___________

I should read about the auto gain feature on the H4. On most equipment commercial and pro the 'auto gain' feature would equalize the mic gain across the whole recording. In other words the 'p' sections are louder than actually played and the 'f' sections are softer than actually played.

SPL (sound pressure levels) and distortion aren't the same thing. They are related for this tiny unit. The SPL is what you use to set the mic gain levels. Distortion is bad bad bad in digital recording. For those of you who remember vinyl and 8-tracks :-) one could actually adjust recording levels to spike past the 'max' gain. This caused distortion and was harvested by guitarists to great effect. On digital sound when you overload the recording level you get either gobblety gook or zippola.

On a side note, I feel sorry for the folk who think MP3's are great sound. They are by nature highly compressed and designed for playback on tiny earphones. It's the fault really of needing to cram so many tunes in one tiny portable device. An earlier post advised using full .wav format which I highly agree with. I don't know how high the sampling rate of the H4 goes but CD's are recorded at 16 bit/44.1k sampling and DVD's are recorded at 24 bit/48k sampling. The best recordings should be done at the bit/sampling of the target media. Recording at 32 bit/128k for later down-sampling to CD can cause loss of audio quality.

When I record studio sessions or live acoustic performances I use a similar process to what Monica describes. I set my mic levels and then do a sound check (no not "check one....check two..." as Marc says in Rent, "Anything but that!") of the loudest section of the session/concert. Then I turn it down a bit more because musicians ALWAYS punch it harder when in the heat of the moment. I can always normalize the entire session later.

I mostly use one pair of mic's in a similar set up to the H4. The difference is they are spaced in XY pattern about 8" apart on a t-bar and on a mic stand. I generally put the mic stand between 1-4 feet from the piano about where the stick is. During a sound check I adjust as needed. If I'm using a tube mic I generally just use one mic. For field recording I use a Marantz PMD671 or for larger venues and more than two mic's I have a ProTools rig run off of a Mackie Onyx mixer.

In general for acoustic recording one wants the mic to have a really flat response.

Anyway, I have been following this thread with interest. The H4 came up on the two international french horn lists but you all have given more feedback about using it by far.

Blah blah blah...I'll shut up now.
John Dutton

I tried a quick search on each of the above (most of it seems to be at www.zzounds.com ).

NT5: US$400 pair, smallish.
MXL 2003: US$150 each, large.
MXL V69: US$300 each, large.
AKG 414: US$900 each, large.
AT 4050: PoA, large.
KSM109: US$180 each, smallish.

Only the Rode and Shure seem to be in the same ballpark as the Zoom itself for size and price, and even they would still more than double the total outlay.

Best wishes,
Matthew

I would recommend the Rode NT4 over the 5 unless your into ortf which is what you get when you space mics like the NT5. Same capsules, point-source X-Y, and easier to position and work with. I've used the similar AT825 myself for years which I find to be a very natural sounding mic and often less expensive than the NT4. Also, I don't like to use a mixer in the signal path of a flash recorder unless I really need to mix more than 2 mics. Even then I'd prefer going with a mulitrack recording (I use Sonar instead of Protools... Cuebase is also pretty good) mainly because I'm not good enough to mix things like vocals and piano on the fly without wishing I could unscramble the egg later.

Howard

_________

I wouldn't use a mixer for two mic's either. That was for multiple mic's. At that point it also isn't a flash recorder. All of these flash recorders record to 2-track media. There is no problem with that concept as that's all an MP3 or WAV file is in the end. XLR connection is by far the superior interface to 1/4" for balanced audio which is more noise free.

The stereo mic's work well for beginners or someone who doesn't want to mess with cables and the dross of gear that goes with real recording. Most people using the H4 are recording for family and friends purpose anyway or for checking their technical progress. The stereo mic is never used in a live-sound or studio situation because it doesn't give the best results though the classic Decca Tree configuration may seem similar to the uninitiated. Historically stereo mic's have been used primarily by broadcast media for 'in the field' reports though they are making a comeback with flash recorders and such.

