MR-8 - weak link in signal chain?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jay Tea
  • Start date Start date
J

Jay Tea

Full Frontal Newbity
I'm reading posts on here, and often, people will say they are unhappy with their sound, and are looking for a new mic, or preamp, or something. And typically, somebody asks what the rest of their signal chain looks like, with the idea that the weakest link should be improved first. Now, I'm looking at this MR-8, and seeing that for its place in the signal chain, it's pretty inexpensive. Is this reflective of its recording quality? Ignoring the built-in effects for a moment, is the quality of a recording going to suffer for using an inexpensive recorder?

To put it another way, if I were to spend $20,000 on a microphone and preamp (I'm not, btw) and then run them into an MR-8, would I be losing anything?

Thanks.
 
Hmmm. I don't own an MR8, but that's an interesting question. Personally, I think it would ge neat for someone to make a recording using an MR8 and a $20,000 Studer/Revox reel to reel. Then do a double-blind test to see what differences people hear, and what preferences they have.

I'd also like to see similar tests using $2,000 Kimber Speaker wire vs. $40. Monster Cable; or a $5,000 CD player vs. one costing $150.00.

The MR8 is a full 16bit machine. Obviously you're running through its preamps, whatever your signal chain that precedes it. Even so, just using the MR8, with phenomenal mics and preamps, and good technique, my bet is you'd get a phenomenal recording.
 
billisa said:
Obviously you're running through its preamps, whatever your signal chain that precedes it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it has preamps. But that raises a followup question in my mind. Would running a signal through good preamps, then through less good preamps, be worse than just through good preamps?
 
Jay Tea said:
I'm not sure it has preamps. But that raises a followup question in my mind. Would running a signal through good preamps, then through less good preamps, be worse than just through good preamps?
Click to expand...

Good questions Jay. And yeah, the answer is yes - the MR8's preamps do , unfortunately, play a role in your sound, even if you have external preamps (and you damn well better, because the MR8's are horrid).

The other thing that comes into play is the A/D convertors, which are also pretty bad on the MR8 (and most other low-end recorders).

If you record just through the MR8 with no other preamp, your sound will be at a certain level, quality-wise. If you add a good preamp, your sound will get better. Add a good mic, it will get better still. If you're at the point where you have all the gear and you're still not happy with the sound (assuming it's not your recording/mixing technique), it's probably time to think about a more expensive machine with better convertors.

Cheers,
Chris
 
pre amps mr8

If you use an external pre amp in your chain you don't need to use the ones in the recorder. Keep your trim knob off and use the external pre for your gain. My $50.00 Behringer mixer with pre amp and phantom power works well and is quiet. And has greatly improved my recordings. The MR8 stand alone is a great portable recorder. But with the limited card space, no eq, not so good sims, makes it hard to do lengthy projects without the aid of outboard mixers, larger cf cards, and pc mixing. Pj
 
pjh6467 said:
If you use an external pre amp in your chain you don't need to use the ones in the recorder. Keep your trim knob off and use the external pre for your gain.
Click to expand...

But the signal is still going thru the MR8 preamp circuit, isn't it? I doubt turning down the trim knob would bypass preamp circuit completely and therefor the preamp circuit would still color the signal even with the trim turned all the way down.
 
PeteHalo said:
But the signal is still going thru the MR8 preamp circuit, isn't it? I doubt turning down the trim knob would bypass preamp circuit completely and therefor the preamp circuit would still color the signal even with the trim turned all the way down.
Click to expand...

That's correct.

Chris
 
Interesting question. Since other people have answered in other ways I will answer in this way. I think if you had $20,000 the MR8 would not be on your shopping list. However, I have one and have some very clean recordings using it in conjunction with my pc. It records well above what you would think a $300 recorder would. I believe that the better mics and preamps you have would enhance the MR8 recording quality even more, but no where near "pro" standards.
 
digital

the nice thing about digital recording is that 16 bit is 16 bit weither it comes from the mr8 or any other recorder, if tracks are moved to the pc there is no a/d conversion, but there is a bit sampling rate conversion, 16 bit to 32 bit foat....if your doing it right

and proper gain structure will help too, you set up a mixer properly to the hottest signal with out clipping (unity), THEN you do adjust your trim up on the mr8 to just below clipping... while the preamps in the mr8 are week and need help by a mixer or external preamp, they sound good

and yes the expensive mic will sound better then the 10 dollar nady...but its all relative to the quality you expect, there are some nice recordings from these units, there are some awful recordings from these units hahahah
 
These debates always bring me back to Sprinsteen's Nebraska album, claimed to have been recorded on a Porta-studio. I've looked, but can't find much more than speculation on the extent of that process - songs from that album were on the radio, and didn't sound like some kid in a garage. I know the question came up at some music convention/conference back in the day, and a member of the panel laughed and made some comment about the millions of dollars in other gear that was required to get those 'Porta-studio' tapes into the condition that was released - although that could have been sour-grapes from a dude who realized how much power he'd lose from bands going the DIY route...

