-
I recently tried to compare both acoustic & electric tone of my Eastman 810CE7 with that of an L-5C (acoustic) and L-5CES (electric). I recorded the acoustic clip using my Zoom Q2n-4k video recorder and the electric clip with my TASCAM DR-40x digital audio recorder, assuming that the sound quality of the two gizmos was equal. I normalized the tracks I recorded to get a decent level match, then compared these to what I think are good sounding YouTube tracks of the L5C and CES. I presented it all in the OP in this thread.
I used the TASCAM to capture the electric tone because it's my default recording DAI and sits in front of the Toob on my recording desk. I've always liked the sound quality it delivers, and it's there waiting for me to plug in and play. It has a pair of decent condenser mics on the top of its case, along with XLR mic inputs for either primary stereo use or 3rd and 4th channels. I used the Zoom (which also has a pair of built-in condenser mics) to capture the acoustic tone because it lives on my desk in the right position to capture videos of my playing as I sit at my computer & recording desk chair. Both the TASCAM audio gizmo and the Zoom video gizmo have unspecified preamp specs. Both were set for 24/96 audio file format, and neither one has any EQ controls or settings.
Anyone who listened to these clips realized quickly that the acoustic Eastman clip sounded brighter, thinner, and generally less sweet than the acoustic L-5C clip, including me. And for about a day, I let it slide and assumed reluctantly that (as we always tell everybody else here) I wasn't hearing what someone in front of the guitar hears. But it didn't sit well with me because the guitar sounds significantly richer and fuller to me than it does in this recording.
So I set up a comparison using the last 8 bars of The Shadow of Your Smile, each track played with the same 810 through the same BAM200 driving the same Toob Metro (this time a FR II, to be sure I captured everything coming out of the speaker). I recorded 4 takes, capturing one through the TASCAM, one through the Zoom, one with my 7th gen iPad, and one with my iPhone 16 Pro. All but the iPad are 24/96 WAVs. The iPad would only record at Redbook resolution (16/44). I normalized them for an approximate level match. Parenthetically, the Toob Metro FR II is really outstanding for woody archtops with floaters. The high frequency response preserves the acoustic character in the amplified tone, but it's not at all harsh or unpleasant. There's enough low end even for a 7, and it's nicely controlled. It sounds great!
Guess what??? They all sound different. Believe it or not, I think the iPhone 16 Pro captures the most pleasant and realistic sound of the 4 devices I compared. The moral of the story is that you're probably not capturing exactly what your guitar sounds like through any generally used recording gizmo. It will not sound the same when recorded on your iPhone, your iPad, your digital audio recorder, your webcam, or your video camera. I suspect the internal mics have a lot to do with this, but the preamps are also important tone shapers. If I get around to it, I'll test this hypothesis by using the same external mics into the TASCAM and the Zoom - but that's for another day.
The results from good mics into formal DAIs with high quality preamps are much more consistent. I do get very similar excellent results using Shure SM58 and similar quality mics through both my M-Audio and TASCAM 2x2 USB DAIs (both 24/192), and these are virtually interchangable with recordings made on my TASCAM 1800 (a high quality,16 channel pro rack mount DAI I sold when we downsized to an apartment). The DR-40x digital recorder comes closest to this level, but the "real" DAIs are a bit tighter in the bass without losing the weight, and they have a bit more upper mid and high clarity and sparkle without being shrill at all.
Here are the clips. I think the differences are clear and (at least to me) a bit startling. Without knowing how accurate each of our recording devices and setups is, we really can't trust our recordings for more than a rough idea of tone and sound quality. After this experience, I would not make any buying decisions solely or even primarily on the basis of a recording without knowing who made it and how. I'll be using only my best mics and DAI from now on.