Matthew C also makes a good point about the cost of mic's. I sometimes lose perspective when I get to play with Neumann's that begin at $1000 for a single TLM103 or $2800 for a single U87. For non-pro use however some of the lower end mic's I listed can sound just as good when used with an H4.

Ultimately before spending money on microphones one should asses the realistic goals of the recording. Don't shell out cash just to have another piece of gear you don't need. Every time you have the urge to spend money on frivolous stuff, put it in an investment account. After a few years you might have enough for a Mason-Hamlin BB or Bluthner or -insert favorite name-!

John Dutton

Not to totally throw this thread off it's intended purpose, the awesome little device that is the Zoom H4, but there has been mention of something more when it comes to recording.

However, this something more sounds like it's something, someone needs a tad bit of audio knowledge to achieve.

So, not intending to hijack the thread, but what would be a newbie's first step in the path of learning about higher-level recording?

Another hint for good recordings.

1. Record the whole series of pieces or all the movements whatever at the same recording levels. Import the whole thing into cubase or whatever program you use (cubase is good, I also use ProTools at work and Adobe Audition at home).

2. Normalize the entire file to keep all your relative dynamics relative. [note: classical/acoustic recordings are never as 'loud' as the compressed/expanded pop music recordings]

3. Use your program to break the session into tracks. This is usually done in some sort of 'save as' option from the file menu after selecting a segment of the file with a mouse.

4. If you add silence to the file as a lead in/out don't make it too long.

.02 and change
John Dutton

Not to sound flip, but it's the same as high level piano playing....practice practice practice.

Of course by practicing your recording techniques you are also practicing your piano performance. This is a good thing. A very good thing. For a beginning just play with moving the mic to different locations and various recording levels. Change only one variable at a time if you can. Write down your set up in a journal (w/sketch) and then also write down your results. As for learning a multi-track program, I recommend finding a mentor or a music technology program at a college or stand alone institute. The 'Dummies' series is pretty good as an intro as well.
http://tinyurl.com/vn9c9

I'll stop butting into this H4 discussion now as I don't want to hijack it either. I just thought I'd throw some answers out to questions posed at various points.

John Dutton

The H4 does reasonably high-quality recording. I'd suggest as a possible 1st step for improvement just doing a step up to a better quality mic than is built into the H4... though the built-in ones aren't that bad. The Rode NT4 and AT 825's are the same configuration but higher quality and are easier to put onto a mic stand, perhaps use a shock mount, while putting the H4 a little greater distance from the mic where you can more conveniently access the controls.

The X-Y point source mic arrangement used in the H4 and the stereo mics I mentioned have many advantages for live recording, like mono compatibility, no phasing issues, and high rejection of extraneous noise like AC and stage lights. For myself, I don't like the ortf config John mentions because it lacks mono compatibility and introduces phasing issues which make some piano notes seem to jump out at me in recordings. Of course X-Y isn't perfect either, particularly with weak center imaging and uneven tonal response, but ortf is even worse in those areas. Though I prefer Mid-Side micing in the studio, which is almost perfect in every regard if you can control the space with sound treatment, I always go X-Y in live settings.

If you want to go really high end with X-Y stereo recording, try a DPA 3521 stereo kit:

http://www.dpamicrophones.com/Images/DM00432.JPG

Notice that it looks exactly like the front end of the H4 and NT4 (and the 825 if you removed the wind screen). I used one last Nov to record that live Fazioli F278 concert I posted back then and it was totally awesome. Only reason I didn't consider plugging them into an H4 was because of the vocals. But the weight and bulk difference between the H4 and my DA78 8-track still has me thinking about it.

Howard

John Dutton -

A question: In a previous post, you said: "The best recordings should be done at the bit/sampling of the target media. Recording at 32 bit/128k for later down-sampling to CD can cause loss of audio quality."

