Keeping Up with REAPER Video

The REAPER forum is a regular stop for me. That’s where I learned about video in REAPER and where I look for the latest info. The video implementation is actually still in Alpha form, so it’s not fully supported and documented. Here’s the thread that announced the use of FFmpeg libraries.

Forum member airon has created a thread where he tracks the current state of video in REAPER, “Video Playback and Exporting” that I check often. He keeps it updated with the current FFmpeg libraries of choice, along with other news and tips.

Here’s the Cockos Wiki page describing video support. It includes details on installing the library files.

With all my enthusiasm, please remember that there are no video effects in REAPER currently. No fades, no transitions, no flipping or stretching. All we can do is move clips (and stills) around, trim them, and sync with separate audio tracks. So our style will be defined by those limitations.

Titles and Tricks

A static title is pretty easy to add to your project in REAPER. Just create a jpeg or png image in your favorite tool, heck, Windows Paint will do the job. Be sure to set the size to match your video, for instance 1280 pixels wide by 720 pixels high is a common HD video size. Start with an image or create a gradient, then add text, maybe in a couple of stages or pages. Then drag these into REAPER, drop them on the project timeline, and stretch them to match the tempo of your clip. You can see this technique in action in the tutorial video below.

You might have stills that contribute to your video, or a second or third camera shooting. Or you can extract stills from your video and use those for effects. REAPER 4 can handle multiple tracks of video along with multiple tracks of audio. The audio from all the video tracks will be part of the mix, but only the lowest (highest track number) video will be displayed. Once again, watch the video below to see these operations.

If you mute a video track it stops displaying the video as well as turning off the audio. To eliminate the audio but keep the video, just turn down the volume slider on the track, or use the Item Properties to turn down the audio.

Syncing and Slicing

The audio waveforms displayed in REAPER make syncing multiple video and audio clips a snap, especially if you create a sharp noise at some point when all the devices can capture it. The is exactly like the old “clapper board” you see in movies about making movies. You can simply clap your hands to get a spike in the audio that makes syncing easy.

Once you have tracks synced, take care to keep them that way. Use Item / Group to join items, or be careful to select all the items that belong together when you move, stretch, or trim items. In the video below observe how easy it is to select multiple items to keep them in sync. Also, I’m using ripple editing most of the time to maintain the correct relationship between items.

Cutting video items is just the same and just as easy as cutting audio. Select the item, position the edit cursor, press the S key, and your item is split at that point. As above, make sure all the items that you’re keeping in sync are selected and get split appropriately. I use ripple editing a lot when I’m trimming out parts of my videos.

Tweak the Audio

Even though there are no video effects available, the full range of audio processing definitely is present when working on video in REAPER. For instance, the clip I’m working on in the tutorial video below was shot with a Zoom Q3HD for the main video and audio. I raised the level, added some compression, applied a touch of reverb, and then put a limiter on the output to make sure I didn’t clip. The Q3HD delivers pretty clean audio but it tends to be a bit low in level and punch, so the ability to tweak the sound really adds to the usefulness of this little camcorder.

Rendering

Currently the h.264 video codec seems to deliver the goods for internet video. With the FFMPEG codec library installed in REAPER this is my preferred output. So I select the following options:

Output format: Video (FFmpeg encoder)
Format: QT/MOV/MP4
Size: 1280 x 720
Framerate: 29.970
Video codec: H.264
Bitrate: 9000
Audio codec: 16 bit PCM

Watch the Action

I used the Q3HD and a Creative Vado 3rd Gen to shoot an old Hawaiian slack key standard, My Yellow Ginger Lei in the style of Uncle Leonard Kwan. I decided to turn the video into a little tribute to my Kathy Wingert Model E guitar, so I used the guitar for the title still and shot a video of the guitar on a stand. Then I used REAPER 4 to combine those elements into a final clip for YouTube.

While I did the editing job, I shot with a couple of Sanyo Xacti HD2000s and recorded audio on a Zoom H2n. I edited those together to create a tutorial video:

and by the way, I put that tutorial together in REAPER 4 as well.

