ones included in the H4 are decent, but not really studio quality), of having total flexibility in microphone placement, and of being able to choose a microphone that is known to work well with the specific instrument being recorded.</p>
<p>Your sound guy was probably talking about ORTF or some similar micing scheme. It depends on having two pretty closely matched cardioid condensers with very good off-axis frequency response placed in just the right configuration. The results can be great when everything works, but not so good if something is out of whack.</p>
<p>One reason that I do not particularly like the Q3 is that you often have to compromise on where you place it relative to the source. If you put it at the place that is best for the sound, you may not be able to get quite the picture that you want. If you put it where it gets exactly the picture you want, it may be too close or too far away to capture the sound properly. The zoom is entirely digital and only a factor of 2x, which does not give you much flexibility as to where it must be placed to frame the shot you want.</p>
<p>Another problem is that it is usually a good idea to get your microphones well off the floor in a hall that has high ceilings and a floor made out of a material that reflects sound. If you put an Q3 up on a 10’ or 12’ stand, you have to get up there with it on a ladder to aim it, frame the shot and start the recording running because the unit does not have a remote control as far as I can tell.</p>
<p>The Q3 is very convenient for casual use if you happen to be recording the right source material in the right acoustic environment, but your H4 with external mics and a separate video camera will give you much more flexibility to adapt to a much wider set of conditions.</p>
<p>The Edirol R-09 would win quite a few bonus points from bassdad 
We have had very good luck with it and it’s easy to use and sounds great. I believe the only bassdad specifications that this recorder does not meet are #9 and #10.</p>
<p>Thanks to everyone posting. I always learn something from this group! I hadn’t thought about any use outside of recording weekly lessons. I see that this could be a very useful tool for him.</p>
<p>imamiger,</p>
<p>I happen to own an R09 and I do like it for the most part. The quibbles that I have are with the quality of the internal mics (OK, not great), the build quality (it feels a bit flimsy, but has not broken yet), the lack of ability to do 4-tracks using both the line input and the internal mics, that the tiny screen is sometimes hard to read, the lack of XLR mic inputs, and that there is no remote control available. I bought it quite a while ago, before any of its competitors had come out. If I were buying one today, I would probably go with the Zoom H4n or possibly the Tascam DR-100 over the R09.</p>
<p>We have an Olympus LS10 which we like very much. We chose it solely based on recommendation of a friend who had one, did not know of the Zoom at that point. It is probably more pricey than the Zoom H2 but the quality of the recording is great. S did all of his college and summer audition recordings on it and has been using it at school this year. I only wish it had video. Waiting for the promised Zoom audio- HD video recorder since it seems like DVD recordings are going to be the way of the future for auditions.</p>
<p>I do have a remote control for the R09 HR. We really like having the remote. There were other improvements in the R09HR (over the R09) but I don’t remember them all. One was ease of getting to the batteries, I believe. In any case my D occasionally uses the older R09 at the school, but when she uses our R09-HR she says it is much better. I agree with you on the other shortcomings, though.</p>
<p>Yep, mine is the older 09, not the HR.</p>
<p>Thanks BassDad, that was all very useful info! I guess it’s the Kodak Zi8 for me…</p>
<p>If you do go that way, realize that you are trading off quality and flexibility for some amount of inconvenience and some added expense. Kind of like buying a digital SLR camera and a bunch of interchangeable lenses rather than an inexpensive portable all-in-one digital camera. There is something to be said for simple and quick if that means it will be used more frequently.</p>
<p>Thanks again for sharing your wisdom, BassDad. What would you recommend for about $150- if your primary use will be recording lessons?
The Zoom H4N costs about $300 right now. Is it worth it/necessary to spend that much?</p>