And yet, everything I've read about high-quality audiophile recordings touts recording / mixing / processing at high sample/bit rates, and then downsampling to 44.1KHz/16bit as the last step in mastering a CD. The usual explanation I've been given is that digital audio processing algorithms will create, remove, or derive digital sample data, and doing such operations on 44/16 audio results in a processed recording that does not fully use the sample range. I think this is particularly true of denoising, dynamic expansion/compression, limiting, etc.

I suspect that recording at 96/24 with the Zoom H4's built-in mics is overkill. After all, how good could a pair of built-in mics in a $300 digital recorder be, compared to those high-end studio mics that cost thousands?

But I thought that when I'm ready to record something important (like a recital or something), I would record at 96/24, do all the processing with 96/24 sample data, and then downsample the finished product to 44/16 to get the best possible result.

Or would all this just be extra work for no benefit - whether audible or just theoretical?

_________

The real world application of that sort of signal processing is for movie projects where the sampling rate can actually be utilized. The studios I have associated with in the LA/San Diego area targeted their recordings to the end media. Audio that has been recorded at 196/32 like a soundtrack for Star Wars is sometimes recorded simultaneously at 48/24 for CD release. Digital Masters are also sometimes recorded at much higher levels for archival purposes. One can definitely hear the compression on a good sound system of something that was downsampled from 196/32 to 44.1/16. It can be minimized in professional post production but it is there and this is definitely a different sort of compression than MP3 downsizing. This again gets into sort of high level esoteric things that don't really relate to the Zoom H4.

Just for the record I do like the XY configuration for some things. I also utilize the Decca Tree equally as much as the ORTF. Experience guides me for my initial setup but I don't ever let myself get mired in a 'one-way' or rut mentality. Every job is unique in size and scope of ensemble and goals.

Microphones are today's speakers. In the 70's and 80's if you had a crappy stereo but had good speakers it sounded decent. If you had the best stereo on the market and had crappy speakers the system sounded crappy. Gozinta and Gozouta. Those are the by-words of the recording industry. I think the H4 appears to be a dandy little device for home recording and some field recording applications. In conjunction with a computer and multi-track program and someone with good ears and imagination, I suspect some very nice results can be achieved even with just the built-in mic's.

John Dutton

The site Howard pointed to has a nice article on mic placement for grand pianos. It points out that the placement will definitely depend on the application-ie solo vs. rhythm. Is there a way to post files? I have it in pdf form.

I should add that for home use an omni mic could be utilized effectively as well but now we are really getting away from topic.

John Dutton

I think that's good advice to stick to your target format resolution. Or at least an even multiple of it. So if your target is CD, record at 44.1. If your target is video, use 48.

Only exception I'd make is if you're planning on mixing or post processing after recording. I tend to do studio CD recording at 88.2K... which I see the H4 leaves out. (Odd.) That lets me mix vocals at 88.2 and downsample last for a really smooth and silky sound. But many recording professionals just stick to recording at 44.1/24 to avoid the processing load and storage demands of higer res. Most consider working at 24-bit vrs 16-bit a more noticeable step up compared to doubling the sample rate. If you do work at 24-bit, then dither/truncate last.

One thing I strongly recommend against is recording audio directly to mp3. Unless your only plan is to copy and upload.

Was just looking at the DPA site myself and here's a good link covering stereo recording techniques:

http://www.dpamicrophones.com/page.php?PID=131

Howard

Hi, John. Here's a link to PianoWorld's file uploader:

http://www.pianoworld.com/Uploads/fileuploader2.html

Howard

A few articles for digestion: Caveat Lector

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereophony

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microphone#stereo_recording_techniques

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORTF_stereo_technique

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_audio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_data_compression

For those really interested in the subject look up the book "Sound Reinforcement Handbook" by Gary Davis. I even like the title as too many rock band trained sound engineers are amplification engineers and not reinforcement engineers. Anyone can make something louder.