If you’re interested here’s the finished version of My Yellow Ginger Lei on my slack key channel:

I don’t think anyone is going to cut a major motion picture in REAPER, but as a way to tweak YouTube performance clips quickly and easily with an emphasis on audio, it’s a pretty decent tool.

External mics with the H2n

I rarely used external mics with my H2, but others at the Zoom forum tested and indicated that it is quite noisy. I’m open to the possibility that the external mic pre of the H2n could be a gem, with plenty of clean gain and headroom, but the only way to know is give it a try.

My first use of the external preamp was a test to see if the external mic could be used as part of the four channel recording capability of the H2n. In the four channel mode using internal mics, the front XY pair and rear MS pair each contribute a stereo file. I read an internet post indicating that an external mic could be used and it would replace the XY pair. This would allow 4 channel recording for other than surround purposes.

I was disappointed when I plugged in the Rode NT4 because it delivered a much lower signal level than the internal MS mics and there was no way to adjust the gain independently. I could record four channels, but two of them were much lower in volume than the others. I assumed (and you know what that means) that the NT4 was just low in sensitivity.

H2n Internal MS

Rode NT4 External XY

Today I tried again, comparing the H2n with the NT4 to a pair of Shure KSM141s into the Echo Audiofire Pre8.

Two Recording Tools

Here’s the mic setup I used.

Two XY arrays in tandem

Once again the level available from the H2n->NT4 was unimpressive. I don’t record hot, but these levels were down around -27 dBFS. By the time I added 9 dB of digital gain to get this track to match the ones from the Echo, the noise level was pretty severe. Here are the clips with matched levels:

H2n with Rode NT4 External

Echo Audiofire with Shure KSM141

Hey, looking in the docs actually turned up something. Input gain is listed as 0 to 39 dB, which is definitely on the low side. So unless there’s a firmware update that adds some gain without raising the self-noise, this external mic input is better suited to amplified concert tapers and drummers rather than acoustic guitarists. And it’s even worse news for folks interested in recording nature sounds and sound effects using external mics.

Line In on the H2n

I’ve used my H2 to record several shows by connecting to the PA mixing board. I find this is usually a cleaner sound than simply miking the room. I almost always have camera sound as well, so I can mix the board track with a room track. But the H2 has a serious weakness for my purpose – its Line Input is too sensitive for the outputs of a common PA mixer. The result is a horrible clipped mess. There’s no adjustment to reduce the sensitivity on the H2 and the tape outs on most mixing boards do not have a level control, so I’ve resorted to a passive attenuator, a simple ganged variable resistor which I use to cut the signal from the board to the H2.

I had hoped that the H2n would offer a solution. A built-in pad (fixed attenuator) would be ideal, or a wide gain range on the line input, with a low minimum sensitivity. Looking at the specs in the announcement, and then at the documentation, I found no mention of a more useful Line In connection. But a test was in order to see if things were improved.

I set up a comparison between the Line In on the H2 and the same on the H2n by connecting two hardware outputs of my Echo Audiofire Pre8 to the Line In on the two Zooms. I used an adapter to split the mono output to two channels. I adjusted the gain on the H2n to 0, there’s no gain adjustment for the Line In on the H2. To generate the test signal I used REAPER and created a 1 khz sine tone with a level of -18 dBFS – this is about 0 dBVU and should be a good starting point for evaluating a line level connection. When I checked the two Zoom recorders they were both clipped. I reduced the level and both recorders showed the same levels as they dropped below clipping.

My test tells me that the Line In on the H2n performs the same as it does on the H2, so I’ll still be bringing my passive attenuator with me when I record from the mixing board.

The first thing that jumped out at me – the new box is a lot smaller.

How'd they make the H2n box so much smaller?

Not the result of a breakthrough in packaging efficiency, I’m afraid. The reason is the lack of accessories. The AC adapter is missing, as is the mic clip adapter stick. These useful bits are now part of an extra cost accessory pack which adds $40 to the price of the H2n and includes stuff that I already have or wouldn’t use. Bummer, as we used to say in the 60s.

Not much in there, is there?

