|
21 Jan 08 - 02:42 PM (#2241471) Subject: Digital voice recorders From: Les in Chorlton Can anyone recommend a small digital recorder on which to record songs or tunes with the option of downloading to PC? |
|
21 Jan 08 - 02:57 PM (#2241489) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: GUEST,Jon I'm not sure it's what you are looking for but over the last say 6 months, I've noticed a couple of people using a Zoom H4 for recording tunes in pub sessions. There is also a cheaper H2 I'm told they are great... but at around £200 for the H$ out of my league at the moment... |
|
21 Jan 08 - 02:59 PM (#2241491) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: Les in Chorlton Thanks, I will check that out though I was looking for cheap and cheerful at this stage Cheers les |
|
21 Jan 08 - 03:04 PM (#2241495) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: George Seto - af221@chebucto.ns.ca Depends on the quality you want. The Zoom (or the Roland/Edirol) are pretty good quality units with great A/D to convert properly. There are "voice recorders" that are strictly for note taking. If you want reliable tunes, the inexpensive note takers would probably only respond in the voice band, ie 300 Hz to 3000 Hz. If you want better, look up either the Zoom's H2 or H4 or Edirol's R-09 |
|
21 Jan 08 - 03:44 PM (#2241515) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: oggie I have an H2 and I'm well impressed. I record in either MP3 or WAV format. The latter can be loaded into Audacity to clean it up etc. Be warned however, do you really want to know how you sound? It can be a sobering experience. Steve |
|
21 Jan 08 - 03:53 PM (#2241524) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: Les in Chorlton Yes, that's true enough. I guess it would be for passing songs and tunes around or recording then learning tunes. |
|
21 Jan 08 - 04:02 PM (#2241526) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: RTim My wife bought me an H2 for my birthday, and have not really used it much yet - but seems OK with the little i have recorded.. I am struggling with Audacity (on a MAC), ie. not really sure how to use it just for a single voice (any PM'ed advice would be welcome!!), so that is holding me back a little. However, I hope to use the H2 a lot when I get more acquainted. Tim Radford |
|
21 Jan 08 - 05:02 PM (#2241571) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: Don Firth I just got a Zoom H2. Most impressed by the specifications and versatility. Lots of options as to bit and sampling rates, and it will do both WAV and MP3. It has four internal mics that can be used for 90 degree stereo, 120 degree stereo, or surround sound. I haven't been able to find out anything about the specs of the in-built mics, though (frequency response, etc.). It has a plug for an external mic, but no XLR plugs like the H4. But I've read that the more expensive H4 can be a bit noisy (pre-amps, apparently). Just got it, and I haven't really used it yet. I'm still trying to absorb the manual. It lists for $335. I got mine from Amazon for $190! Dinky screen, but lots of stuff on the menu, and what all that does is what I'm trying to dope out now. I also got a batch of other home recording equipment, including an Lexicon Omega desktop recorder (A/D converter) complete with XLR plugs, to connect to my computer, and a couple of very good condenser mics. Wanta start doing some CDs with that lash-up. The specs of the H2 look pretty good, but I don't know how high quality the sound will be. It will certainly be better than my ancient, portable, battery-operated cassette recorder. Very handy for recording song fests and practice sessions at the very least. Maybe much more. I'll have to see. Don Firth |
|
21 Jan 08 - 05:07 PM (#2241578) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: Ruth Archer Les, I have an Olympus VN 3100. Records into WAV, which can be converted to other file types. It was £60. |
|
21 Jan 08 - 05:53 PM (#2241610) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: Anglogeezer I use an OLYMPUS WS-300M See here WS-300M for similar model It works well enough for me, recording tunes in sessions etc. regards Jake |
|
21 Jan 08 - 06:03 PM (#2241616) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: Tootler I tried various cheap voice recorders - essentially digital dictation machines, I was very dissatisfied with the quality of the recordings. I found the recordings had much too much noise on them so I splashed out on an Edirol R09. It was expensive but the quality of the recordings from the built in mike was excellent. It records both WAV and MP3 (of various qualities) and takes SD memory cards so spare memory cards are readily available at reasonable cost. The R09 was what was available at the time but I see some other better quality recorders have appeared on the market which seem to be a bit cheaper so there is more choice, but on the whole, with gadgets like this you get what you pay for, IMHO. |
|
21 Jan 08 - 06:05 PM (#2241617) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: Anne Lister We have a Zoom H4, which is great (and small). Bought it from the US via eBay and somehow didn't have to pay duty on it (ssshhh). Anne |
|
