Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Help me choose please! Classical guitar set-up..

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 1:56:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Last month I was able to get some great advice from you folks on
setting up a simple home recording set-up for classical guitar. I have
come up with several options which I would like to throw out to you for
consideration. But first...

Goals: Simple and quality home recording of classical guitar (solo).
Computer not used as a recorder but can be used for editing and burning
to CDs. As such, the recorder can be HD or flashcard and doesn't really
need any effects since I can add reverb in editing on the computer.

Recording environment: Typical new home style carpeted room with stucco
walls.

Budget: $1000 (can stretch upwards another $200 if it makes a big
difference)

Option 1:

TASCAM DP01FX (using it's own phantom power) - $500
Pair of condensor mics - $500 (best I can get for the money)

Option 2:

Fostex MR-8 - $300
Preamp - FMR RNP $500
Pair of consensor mics - $300-$400 (best I can get for the money)
or
cheaper preamp and more money towards mics

Option 3:

Edirol R-1 - $450
External self powered stereo condensor mic - $500-$600
or
$500-$600 between mics and preamp

Other Options?

OK..those are the options I came up with. Again keeping in mind that I
am trying to keep it simple and yet get decent results.

Would really appreciate your input!
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 11:46:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1110826606.113363.137950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> PhiloMertz@gmail.com writes:

>
> Goals: Simple and quality home recording of classical guitar (solo).
> Computer not used as a recorder but can be used for editing and burning
> to CDs. As such, the recorder can be HD or flashcard and doesn't really
> need any effects since I can add reverb in editing on the computer.

> Budget: $1000 (can stretch upwards another $200 if it makes a big
> difference)
>
> Option 1:
>
> TASCAM DP01FX (using it's own phantom power) - $500
> Pair of condensor mics - $500 (best I can get for the money)

I'd go with that one for simplicity and that you can spend a
reasonable amount of money on mics right off. After you sell your
first few hundred CDs, you'll have enough money to start playing with
preamps.

Don't forget to fix up your room.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 12:33:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

IS,

Thanks for the advice! Yea, I have heard good things about the Octavas
but I would like to make sure I cover my bases and do my research. In
general, would you say the Octavas did better than the Rodes?

Regarding my screen name...yes JK Mertz is my favorite guitar composer!
"Philo" in Greek means "lover of", hence the "lover of Mertz"...I know
kinda corny!

Thanks again for the advice and if you have any other advice please
fire away.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 1:01:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Thanks again! You bring up a good point about the room acoustics.
Assuming I don't have the ability to manipulate my room settings too
much, then I assume I would want to go with mics that do better with
placing them more closely to the guitar, right? Given that, do you
still think the NT5s are the best option? Or is there another mic that
does better being closer to the instrument in order to avoid the room
dynamics?
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 1:39:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I should also mention that my main guitar that I will be recording with
is a 19th century replica. These guitars have a much stronger mid-range
and much less of the "boominess" of more modern classicals. Not to
mention very sweet trebles!
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 2:09:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>I should also mention that my main guitar that I will be recording
with
>is a 19th century replica. These guitars have a much stronger
mid-range
>and much less of the "boominess" of more modern classicals. Not to
>mention very sweet trebles!

IS has given you some good advice
the sound of your guitar is why you must try the mics.
keep it simple as mike says,

what thought have you given on how you monitor the recording?
this is how you fine tune the mic placement in getting your sound.

dale
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 2:13:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Thanks Dale. Well, I am a newbie to recording so I assume you mean in
terms of headphones? If so, then I haven't bought any yet. I also may
transfer the raw files to my iMac and do some editing on the computer.
My iMac comes with Garageband (don't know if that is any good or not)
or I might look into other software/freeware. Any advice?
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 2:48:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>I am a newbie to recording so I assume you mean in
>terms of headphones? If so, then I haven't bought any yet. I also may
>transfer the raw files to my iMac and do some editing on the computer.
>My iMac comes with Garageband

more new and important parts

as a newbie are you wanting to spend your time learninmg three new
things?
recording, your recorder and your new software?

why don't you record right to your computer?

save money from buying a recording piece
and get a better audio interface for the imac
stereo is all you need to begin

it is a recording chain and will be only as strong as your weakest link
and it can never sound any better then the source
your guitar in your room.

invest in good mics they are the translators of that sound.
buy a firewire audio interface for the imac with decent preamps

record to that....

