Re: Anyone else tried the Zoom H4 digital recorder?
Misifus
> Hi all,
> It's been some 11 months since the last time I checked in here -- the
> backlog is huge, the newsreader says I've got more than 33000 messages
> to read.. have to stop reading for the night.. so I don't know if there
> has been any threads about this already:
> Have any of you tried the Zoom H4 digital recorder (and much, much more, and
> cheap) yet?
> I bought one just before Christmas and I find it excellent for recording
> acoustic guitar. Certainly way more convenient than messing around with
> the PC..
>
> Tor from Norway
Well, howdy. How's life above the Arctic Circle? I've read lots of
good things about the H4, but Jim McCrain just conducted a recording
test comparing it with the Edirol R-09, which I believe costs about $100
more. Results to be published here, soon.
-Raf
--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
mailto:rafse...@suddenlink.net
blog: http://rafsrincon.blogspot.com/
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafiii
home: http://www.rafandsioux.com
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Jim McCrain
Just last night, I did an A-B comparison between the Zoom H4 and the
Edirol R-9. The test took place in a local coffee house, so it was a
"real world" test. I made sure that each unit recorded at the same
levels and settings, and were always pointed in the same direction.
This way, I could compare the recording settings (manual), automatic
gain feature, and both on- and off-axis recording characteristics. All
recordings were set to 44.1 khz/16 bit for the test. Here is what I
found:
First, both units made "good" recordings. Both picked up plenty of
signal, at all settings, and neither introduced "noise" or other
artifacts. Both units run on AA batteries and both accept/use an SD
memory card. (I used identical 2 gig cards in each unit for the
test.)
ZOOM H4
All of the recordings were "good" but not great. There was very
little coloration through the built-in mics: not enough to make the
recordings sound "altered." Pick-up pattern for the mics was fairly
straight ahead and realtively clear, although the off-axis pick-up was
muddled and slightly distorted.
EDIROL R-9
Very good recordings. The mic coloration was noticably less than the
H4. In fact, the recordings sounded very clean, clear, and
articulate. All of the high tones were present and the bass notes
were well represented. Pick-up pattern was more of an "omni" pattern,
so the off-axis sounds were clear. This could be considered both a
"pro" and a "con." PRO because it picks up a wider area, and CON
because it picks up a wider area! (This unit would be better suited
to recording a 'song circle' than the H4.)
FINDINGS
Over-all, the Edirol made clearer, cleaner, and more dynamic
recordings than the H4. Neither one, though, could be compared to a
"true" multi-track session recording. But then again, that is not
what these units are to be used for. (The H4 DOES have 2 XLR
connectors. I haven't tried them!) Either one would make a good
field recorder, but the R-9 has a couple of stand out features. It is
smaller, lighter, and has a wider pick-up pattern. The controls are
also MUCH easier to use and understand than on the H4.
One definate CON to the H4 was the recording timecode. The recordings
made with the H4 did NOT sync up with the ones made with the R-9. The
H4 recordings were all "long" when compared with the others. In other
words, when synced at the beginning of a song, the H4 would have
slowed down by about 50-60 milliseconds withing the first few minutes.
I tested the H4 against recordings made with the studio equipment, and
the results were repeated. So, if you want to sync your "field
recordings" with studio recordings, I would stay away from the H4.
I will be sending back my H4 and will purchase the R-9.
Your mileage may vary.
Cheers!
Jim McCrain
Misifus
Thanks for the very useful analysis, Jim
Derek
Wow. I'll second that. Very thorough. I had been considering the
Edirol, that review certainly cinches it for me.
Jim McCrain
>Wow. I'll second that. Very thorough. I had been considering the
>Edirol, that review certainly cinches it for me.
Don't get me wrong, the H4 could be a very useful tool. My biggest
concern was the sync problems. That, and the directional recording
axis. (I prefer an omni-style mic for this kind of recorder.)
I forgot to mention a something else. The H4 comes with a tripod
adapter plate. This costs extra for the Edirol R-9. The H4 costs
$299, while the R-9 is $399.
Jim
tbmo...@peoplepc.com
"Jim McCrain" <rmm...@texianmedia.com> wrote in message
news:u9abq2lu1fhl9es96...@4ax.com...
I just bought a used marantz cassette deck(10.50$) on ebay and am using a
shure hi-z omni mic(many 30$?, I've had it"forever") straight into its mic
ins I know I am giving up portability and some sound quaity
but its still easy to use after 5 beers :-) and storage media is dirt cheap
George
Derek
> > JimI just bought a used marantz cassette deck(10.50$) on ebay and am using a
> shure hi-z omni mic(many 30$?, I've had it"forever") straight into its mic
> ins I know I am giving up portability and some sound quaity
> but its still easy to use after 5 beers :-) and storage media is dirt cheap
> George
Cassette? What the heck is a cassette?