21 Jan 08 - 06:10 PM (#2241621) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: PoppaGator The cheapest basic sound-recording devices are generally designed and intended for recording the speaking voice, as for dictation and phone messages, etc. Tonal fidelity, noise reduction, etc., are not at issue. Equipment capable of recording music in a satisfactory manner is a separate category. Like everything else electronic, such gear is probably getting less expensive, better, and smaller all the time ~ but it still has to be at least a little more costly than stuff intended to record the spoken word only. |
|
21 Jan 08 - 06:14 PM (#2241623) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: My guru always said Just recently I got an Olympus VN-600PC for under £20 at the local Lidl's. Fits nicely in my handbag & easy to record a verse & chorus for trying later, downloads to .wav. Good enough for what I want anyway *grin* |
|
21 Jan 08 - 06:50 PM (#2241652) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: MuddleC I sometimes use a sony minidisc. Drawbacks with some are automated recording levels.. mine is a simpler beast, what you set is what you get, but remember a torch to light the menu screen!! Drawback is sony's proprietry file format. There are some music editors programmes that 'rip' the digitised audio 'out' so to speak, or just play it 'in' to the computer in analogue form. I'm currently playing with a 'Fostex' VF digital multitracker, with also burn's straight to audio CD... but got mine on e-bay for half price! |
|
21 Jan 08 - 07:19 PM (#2241675) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: Folkiedave I have a radio programme and I and the station use Edirol RO9s. They do produce great sound - though so far I have only used them for interviews (look out for Mike Waterson - coming soon) and I download to Cool Edit Pro and edit from there. I am going to record music tomorrow for the first time on the Folk Train from Sheffield - Edale so I'll let you know. Not cheap though. |
|
21 Jan 08 - 07:25 PM (#2241679) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: GUEST,dan If you have an ipod, there are device made by griffin or belkin with a small microphone that will record straight onto it in very good quality. All of my band own one and we each record our rehearsals for reference later. They cost <£30 (but obviously you need to already own an ipod) |
|
21 Jan 08 - 09:14 PM (#2241730) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: RTim Regarding the Griffin mic for an iPod - be warned - DON'T use the Auto gain setting, as it makes the sound "Pop" as it goes from high to low gain - set one and stick to it. However, you have to reset EVERY time you remove the mic. Tim Radford |
|
21 Jan 08 - 11:58 PM (#2241775) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: M.Ted I have the Edirol RO9, which I found out about on Mudcat, by the way, and have used it a lot--the sound quality is very good, meaning that I can turn it on in a room where several people are talking at once hear each distinctly. You can record either compressed or uncompressed soundfiles on it--which some find useful. |
|
22 Jan 08 - 12:16 AM (#2241776) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: Jeremiah McCaw I have friends who have the Edirol, and the Zoom H2 and H4. In terms of value for money, the H2 wins on a runaway. Actually, 3 friends have the H2, and I lust after it myself! As for Audacity to edit the sound files - good program, but a bit of a learning curve. A friend of mine found a wonderful freeware program called 'Wavepad' which I find way easier to use than Audacity. Only half-a-meg to download. Do the installation while online and it will also download the subprograms to convert WAVs to MP3s, and a CD burner. Here's one source: http://www.tucows.com/preview/513591 |
|
22 Jan 08 - 03:36 AM (#2241807) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: Ruth Archer "The cheapest basic sound-recording devices are generally designed and intended for recording the speaking voice, as for dictation and phone messages, etc. Tonal fidelity, noise reduction, etc., are not at issue. Equipment capable of recording music in a satisfactory manner is a separate category." it all depends what you want the recordings for. What the OP requires is something to record tunes and songs for sharing and learning, and a small digital voice recorder is fine for this. If you were making recordings for eventual distribution on CD, you'd obviously want something much better. But why spend a fortune on high-spec kit that you don't really need? I'm reminded of my ex-husband who had to buy a Mac G4 at £1500, when all he ever used was Word the internet. I have used my digital voice recorder to interview people, record tunes in sessions and record singing in pubs. It's been fine for my purposes, and would be even better with a good external mic lined in. No need to spend hundreds of pounds, IMHO, for stuff like this. |
|
22 Jan 08 - 03:56 AM (#2241812) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: Les in Chorlton Thanks, Ruth and to all of you, much good advice. I think Ruth has spotted my end of the market so to speak although I have an Ipod and that option sounds interesting Cheers Les |