On the other hand, the AC adapter is a USB connector type, so maybe I have something around here that will work, and the long battery life makes the AC adapter less necessary. And I’ve collected a couple of mic sticks already, so for now I’ll skip the accessory pack. And I’m happy to see Wavelab LE7 in the package. Maybe I can get rid of my Adobe Audition and use this instead.

Look and Feel

The look of the H2n is cool black, the new screen is bigger and brighter. This is my number one reason for wanting the new unit – I can operate the menu without glasses. This screen is still pretty lame compared to the beauty they put on the Q3HD, though. The H2n screen is monochrome and pretty low in resolution.

Cool black vs classic silver

The menu is similar to the H2, but a bit simplified. The menu interface is simple and direct – a menu button takes you in and out of the menu, the playback paddle serves to select options. The buttons all operate much more easily and positively than those on the H2, but many of the H2 buttons are covered by a plastic skin which should add longevity even though it reduces tactile feedback.

SDHC card access is not quite as easy as the H2, it’s one of those uninspiring “flexi-hinge” covers and it’s pretty stiff right now. When I see one of these I figure there’s going to be duct tape on there someday. To be fair, plenty of people complain about the H2 hard plastic cover, and I’ve read reports of failure (and replacement with duct tape).

The battery compartment is a big surprise – the batteries both go the same way!! First time I can remember this configuration, usually two AA batteries would go opposite each other.

Operation

There’s no “Standby” mode as in the H2. The unit is listening and giving meter readings as soon as it’s turned on. Press the big red button all by itself on the front and you’re recording. Press it again and you’re not. Standby is a feature that has been part of recorders for a long time, but I know I am not the only one who missed many recordings because I only pressed the H2 record button once. I’m not sure which bit of technology made this new design possible, but I see it as a step forward, as soon as I can get out of the habit of pressing record twice – oh no!

Headphone monitoring can be turned off or turned on constantly, but the default is to have monitoring on at the home screen or while recording.

Files can be named with a date time stamp!!! No more hassles with duplicate file names when combining different recording sessions!!

The two obvious changes on the recording side are the level setting and the mic options. Instead of a three position analog “Mic Gain” along with a digital “Rec Level” control in the H2, the new recording has a continuous thumbwheel controller that is advertised as analog. My first impression is that the H2n offers much higher overall sensitivity than the H2, which will be a big benefit to nature recorders if the noise floor is adequately low.

The mic arrangement is interesting. There are still two mic arrays inside the H2n, but now there are five mics instead of four. A classic XY array (two cardioid mics at a 90 degree angle to each other, 45 degree angle to the source) points to the front of the H2n, as it does in the H2. The back array on the H2 is a pair of cardioids at 120 degrees, giving an option for a wider stereo field. In the H2n there are three mics in the rear facing array and they are combined into an MS (mid-side) configuration. This consists of cardioid mics facing opposite sides and in opposite polarity, so the two mics together emulate a single figure 8 mic at right angles to the source, while a single cardioid mic faces directly at the source and serves as the mid mic. The mid and side mics are then combined mathematically to yield a stereo field. The H2n can save either the decoded (stereo) or raw (mid and side separately) files, and it can be monitored in either mode as well. This is a nice bit of flexibility. In addition, you can adjust the amount of the side mic mixed into the decoded stereo file, changing the width of the stereo image. Visit the Zoom H2n site for a detailed explanation of the mic arrays and how they can be combined and adjusted.

I have this strong feeling that the real benefit of the mid-side (MS) mic arrangement is the marketing buzz it generates, but there are probably many users who will find a benefit in the ability to adjust the stereo width at record time. I’m guilty at times of seeing the whole recording world in terms of solo acoustic guitar, I’m afraid. I would add that the mic selector can be a bit difficult to adjust. It’s a small circular nob with a somewhat slick surface, so a slight case of sweaty palms can make it impossible to change mic patterns.

The playback speaker is a very nice addition. We no longer have to carry headphones just to confirm that we got something. Playback is controlled by the same jog-and-press wheel that navigates the menu. These things always feel a little uncertain to me, but it gets the job done. The headphone out is clean and clear, I’m thinking this unit will work very well as a powered mic to feed into a video recorder like the Q3HD.