TASCAM
Zoom
iPhone 16 Pro
iPad (7th gen from 2019)
The differences are audible enough for me to want to see a spectrum for each track, and they correspond closely to what we're hearing. The TASCAM track has essentially no content above 4kHz and sounds a little dull. The Zoom has an upper midrange hump and some barely audible content between 3 and 8 kHz that gives it a slightly honky, brash quality. The iPhone is more linear between 80 and 400 Hz than the other 3, and this range encompasses the fundamental frequencies of the 6 string guitar (82 to 330 Hz) - so it sounds more neutral. I think it's the best balanced of the 4. The iPad track is most notable for a lot more energy above 3 kHz. Whether that's actual content or noise is hard to say, since it's not grossly audible. But I think the iPad's track is definitely a bit thinner and brighter than the iPhone's. Fascinating!!
TASCAM
Zoom
iPhone
iPad
-
02-25-2026 04:20 PM
-
Agreed. I've been wondering about iPhone recordings sounding so good. You prove they do. A pocket studio.
-
Even the old I-phone 7 took pretty nice video/audio at the time it came out IMO. I was actually blown away. I have a Sony MV-1 cam that has a non adjustable wide angle lens that doesn't take particularly great video but does a decent job on the audio if you can get the placement right. I usually can't put it out in the crowd lest someone steal it or knock it over so it's a game of compromise with the positioning.
Originally Posted by Gitterbug
So far in this life my favorite way to capture a guitar in a studio environment has been close mic'ed with a SM57 and then room mic'ed with a good condenser, the placement of which is very room dependent. Blending the signals gives a pretty nice approximation of what the amp sounds like. Decent preamps are nice to have. I used a Shadow Hill Mastering compressor plugin on a lot of the guitar tracks in post production to get them to pop a little more in the mix. I've used the actual Shadow Hills rack unit in past recordings and I will say I was pretty impressed with the plugin also.
I'm hoping to maybe score a nice EV RE-20 broadcast mic for multipurpose use on the next record and will definitely have to try that in the close mic'ed position. I have been really impressed with that mic in the times I've gotten to use one plus hearing other groups mic'ed using them.
-
I've had varying results, too with a Zoom mic run into the analog input of my laptop, a Webcam mic, a USB mic, even an older Samsung tablet. It's been trial and error to get good sound, most is crappy. Guitar, it's like you don't get the full spectrum or "fatness". It's worse with a trumpet- too much mic gain and it overdrives and distorts.
Best results was with the H2N Zoom mic, but it's still not great. The tablet's built-in mic is surprisingly good, especially in a big, empty room or barn.
I want to add, the playback matters a lot, too. PC speakers, ear buds, suck. Things sound a lot better my Sony headphones.
-
I did this recording on my iphone 16 and to me it captured the acoustic sound fine and what I hear. You can spend a lot more and not get a lot better if you are not trying to push them off as polished recordings. Sound in winter old tune old guitar
-
I've had a day....setting up to do a recording. Yesterday I concentrated on getting the amp to sound the way i want it to (in the final mix). Today I set up mikes, and then moved them, and then changed them, and then blended them, and then changed them out, and then moved them.
I want to capture the fat L5 CES tone that I know, and get the fatness that the pros get, with some nice low mids and sweet singing hi's (without "Icepick").
But what I hear out of the amp doesn't record on my DR03. So I keep moving mics, and re-recording. Driving my wife a little crazy while I play "sound engineer" in the bedroom.
Been thru this before, and I know that when I get "IT", it'll all be worth it.
I'm trying to keep it simple. Guitar, compressor, amp, 2 mics, and DA recorder. Headphones ??????
The final mix and master will tell all.
-
FWIW, I liked the iPad recording the best.
-
You’ve got another variable - the mic preamps. The quality and accuracy of these will vary greatly from device to device. It would be interesting to hear how your guitar sounds on a really good interface- say, an RME or UA - at 192k with a good mic, into the native preamps, and then again into a high-quality external preamp. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the mic/preamp used account for most of the differences you are hearing.
It sounds to me as if you 1) are really fussy about the results you are looking for; but 2) aren’t willing to make an extreme effort to achieve them. That puts you in the “This isn’t really what I want but it’s the closest I can come with the resources (time, money) I am willing to invest” camp. That’s okay. Will your target audience really notice a difference?Last edited by stevo58; 02-26-2026 at 04:35 AM.
