|
Post by Janey on Sept 20, 2016 18:31:21 GMT
Now I'm aware that I may be trying to reinvent the wheel and that zoom recorders are the generally used thing. However I have a Coomber cd recorder which I use for my day job. (I talk to people and have to record it, using the coomber I can give them the cd there and then). Now I can record stuff directly onto cd, convert it to a wav file and manipulate it in Audacity (In theory anyway I can learn providing it can be done) However to record my playing I'm aware that I may need a better mike than I have (it doesn't have a makers name, or at least I don't know it) My questions are 1. Am I correct in thinking that I only need the one - and that I can just copy the other channel in Audacity to get a stereo recording? 2. Any suggestions for a good mike, preferably not too expensive. Thankyou for your help
|
|
|
Post by MartinS on Sept 20, 2016 19:04:57 GMT
Much more knowledgeable people than I will reply,but
1. One mic would do, you can either copy the one channel onto another and time delay the second channel by a few milliseconds to give a bit of stereo-like feel, or you can use the gverb plug-in on the single channel to give a stereo reverb effect.
2. Does your recorder have an xlr (3-pin) input? If it has, and also has phantom power, you could choose a condenser mic, if no phantom, then it'll usually be a dynamic you have to use (although there are phantom adaptors) . I've been trying a Sure SM58 (dynamic), and I think I'm surprised to be getting half decent results. But look on Gumtree for a second hand mic, would be my suggestion.
Good luck.
m.
|
|
|
Post by Janey on Sept 20, 2016 19:17:24 GMT
Cheers Martin I think it uses a dynamic mike, I'll have a look ta
|
|
|
Post by vikingblues on Sept 21, 2016 7:51:28 GMT
I'm afraid I can't help on a recommendation for a good but cheap microphone. I did find in the early stages of my journey in recording acoustics that anything less than £60 new turned out to be a short lived acquisition and a mistake - going for the used option as Martin suggested would help if you're on a tight budget. I can certainly confirm that any 'no-name' microphones I have had in the past were next to useless! But Rule 1 of recording acoustic guitar should be 'there’s no right or wrong when recording- if it sounds right, it is right'. The difficulty is there is no way of knowing what might sound right until it is tried in whatever system you have. But there are general guidelines that are often suggested and I have found them to be more true than not when I've applied them. A dynamic microphone can be used to get decent results for an acoustic guitar. But it may not be so good at picking up the subtleties and the higher frequency details. In your circumstances if you can get an inexpensive microphone that works for you it makes sense. But go above £100 for a microphone and you get close to the price of a Zoom H4n which is not just a recording device but one that has good preamps in it (very important) and that has two remarkably good microphones on it and can also take the additional signals from up to two external xlr microphones if better mikes are obtained in the future. I have had cheaper portable recording devices in the past and they were not a satisfactory solution sound-wise. But the general recommendation for best sound when recording acoustic guitar is a condenser microphone. Purely because these microphones are better able to capture those subtleties and high frequency response and dynamic character of the acoustic instrument and in this regard small diaphragm condensers seem particularly well suited as they have faster transient response to pick up that fine detail. The sort of playing you do and the type of guitar you use come into play here - the higher the quality of the guitar and the more you want to capture subtleties of tone and sound the more important the microphone quality becomes and the less you'll be happy with a compromise. A single microphone can be used to get good sound but care needs taken in where it is pointing, and if it points too near the soundhole the resulting recording will suffer badly particularly if it's a cardioid pattern microphone! Note too that different guitars may sound at their best with different microphone placement. Because an acoustic guitar makes a lot of different sounds and because they do not all originate from one part of its structure it is beneficial to have microphone placement to maximise how this is captured. Two microphones do help this need. While copying a single track recording to have two tracks and widen the stereo field etc helps it does not extend the range of sounds captured in the way that two microphones do. I firmly believe that there is also a place in the recording process for omni directional microphones as well as cardioid - though they are more difficult to find. Cardioid is the pattern on most microphones and it is very directional - you are in effect recording sound coming very much from a limited area of the guitar with one of these and if placed too close to the guitar a cardioid will run into the 'proximity' effect where bass frequencies start to get too boomy. Having said all that ..... I have gradually improved my recording set up over the years and can confirm that while I may be happier with the sounds I get now, I do know that if I record two different guitars that the two resulting recording will not be as different from each other as the guitars are in real life. I feel that even getting a recording to sound similar to the specific guitar being used in its tonal qualities is a huge success. Sorry about the long post - but it maybe serves to illustrate the potentially long (and costly!) journey you could be embarking on. Mark
|
|
|
Post by Janey on Sept 21, 2016 9:42:43 GMT
Hmmm you are quite right. Whenever I've tried to do something with bottom end stuff I've always ended up paying twice. Ok it looks like a zoom it is! As it seems I'd be paying nearly as much for a decent microphone anyway. Thanks for the responses chaps much appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by scripsit on Sept 21, 2016 10:02:06 GMT
Another vote for the Zoom from me. Much simpler at the beginning to set up and use, easy to get files onto a computer for processing, and cheaper than an equivalent pair of microphones which would still need extra gear to operate if you chose condenser mics (which is what you need for acoustic guitar).