Recording Samples

I was satisfied with most aspects of the H2 recording quality, except for the low level noise. My big hope for the H2n is an improvement in that area. I set up a comparison by putting the H2n, the H2, and a Rode NT4 stereo mic next to each other.

Rode NT4 between two Zooms

The Rode was connected to my Echo Audiofire Pre8 interface. I played a 1 khz test tone into all three recording chains, adjusted levels to avoid clipping, and recorded the tone. With the recorders still running I played a bit of slack key guitar, and left a nice long “tail” at the end of the recording complete with tummy gurgles. This ending section where the last note dies off is a classic place to hear self-noise generated by mics and preamps, along with the room noise (and the belly noise).

After recording these clips I pulled them into REAPER, put the Sonalksis FreeG stereo meter on each track, selected the reference tone in a loop, and adjusted the level of each track so they were within 1 dB or so. This is barely adequate level matching, but hopefully it will be revealing of the differences in noise level. I trimmed off the test tone when I rendered the sample files – no one should be subjected to a 1 khz tone if they don’t have to be. I also made a second set of clips with just the tails, and here I raised the gain significantly.

Zoom H2

Zoom H2n

Rode NT4

Zoom H2 Tail

Zoom H2n Tail

Rode NT4 Tail

Conclusions

Knowing what I do now, I’m glad I got the H2n. The improved battery life will make my recording projects easier, and the more readable screen will help as well. But aside from those issues, I’d say the H2 holds its own very well in this comparison. For many projects the difference in audio quality is probably not enough to justify a switch. For someone on a tight budget the H2 might still be a good purchase, especially if their eyesight is good.

*** Update ***

Down in the comments, Boston Dave asks about how the H2n deals with loud sources. I banged away pretty vigorously on my Martin and from looking at the wave form and listening to the result I think turning down the mic gain wheel successfully eliminated clipping. You can download the test clip, it’s straight from the recorder so it’s a little ungainly, but perhaps it will be useful to someone.

H2n High Volume Test

Alan Blumlein

In 1931 Alan Blumlein applied for a patent on what we now call stereo sound. He described techniques for creating the auditory illusion of placement and depth using two (or more) channels of recorded and reproduced sound. As part of this patent application he described an array of two bidirectional mics in a coincident X/Y arrangement that we today call a Blumlein array:

Two bidirectional or figure 8 mics in a coincident XY

In the same document he described the Mid-Side mic arrangement. Rather than a crossed pair of mics at 45 degrees to the source, the Mid-Side array has the Mid mic pointing directly at the source and the Side mic at right angles to the source. The Mid mic can be any pattern but the Side mic must be a bidirectional or figure-8 mic.

Two bidirectional or figure 8 mics in Mid-Side

Mid-Side Recording

This article from emusician.com discusses the technical details of Mid-Side recording in some depth. Note that the use of different patterns for the Mid mic gives different results after decoding.

When I record in Mid-Side using my home recording chain it’s startling to see the difference in the levels of the Mid and Side channels. With both channels set to the same gain the Side channel barely shows any signal.

Decoding the Mid and Side channels to Left and Right is easy in a multitrack recording program. Simply place the Mid channel on one track panned to the center. Place the Side channel on a track panned hard left. Then place a copy of the Side channel inverted in polarity on a track panned hard right. When you mix the three tracks down you’ll have two stereo tracks.

Here’s a video I made demonstrating Mid-Side and Blumlein arrays with some demonstrations of the stereo field.

There are a few ? ? ? problems with the video, please accept my apologies. The bubble wrap stereo demo is funny (to me anyway), but the clipping caused by the amazingly loud pops wrecked the stereo field. Listen to the incidental noises for a better idea of how these recording techniques work. And the distortion is not there in the my recording, it was introduced by the YouTube compression process.

Mid-Side and the H4n

I also missed several opportunities to actually address some details of the H4n. For instance, the level metering shows levels after the signal is decoded. I think there’s a good chance of clipping the Mid mic and not seeing it in the decoded signal.