-
The better and more expensive the microphone you have, the better the end results of the recording.
There are microphones that cost more than a good instrument.
-
There are "budget" clones of classic mics that most people, listening past post production, would not be able to distinguish between. And there are industry standards, like the SM57, that are affordable, sound good, and are used extensively by pros and amateurs alike. I think placement and mic selection for a given sound source or voice ultimately trump the pedigree of a given mic. That's not to say that a great mic won't sound great but there is so much more to getting a great sound than just the mic. Originally Posted by kris
-
This is true in the case of electric guitars. SM57-I know this popular dynamic microphone. Originally Posted by DawgBone
The problem is with recordings of classical or acoustic guitars.
-
....Or vocals. The reality is most people would not be able to tell which was the clone mic and which was the real thing in a blind test whether we are talking acoustic or electric guitars especially once it is mixed into a setting with other musicians. Originally Posted by kris
In some cases the clone might actually be the better choice given the right sound source. I have watched an engineer swap an expensive vintage Neumann U-87 for a cheaper mic that better suited the tone of the vocal being tracked. Granted the mic he changed too was not a "cheap" mic by any means, it was still a Neumann, but it's really about what serves the sound source best.
-
Hi, stevo. I appreciate your effort to educate me, and I agree completely with the factual content in the first paragaph of your post. If you'd read my original post a bit more carefully and thoroughly, you'd have found that I said exactly the same things: Originally Posted by stevo58
Originally Posted by nevershouldhavesoldit
I will compare the preamps in the devices used for this comparison when I get around to it, using good mics. I will also compare them to high quality preamps, of which I have a few. I already acknowledged the fact that the quality of recordings made with better mics through better DAIs is much more consistent and audibly better than what we get with the internal mics and preamps in inexpensive recording devices like the DR40x and Zoom. Originally Posted by nevershouldhavesoldit
I'm sure you didn't mean to be harsh or condescending, but some might find the second paragraph of your post to sound this way. I think you misunderstand the purpose of this exercise. It's a comparison of the kinds of devices on which 99% of the tracks and videos on this and similar sites are made by individuals like us. Many (if not most) sales of guitars and amps through the For Sale forum here and elsewhere are made based to a significant degree on such audio and video clips in the ads. Using an iPhone or small hand held digital recorder is easy, inexpensive, and practical. Very few forum members have pro quality equipment set up and waiting to capture a sudden idea or a short track for personal use. But all have a decent mobile phone and many have $200 to $300 USD video cameras or digital audio recorders. So this is how most of us do it most of the time.
I use the DR40x and Zoom for quick, convenient capture of ideas on the spur of the moment, practice sessions, and gigs (for QC). One or both will be set up on my recording desk almost all of the time for quick access. I use better equipment for formal recording sessions and /or when I want top audio quality. Despite your stated belief, I'm more than willing to devote whatever resources I need to achieve my goals. Here's a small sample of the extent to which I've devoted my resources to fine sound over the years:
Am I "fussy"? If by that you mean "do I want to get great results", the answer is absolutely yes. But most often, the goal is to find the most practical and cost effective solution to get the best results for the time and effort expended. Anybody can buy Rode, Neumann, Neve etc and get a great recording. Anybody can buy Rode, Neumann, Neve etc and get bad recordings despite having the best gear. This thread looks at how close to the best sound we come with the simple devices most of us use most of the time My question in this exercise is twofold: how close to pro quality sound can you come with the kinds of devices most often used by most of us, eg iPhones, tablets, handheld digital recorders, and comsumer grade video recorders, and how consistent are the most commonly used devices. When I realized that the differences among them in absolute quality and fidelity are more audible than I thought they should be, I set about to explore how different they are. I think and hope this is as helpful to forum members as it is to me. I never used my iPhone to record myself before, and I wrongly assumed that the audio quality of the DR40x and the Zoom Q2n-4K would be quite close. Now I (and we) have a better idea of how and how much they differ.
"...not willing to make an exteme effort to achieve them"???? Do you not think that this comparison is a significant effort ?
-
Thank you, nevershould, for your clarification.