Anyway, it would be interesting to know the truth, as the MR-8 certainly blows away a 1982 vintage Porta.
 
dave in toledo said:
the nice thing about digital recording is that 16 bit is 16 bit weither it comes from the mr8 or any other recorder, if tracks are moved to the pc there is no a/d conversion, but there is a bit sampling rate conversion, 16 bit to 32 bit foat....if your doing it right
Click to expand...

That's actually not quite true. A/D convertors are used when recording any sound into the MR8 (or any other digital recorder). So you'll find that a 16 bit/44.1 sound can be very different depending on the convertors used. Some people seem to believe this actually can make more difference than the type of preamp you use.

And there isn't a bit depth conversion upon moving to the PC. Certain *software* works at a 32 bit internal processing level but that's another can of worms entirely.

Chris
 
mrx said:
These debates always bring me back to Sprinsteen's Nebraska album, claimed to have been recorded on a Porta-studio. I've looked, but can't find much more than speculation on the extent of that process - songs from that album were on the radio, and didn't sound like some kid in a garage. I know the question came up at some music convention/conference back in the day, and a member of the panel laughed and made some comment about the millions of dollars in other gear that was required to get those 'Porta-studio' tapes into the condition that was released - although that could have been sour-grapes from a dude who realized how much power he'd lose from bands going the DIY route...

Anyway, it would be interesting to know the truth, as the MR-8 certainly blows away a 1982 vintage Porta.
Click to expand...
I heard that also that they had a hard time mastering it.

How about Michelle Shocked Texas Campfire Sessions LP, recorded on a Sony Walkman? I actually have that one. I pulled it out for reference the other day. I only played it maybe 3 times since it was new.

I don't remember where it was I read an interview w/ Bruce about his process and what he did for that LP and what they went thru later to get it to the master.
 
mrx said:
These debates always bring me back to Sprinsteen's Nebraska album, claimed to have been recorded on a Porta-studio. I've looked, but can't find much more than speculation on the extent of that process -
Click to expand...

Now I had heard the album was done on a TEAC four track reel to reel. If true, this would be quite a bit better than cassette...
 
groucho

hey this is interesting, so you get my background, ive been in computer graphics for years, and i always kind of can compare this to digital recording due to the nature of things
so help me out here.....
if i create a high res scan of 1200dpi on one type of scanner, and take the original and scan it on a different scanner at the same resoultion.....the images should be the same, but there not, due to the difference in the dynamic range in the machines there will be variations....

so due to the different converters, you get the same thing, right????

and the 32bit foat in a program is exactly what i was saying, so as to keep the resolution as high as possible while mixing back down later to 16bit for cd use
 
dave in toledo said:
if i create a high res scan of 1200dpi on one type of scanner, and take the original and scan it on a different scanner at the same resoultion.....the images should be the same, but there not, due to the difference in the dynamic range in the machines there will be variations....

so due to the different converters, you get the same thing, right????
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know much about scanners :) - but yeah, different convertors will give you different levels of sound quality. Good convertors generally make the sound clearer and more open-sounding. The low-end convertors (like in the MR8) have a kind of harsher, digital sound to them.

Oh, and Springsteen's "Nebraska" was recorded on a Teac/Tascam 144:
http://www.kitarapaja.com/pics/teac144.jpg

Chris
 
A typical recording session includes:

One or more people singing and/or playing
Room with accoustics
Mics for picking up the sound
MR-8 for recording

I think that list is probably in order of the items most likely to cause problems from top down.

Ed
 
I guess that's a reason to do it all modular, choose your hdd recorder, your converters, preamps, mixer, also able to repair, swap out any piece, or demo replacements, and still be able to function. Not cheap, unless it's all used. I saw some nice stuff used that's not really even that old. OTOH, good luck being spontaneous when recording using many componets. Power 'em all on, warm up, connections, signals to everything, set levels,.... ok, where was I?....
 
groucho said:
Good questions Jay. And yeah, the answer is yes - the MR8's preamps do , unfortunately, play a role in your sound, even if you have external preamps (and you damn well better, because the MR8's are horrid).

The other thing that comes into play is the A/D convertors, which are also pretty bad on the MR8 (and most other low-end recorders).

If you record just through the MR8 with no other preamp, your sound will be at a certain level, quality-wise. If you add a good preamp, your sound will get better. Add a good mic, it will get better still. If you're at the point where you have all the gear and you're still not happy with the sound (assuming it's not your recording/mixing technique), it's probably time to think about a more expensive machine with better convertors.

Cheers,
Chris
Click to expand...

Groucho, Here's the problem; I, like many others here, want good recordings but all we do is record ourselves or make a very limited number of tracks for a given recording. I don't have the experience to comment on the quality of the MR-8's A-D converters so we are left with the prospect of buying a pro studio to record 2 tracks for stereo.

If there's an alternative, I'd like to know it. I mean it. The MR-8 was designed for me and others like me. If there is a way to improve on this without breaking the bank, I'm all ears. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top