I have a Zoom H5 and it works well and sounds good. My use is recording live bands, with the "mic" inputs getting the line feed from the house mixer and the onboard stereo mic capturing either the whole room sound or up close capturing the stage sound. Recording at 48kHz is really quite good. I would think that 96kHz would be more than adequate and 192kHz would be overkill.

While many portable recorders can be used as interfaces, there are often compromises made. An actual dedicated interface will probably be easier to use.

The 32 bit float option is not a big plus if you can properly set the gain on a recorder. I've used the H6 a lot for recording bigbands. It's simple to operate and gives a pretty decent result if you hook up some external mics. However I found my Roland R26 has better inbuild mics.

Thanks for the responses!

I guess I was wanting the higher sample rates for better sound quality and more editing flexibility, but I'm not really sure how much of a difference it would make in these areas.

I'm pretty new to this stuff, but I thought I read somewhere that higher sample rates are better for editing operations like stretching, e.g. making a note 2x or 3x as long. I don't know how much better 192 might be than 96 or 48 for stuff like this, though.

From my experience, with a dash of opinion added....

The Zoom H5 and H6 mic preamps are going to be noisier than your other listed options. That may not be an important consideration for louder bands, but jazz combo recordings will definitely benefit from low noise preamps. The Zoom F4 and F6 win the price per channel contest. The Sound Devices MixPre wins the s/n, nicer sounding preamps and better headphone monitoring.

For your budget, I would suggest Line Audio mics. A Pair of omnis (OM1) if you are going to be recording in nice rooms, or a pair of cardioids (CM4) for more control over room reflections. If you can swing it to get a pair of each you will be set for most situations.

I would suggest moving to a Sound Devices MP-6, if your budget can stretch (or you may consider buying used). The lower channel count of the MP-3 will become a limitation at some point.

Thanks for the input!

Where would you buy the line audio mics? I don't see them on the sites I normally check.

I've got a pair of Cm4 and Om1 . They are small sized, but great mics! Bought them at www.nohypeaudio.com
If you want a affordable , more directional mic, you could get some Oktava Mk012 mics.

Interesting - some new options to consider. thanks. How would you compare these to say the Rhode NT5s in terms of sound quality?

i think i may try these cm4s. they seem like a great value. i don't see an option for matches pairs, though. I'll mainly be doing stereo recordings. Is it important to get a matched pair?

dave111, post: 463039, member: 51809 wrote: i think i may try these cm4s. they seem like a great value. i don't see an option for matches pairs, though. I'll mainly be doing stereo recordings. Is it important to get a matched pair?

A matched pair can be an indicator of tight tolerance manufacturing and quality control.

I dont think its necessary to have. Stereo sources aren't the same on both sides, if they were it would be mono. Its the differences that we perceive as stereo.

Im not familiar with the cm4 but generally using two of the same model gets the job done adequately for stereo recording and wont have gross discrepancies in pickup and tone. If there are noticeable differences, use them to your favor so things are balanced.

kmetal, post: 463040, member: 37533 wrote: Stereo sources aren't the same on both sides, if they were it would be mono. Its the differences that we perceive as stereo.

But you want any difference in the signal to represent real acoustic difference rather than difference in the response of the mics.

You can get quite interesting results by taking two identical microphones and pointing them at a single loudspeaker, and then running a 20-20K sweep tome through it and viewing the result on a stereoscope. Little differences that pull the line left or right as the sweep goes through. I can see the differences in sensitivity of each 'identical' one, because my favourites are close but not identical - however listening in the room, by recording and replaying through speakers or headphones gives me no sense of image shift at all. Experimenting it's quite odd how far you have to move a pan control from centre before you can hear the difference, and then only when you pan quickly - if you gently move the pan one way or the other you just don't notice.

Genuine stereo relies on having strict phase coherence between the left and right signals, maintained over the frequency range.. This can really only be achieved by using nominally identical types of microphone for the capture of the L and R acoustic sound fields.

That's not to say that you must never use different microphones on the same sound source. When setting mics on a guitar cabinet, for example, I often deliberately use different microphones to capture different tones and also to create an effect at the mix. Two dissimilar microphones on one sound source create a "dual mono" pair of signals, as opposed to "stereo".

A separate set of circumstances arises when using Mid-Side recording (M-S). The S microphone is usually a velocity-sensitive type such as a Fig-8 ribbon, but dual opposed pressure-sensitive condenser types can be used. For the M microphone, it's important to use the same technology as the S microphone (ribbon for both or condenser for both), otherwise there will be an un-correctable 90 degree phase difference between M and S that wrecks the translation from M-S to L-R. Although standard M-S uses cardioid and Fig-8 patterns for M and S respectively, the identical pattern rule does not apply here, as is is largely taken care of in the matrix translation to L-R. Note that the M-S Blumlein configuration that uses Fig-8 mics for both M and S naturally obeys the rule, which may account for its superior results when used with very wide sound sources such as a full orchestra with choir.

