TubeNet

Is there anyone on this forum who is a proponent of using one of those handheld recorders (Zoom HX, Tascam DR series) for audition and competition tapes? I would like to know why this is.

Is it because they are simple to use? Or because they are inexpensive? Or because they "sound good"? Or what?

A frustrating trend I have noticed with brass players is that when it comes time to record a tape, the process seems to be:

1) find most resonant room that has a piano
2) check the batteries in your Zoom H2
3) find a chair to sit the Zoom on
4) make sure the audio channels aren't peaking
5) play gregson (or whatever)
6) listen to the tracks later

By no means am I an authority on the subject of audio recording and engineering. I am, however, an audiophile that believes every instrumentalist should sound his or her best on a recording. Step 1 is ditching these handheld recorders, which are mere toys when you look at what you could be recording on for just a couple hundred more dollars than a Zoom H4 (that is, if you have access to a laptop). To offset the cost and help your friends in the process, maybe start charging your fellow brass players 20 bucks to record their tapes for them. Or, keep letting them record on their handheld recorders if you just hate your friends or really need the prize money.

I suppose that my goal for starting this thread is to figure out if making a professional-sounding recording is as much of a priority as is playing the tuba superbly on the track to begin with, and if so, why the heck brass players insist on using these handheld recorders.

I am using a Roland R-09 these days. It is not mine but I really like it. Personally, I fine the sound quality pretty good out of the box, quasi professional. Heck it is better than the $150 mic I own. It is easy to setup up and use and unlike the laptop+mic it is easily portable. I don't have a laptop anymore and am not sure when I will get one. For that reason I am probably considering buying one of these portable recorders to use to monitor my practice.

I'm not sure I would use it for demo tapes and competitions but it seems like a quick and easy way to get a recorder for practice and for the occasional audition.

Portability plus very good quality recording. The Zoom H4n can record 4 distinct tracks, and has 2 external mic inputs. Hard to beat. I've barely gotten into mine and it's already amazing me.

Compared to hauling an iWhatever plus a mixer plus mics, I'll go for hauling my Zoom with mics I may need, and do some mixing in Audacity later on, on a computer that I can control without fear.

Portability and convenience are two of the major advantages of the recorders, so yes I'll have to agree with you guys on that one!

eupher61 wrote: Compared to hauling an iWhatever plus a mixer plus mics, I'll go for hauling my Zoom with mics I may need, and do some mixing in Audacity later on, on a computer that I can control without fear.

Quick question for eupher -- which are your mics of choice?


The idea of using external mics with the handheld recorder is something I actually am pretty OK with (especially if you're on the go when you do your recording). The sampling rate and basic functions on the majority of the handhelds are nothing to scoff at. There's no question they get the job done, but by using the handheld as a stand-alone, you completely lose control of the mix (which is why the mics+handheld is actually a good solution for anyone who needs to be portable at all times, or just doesn't want to mess around with Pro Tools when the performer is also the producer/recording engineer)!!

can't go wrong with an SM57, but it's far from the best. AKG 419 is great, but discontinued. I have an old Shure BG5 which absolutely rocks for tuba. It's tough to mount on the bell, though, barring a bloke mount.
Kick drum mics actually work really well.

I have been using my R-09 for about 5 years for all kinds of recording. Even with the built-in microphones the sound quality is better than any tape recorder that I ever tried, and I have tried them all. When I want more stereo separation I plug in a pair of condenser mics, using a simple adaptor that I made with parts from Radio Shack, and I get results that are as good or better than any "professional" recording person that I know of. I don't know about the cheaper brands, but the R-09 is top of the line.

I use Roland's Edirol R-09. I've had it for about six years, so it is starting to show a few signs of some wear and tear, but it still records in a high quality and gets the job done. I find that the R-09 is respectable to the low end, easy to use and portable.

I am using the H4n

It's nice as I can also use it as a recorder equipped with better mics (it has phantom power)
and is also more than good enough to use to record mix-down from a mixer

Using external mics, I can also use the two integrated ones.

Get iPhone 4S or new iPad, get tascam im2. Record yourself, playback edit and post to whatever from wherever.

Speaking as an Audiophile..

