What's your budget?

emmo,
I'm particularly fond of the multitrack recorders from Roland.
http://rolandus.com/products/subcategory.asp?CatID=12&SubCatID=48

Not that they are any better than any other recorder, I'm just familiar with how to operate them. It may be a little overkill to drag along a multitrack mixer/recorder to a small venue, but I'm comfy with it.
My favorite is the VS-1824 .
Lot of options for input, and lot more for "output to your computer" when it's time to get some work done. Optical, digital, analog, etc.

You'll pay several hundred to several thousand for one, and keep in mind that all the additional microphone, cable, and accessory expenses can add add up pretty darn quick.
If you are "full timing" this work, you'll get your money back pretty quickly.
It this is a "part-time" thing for ya, be wise with your purchases.
It all aint worth gettin' divorced over.....
:o)

Huh?? You have an ultimate mulitrack recorder in Vegas. Why even consider using a hardware tool.
Sound rig for better wedding sound?

Small 4-6 channel mixer
3 or more wireless units. One for pastor, one for groom, one for extra. These usually come with decent mics. Get a UHF system, not a VHF system whatever you do.
A shotgun mic in the absence of wireless, to pick up more targeted sounds from a distance.
A lightwave or Audio Technica shock mount to mount the mic with.
A mic stand to mount the mic on. Only fools and really ambitious run n' guns' put mics on cameras. Experienced folks know better.
Phantom power supply for shotgun.
Assortment of weird adaptors, etc for those 'you never know' moments

Based on your post, I assume you mean production audio and not post audio. If it's post you want to sound better, I got two words for you.
WAVES
iZotope.

One or the other, or both will rock your post production world.

I've been toying with this question also. One approach would be to use a laptop running Vegas as the capture program, and get the audio into the laptop using a PC card such as the one described here:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1325716,00.asp

Another option is one I first explored last evening, as a matter of fact--I taped a choir performance in two ways, one with the built-in mic on my new toy, a Sony VX-2000 camcorder, the other with a Sony MS908C stereo mic feeding a Sharp Minidisc recorder.

Reviewing the two earlier today, it was obvious just how much compression the "auto" setting on the camcorder does (next time, I will set the record level on the camera manually). In addition, the Minidisc audio had a lower noise floor.

I've heard that Minidisc is used often as a suprisingly high-quality audio-capture format. I used an old Sharp MD-MT15, which I got on eBay for about $60. The Sharp units can adjust the record level while recording, which apparently the Sony recordables cannot.

Marantz also has an excellent portable minidisc recorder, about $600. My sound man used one instead of a DAT recorder when my (low-budget) film crew filmed (miniDV, Panny DVX100) a series of location shots last January (with a Sennheiser boom mike). The limit of performance is 16-bit, 48kHz stereo but it's still remarkable, and you can adjust one of the two channels lower as a safety track when the main track clips. Normalizes nicely in Vegas or SF7. And y'know--no tape to snag or accidentally erase.

I'm a big fan of Minidiscs. Talk about portable with great sound.
vitalforces mentioned the Marantz unit. I picked up a great Sony for less than $250

Check out:
http://www.minidisc.org/
http://www.minidisct.com/

There's no "but still remarkable" about 48k/16 bit. It's a very high quality resolution when recorded properly, and is superior to CD audio. MiniDisk has some compression characteristics that become apparent at low input, but when managed correctly, this is better than DAT.
It all boils down to the DAC's more than anything. Great DACs on a cheap recorder is dangerous. High end recorders with crappy DAC's sound crappy.

What is a "DAC"? (digital audio something??)

DAC = digital analogue converter
Tor

I have a Sony PCM-M1 DAT recorder and some nice mics. it enabled me to capture bruce in sydney (just over 3hours) in cd quality.

It can record upto 48khz 16bit sound.

also depending on the sounds you recording you need to choose the right type of mic.


regards
Jc

Spot,
How do you mean minidisc is better than DAT? DAT is 16/44.1 or 48k PCM, and has no compression artifacts at all. I love my Sharp minidisc (and have had good results in a groom's pocket), but I wouldn't claim its superior to DAT.

Read what I said carefully.
A minidisk with a good DAC is better than a DAT with a poor DAC.
A DAT with a good DAC is superior to a DAT with a poor DAC.
Compression is only part of the issue. Compression can damage the integrity, but if you have a good DAC such as the Marantz or HHB, the DAC's are superior to most consumer-priced DAT's.
Recording at the right levels is equally critical, or the DAC's can't do their job.
There are a lot of factors in this game, but the DAC is the most important one in any situation.

I have used a Sony portable, consumer-grade minidisk recorder (RZ-55, I think... I don't have it in front of me right now). While the sound quality is fine, I've been frustrated with how tempermental the unit is. Sometimes the audio skips, sometimes it mysteriously stops recording for no apparent reason.

Also, sometimes I've had great difficulty synching captured minidisk audio with DV audio. Even if captured via the analog ports into my Echo Mia, or over firewire, at the same (48,000) sample rate, it often drifts out of synch, almost as if it were recording at a slightly variable speed.