headphones or speakers
headphones help when the mics are hot
it is generaly better to use speakers to make the final decisions

dale
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 4:30:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hello everybody,
I'm new to your group, but have spent a lot of time, effort and money
in trying to achieve a really good result in home recording of the
classical guitar. Gradually, the results have become better.
I used to use a pair of octavas, which gave a good result, although I
found them a little bass heavy. Certainly for a first mike they are
worth experimenting with, and offer the 3 different caps, which again
gives a chance to experiment. I went to a talk on Saturday given by
John Taylor, who has recorded many of the major figures in the guitar
world: he swears by a pair of small diaphram omnis, and recording in a
nice accoustic such as a church.
Personally I have gone for a pair of km184s. They give a really nice
sound, and it is worth experimenting with all figurations ab, xy and
ortf...The preamp is also very important, and recently I upgraded to a
pa1 (a tube preamp from tl audio). This is great kit... Finally the ad
converter is also important, I went for a rme ad2 which seems to do a
nice job...
Just out of interest why would you not use your computer as a recorder?
With a little tweaking they can work very well, then that would free up
some of your budget to spend on other gear?

I'd welcome any further comments on this subject...recording at home is
much more relaxed than in the studio, and if it is possible to get
professional results then it is definitely the route for me to go...
Best regards,
David Caswell
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 6:16:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>Because that is a pain in the ass for one wanting to concetrate on the
>music and the playing. Remember his earlier thread? His Mac is in a
>different room than the one in which he intends to play. If it were in
>the same room it'd nmake way too much noise to allow recording of
>classical guitar. He wants a standalone recorder that can dump to his
>Mac for editing and assembly.

now I remember other thread
you are right
(unless he runs long mic cables)
hell, he will have to engineer and play no matter which way he goes

dale
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 6:57:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

hank alrich wrote:
> dale wrote:
>
> > why don't you record right to your computer?
>
> Because that is a pain in the ass for one wanting to concetrate on
the
> music and the playing. Remember his earlier thread? His Mac is in a
> different room than the one in which he intends to play. If it were
in
> the same room it'd nmake way too much noise to allow recording of
> classical guitar. He wants a standalone recorder that can dump to his
> Mac for editing and assembly.

Exactly. My computer is in a hallway right next to my 2 year old
daughter's room. I will be recording at night and can't do it next to
her while she is sleeping.

> He has no need to listen when the mics are hot. He will likely
record,
> listen, adjust mic position, listen, and so forth until things are
set
> and he can forget about all of it except getting his own good
> performance.

Exactly again. Can you recommend good headphones (less than $100) for
this type of use? I get too confused with all the discussion about
headphones for different scenarios. Hank has it right...I just want to
record, listen, adjust, then record again. Then listen when it's all
final.
>
> Your advice is sensible for many situations, Dale, but not, I think,
for
> this case.

Yup, thanks Hank. And thanks to all for the great advice.

Finally, if I have my Tascam DP01FX and my two mics...um, what else
exactly do I need. I am guessing:

-- 2 mic cables XLR to XLR (any suggestions for brands that are
reasonably priced)
-- Mic stand (is there a single mic stand that has two heads (or
whatever you call them) for two mics or do I Ihave to buy two separate
mic stands?
-- Headphones (see above)

Am I missing anything to get started?
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 7:03:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

DCaswellUk@aol.com wrote:
> Hello everybody,
> I'm new to your group, but have spent a lot of time, effort and money
> in trying to achieve a really good result in home recording of the
> classical guitar. Gradually, the results have become better.
> I used to use a pair of octavas, which gave a good result, although I
> found them a little bass heavy. Certainly for a first mike they are
> worth experimenting with, and offer the 3 different caps, which again
> gives a chance to experiment. I went to a talk on Saturday given by
> John Taylor, who has recorded many of the major figures in the guitar
> world: he swears by a pair of small diaphram omnis, and recording in
a
> nice accoustic such as a church.
> Personally I have gone for a pair of km184s. They give a really nice
> sound, and it is worth experimenting with all figurations ab, xy and
> ortf...The preamp is also very important, and recently I upgraded to
a
> pa1 (a tube preamp from tl audio). This is great kit... Finally the
ad
> converter is also important, I went for a rme ad2 which seems to do a
> nice job...
> Just out of interest why would you not use your computer as a
recorder?
> With a little tweaking they can work very well, then that would free
up
> some of your budget to spend on other gear?
>
> I'd welcome any further comments on this subject...recording at home
is
> much more relaxed than in the studio, and if it is possible to get
> professional results then it is definitely the route for me to go...
> Best regards,
> David Caswell

Hi David,

Thanks for all the good info...you can see what I wrote above as to why
I can't use my computer as a recorder. I can certainly use it for
editing and burning to cds but it's not practical for me to use it as
the recorder. I know I will be more motivated to record more and
expirement more with my recording if my set-up is easy and easily
accessible...so that is what I am trying to achieve.