WeeGreenGuitar
I looked at both the Zoom and the Edirol in Turnkey's latest catalogue
(it's a UK store in London)
They also mention an M-Audio unit - the 'Micro Track'
Price is same as the Edirol
Anyone tried that one? I generally like M-Audio gear
Lemme know
Cheers
MD
Ty Ford
(in article <bsqaq2dftdev6vj3h...@4ax.com>):
> One definate CON to the H4 was the recording timecode. The recordings made
> with the H4 did NOT sync up with the ones made with the R-9. The H4
> recordings were all "long" when compared with the others. In other words,
> when synced at the beginning of a song, the H4 would have slowed down by
> about 50-60 milliseconds withing the first few minutes. I tested the H4
> against recordings made with the studio equipment, and the results were
> repeated. So, if you want to sync your "field recordings" with studio
> recordings, I would stay away from the H4.
>
> I will be sending back my H4 and will purchase the R-9.
Did you check the R-9 for drift?
Ty Ford
-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
tbmo...@peoplepc.com
"Ty Ford" <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XOSdnda4YeeZqDvY...@comcast.com...
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:12:01 -0500, Jim McCrain wrote
> (in article <bsqaq2dftdev6vj3h...@4ax.com>):
>
>> One definate CON to the H4 was the recording timecode. The recordings
>> made
>> with the H4 did NOT sync up with the ones made with the R-9. The H4
>> recordings were all "long" when compared with the others. In other
>> words,
>> when synced at the beginning of a song, the H4 would have slowed down by
>> about 50-60 milliseconds withing the first few minutes. I tested the H4
>> against recordings made with the studio equipment, and the results were
>> repeated. So, if you want to sync your "field recordings" with studio
>> recordings, I would stay away from the H4.
>>
>> I will be sending back my H4 and will purchase the R-9.
>
> Did you check the R-9 for drift?
>
or are there moving parts I am not aware of
I thought therse were recording on "smart" media
george
Ken Cashion
It is like a miniature VHS cassette but for audio. <g>
Ken...who still listens to 8-track and 78s. <g>
Jim McCrain
wrote:
>Did you check the R-9 for drift?
>
>Ty Ford
Ty,
I did not have anything to compare the R-9 to, other than the H4. But
the "drift" of the H4 was the same length/time difference when
compared to the R-9 recordings and the studio recordings. So, I would
guess that there was no (measurable) drift to the R-9.
Jim
Jim McCrain
>The slowdown you describe is surprising, I'm curious as to how this can
>happen, seen from a techical point of view. As was mentioned by another
>poster, there are no moving parts..
>
>One known problem with the H4 is that when recording silence at high gain
>there is a little 'beep' deep down in the noise floor, it's caused by the
>DC-DC converter and it's only there when using the internal batteries.
Tor,
You are right. The "slow down" is VERY surprising, and I can't figure
out how or why it is doing it. All I can surmise is that the sampling
rate is not a true 44.1 rate. If it were a video recorder, it could
be explained by recording it at a faster speed, and then playing it
back at a slower/standard speed. The quality would be fine, it would
just take a longer time to play it back.
As far as I could ascertain, the sound quality and the tones were
correct, it just "stretched" the playback time. It may have just been
my particular unit, but it sure is a strange problem.
Like I said before, if you aren't going to sync these recordings up
with any others, then the H4 is a very good unit to have around. In a
controlled environment, where directional mics are important, it would
be a good choice.
Cheers!
Jim
Ty Ford
(in article <tcrph.9675$w91....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
different clocks in different machines
tbmo...@peoplepc.com
perhaps the time code generator is the part that is wrong and the recordings
are spot on?
just a guess I might try to move this to Rec.Audio>pro in seach of some
edumacation on this
george
>
> Jim
Ty Ford
(in article <ksjcq2ln9dcdjjndk...@4ax.com>):
Man with one watch always knows what time it is. man with two watches never
does!
Unless both recorders are locked to the same clock source, you can expect
them to walk away from each other. Pretty scary really when you first
encounter it.
Regards,
hank alrich
> what would cause "drift" in a system with no moving parts
Clock instability.
--
ha
"Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam"
tbmo...@peoplepc.com
I admit I don't know much about cocks
but when seling high end video timecode was EVERYTHINg(that and the
vectorscope)
I can see how the numbers woud be diffrent but not the intervals
it woud seem(sorry for the assumption) that time is not mutable 32.1176
seconds is 32.1176 seconds regardless of , well, anything
george
tbmo...@peoplepc.com
"hank alrich" <walk...@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1hrrqsc.a1rmiq1dfz58wN%walk...@thegrid.net...
> George G wrote:
>
>> what would cause "drift" in a system with no moving parts
>
> Clock instability.
>
that "seems " to me something that shoud have been mastered and eliminated
decades ago, when we changed from main springs to digital pulses
george
hank alrich
> "hank alrich"wrote
> > George G wrote:
> >
> >> what would cause "drift" in a system with no moving parts
> >
> > Clock instability.
> >
> humm
> that "seems " to me something that shoud have been mastered and eliminated
> decades ago, when we changed from main springs to digital pulses
Certainly improvements have been made, but the lower-priced spreads do
not always benefit fully from that progress, and further, we are now at
a point where the third place right of the decimal point matters. That
kind of stability and accuracy is not cheap. That's where some of the
money goes in high-end ADC's and DAC's.
tbmo...@peoplepc.com
"clocks" have not been a important part of my ive sound experiance yet
but its nice to know something about them
is there a refrence I can earn more from as to clocks and live audio
appications?
george