The Zoom H4N is a good recorder, but as with all portables....The mics suck
Everyone will tell you the don't but even a pair of Shure PG-81 is way better.

Going for a set of good bang for the buck ADK S51 is goanna bring you close to what you want.
The phantom power is really not the greatest in the Zoom (as with ANY portables) so a separate
power supply would be an upgrade.

The PG-81s (and a hole bunch of other mics) has battery option, but can of course not compare to the ADKs

Firstly, thank you for all of the replies! I am extremely glad to see that the participants of this thread (mostly handheld recorder users) are making their audio equipment work for them.

eupher61 wrote:can't go wrong with an SM57, but it's far from the best.

Complete respect for the man using an SM57!!! Frequency response chart (and personal experience) puts it out of range for me as a tubist, but I would imagine it puts out an acceptable product for a eupher like yourself. I second the kick drum microphone, by the way, especially for getting a low brass sound that will complement a mix.


Here's some food for thought, by the way:

Instead of messing around with mixing, monitoring and recording a multi-track performance (i.e. you and your accompanist and the room you're playing in), why not get the pianist to record on a high-quality electric piano? Throw on some studio headphones and kill the speakers on the piano (you'll want to run the microphone signal from the tuba through your mixer so you and your accompanist will know what's going on). The only audio that you will be recording is the tuba. The piano performance will be MIDI. If you've heard any pop music made recently, then you know how insanely accurate a MIDI signal can sound. My friends and I use e-instruments Uptown Grand Piano with Ableton on hip-hop beats and we find it to be fully expressive and life-like. Ableton (like most other DAWs has PLENTY of options when it comes to touching up this MIDI signal.

So, after processing, you'd have two independent audio tracks. This is where the fun starts. Here are some things you can now do with ease to make your recording even better:

1) Pan the piano off to the side. Instantly, you're no longer lost in the mix. The tuba will be jumping out of the speakers.
2) EQ the parts individually to find the sound profile that fits your personal concept of what you should sound like.
3) Throw some compression on the solo part to isolate what matters most -- your "World Class Tone"

DISCLAIMER: If you plan on submitting the recording for an audition, competition, etc. don't do any of the following (unless you're a complete schmuck).

4) Warp the MIDI track and do some dubbing for rough spots.
5) Speed up the entire track (or the cadenzas, difficult passages, etc.)
6) Import your playing into Melodyne, correct anything you have a problem with, and enjoy being the greatest tuba player on planet earth. Go from tubashaman to Grand Shaman of the Tuba in hours.


I guarantee recording the piano and tuba on separate, isolated tracks will make your recordings sound exponentially more professional. I do not look at this (having a mastered, multi-track recording) as cheating. I DO want to hear the reasoning of anybody who does. Examples of cheating would be using Melodyne or whatever to make you sound like something you just ain't.

I just bought a Zoom H2 specifically to record a concert last month and am astounded by the quality of the recording.
Here's a good example of what I got from it : http://www.acidplanet.com/artist.asp?PID=1446470&t=9393" target="_blank . You can hear the soloist clearly in the beginning as he performs all alone and then the band comes in without being lost.
The performance was in a rennovated movie theatre and I was able to mount the Zoom on a mic stand and put it through one of the windows in the projector room. So the recorder is in the back of the room near the ceiling . I took a hugh guess on what settings to use and put in on "concert filter" and auto level.
Here is another good example because the entire piece was played softly but the blend of the band comes through well : http://www.acidplanet.com/artist.asp?PID=1446467&t=9393" target="_blank .
I used this to record my self practicing and it does well there also . I had to play with the levels at first to get a good recording but I finally figured it out .

*

grahamroese wrote:

eupher61 wrote:can't go wrong with an SM57, but it's far from the best.

Complete respect for the man using an SM57!!! Frequency response chart (and personal experience) puts it out of range for me as a tubist, but I would imagine it puts out an acceptable product for a eupher like yourself. I second the kick drum microphone, by the way, especially for getting a low brass sound that will complement a mix.

Actually, I play tuba. "eupher61" was a change of pace name, I got tired of "tuba" this and that, and this is a little less....normal? common? whatever, but no, I don't play euph.

I didn't say I particularly LIKE using a 57, but it's a heckuva lot better than a 58. and, the low end really isn't that bad, depending on your application. How often do you play below A=54hz ? I failed to mention the AM81, but the BG5 was sort of a precursor of it. The 81 is a much better mic, don't get me wrong.

Hi-
Thanks to Chris Olka and 'ztuba' for steering me to the small but mighty Tascam im-2 mike for iPhone & iPad. It is really an amazing device, and you can even use the free TASCAM App or the $4.99 iOS GarageBand App for even more incredible results.
It just plugs right into your Apple device, and it is good for upto 125 db, and records low voices like tubas fantastic.
If you have Apple mobile devices, this IS the way to go---a big two thumbs up!!!!!
mark

PS I found it new online for $50 plus tax---so much for so little....

Not exactly hand held in the size of H2 and look a likes but, anyone tried the Zoom R8 or R24, which are fairly small multi trackers, with the built in mics or external mics? If so, impressions?

I'd be interested to know what mics those of you using the Zoom H4n prefer. Right now I'm using an ART M-Three with it and getting "alright" results. As mentioned before the phantom power of the Zoom is not the best, and I'm not sure if this particular microphone would be a shining example either (it's a rental; old, and quite likely abused). Though I do like the fact it has a selector between patterns: cardioid, figure 8, and omnidirectional. I also haven't really explored the Zoom and its capabilities yet - it's nothing more than an external USB soundcard to me right now.

Long & MacQuade is currently having a Summer sale and has a pair of Audio Technica 2020 mics (large diaphragm and pencil) on offer ($150 for the pair, if I remember correctly). Recording-wise I'm a rookie and I'm thinking this might be a good starting point; unless directed otherwise.

Anyone care to share some knowledge on mic positioning? Is it even an issue or concern when recording tuba and euphonium? I've been experimenting with placements around the room, but thus far haven't had a proper space to record in. I'm sure the size of the room would be a variable in recording; so taking that into account I'm wondering how close the mic would be to the bell in a small, wooden hall. Mic: level with, above, pointed at, pointed away; 1 foot away, 5 feet, 10, etc. If taking a stereo recording I would simply try to angle and aim the second "ambience" mic to capture as much of the room as possible. These are all things I am currently experimenting with and trying to find what works best for me and each room, but I would like to hear how you guys set up.

Any comments and input are very much appreciated. If I'm out to lunch on anything, it would be quite nice to find out!

Matt

Matt,

The AT 2020 is a good entry level mic and would probably serve you well, especially at that price point. I'm personally a huge fan of the 3035 but last time I looked (a few years now), they were running $200 a piece.

Thanks Chad!

I've been using a Zoom H2 recorder for awhile now, to record my practicing. While I haven't done much with the tuba on it yet, I have found that if you take the time to really work with it and learn it, you can get much better sounding recordings than you would ever expect from these devices. I recorded myself and overdubbed myself on a bass bone/tenor bone duet for some practice, and a few people (including one engineer) were shocked when I told them it was a Zoom H2.

Would I record an album with this? Of course not, but we need to think realistically when it comes to audition tapes for competitions and first rounds of auditions. If you look at Yeo's website (http://yeodoug.com/resources/symphony_a ... aud06.html" target="_blank) he talks about making a tape. He suggests using the best equipment you can "rent, buy, or borrow." However, that is a statement from it's time - using a cheap recorder back then meant inconsistent tape speeds creating pitch issues, hiss from bad mics, and distortion since the mics were not meant for brass performance. In today's world,, a simple little Zoom H2 recording in WAV will record a much better sound than the average perform sending audition tapes back in the 80's. One does not need to spend a fortune to get a reasonably accurate recording anymore.

Can you get better sound from better equipment? Of course. However, the more complicated the setup, the more time it will take to learn. And, for your average performer trying to get audition committee's to take a closer look at them and win jobs, they can better use that time in the practice room. In fact, I would argue that for the money, if a performer would devote the same amount of time to learning how to work a Zoom vs how to work pro equipment, they are likely to get better sound from a Zoom H2 (or similar device), because handhelds are designed to be easy to use right out of the box.