I have expensive mics, expensive DAIs, and too many software plugins to use with Apple Logic. I use them quite a bit when I compose music.
When I record my guitars for this forum or youtube, I invariably use an iPhone for audio and an older iPhone for video.
-
I wish you all the luck but to me, this is a losing battle. Originally Posted by nevershouldhavesoldit
I’ve given this example a few times but it’s worth repeating.
People prefer the taste of the same dish, depending on the colour of the plate.
Make of that what you will.
Plate Psychology: How Plate Colour and Shape Influence Our Perception of Food - The Wholesale Group - Chefs' Insider
-
I would if I could - but I can’t. I just don’t see how this relates to the topic. Please help me understand. Originally Posted by Archie
-
I apologize for my word choice; “fussy” has connotations I didn’t intend. Perhaps “particular” would have been a better choice. As far as resources go, it’s always possible to spend even more. I wasn’t questioning your dedication.
I have a friend with a high-end hi-fi business. He has wealthy (Swiss) customers who build houses around a perfect listening room. This is so far up the asymptote my nose bleeds and I show signs of oxygen deprivation. You can always spend more.
Again, please accept my apology for my poor word choice.
-
No worries, my friend. Originally Posted by stevo58
The furthest up the asymptote I ever got was those Infinity Reference Standards. My wife was aghast at their size and complained constantly until I sold them back to my dealer. Of course, she’s lived peacefully - if a bit grudgingly at times - with the rack mount wall for decades (not to mention the guitars, amps, and gizmos).
-
The tone you believe you're getting will be subjective based on your mood, the time of day, the colour of light in your bulb. Originally Posted by nevershouldhavesoldit
The 80/20 rule is a good way to avoid madness. You’re chasing the 99/1 rule which means you've likely blown past anything that is worth while.
Are you chasing the sound of your guitar, or the sound you want? I mean, the latter must be true otherwise you wouldn't be on this quest to begin with.
-
I think you've missed my point. I'm chasing accuracy in recording, not any particular sound. Originally Posted by Archie
This discussion has nothing at all to do with the objective sound of the guitar. It's about the accuracy and consistency of audio recordings of guitars made with various commonly used devices. Self-made audio clips and videos abound on this and every other such website. Many guitars have been sold on the basis of a recording captured with an iPhone. There must be at least a dozen posts a day on this forum alone about how much someone likes or dislikes the sound of a guitar. These judgments are being made without knowing how closely that recording captured the true sound of the instrument. What I've shown in the experiment described in post 1 is that some well known and commonly used devices fail to capture truly accurate audio recordings of acoustic guitars.
While recording my 17" carved archtop to compare its sound to that of an L-5C on a YT video, I discovered that two of my devices (TASCAM DR-40x audio recorder and Zoom Q2n-4K video recorder) reproduced distinctly different tones from the same guitar despite similar technical specs. So I set about to determine how much and in what ways the sound of the same guitar differed when captured by the most commonly used types of recording devices. Even more important to me is how and by how much the sound of the guitar differs from the recordings. Liking what you hear in a recording is useless if that recording is inaccurate.
I was more than a little shocked and disappointed to hear how different my Eastman 810CE7 sounds when recorded by my iPhone, my iPad, my TASCAM audio recorder, and my Zoom video recorder. We all need to know this, because many of us base judgments and buying decisions on what they hear on this forum. But it turns out that what we hear in a posted recording may differ greatly from the actual sound of the guitar or amp, if that recording was made in an uncontrolled environment with a consumer grade device (which almost all are). None of the takes being compared was heard through the device that recorded it. I loaded the raw recorded files (edited only to trim leading and trailing dead space and normalize for volume) directly into Soundcloud and YT (depending on the device that made them) and made all listening comparisons on my monitor system (SMSL balanced DAC driving a pair of JBL 305s).