Cheers!
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 8:54:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Don't worry about it. I've heard many other screen names much "cornier" than
yours.
It's hard to tell which one is better. I sometimes got great results with
the NT5's. They already are factory matched. I think the Octava's are
matched by people who buy a bunch of them and match what ever they have as
closely as that batch allows them.
Again, I could be wrong. I've never seen it done only read about it.
Go for the NT5 set. They are good mics. I used mine on a 2002 Smallman I
have and they worked very nicely. The KM 184 are more detailed, if you ask
me, and catch more of the overtones I like so much with the Smallman.
Play with your mic placements like there's no tomorrow. I got good results
using the NT5's about three to four feet away from the guitar at about a
45-60 degree angle with each other. Both mics were more or less pointed at
the area between the bridge and the sound hole.
When I moved the mics more towards the sound hole all I got was a lot of
bass. That's ultimately what the sound hole does anyway. Project bass from
the guitar. When you close your sound hole you can still hear decent trebles
with almost no bass. Sounds kinda cool for some things.
At the distance I told you from the guitar, four to five feet, you must make
sure your room sounds good. I'm not kidding about that. Just putting a rug
or sheet on your bare walls makes a huge difference. Let alone if you could
spend some money and do some actual tuning.
If you can't you could play with moving the mics closer to the guitar. I
don't particularly like that sound but it may be exactly what you are after.
Take a look at some of the John Williams, David Russell etc. photographs you
can find on the web that are shot during their recording sessions. You can
see how far they are from the mics they use. But of course they record in a
high priced recording studios where every inch is thought of and calculated.
Or at least Williams does now that he is recording for Sony.

Thanks

IS




"PhiloMertz" <PhiloMertz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110908007.618282.6250@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> IS,
>
> Thanks for the advice! Yea, I have heard good things about the Octavas
> but I would like to make sure I cover my bases and do my research. In
> general, would you say the Octavas did better than the Rodes?
>
> Regarding my screen name...yes JK Mertz is my favorite guitar composer!
> "Philo" in Greek means "lover of", hence the "lover of Mertz"...I know
> kinda corny!
>
> Thanks again for the advice and if you have any other advice please
> fire away.
>
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 9:27:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Yes there are many, many mics that might be a better option. Of the two you
mentioned I would go with the NT5's.
Moving the mics closer to the guitar will pick up less room but you may
loose some of that breathing room, which I like to include in my recordings.
Again play with mic placements and find a good balance guitar vs. room
acoustics.

Thanks

IS


"PhiloMertz" <PhiloMertz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110909699.335265.301430@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks again! You bring up a good point about the room acoustics.
> Assuming I don't have the ability to manipulate my room settings too
> much, then I assume I would want to go with mics that do better with
> placing them more closely to the guitar, right? Given that, do you
> still think the NT5s are the best option? Or is there another mic that
> does better being closer to the instrument in order to avoid the room
> dynamics?
>
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 10:49:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hank,

You wrote:

I urge you to get an FMR RNP, because whatever mics you get will sound
much better through that mic preamp than through the mic pres in the
Tascam. If you haven't the less-than-$500 for an RNP, so be it. But I
feel it would make a satisfactory difference in your results.

Me: So in this case I should not get the TASCAM (since I don't need the
phantom power), but should rather get the Fostex MR-8, right? This was
one of my options in the initial post. The difference between the
Tascam and Fostex is a couple of hundred bucks...I can put that money
towards the FMR RNP. Is this what you are suggesting? This is
different than what Mike suggested.

Look forward to you reply!
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 1:42:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

dale wrote:

> >I am a newbie to recording so I assume you mean in
> >terms of headphones? If so, then I haven't bought any yet. I also may
> >transfer the raw files to my iMac and do some editing on the computer.
> >My iMac comes with Garageband

> more new and important parts

> as a newbie are you wanting to spend your time learninmg three new
> things?
> recording, your recorder and your new software?

> why don't you record right to your computer?

Because that is a pain in the ass for one wanting to concetrate on the
music and the playing. Remember his earlier thread? His Mac is in a
different room than the one in which he intends to play. If it were in
the same room it'd nmake way too much noise to allow recording of
classical guitar. He wants a standalone recorder that can dump to his
Mac for editing and assembly.

> save money from buying a recording piece
> and get a better audio interface for the imac
> stereo is all you need to begin

See above.

> it is a recording chain and will be only as strong as your weakest link
> and it can never sound any better then the source
> your guitar in your room.

> invest in good mics they are the translators of that sound.
> buy a firewire audio interface for the imac with decent preamps

> record to that....

See above.

> headphones or speakers
> headphones help when the mics are hot
> it is generaly better to use speakers to make the final decisions

He has no need to listen when the mics are hot. He will likely record,
listen, adjust mic position, listen, and so forth until things are set
and he can forget about all of it except getting his own good
performance.

Your advice is sensible for many situations, Dale, but not, I think, for
this case.

--
ha
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 4:46:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

dale wrote:

> >Because that is a pain in the ass for one wanting to concetrate on the
> >music and the playing. Remember his earlier thread? His Mac is in a
> >different room than the one in which he intends to play. If it were in
> >the same room it'd nmake way too much noise to allow recording of
> >classical guitar. He wants a standalone recorder that can dump to his
> >Mac for editing and assembly.

> now I remember other thread
> you are right
> (unless he runs long mic cables)
> hell, he will have to engineer and play no matter which way he goes

Yeah, but hitting <Red> is much less distracting than having to mess
with the computer, at least to me. I like editing on the Mac, but I
dislike having to mess with it while I'm personally playing acoustic
music. I've taken to putting it into record, closing the CR door, and
playing for a good long time. Then when I break I toss the non-music
portions.

--
ha
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 4:46:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

PhiloMertz wrote:

> Can you recommend good headphones (less than $100) for
> this type of use?

Sennheiser HD280 Pro, often available _very_ reasonably from
etronics.com. (Thank you, Kurt Albershardt.)

> Finally, if I have my Tascam DP01FX and my two mics...um, what else
> exactly do I need. I am guessing:

> -- 2 mic cables XLR to XLR (any suggestions for brands that are
> reasonably priced)
> -- Mic stand (is there a single mic stand that has two heads (or
> whatever you call them) for two mics or do I Ihave to buy two separate
> mic stands?

See the Shure A27M adapter. (Hope I got the model # right.)

> -- Headphones (see above)

> Am I missing anything to get started?

I urge you to get an FMR RNP, because whatever mics you get will sound
much better through that mic preamp than through the mic pres in the
Tascam. If you haven't the less-than-$500 for an RNP, so be it. But I
feel it would make a satisfactory difference in your results.

--
ha
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 7:55:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

PhiloMertz wrote:

> > He has no need to listen when the mics are hot. He will likely
> record,
> > listen, adjust mic position, listen, and so forth until things are
> set

> Exactly again. Can you recommend good headphones (less than $100)
for
> this type of use? I get too confused with all the discussion about
> headphones for different scenarios. Hank has it right...I just want
to
> record, listen, adjust, then record again. Then listen when it's all
> final.

>
> Finally, if I have my Tascam DP01FX and my two mics...um, what else
> exactly do I need. I am guessing:
>
> -- 2 mic cables XLR to XLR (any suggestions for brands that are
> reasonably priced)
> -- Mic stand (is there a single mic stand that has two heads (or
> whatever you call them) for two mics or do I Ihave to buy two
separate
> mic stands?

daveat Micsupply.com is a good source, both info and product
< http://www.micsupply.com/index.html >

dale
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 11:15:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Carey,

That explanation is extremely helpful...thanks! If you don't mind, let
me ask another question. What would be the difference, all else being
equal, between a great mic through a decent preamp and a similar great
mic that is self-powered (i.e. battery)?

The reason I ask is that one of the alternatives I mentioned above in
my original post was the Edirol R-1. I can get that for $450, which
would leave me with another $600 for a good quality self-powered mic.
And since the Edirol R-1 is 24-bit, shouldn't a set-up like that yield
similar results to the Tascam (16-bit) combined with decent pair of
mics?

Any thoughts?
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 3:52:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Well, how about something like this over at Sound Professionals:

http://www.soundprofessionals.com/cgi-bin/gold/item/DEN...

DENECKE - PORTABLE STEREO 48 VOLT PHANTOM POWER SUPPLY WITH MINI PLUG
OUTPUT

With this, I assume you cun run any XLR mics, right? What kind of
quality issues would there be if any?
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 4:34:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>Well, how about something like this DENECKE over at Sound
Professionals:

it would provide phantom power for the edirol.
does you imac have usb2 or spdif interface?
if not you will have to play the edirol out through the analogue
headphone jack
back into the mac analogue audio in, losing the digital of the edirol.
this means if you record for 1 hour it will take you 1 hour to download
to your computer.

dale
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 4:53:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"PhiloMertz" <PhiloMertz@gmail.com> wrote in news:1110905580.315042.219030
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Thanks Mike. Just to clarify...you believe that spending a couple of
> hundred $ extra on mics will provide better results than a better
> preamp and less money on mics?

