Hello all,

Can anybody recommend any reasonably well priced, good quality and user-friendly recording devices for the purposes of recording myself playing church organs please? Of course, said device needs to be able to take reasonable levels without distortion and capture bass and the general sound-world pretty well.

A friend of mine has the Zoom H2n, which is excellent (and have borrowed it a fair few times for my own use), if not a bit pricey. I'm also aware of the Tascam DR-05 - seems better priced.

Any comments/suggestions from experience or knowledge would be really valuable. I'm looking to make a purchase pretty soon.

Thanks in advance,
Tosher

Our trusty Edirol works well, and can produce excellent sound quality in the right building, and if correctly positioned. However, this is sometimes easier said than done!

The Edirol is 'only' a stereo device, and so doesn't always record organ well; often capturing a rather 'dry' or 'dead' acoustic, even in a very large church where there is plenty of natural reverberation. It is of course possible to add electronic reverberation, but this usually sounds false. Oddly enough, the Edirol seems to capture the sound of electronic organs much better than it does pipe organs.

Unfortunately this is all rather academic now as the Edirol was rather expensive (I think we paid about ?250 three years ago), and is now discontinued.

What is needed is a third or fourth recording channel to capture sound reflected from the back of the building (and the congregation / audience if there is one). I believe this facility is provided by the Zoom H2n.

I have never used the Zoom device, but from the recordings I have heard it works well, and the price seems reasonable.

SB

The Zoom series of digital recorders are at the low-end price-wise. If you think it is "pricey" then you would faint at the prices of professional recording equipment.

I've got a Zoom H4, and the quality of the recordings are very good for the price. Again, I would say it is cheap at around ?200, and if you're thinking thats 'pricey' I think you might have a nasty shock at the quality of the products you get.

It's also worth bearing in mind, the organ is one of the hardest instruments to record with the massive dynamic varience, and range of frequencies a recorder has to pick up (think how many pipes are speaking in the middle of, say, the Widor, at any one time!)

I can post some clips from the H4 if you want a listen to what it can do

I bought a Rhode NT4 stereo microphone for closeup work, and that cost more rather more than the Edirol. It was well worth it though.

Quality rarely comes cheap, but it can be very expensive, and frustrating to buy 'cheap' equipment that isn't up to the job.

SB

Seconded! I also have an Edirol recorder (R-09HR to be precise), and am more than impressed with the sound quality

Yes; the Edirol R-09HR is a superb machine. As I mentioned above, the only limitation is that [like any two channel device] it struggles to capture the full acoustic in most large church building using just two microphones. It records the music perfectly, but the lack of reverberation is noticeable whenever the music stops! Dynamic range is more than adequate for any organ, (and better than CD on most settings).

The best results I have had so far were at Hexham Abbey, where the organ is situated high up above the screen in the centre of the church. I was asked to record a recital by a visiting organist, and standing the Edirol upright on a hymn book (NEH!) on the nave altar, and using only the inbuilt microphones it captured the acoustic perfectly.

Unfortunately the organist was unable to give me a 'level' before the recital, so I played safe and set it low. In the event the level meter barely moved throughout, but the results were still of very good quality.

It also works well at our son's tutor's church, where they have a large Copeman Hart instrument; but I just cannot get results than I am happy with at our own parish shurch, which has a conventional pipe organ in the conventional Anglican localtion (i.e. hidden away in a chamber adjoining the quire).

I have often toyed with the idea of buying or building a small mixing deck so I can add a third or fourth microphone to capture sound reflected from the back of the building, but I think I might borrow one of the Zoom machines first. What I don't know is whether the Zoom will allow you to connect a pair of external microphones for the front channels, and to use the inbuilt microphones for the rear?

SB

I haven't tried 4 channel recording with my H2 but the manual does specifically say that if an external mic is plugged in, the internal mics are disabled and 4 channel is not available.

The H2 creates 2 separate files for front and rear and these can be combined into a single stereo file on the H2 itself using a "3D panning" function to adjust front/rear and left/right balance.

Do you know whether it is possible to plug three or four microphones into the H2 at the same time (i.e. two stereo pairs), or will it only accept one stereo microphone?

I think Audacity (which is free) also allows mixing of separate sound files. I can imagine it would be entertaining trying to synchronise two sound files together, although I suppose delaying the rear channel(s) would provide a reverb effect of sorts!

One thing I should mention (for the benefit of the OP) is that bass response of the Edirol is excellent, and it has no difficulty recording 32' pedal notes. I would expect the H2 to be similar, as most of these devices use common chip sets.

SB

Thank you for the comments, folks, which have been most helpful. I am pursuing the purchase of my own Zoom H2n.

Tosher

It will only take one (mono or stereo).

Entertaining yes. To be honest I wouldn't know how to go about incorporating the rear channels into a stereo mix. I'm a bit surprised you have problems getting adequate ambience with a simple stereo pair (as often used by one of my favourite labels BIS - fair enough they are using Neumann mics not an H2 or Edirol).

A simple 'crossed pair' using two cardioid microphones arranged at 90 degrees is very effective in many recording situations, and closely replicates the way that our ears hear sound. Contrary to popular misconception, you don't always need expensive microphones to make a reasonable recording, and modern capacitive microphones capture a much wider frequency range than comparable moving coil types. However, it all depends on what you are recording, as some sounds demand specialist equipment for best results.