If you have a cheap mic stand or camera tripod you then have a very portable system to record anywhere (and it's easy to shift the unit/microphones around to experiment with best placement).
Kym
|
|
ocarolan
Global Moderator
CURMUDGEONLY OLD GIT (leader - to join, just ask!)
Posts: 33,854
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"c0cfe1"}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 182a3f
Mini-Profile Text Color: 733a1c
|
Post by ocarolan on Sept 21, 2016 10:33:35 GMT
This is a handy quick and dirty review/comparison of the Zooms H1, H2n and H4n which you might find interesting Janey - microphonevs.com/zoom-h1-vs-h2n-vs-h4n-review/For cost effectiveness the H1 is unbeatable, though the H2n gives you more flexibility for not much more money. The H4n is a bit more expensive and would only be worth stretching to if you intend to plug additional condenser microphones into it (which is more expense, but further down the line, who knows....). As well as being portable recorders using internal SD cards, any of them can be simply used plugged into your PC to use as a USB mic. to record directly into your recording software. Stay simple as long as you can - I got quite complicated at one stage and then because of the endless faffing setting up, I backed off to rock-bottom simplicity which then didn't deter me from doing recordings. The results are every bit as good for my purposes, ie posting stuff on the internet and making my own amateur CDs for fun. Keith
|
|
|
Post by Janey on Sept 21, 2016 14:31:39 GMT
Thank you Kym and Keith. I'll have to give it more thought, however the zoomH1 seems to do everything I want it to. I'm not going to get complicated. Its only for recording the ditties I write. Anything more complicated and I would probably get someone else to do it! Anyway I really dont have time for anything more than that for the foreseeable. As you say Kym a couple of mikes would cost the same anyway. Keith I found the comparison very helpful also the advice to "stay simple". Brilliant I'll put that on my Christmas list. Now I just need to somehow get round the fact that I've allready had my Christmas present . . . .
|
|
|
Post by vikingblues on Sept 21, 2016 18:44:25 GMT
What you're saying makes a lot of sense Jane ... good decision - in my case I only went for the H4n due to my wanting some of those complications .... like plugging in external xlr microphones as an option and having multitrack recording facility. The impression I've had is that sound quality from the built in microphones on all the three of the Zooms is good! So you'll lose nothing going with the H1 for the sort of use you mention. My recent piece called 'Brooding' I posted in the Plucky Duck recently that you commented favourably on was recorded just using the built in Zoom microphones and basic stereo recording mode. I would have got very little extra sound-wise in the recording using the full recording system with more expensive xlr microphones that I have built up over the years. PS - you will find that the Zooms microphones are good at picking up sounds other than just the guitar, so you need to muzzle dogs, stop the clocks from chiming, and make sure you're not wearing clothing that rustles against the back of the guitar! Mark
|
|
|
Post by Janey on Sept 21, 2016 20:37:24 GMT
I absolutely have nothing but admiration for those folk who can multi track etc I don't think I'd ever grasp that level of technology Even my washing machine stays on the one setting. If I can record something as well as you did with brooding Mark that'll do for me.
|
|
walkingdecay
C.O.G.
Posts: 1,676
My main instrument is: brownish and rather small.
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000000"}
Mini-Profile Name Color: {"image":"","color":"ffffff"}
|
Post by walkingdecay on Sept 26, 2016 10:13:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by andyhowell on Sept 27, 2016 6:59:27 GMT
I have the Zoom 6 and the Zoom 2 - both bought for very different purposes. The 4 and 6 are versatile but the mic on the 2 is frankly excellent. Many people will the 2 all they ever need.
I've used other recorders over the years - Edirol and Olympus. Edirol mics are good but build flimsy, Olympus really a vocal note taker.
|
|
|
Post by Janey on Oct 4, 2016 8:19:27 GMT
So many choices all of them sound excellent. Thank you, as always for excellent advice
|
|
|
Post by andyhowell on Oct 4, 2016 10:05:13 GMT
So many choices all of them sound excellent. Thank you, as always for excellent advice The Zoom H2 would be the best value for money option. The H4 more flexible for the future. I wouldn't look any further. A good condenser mic will give you a better bottom end but you can always tweak the tone (EQ) in Audacity.
|
|