When setting up the Mid-Side connections on the H4n, notice that there’s a menu selection to identify which channel is the Mid and which is the Side.

Let me wrap up by mentioning that I sent my H4n back to the seller. I think it’s a pretty interesting recorder, but for my regular uses the H2 does at least as good a job. When I want to do more serious recording I just turn on my home studio system. I’m looking forward to continued progress in these handheld recorders, though. I just can’t resist the idea of a world class recording chain in my pocket.

Zoom Field Recorders

I’ve had a Zoom H2 field recorder since they were delivered and it has been a very satisfactory tool. I’ve used it to capture audio for my YouTube videos, to record hula accompaniment for my wife, to archive band rehearsals, and to save ideas for original compositions. A very satisfactory tool, but not quite CD quality, not quite the tool I would use for high quality recording. The self-noise just peeks into the quiet spots and long fades, the mics roll off a bit above 16 Khz.

I have posted some comparison tests between the H2 and other recording chains here on Home Brewed Music: a comparison with my best studio recording chain and a shootout with several other field recorders. In both cases the H2 was “amazing for the price” but not the winner.

The H4 preceded the H2, cost a bit more, does multi-track recording and has XLR inputs and 48V phantom power for serious microphones. There have been many complaints about the user interface and the fragile feel of the controls. I’ve never used one myself, so I can’t say anything about the recording quality.

Both these units offer a remarkable level of functionality, with multitracking on the H4 and surround sound on the H2, and both function as a USB interface for recording directly on the computer.

What’s new with the H4n?

This year Samson/Zoom announced a new recorder, the H4n. This unit has a larger LCD screen, improved user interface, and according to the manufacturer, improved mic preamps. I ordered one as soon as they were available and it arrived today.

The H4n is only slightly larger than the H2, but it is just that bit too big to be comfortable in a shirt or pants pocket. And the mics sticking out without protection also make it unlikely as a pocket device.

The bright orange LCD screen on the H4n is a big improvement over the H2 and H4. The look and feel is also more impressive, with a style and solidity that are missing from the earlier units.

The gain setting on the H4n is a big change from the H4 and H2. Both those recorders have a 3 position level switch, which sets the preamp level before the a/d converters. Then another control sets the recording level from 1-100, but this setting is applied after the a/d converter and mic preamp. This means that only the 3 position switch can actually lower the recording level in a way that prevents overload and distortion, and the second finer control is essentially useless.

The H4n has only the incremental gain control from 1-100. Hopefully it is implemented so that it turns down preamp gain and controls overload. I’m counting on the smart guys at the Zoom H2/H4/H4n forum to poke around and figure out the details.

I was expecting features like auto-level, limiting, and auto-record, but Samson/Zoom surprised me by including a Mid/Side decoding function in the preamp as well.

Recording with the H4n

Well, how about some clips? The big bright screen on the H4n makes level setting easier than the H2, and with my recording mode all set to stereo 44.1/24, recording is just as easy as the H2 – one press of Record starts standby mode for level checks, then one more press and we’re storing bits.

After a quick recording a feature I never thought much about – a monitor speaker – turns out to be very comforting. Just hit play and there’s confirmation that you captured something. Its time to move the tracks to the computer, and this would be good time to compliment Samson/Zoom on their manual. This little recorder has a ton of features and the manual has covered every one I’ve needed so far. Page 35 clearly explains how to connect the H4n to the computer over the USB connection and it worked like a charm on my XP SP3 system.

Another improvement is obvious and very welcome – this new unit is a USB 2.0 High Speed device. The previous H4 and H2 are both USB 2 compatible, but they are anything but high speed. This H4n makes my standalone cardreader obsolete. Switching cards in and out draws attention to a potential problem, though. The door over the SD card slot does not look rugged enough for the use it will get. I kind of expect to see a lot of these with masking tape or gaffers tape covering the SD slot when they get older.

Hey, as long as it’s hooked to the computer, let’s see how it works as an audio interface. Maybe I’m just having a good night, but everything goes smoothly, Adobe Audition 1.5 sees the Zoom H4n and records a decent track.