Both audio and video professional and high grade audiophile equipment is much more consistent and accurate than mobile phones and $200 gizmos. IME even the better "prosumer" stuff from Scarlett, Focusrite, Presonus, MOTU, M-Audio etc is much more consistent when used with decent mics (eg SM57 or 58, Sennheiser 609 or 906, etc). But now that I've uncovered the discrepancy in iStuff etc, I'll test my better equipment to see if it's as reliably accurate as I think (and hope and believe) it is. After this experiment, I'm wondering how my beloved ART Tube MP mic preamp compares to those in the devices I just tested. For about 30 years, I've loved the ART for its natural sound qualities, lack of noise, and ease of use. Now I need to find out if I've been right all this time.
Whether it's an L-5 or a $100 plywood flat top doesn't matter at all, for purposes of this discussion. What's at issue is only how closely recordings of it come to its true sound. Now that I know how different the same guitar sounds when recorded on an iPhone, an iPad, a TASCAM DR-40x, and a Zoom Q2n-4K, I'll never again make a judgment about an instrument on the basis of a recording unless I know that the recording is accurate.
Last edited by nevershouldhavesoldit; 02-28-2026 at 05:37 PM.
-
o.k., but if it wasn't a studio quality recording, I wouldn't expect it to precisely reproduce the sound of the guitar. Originally Posted by nevershouldhavesoldit
And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you can buy a Tascam DR-40 recorder (mine was $80 used) along with a good microphone for less than the price of an iPhone, so "bang for the recording buck" wise, the Tascam would come out ahead (I don't know about the Zoom). I did not expect the Tascams built in microphones to be anything but average, if I wanted a higher quality recording, I'd buy a good mic or two for it.
Also, I suspect that some iPhone models will record better than others, they're not all created equal, so you'd want to know what model of iPhone was used, just as you'd want to know what model Tascam or Zoom recorder was used.
-
Listen to the differences in the clips in post 1. They’re far greater than I think they should be - the difference is far closer to sloppy than it is to imprecise. I don’t expect precision, but both the Zoom and the TASCAM have basically interchangeable specs and should sound a lot closer to each other than they do. My iPhone is the most accurate of the 4. It’s clearly better than my iPad (which is from 2019 and far behind the tech in my iPhone 16 Pro), but the iPad is more accurate than the Zoom. Originally Posted by Mick-7
Speaking of mics, I just started a comparison of the Zoom and TASCAM as USB mics, which unfortunately has to include their preamps. I know of no nondestructive way to get to the mic capsule leads. But I’m also comparing their preamps in isolation by using my SM58s as external mics on both. So we’ll have a better understanding of these components once I complete those recordings. There’s an internal preamp stage in every USB mic, and I know of no way to isolate that stage.
-
You've made my point, the iPhone 16 Pro sells for over $1k, at least 5 times the price of the Tascam DR-40x, so I think this is just a case of "you get what you pay for." Originally Posted by nevershouldhavesoldit
P.S. - From Google....
iPhone 16 Pro/Pro Max: Features four "studio-quality" microphones, offering the highest signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for professional-level recordings, and audio mixing capabilities.
iPhone 11/12 Series: While capable, these models generally offer lower spatial audio quality, with less effective noise reduction.
So for your iPhone/Tascam/Zoom comparison to be closer to "apples to apples," you'll need to use an older iPhone, I think you can buy a used iP-11 for about the price of a new Tascam.
-
The audio recording function is probably 1% of the hardware and software functionality of the iPhone. The mics are made for a compromise between simple speech and complex music, and their elements are minuscule compared to those in the Tascam. OTOH, the Tascam has only one function, and all of its components are engineered to that end. Originally Posted by Mick-7
I’d bet that the cost of the audio recording components in the phone (and of including them) is probably far less than the production cost of the Tascam. The audio functions are embedded in the chipset, and (while of surprisingly high quality) are not 5 times better than those in the Tascam.
A $1k DAI with mic preamps will be far far better than a $200 handheld recorder. But that’s not what we’re comparing.
-
nshsi, I just think you are comparing apples to oranges. As to what would be apples to apples, I'm not sure, but it certainly isn't an iPad 16 to $200 price range handheld recorders.
Lots of comparative reviews to be found....
Best Digital Voice Recorders | Tested & Ranked
32-bit Field Recorders Comparison
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions