Wife took my Zoom 2 recorder

The wife said if I would give her my ZOOM 2 she would let me upgrade to something better.

So after much consideration, and still staying within reasonable budget restraints, I ordered a KORG MR1 yesterday. It has shipped from NJ and I should have it next Tuesday, Jan 13.

For reference, I posted an earlier thread here:
http://forum.hauptwerk.com/viewtopic.php?t=3417

Product info is here:
http://korg.com/Product.aspx?pd=284

I'll try to get some head to head recordings -

KORG @ DSDIFF 1-bit/2.8 MHz - V.S. - ZOOM @ WAV 24-bit/96KHz
both with the same setup: R0DE NT1A mics and Presonus pre-amp to Line-In.

Then I'll downgrade each recording to 24-bit/48KHz and 16-bit/44.1KHz and post them here for comparison purposes.

Anyone interested?

Looks like a nice bit of kit. I have the Zoom H-4. I'd be interested to know how you find it.

I'm interested.

Lawrence

I know a radio sound engineer (in Australia) who uses a Zoom H2 to make backup recordings of classical concerts, for potential broadcast use - it's really quite good!

Paul

I'm interested, too. Switched recently from minidisc to Zoom H4.

I know a radio sound engineer (in Australia) who uses a Zoom H2 to make backup recordings of classical concerts, for potential broadcast use - it's really quite good!

Hi!

I have used the H2 to make recordings that friends say are brilliant . . . and often under difficult circumstances.

I'm wondering if it's a quick and easy way to take organ samples?

Best wishes

David P

Certainly not with the internal mics.

Also max resolution is 24-bit/96KHz, which is why I'm eager to upgrade to the Korg.

On what basis do you think that the Korg's DSD is superior in "resolution" - whatever that means - to 24/96 PCM (this is not a question about other aspects of the devices' performance)? And in what sense is 24/96 inadequate?

DSD is a significantly flawed system, which was invented and promoted for reasons which, although worthwhile, were not to do with ultimate fidelity (it is somewhat more robust under some types of corruption).

Paul

After reading this white paper:
http://www.americanmusical.com/ItemFile ... _Proof.pdf

And numerous reviews such as:
http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/2007/08 ... order.html
http://www.wingfieldaudio.com/korg-mr-1-review.html

I decided to give it a try. Whether the hype about 1-bit recording is true or not, I can't say but since it's the standard source for SACD format audio recordings I figured it's worth $400 to find out for myself. If I really like it then I may step up to the M-1000 which is capable of 1-bit / 5.6MHz.

The only gripes about the Korg MR1 have to do with short battery life; and the fact that it uses an internal hard drive so you have to treat it gently.

I rarely need to record where I won't have power for the AC adapter and the alternative would be setting up a notebook with a high end firewire audio interface such as the Echo Firewire 4.

I always carry my gear in a foam lined flight case anyway.

Meanwhile I justified my choice with some other factors:

1) General quality and reputation of the ZOOM brand v.s. the KORG brand

2) Ability of the Korg to record in 24-bit / 192KHz PCM whereas the Zoom2 is "only" capable of 24-bit / 96KHz

Hi Paul,

Re-reading your post and mine, I decided I didn't really answer your direct question, "On what basis do you think that the Korg's DSD is superior in "resolution" - whatever that means - to 24/96 PCM (this is not a question about other aspects of the devices' performance)? And in what sense is 24/96 inadequate?"

The answer is 'I don't know'. I'm certainly not an expert and I'm trying not to pretend to be one. I'm just taking what Korg tells me in faith - at least enough to risk $400. Call it an experiment.

These images comparing original square waves with recorded output at various bit resolutions and sample rates caught my attention though.

24-bit / 96KHz :


24-bit / 192KHz :


1-bit / 5.6MHz :


Hype? I don't know.

Of course, everything has to be "dumbed-down" to 24/48 for final release anyway.

It's here! Yeah!

I'm trying to line up a local organist (who I've recorded playing at Zion in the past) let me record him. This time on his organ; the Pasi Opus 11 at St. Augustine's Spokane.

I'll make some head to head recordings with the new Korg and the old Zoom.

I'll set up (2) R0DE NT1A mics over the glass rail - right behind the tracker console.



Cross your fingers that he says yes!

These images comparing original square waves with recorded output at various bit resolutions and sample rates caught my attention though.

I know there are other factors, and the MR-1 looks interesting for a number of other reasons ...

However, unless your dog happens to be in the room, no one will hear the 2nd harmonic of that 20Khz square wave, much less anything higher order, even if your sound system can reproduce it accurately (which is another question entirely). Or if the microphone being used to record is a typical real microphone.

Looks impressive on a scope, but what you see isn't what you can possibly hear, especially all those very high order harmonics reflected in the better waveform for the 1-bit/5.6M rate.

I think what it really boils down to is how it translates down to 24/48. That's what I'm really looking to find out in this experiment. Will the Korg 1-bit/2.8MHZ recording convert down clearer/cleaner/etc. than the Zoom 24-bit/96KHz recording?

And then, like you say, will I even be able to hear the difference? I don't have the best reproduction gear to be sure. A couple pair of headphones; Sony MDR-V600, Sennheiser HD280 Pro; and my Behringer Truth B2031A / B2092A setup.

That's why I want to post the results here and see what others think. Perhaps some folks with better gear than I have will take a listen and comment.

I also want record a real pipe organ, up close and personal, capturing the tracker, the action, every little detail. That's why I think the Pasi would be a good choice.

Just a bump to let everyone know, I haven't had a chance do any recording with the Korg unit, yet.

If nothing else, I get some recordings at Zion of the new 2-manual Skinner organ.

Firstly, on the graphs that Paul presented: the input square in each scenario has a fundamental of 40kHz! Most "traditional" high-resolution-ADC audio recording equipment will start rolling off high frequencies at about 24kHz to prevent aliasing (which is a terrible artefact). This is why the graphs produce a sinusoidal output below 96kHz sample rates and why a second harmonic is visible at 192kHz. Can a human hear 40kHz? Not a chance - so those graphs don't really give you a picture of the real situation. We realistically would need to see inputs of between 100 and 10000Hz to be able to make any judgements on quality.

I've read some articles on this technology and I would be willing to state that most of it is hype. It claims to reduce that amount of filtering needed to process, but that simply doesn't make sense from a mathematical perspected... I am sure that I've read before that 1 bit recording also generates more high-frequency noise that traditional ADC's - I will search around for the article that I read and post it (but you can clearly see it in Paul's picture as well for the 1-bit example... that is certainly not a signal).

All I can do is present some numbers:
A 24-bit ADC sampling at 192000 gives an effective bit rate of 4.608 million bits per second.
A 1-bit ADC sampling at 2.8 samples/second gives an effective bit rate of 2.8 million bits per second.

I certainly know which one I would pick.