Here’s a little “Opihi Moemoe” using the H4n as an audio interface, using the built-in mics. The positioning is about 30″ between the guitar and mics:

opihi.mp3
or download opihi.mp3

Sounds pretty good to me, but in the fade at the end you can hear a bit of noise. Hmmmm.

A four way comparison

The main comparison is between the two Zooms, the Fostex FR2-LE, and my main studio recording chain, a John Hardy M-1 preamp feeding a LynxTwo-C A/D converter. A pair of Shure KSM141 mics provide audio to the Fostex and John Hardy. I tried to group all four units as close as possible.

Two mics and two Zoom recorders

Each of the clips is mono, I kept only the Zoom track from the mic that was pointed toward the guitar. The streaming clips are MP3, but the download is a PCM WAV file and considerably larger. I positioned the guitar 3 feet from the mics. This is a quite a strenuous test of the recording chain, because the guitar is such a quiet instrument that plenty of gain is required even for much lesser distances.

The Fostex:
1-1-FR2.mp3
or download 1-1-fr2.wav

The H2:
1-2-h2.mp3
or download 1-2-h2.wav

The H4n:
1-3-h4n.mp3
or download 1-3-h4n.wav

The Hardy:
1-4-jh.mp3
or download 1-4-jh.wav

I’m a bit disappointed with the results here. I was hoping the H4n’s new preamp and mics would provide a big improvement in noise performance compared to the H2, but I’m not hearing it. Listening to the long fade at the end of the clip, both the Zoom units exhibit more noise than the other two systems. Of course this is an extreme test, and with a more normal recording distance the noise wouldn’t be a problem. And the source of the noise might be the mics rather than the preamps, so it’s only fair to compare the H4n with one of the Shure KSM141 mics.

Using external mics

The Fostex with Shure mic:
2-1-FR.mp3
or download 2-1-FR2.wav

The H4n with Shure mic:
2-2-h4n.mp3
or download 2-2-h4n.wav

In these clips the guitar is a little closer to the mics, about 30 inches. This is still far enough to require a lot of gain, and both units exhibit some noise. But again the H4n is a touch noisier than the Fostex in the fade at the end of the clip. With the external mic, though, the difference is a lot smaller.

In the four way comparison, the studio chain with the Hardy preamp and Lynx converters was clearly the quietest. How does the H4n do in a head to head with the champ?

The H4n with Shure mic:
3-1-h4n.mp3
or download 3-1-h4n.wav

The Hardy with Shure mic:
3-2-jh.mp3
or download 3-2-jh.wav

This recording has the guitar even closer, less than 2 feet and just far enough to avoid proximity effect. With lower gain and the external mic the H4n sounds a lot less noisy but still just a hair more than the Hardy and Lynx.

And so the story is told

I’m really quite impressed with the H4n. It has a solid feel and a look that inspires confidence. The controls work cleanly and seem sturdy. The large bright display makes the unit much more friendly to old fogey eyes like mine. The manual is substantial because the feature set is pretty amazing. I’ll probably only scratch the surface, but plenty of other musicians will find use for the multi-track recorder with overdubbing, effects, metronome and so on. Folks doing interviews and recording lectures can benefit from the limiter, automatic gain control, and auto-record.

How is the H4n as a solo acoustic guitar recording tool? I’d say about 95%. The tonal balance of the recordings are fine, the dynamics are good. I’m quite happy with how the guitar sounds with either the external mic or the built-ins. I’m a little bit disappointed by the noise performance, though. A bit closer placement, a little noise reduction software in post, it’s a problem that can be solved, but I was hoping for world class performance from this little unit and I’m afraid it’s not quite at that level.

The problem has been that there are not a lot of omni mics around. The market doesn’t seem that interested in omnis, so the manufacturers are not interested. In the five years or so that I’ve been recording and buying gear, I would guess that models of directional mics in the marketplace outnumbered omnis by 20 to 1 or more, and almost all the hip new inexpensive mics have been directional.