The only experience I've had with DATs were a horrible tangled mess of chewed up tape.

I've been much happier since I invested in a Sennheiser wireless mike, and started using a spare mini-DV camera as a standalone audio recorder when necessary.

So, my question is, are these limitations of the MD and DAT mediums, or of the quality of the equipment I was using? If I invested in a Marantz or HHB unit, would these issues disappear?

Compact flash media for audio recording is appealing, since there are no moving parts, which seem to be the big bugaboo with any portable audio equipment. Any thoughts on this technology?

Which Sony model? I have an older MZR-37 (last well built one from what I have read at minidisc.org) Wish I had bought two of them.

John

Spot,
Gotcha. Righto.

Standing,
I don't think sync is necessarily a price issue, because my $150 Sharp MT90 portable syncs fine (within a frame or so anyway) over a 60 minute shoot.

I never said DAT was BETTER for portable use; personally I prefer minidisc. But uncompressed audio has the potential for better sound if the electronics are equal. Having said that, I've only ever heard the difference on full range music, and that was with my cheapo Sharp, so take that for what it's worth. Speech and limited range music (like organ at wedding) sound lossless to my ears. I LOVE the idea of solid state media recording, and will likely go thet route one day. Any online comparisons of the preamps & ADCs in these puppies?

I long for the day when we have 20gb compact flash storage and can use it for video acquistion and distribution. Wouldn't it be great to say sayonara to tapes and rotating disks forever?

Ah well, we can dream ,can't we?

By the time we have 20GB flash memory we'll be shooting in some kind of super-HD format, and 20GB will be good for no more than 5 minutes!

I had excellent results with two Sony Minidisc models (MZ-N707 & MZ-R90) that I bought from a Sony outlet store (for $160 & $100) to record a cousin's wedding and a few training sessions. They synched perfectly with our three DV-camcorders' audio tracks. (Be sure to choose a Minidisc model that has a microphone input jack.) However, these were amateur projects, so I didn't need to make absolutely sure that each recorder was doing its job.

When set to record in Mono (to double the recording time, up to 160 minutes), their automatic volume levels are MUCH TOO HIGH. So I set the volume manually, after testing various levels (make a test recording with several different volume settings, capture it in Vegas, and then expand the Vegas audio track vertically and look for clipped waveforms).

The groom wore one MD, with a cheap lavalier mike, which produced the best audio track of all. I also used the church's analog recording of their PA system, which proved impossible to synch consistently enough to produce clean Surround Sound -- I should have attached an MD to the church's PA mixer, which gathered inputs from the pastor's wireless mike and from a stand mike that was used by soloists.

We used the MD & PA mono tracks for the Center channel; a rear-of-the-aisle, tripod-mounted camcorder's stereo tracks for the Rear channels; and the audio recorded by two up-front camcorders (operated by my wife & I) for the Front channels. It sounds nice, except for the analog PA tape that varied in speed. I sure did enjoy editing all these tracks!

Brandon's Dad

You can have it very soon, Panasonic have just the camera for you.
As for the price, well I don't know and even if I didn't I couldn't tell you.
To find out that bit you had to go into a closed room after signing the non disclosure agreement or was it some waiver in case the news led to cariac arrest?

I have a Sharp MT190, and also never had a sync issue, with several 60 minute shoot. Even though I had to do an analogue transfer to my PC. (you only can do a digital transfer from PC to MD)
In general, get a MDrecorder with a mic input and an option to adjust the recording level. This is a must, if you're hooking up your recorder to a PA, otherwise your audio will be clipped.
A portable MDrecorder is the way to go, to stay mobile.

"......Huh?? You have an ultimate mulitrack recorder in Vegas. Why even consider using a hardware tool. ........"

Spot,
I respectfully disagree.
Adequate. Not "ultimate".

I ~~like~~ draggin' around the multitrackers.
Reliable mic, stereo, and instrument connections, good original source, etc, etc.
Easier to set up than a laptop, absolutely no "motherboard" noise, and I feel good knowin' that if the wind blew wrong, somebody sneezed too hard, or if 20 watts or 20,000 thousand watts of sound got in the way, I'd not have to worry about losing "half of it" from relying on an 1/8 inch stereeo miniplug sticking out of a minidisc recorder or the back of a sound card to record it.

:o)

I use an Alesis Masterlink. Two channel up to 96K 24 bit. 2 unit rack mount. Records to built in hard drive. Has CD burner. Will burn file in at any form to AIFF. With a Mackie 1202 I have 4 mic inputs and 4 stereo line inputs, all balanced. The Quality from the Masterlink is better than what I get with my GL2. I feed both units from the 1202. I use canon's XLR adapter on the GL2.
I find a difference of about 3 frames in 10 minutes between the canon and the masterlink. The AIFF files import directly into Vegas. I usually record at 48K to match DV. But I use 24 bit resolution to improve dynamic range until I am through editing.