ORTF

XY

A-B STEREO

Grand Piano Recording Techniques

What I understand from above links is that:

1- For clasical piano A-B STEREO (preferably with omni-directinal mics but not limited to) is better.
2- For Jazz or Rhythmic music close micing and ORTF or Spaced Pair (with cardioid mics) is preferred.
3- XY (with cardioid mics) is good for mono compatibility.

which leads me to conclude that XY recording is not well suited for Grand Piano recording, thus a pair of separate mics might be necessary for satisfactory results.
Some seemingly knowledgeable posters have mentioned above that they wouldn't use a mixer for two mic only recordings, which makes the Zoom H4 an inexpensive solution to hook the external mics.

Regards,

John:

That's a neat holder they show at the top of page 2. I tried it in the ortf position as shown but didn't like the sound... it struck me as unnaturally wide at 16 inches above the strings. And boomy any closer than 10 inches. But moving the capsules to the xy position in the same holder sounded very natural to me at that distance. If you do a search on "Fazioli Live" there's a thread where I posted some concert recordings made in the xy position if you want to hear them.

Howard

Maybe the most natural sounding of all. But look out if you're not in a nice sounding quiet space, unless you get in really close. But I find mid-side, swapping the cardiod for an omni, the best combination of natural and dimensional sounding of all. But again, you need to be in a nice sounding quiet space or a vocal booth (or surrounded by Aurelex MaxWalls) to 86 the room sound completely.

Howard

Very nice job on the recordings Howard.

I think you are probably right about xy being better at that position. I have not done tons of close micing of pianos. My focus has been primarily chamber music concerts which of course do involve piano but require a different sonic picture. Ironically, if making a CD I try to minimize as much as possible the room itself unless it is a gem because of extraneous noise. I can easily put you in seat cc34 in Chicago with the right plug-ins. I also almost never do a destructive edit, prefering to process in multi-track view. I suppose this is due to my original training on 100% analog equipment. Finally my goal is usually to get reasonably close to what an audience member might hear and not what I usually get on a standard studio effort.

In the studio (my home-studio... ok, my living room), I do the Aurlex surround thing to minimize the room too. I add some room back later after mixing booth-recorded vocals. Unfortunately can't do it that way on stage... audience likes to see the piano and hates to sweat.

If you want to hear the AT825s, there are some other older threads... "Nordiska Live" and "Kawai Live". I think I actually have some AT825 tracks from the Fazioli concert too which I never dumped off the tape after hearing the DPAs... one of these days.

Howard

Thank you to EVERYONE for your imput!!

I have the same questions, WW!! I followed Monica's advice and ordered the Zoom 4H and downloaded Audacity. My Zoom arrived yesterday and my arthritic fingers could hardly get the SD card in -- retrieval was even more of a challenge.
Even with my reading glasses I can still hardly see what setting to slide let alone read the menu.

But I did know where to depress the record button. And within 60 minutes from "set up" to "play" I was listening to a recording of my shaking hands playing Nevue's Overcome -- along with the discovery that I encourage myself aloud as I play!

Since I had no idea what you all were referring to as "gain" I had to do some homework. Here's what I found:

AUDIO RECORDING FOR DUMMIES[/b]

Music Technology Dictionary [/b]

Audacity -- Audio Recording & Editing Tutorial [/b]

Now if someone could just tell me what button I should depress or slide on my Zoom 4H so that my recording has more "GAIN!" :p

Daria

OK. Congratulations on your new toy. Looking down on the unit, the mic gain switch is on the right. It's the first slider from the microphones, and it has 3 positions; low, medium, and high. Hope that helps.

--Dennis

What great advice from John and HV...thanks!!

Also of interest is this H4 review:

http://homerecording.about.com/od/productreviews/fr/h4_review.htm

He also mentions what John had said about the mic pre-amps on the H4 not handling high spl's very well. Given that scenario John, is it still possible to use the H4 with external mics and get some ok results? What would be the downside using the H4 with external mics, in recording a grand piano?

Dennis,

I’ve moved input 1 and input 2 from M to H and kept mic at M.