Is there a defined set of specs/tolerences that would identify mics being stereo capable vs dual mono? ie +/- 2 db in frequency response, a sensitivity tolerance ect?

Its interesting that alot of whats generally referred to as stereo mic'ing day day to day technically isn't. I wonder if the same rule applies for surround? Lol a matched penta-set?

A pair of mics of the same model can always be set up to give a stereo image, even if there are significant differences in their response curves. It then comes down to how good or realistic the image is.

I use the term "dual mono" when two channels carry intentionally different signals, such as in the example of two mics set up on a guitar cabinet at different distances from the cone.

Thanks for info - I ended up ordering 2 CM4s from line audio. I think they will be close enough for stereo recordings. Excited to see how they sound!

I also picked up the zoom H6 to use for an easy portable solution. Still trying to decide on a real interface. I think I may skip the portable recorders and just go for a laptop + interface + mics setup for more serious projects. I think I may end up going with the apogee element or something similar.

I need to have some work done on my piano and also put up some foam or something in the room to absorb some sound before I can record my piano, though - it's sounding too bright and harsh at the moment. Recently moved.

dave111, post: 463117, member: 51809 wrote: Thanks for info - I ended up ordering 2 CM4s from line audio. I think they will be close enough for stereo recordings. Excited to see how they sound!

I also picked up the zoom H6 to use for an easy portable solution. Still trying to decide on a real interface. I think I may skip the portable recorders and just go for a laptop + interface + mics setup for more serious projects. I think I may end up going with the apogee element or something similar.

I need to have some work done on my piano and also put up some foam or something in the room to absorb some sound before I can record my piano, though - it's sounding too bright and harsh at the moment. Recently moved.

Congrats on your purchase!

Your much better off with rigid fiberglass or rockwool panels than foam. Foam only really grabs mids and highs, leaving the room boxy sounding most often. 4" thick rockboard 40 or Owen Corning 703 are standard material for absorption panels.

The Zoom H6 is a nice, easy to use recorder. I 've got 4 of these and sometimes use them for a quick set up, recording bands on location. Though I prefer my 3x Zoom f8n for this:

that's a nice triple zoom! i'm mostly going to be recording when i'm also playing so i like the idea of a simple and easy solution.

i need to research the sound absorption stuff more. thanks for the tips. somebody gave me some foam squares, so i figured i will throw them up and see what happens. where would u purchase sound absorption stuff from - is that like a home depot thing or do you need to order from a sound place?

dave111, post: 463168, member: 51809 wrote: that's a nice triple zoom! i'm mostly going to be recording when i'm also playing so i like the idea of a simple and easy solution.

i need to research the sound absorption stuff more. thanks for the tips. somebody gave me some foam squares, so i figured i will throw them up and see what happens. where would u purchase sound absorption stuff from - is that like a home depot thing or do you need to order from a sound place?

The better option to foam is rigid fiberglass. Reason being foam only is effective for the mid and high frequencies in the room. This leaves an abundance of low mids and bass hanging around.

Rigid fiberglass attacks highs down to upper bass frequencies. Leaving just the bass to handle.

Owen Corning 703, and Rockboard 40 are two of the most useful rigid panels. 4" thickness is good, 8" is excellent, 2" minimum.

These are covered in a cloth like burlap thats easy to breath through if you put it against your mouth. Often the panelsnels are in a basic wooden frame and hung like a picture. They can be pre made or DIY.

The most important thing is trapping bass. Bass lingers around the room too long, and can be very un-even throughout the room. So a kick drum can be too loud in one spot and disappear in another. Bass trapping is critical.

A great diy bass trap is a closet stuffed with loosesly pack fluffy fiberglass (the pink stuff) you'd see in your attic or walls. An additional option is to stack triangles or squares of rigid fiberglass in the 4 cornes of the room, floor to ceiling. Combined with a stuffed closet, that would be a good start.

Bass response is the number 1 thing to get right. Mids and highs are fairly easy to treat.

There are other styles of bass traps that focus more narrowly on certain frequencies, and work in conjunction with the "broadband" traps and panels i mentioned.

Your expectations, room dimensions, and budget, all determine the best treatment options.

Foam won't get the job done satisfactorily. GIK acoustics, and ATS acoustics are good places to start digging, for both diy and pre made panels.

i've considered the gik room kits before. maybe it's time to do it. cheapest one is this i think. would that be good?

https://www.gikacoustics.com/product/gik-acoustics-room-kit-package-1/

Its a starting point, generally you'd start with what amounts to 2x of those kits. And that's the best starting point. The ceiling would generally get 3 of those panels above the mix position.

Things you can do to make that kit work harder:

Mount the panels 2"-4" from the walls and ceiling. The airgap between wall and panel improves its low frequency absorption.

Stuff the cavity behind the corner traps with regular fiberglass. You can cover it with a thin plastic to contain fibers.

Mount the corner traps starting from the ceiling. Bass builds up most in the corners between the 2 walls and ceiling. The "trihedral" corners.

There's about a 40-50% markup on pre made vs DIY, but they both work.