Transducers, devices that turn one kind of energy into another, make the
biggest impact on you recordings. Transducers include microphones (sound
to electricity) and speakers (electricity to sound). Assuming you want a
clean sound (no processing) I would guess 98% of the variability of your
recording comes from these devices (ignoring performer and environment).
That includes both selection and placement of mics and speakers.

On the next tier are those devices that modify the signal (mic
preamps/mixers, converters (analog to digital and back), and speaker amps).
Assuming clean devices, these should change the quality, but not the
character of your sound. A better mic preamp will yield more detail and
lower noise, but still present the sound of the microphone, not the preamp.

A digital recording medium will have no effect on the sound quality. Bits
come in and bits go out.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 5:07:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I have a new iMac that has all the latest and greatest! Transfer will
not be a problem. But in general, are these types of units good
quality? I mean if I use something like this with the 24-bit Edirol and
good mics, will I get as good a results (or maybe even better) than
going directly into the 16-bit Tascam unit?
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 5:44:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Carey Carlan wrote:

> A better mic preamp will yield more detail and
> lower noise, but still present the sound of the microphone, not the preamp.

Switching the ubiquitous Shures, SM's 57 and 58, from the lieks of a
Mackie to a Great River or even the RNP, dramaticly changes the mics'
performance, IMO.

--
ha
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 7:41:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich) wrote in
news:1gti7zr.1k7rwglwyjvwgN%walkinay@thegrid.net:

> Carey Carlan wrote:
>
>> A better mic preamp will yield more detail and
>> lower noise, but still present the sound of the microphone, not the
>> preamp.
>
> Switching the ubiquitous Shures, SM's 57 and 58, from the lieks of a
> Mackie to a Great River or even the RNP, dramaticly changes the mics'
> performance, IMO.

No debate there, but the difference, while definitely audible, is still a
small fraction of the total "sound" of the mic. It still sounds like a 57,
just a much better rendering.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 7:47:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"PhiloMertz" <PhiloMertz@gmail.com> wrote in news:1110989753.420248.26070
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

> Carey,
>
> That explanation is extremely helpful...thanks! If you don't mind, let
> me ask another question. What would be the difference, all else being
> equal, between a great mic through a decent preamp and a similar great
> mic that is self-powered (i.e. battery)?

There are only one or two mics in the world that don't need a mic preamp.

You are referring to the 48V phantom power to power the microphone's
internal circuitry. The output still needs a mic preamp almost always.

> The reason I ask is that one of the alternatives I mentioned above in
> my original post was the Edirol R-1. I can get that for $450, which
> would leave me with another $600 for a good quality self-powered mic.
> And since the Edirol R-1 is 24-bit, shouldn't a set-up like that yield
> similar results to the Tascam (16-bit) combined with decent pair of
> mics?

The R-1's built in mic preamp looks minimal, but I have no knowledge of
its specs. To use any mic that requires phantom power, you would need an
external phantom box between the R-1 and the microphone. Or you can use
a self-powered mic directly into the preamp.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 8:37:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>But in general, are these types of units good quality?
> I have a new iMac

I have found that imac quite portable
I say m audio fireWire audiophile 200
fmr rnp mic pre mic cables mic stands 500
audition mics
learning garage band

dale

you do the set up and hit space bar (used to be a red button)
play
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 7:48:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

PhiloMertz wrote:

> Hank,

> >You wrote:

> >I urge you to get an FMR RNP, because whatever mics you get will sound
> >much better through that mic preamp than through the mic pres in the
> >Tascam. If you haven't the less-than-$500 for an RNP, so be it. But I
> >feel it would make a satisfactory difference in your results.

> Me: So in this case I should not get the TASCAM (since I don't need the
> phantom power), but should rather get the Fostex MR-8, right? This was
> one of my options in the initial post. The difference between the
> Tascam and Fostex is a couple of hundred bucks...I can put that money
> towards the FMR RNP. Is this what you are suggesting? This is
> different than what Mike suggested.

The Tascam will be more straightforward to operate, the documentation
will be clearer and any tech support you may need will be more easly
accessed. If you didn't need the preamps you could use the less
expensive version of the Tascam.

I think preamps make a big difference with lots of mics. An RNP with
inexpesnive condensors will give you, IMO, a result worth spending the
money on the RNP. I send the heads-up that it is often less costly in
the long run to spend a little more up front and be satisfied for a
longer time, getting work done and enjoying it, instead of cheaping-out
up front and spending again while being dissatisfied with the working
situation.

I also suggest my advice may or may not be as good as Mike's. It's down
to you at some point, like when the money gets spent. <g>

--
ha
!