|
22 Jan 08 - 05:47 AM (#2241841) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: GUEST I've got an iPod, Les, and I wish I'd known about those before I bought my digital recorder! The only thing I don't know is what format the iPod one records into. Mine records into WAV, which can be converted to other file types - ideal for sharing. If you use the iPod recorder, you may only be able to share with other iPods...though I suppose you could burn onto CD. |
|
22 Jan 08 - 06:14 AM (#2241847) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: Les in Chorlton I have to say the attraction of the Ipod is the ease with which we can move between pod and PC and disc. |
|
22 Jan 08 - 06:59 AM (#2241864) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: oggie To move files from the Zoom I just take the card out, put it in the card-reader slot on the PC and copy across. You can plug the whole unit up via USB (lead provided)but I never bother. Another useful accessory with the Zoom is a microphone barrel. Screw it into the base of the Zoom and you can then mount it in a mike stand (I use a Shure 58 holder) and eliminate table noise etc. Steve |
|
22 Jan 08 - 11:33 AM (#2242023) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: Anne Lister We mounted my Zoom H4 on a baby tripod (from the pound shop, so guess how much that cost!) and it eliminated the table noise just fine. Anne |
|
22 Jan 08 - 11:55 AM (#2242038) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: Don Firth Actually, with the Zooms, you don't even have to take the card out. They can be connected to a computer with a USB port (USB cable comes with the unit) and the computer regards it as a USB disk drive. Just drag-and-drop or copy stuff back and forth the same as you would with a disk drive or flash drive. Duck soup! Or. You can connect either Zoom with a computer's USB port and use it as an A/D interface. But you do need software like Audacity or some such installed on the computer to use it that way. Also, the H2 comes with a small stand you can screw onto the bottom and it sits there looking like a microphone. Don Firth |
|
22 Jan 08 - 11:57 AM (#2242040) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: Grab I'm happy with my iRiver. Can't remember the type number exactly, but it's the old vaguely-triangular one - T10 IIRC. Not hi-fi recording, and the mic is optimised for voice recording so it distorts on higher volumes, but it's generally an OK bit of kit for the price (which was around £30-40 a couple of years back). Also crucially it takes a separate AAA battery, unlike most modern ones which have built-in batteries. You can probably find them dirt-cheap on eBay now. Graham. |
|
22 Jan 08 - 01:05 PM (#2242104) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: Mr Red I have used a Muro MP3 for several years, and it records in WAV - the line-in is good but the in-built microphone is strictly for grabbing the tune & words - it is small so I carry it at all times and it has grabbed a couple of songs not seen elsewhere. FWIW I used a camcorder for one very special song. I had it on tape but Joe Latter turned-up at Bromyard and as he is getting on in years I grabbed a video of him singing. Quality is better but cars driving-off don't help. |
|
21 Nov 08 - 05:50 PM (#2499639) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: Joe Offer Well, the industry has had almost a year to improve since this thread was last active. There's a Sony ICDUX70 Digital Voice Recorder (with MP3 Stereo Recording and Playback) that has been singing its siren song to me, but I'm concerned about sound quality because I want it mostly for music - particularly to help me learn my parts for choir. Anybody familier with this model? Can anybody recommend anything better? -Joe- |
|
21 Nov 08 - 06:03 PM (#2499646) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: Jeri I bought a Zoom H2 after reading this thread and checking out the specs. I LOVE it! It can record some serious quality sound, 190° or 360°, convert the format to MP3 and easily transfers the files to computer. If I had a link to Amazon handy, I'd post it. (Would be nice to do a 'through Mudcat' link.) |
|
21 Nov 08 - 07:34 PM (#2499681) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: Joe Offer That's exactly what I'm looking for, Jeri. I put it on my Amazon Wish List, and I hope my extravagantly generous son sees it. I was very impressed with the Edirol R-09 I saw last night, but it's $285 at Amazon. The Zoom H2 is $167.20, which is still more than I was hoping to pay - but it looks a whole lot better then the Sony and Olympus DVR/voice recorders I saw at Fry's for $80. The Zoom H4 looks good, too - but it's a lot more expensive. I wish I know how to make a Mudcat link to this: Portable Recorders - these will make you drool. If any of you succumb to temptation and order one, consider ordering through amazon.mudcat.org. -Joe- Zoom gives very detailed product specs here (click) |
|