In the last year or so, though, Jon O’Neil and his Naiant Studio Store has begun selling a very inexpensive omni microphone which Jon builds himself. He use readily available capsules, adds his own active electronics, and mounts the whole thing in an XLR connector shell. The result is compact, rugged, and inexpensive. I think they work pretty well, too. Here’s a brief comparison of a pair of Naiant MSH-1 omnis to a pair of DPA 4061s:

Naiant MSH-1
DPA 4061

The DPAs carry a list price of $429, and they require an adapter to connect to standard mic preamps that adds about $75 to the cost. Even used they cost about 10 times as much as the Naiant MSH-1 costs new. It’s certainly true that the DPA can be used in more applications, because it’s very small and unobtrusive, and the two different mics are not equivalent, but just on the basis of sound quality, I think they’re amazingly close.

This year Naiant began selling the MSH-2, a mic based on a larger capsule. Jon describes this mic as having lower noise and a gently falling high end compared to the MSH-1. I’m a sucker for an inexpensive omni, so I ordered up a pair. Here’s a recording using one of these new mics alongside an industry standard for microphone quality. I’m using a John Hardy M-1 preamp and Lynx2 converters. This time I set up the Naiant MSH-2 on one channel and a Schoeps CMC6/MK2 on the other. I mounted the mics so they were a few inches apart and about 6 inches from the Martin OM-18GE. Here are the two mono files that resulted:

Naiant MSH-2
Schoeps CMC6/MK2

I can hear some slight differences, although they’re pretty subtle. By turning up the volume and listening to the extended “tail” or decaying signal, I can hear a higher noise level in the Naiant track. But considering that the Schoeps costs about $1400 and the Naiant costs $35, I’d call the similarity pretty amazing. Certainly if someone asked me for an inexpensive microphone to record solo acoustic guitar, I’d be quite comfortable recommending the Naiant MSH-2.

How do I record my guitar so I can judge my progress (or lay down a rhythm track or even make a CD just for family and friends). I have a pickup in the guitar, I don’t need great quality, and I don’t want to spend a lot.

Since this person is posting on an internet forum, I will assume they have a computer. If it’s a PC type, it almost certainly has some kind of built-in soundcard, with at least a mic input. So all we need to do is hook the guitar pickup to that mic input and use some sort of program to capture that input and save it to a file. It just so happens that there are some very effective recording programs available to download for free, so that leaves as our only problem some way to connect the guitar pickup to the mic input. And here it is:

This is a 1/4″ phone female to 1/8″ mini male adapter. A normal guitar cable like the one just above the adapter in this picture (male 1/4″ phone plugs at both ends) fits into the hollow side. The pointed side plugs into the mic input of the computer. It costs about $4.00 at any store or web site that sells electronic geegaws (like Radio Shack). This is all you need to connect your pickup to your computer (assuming you have a guitar cable).

Now, on the software side what are the options? Unfortunately, the built-in Windows Sound Recorder is not very useful. It’s limited to about 1 minute of continuous recording without intervention. There are not effects or editing features, no click track or metronome, no metering, and certainly no multitrack overdubbing and mixing.

The easiest free program I’ve found is Audacity – it’s a little clunky but it is full featured. It includes plenty of editing capability and built-in effects, and you can save your recordings to various formats like .wav for burning to CD and (with some free extra software) to .mp3 for your portable music player or web site. I’ve used this little adapter and Audacity to record new song ideas on our laptop when we’re traveling. I’ve also used it to create practice loops when I’m trying to nail a tough section of a new song. Compared to a decent microphone, preamp, and audio interface these recordings are fuzzy, noisy, and crude, but they do the job, and the price is definitely right.

Here’s one verse of an old Hawaiian song, “No Ke Ano Ahiahi,” recorded as a solo guitar instrumental using the the 1/8″ mini plug adapter and Audacity.

And here’s the same track with some reverb added.

Obviously these are not “major label quality” recordings by a long shot. The direct output from a pickup is not very close to the natural acoustic sound of your guitar. But we’ve looked at a tool that can help get your pickup based recordings much closer to a natural acoustic sound in a previous blog entry: “Better EQ Through Software”. And, as we stated at the beginning of this entry, the whole purpose of using this simple, cheap adapter is to get simple, cheap recordings, not Grammy awards.