My recorder is mounted on my raised camera tripod – which sits conveniently right next to me facing the stand. This set up makes me think I should name the recorder “Crow” the bot, from Mystery Science Theater 3000!

Thanks for your help!

Daria

Daria, the settings for "input 1" and "input 2" are only applicable if you have external mics plugged into the Zoom (which I don't think you do, right?). So the only setting you need to worry about is the "mic" setting. The Zoom manual recommends keeping that on "low" when recording piano. I know that any time I try recording with it on "medium," I get distortion, although I know some others here have used medium successfully. You may just have to do a bit of trial and error.

I use the auto gain function... see p. 33 of the manual. Press the bottom of the round "menu" button. That will get you to the input menu. You'll see maybe three icons on the screen. Move the jog dial (the weird button on the right side of the Zoom) until you see "auto gain" pop up. It will probably say "off." Depress the jog dial to turn it on. You only have to do that once, and from that point on, the auto gain will always be in effect.

Then, when you're recording, when you first hit the Red Dot, it will flash. At that point, just play a few seconds of the loudest part of your piece. Don't worry about mistakes or anything as it's not recording at that point. Then press the red dot again to start recording for real.

That will give you a better adjustment of your gain level and volume. You may still need to normalize the file afterwards, but as you get used to working with the Zoom and experiment with different placements of it, you may find that your files are fine as is.

You can also adjust the gain level more sensitively manually, but I haven't bothered to read the manual to figure out how to do that.

p.s. Yeah, inserting the SD card is a pain, but once you put it in, you can leave it in, and just do all your file transferring with the USB connection.

Tonight I'd recorded four songs with the "mic" setting on high... but had no distortion problem because...

...all but my last song were recorded WHILE[/b] THE RED LIGHT WAS FLASHING!


Thanks for the tips, Monica -- I've already printed them out!!

Daria

________
The downside to using external mic's is more cabling and setup. Some mic's handle higher sound pressure levels better than others-even in the $2k microphones. Another downside to external mic's is money outlay. Finally there are more variables to the recording process the more gear one introduces. I would asses what your goals are to decide whether you need better mic's/more equipment. I would use them but I also already own them and am used to a different level of recording technology generally.

I think a decent pair of mic's combined with the H4 should produce very nice results with experimentation on placement. I don't own one (H4) so I can't really comment on it, but Howard has some nice recordings he posted. My flash recorder is more higher end-the Marantz PMD671. I think however the Zoom H4 appears to give very good value for the money.

John Dutton

...all but my last song were recorded WHILE[/b] THE RED LIGHT WAS FLASHING!


Daria [/b][/QUOTE]


LOL. I had the same experience the first time I used mine. I still haven't gotten around to reading that very long user's manual. Maybe one of these days when I'm really bored. I have also been recording direct to mp3 which is apparently not the best choice, but I found that the 128MB card only holds about 3 minutes at the highest quality setting, and, after all, I'm not a great player, so who really cares if the quality suffers just a bit? It's still so much better than what I was using before. I do have a 2GB card on order which should be here in a day or two. Then I can do it right. For anyone interested, I found a 2GB card on newegg.com for a really low $19.99 plus $4.99 shipping. Here's the Link.

--Dennis

--Dennis

Here's the one I went with for a small flash recorder I got to record meeting minutes:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820183184

Costs a little more but uses less power and is lightning fast pulling off big files.

Howard

Hi Dennis, et al.!

I just ordered several cards - Grrrreat price!! Thanks!! The tips from all have been wonderful.

Using my card reader is much faster for me than uploading with the USB cable -- especially since the port is on the BACK of my tower which is inside the cabinet! You know what happens when you have to pull out the tower to use that port... everything else "unplugs!!"

I am one who LOVES reading manuals -- except for the one that comes with the Zoom 4H. I would rather "play" than "read."

Plus, I've found a new little playmate -- my Zoom "bot!" :3hearts:



Daria