21 Nov 08 - 09:24 PM (#2499734) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: IvanB I've got both an Olympus WS-331M and an Edirol R-01. I love the Olympus for its small size and, using either Stereo XQ or HQ modes, the sound quality is perfectly fine for my main use for it: learning tunes of new songs I've heard at song circles. I'm not fond of the fact it records in WMA format, but any Windows user is likely to have Media Player on his/her computer. I wouldn't use the Olympus for making a CD or the like, but then I have the Edirol if I ever have such aspirations. |
|
21 Nov 08 - 10:26 PM (#2499766) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: Zhenya I bought the Zoom H2 last spring, and I'm happy with it. Here's a review site I found very helpful when I was deciding what to get. The first link is just for the Zoom H2, and the second has a comparison list of recorders. Click on any individual item to find a detailed review. Zoom H2 review Portable recorder comparison chart |
|
22 Nov 08 - 12:33 AM (#2499812) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: Tangledwood I'll give the Zoom H2 a tick also although I haven't tried anything else as a comparison. Only used it to record some sessions outdoors so far but happy with the performance and the only recording problem was my own fault - mic on high gain too close to a guitar. The H2 comes with a set of bud headphones but has no internal speaker. I think that's normal for this style of recorder. I found a cheap set of battery powered speakers intended for iPod useful to give an instant playback that everybody could hear. Selecting that unit was based on reports from this and other forums, and price. Mal |
|
22 Nov 08 - 12:38 AM (#2499814) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: Nick Moi, je ne regrette rien Still very happy with my H2 and have used it loads of times since buying it. Mudcat and the world is littered with links to things I've recorded with it but if you want any examples Joe I'd be happy to point you to some. I was at a session last night and recorded a bit there; I record songs in the car at lunchtime at work; several gigs etc etc |
|
22 Nov 08 - 12:41 AM (#2499816) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: GUEST,astro Desert Dancer and I bought the zoom H2, after considering many. We like it because it is less than $200, has many accessories such as AC adapter, windscreen, little tripod stand, mic stand adapter, headphones, and it runs on AA batteries. You need to replace them after a two or three hour session. It transfers very nicely to Wav or MP3 files on your computer and works well...We just love it.... Astro and Desert Dancer in Tucson....down the state from where we sent John McCain... |
|
30 Jul 10 - 07:18 AM (#2955065) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: GUEST As for me,for record audio I use Macvide Audio Recorder http://macvide.com/Macvide_Audio_Recorder/ |
|
30 Jul 10 - 10:45 AM (#2955156) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: Hamish Two years on... is it still the H2 that's getting the Mudcat thumbs-up? |
|
30 Jul 10 - 11:40 AM (#2955184) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: RamblinStu As a result of this thread I brought an H2, and it is great. It records in good quality, and it is simple to download. Stuart Pendrill |
|
30 Jul 10 - 01:03 PM (#2955229) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: Nick I have it on my desktop and have used it often. Record practices, gigs and all sorts of things. Still very happy with it. Even record in the car. One of the best purchases I've made music wise. I'm sure many others are equally good but it works fine for me. I recorded Treewind playing at Kirkby Fleetham some years back (he knows and has copies of the tunes and songs) and the quality was reasonable given it was across a hall full of people). |
|
30 Jul 10 - 01:13 PM (#2955240) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: treewind The H2 is the cheapest of the good ones - below that you are into voice recorder territory (definite compromise on sound quality) and above that you are paying more for features you don't need. |
|
30 Jul 10 - 02:41 PM (#2955296) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: autoharpbob Anyone any experience with the Zoom Q3? Looks just like the H2, but with a built in camera as well. Seems to be aiming for the YouTube market, but with decent built in sound and no need for rifle mic. |
|
30 Jul 10 - 03:42 PM (#2955324) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: Phil Edwards A Zoom H2 recorded this lot, which I think have come out fairly well (in terms of recording quality!). |
|
17 Aug 10 - 06:49 AM (#2966998) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: GUEST Hi for record audio the best soft it's Macvide Audio Recorder.http://macvide.com/Macvide_Audio_Recorder/ |
|
17 Aug 10 - 08:08 AM (#2967032) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: Les in Chorlton Quality on the H2 is amazing for its size & cost. I find the screen and moving around the 'options' a bit tricky. A bigger screen would make such a difference L in C# |
|
17 Aug 10 - 08:49 AM (#2967054) Subject: RE: Digital voice recorders From: mattkeen If the quality of the mics and pre amps are important to you - and they probably should be if you are recording music - then the Olympus LS10 or 11 are noticeably better. But its dearer than the Zoom's - and as has already been said, they are very capable |