Cardioid microphones are highly directional, and exhibit maximum sensitivity within a forward angle of around 90 degrees.* By using a crossed pair you can capture a stereo sound field of up to about 120 degrees, which with correct positioning is ideal for an orchestra or choir, or indeed a large pipe organ (I am thinking of concert hall sized instrument here). However, it is less suitable for recording a smaller organ, shoehorned into chamber behind the choir stalls in a typical Anglican parish church! (Tosher will know the church I am referring to.)

The problem here is that any organ enclosed in a chamber will create a narrow sound field, so a crossed pair would need to be located very close to the organ to record a convincing stereo sound. The sound pressure levels in close proximity to the organ will be very high, so sensitivity will need to be reduced accordingly. However, this means that any sound reflected from distant walls is also attenuated; usually to the point that it is inaudible!

The obvious alternative is to place the microphones further away from the organ. Capture of 'ambience' is improved, but the sound field effectively becomes monaural, and may sound as if the microphone was placed in a drain pipe!

These are my own observations gathered over many years of playing with various recording machines from reel-to-reel onwards. But like everyone else here I am still learning, so if any professional recording engineers are passing through I would be keen to learn more!

SB


* Cardioid: a heart-shaped curve generated by a fixed point on a circle as it rolls around another fixed circle of equal radius, a heart-shaped curve generated by a fixed point on a circle as it rolls around another fixed circle of equal radius.

Oo oo ooo don't want to tread on any pedallers' toes by hijacking the thread but Him Indoors is looking for recommendations for recording his choir and maybe my orchestra - I know that this will involve a rather different sound palette from that of the organ, but if anyone could advise whether he would be better off going with a couple of hundred of pounds worth of mic attached to a laptop OR a couple of hundred pounds worth of digital recorder (eg roland, zoom, tascam, yamaha) with built in mics (with possibility to upgrade the mics later?) we'd be very keen to know! Meanwhile I will pass on info already gleaned from this thread to him!

ps the choirs are sometimes accompanied by organ - does that count? ;-) If I tell you we have just sung the Vierne Messe Solenelle would you forgive me for trespassing here?

Please invite me if you do the Vierne again

The Vierne is just wonderful. We sang it on the last Sunday before Lent, in an atmosphere thick with incense. The already impressive climax at the end of the Kyrie was accompanied by a Metro train passing under the church at just the right moment. We couldn't hear the train, but the slight rumble made it feel as if a 64' had been drawn on the organ.

Anyhow, in answer to your question, I would feel much happier using a stand alone recording device such as the Edirol or H2 rather than a laptop for all sorts of reasons.

Firstly the cost is similar. Secondly you have to think about power supplies, and whether the laptop will go into hibernate at a crucial moment! Besides, the laptop might pick up an unsecured WiFi signal from somewhere, Adobe will update itself, and the laptop will automatically reboot. (This has actually happened to me whilst giving a Power Point presentation!)

Most importantly, I value sound quality, and the various devices in a laptop (WiFi, 3G, cooling fans, and screen inverters can all cause interference. A pair of AA batteries provides a much cleaner and more predictable power supply!

Regarding the choir, a device like the Edirol or H2 should be ideal as long as it is correctly positioned. Think of the choir and microphones forming a triangle, with the microphones at the apex and you will see what I mean. Ideally, place the microphones (or recording device) in a small but sturdy table or stand at waist height or above, away form large surfaces which may affect the sound.

If an organ or piano is involved it would be best to arrange the choir and recording device so that the choir and instrument fall within the sound field. However, this may provide difficult in some churches, so you would either need to experiment or employ additional microphones as discussed above.

SB

It was quite a busy period for me around Easter with family stuff church stuff other musical stuff - I really should have mentioned it here though!
We did 4 Bruckner motets (the usual - locus iste, os justi, ave maria and christus factus est), 2 Vierne (Ave maria and Tantum Ergo - the latter was when I discovered that my 9yr old is a "swayer" - hope it didn't put anyone off) plus the Messe. 9 yr old kept wanting me to write out the bass to the Kyrie and Sanctus for him to play on the cello (kyrie was the only thing that would make him want to stay awake in choir practice) but they're really not in good keys for a grade 1 player and I haven't got around to transposing them yet. Agnus Dei is my favourite part of the Vierne, although why he couldn't have just put it down a semitone I don't know.




Thank you, this is very helpful!

I'm begining to wonder about investing in a setup similiar to what I used for A-Level music technology:

2 x Behringer C2 microphones (Sold in pairs for around ?50) , a phantom power supply and then connected directly to a computer line in. If the sound field needs beefing up a bit, possibly adding a C1 into the mix

That looks like an interesting and reasonably priced set up.

I believe there are small mixing decks available that provide phantom power, and would be more than adequate for the simple mixing our purposes require. Phantom power is 48 volts or thereabouts, but at very low current, so it would be possible to use (say) five 9 volt batteries in series if building a mixer. The Rhode NT4 that I use has its own battery built in, which makes things easier.

Some of these mixing decks also provide digital outputs, which can be fed straight in to a PC via USB, but I don't know good their D/A converters are.

I think some experimentation is required. Perhaps we should all report back form time to time with what we have learned?

SB

We are singing the Vierne on Sunday (27th May) if anyone is interested.

SB

Update on recording gear:

on my soundcloud account are recordings made in a concert with my new gear. I'm running 2x Behringer C2, a mixing desk connected to a computer via linein and the headphone socket on both desk and computer before using audacity. Total cost around ?130

soundcloud.com/daveballard1989

We spent all afternoon listening to sound samples and have just ordered the Sony PCM-10 for just under ?200.