Freesound Forums
Zoom H4 recorder
Started October 6th, 2006 · 17 replies · Latest reply by LS 16 years, 8 months ago
A new digital recorder from Samson. At 300 USD and with 48 V phantom this thing looks sweet, but still no info from users. Worth keeping an eye on it, though:
http://www.samsontech.com/products/productpage.cfm?prodID=1901
As much as I hate the Zoom stuff, that looks pretty interesting for the price.
Plenty of reviews and info here http://www.2090.org/zoom/bbs/viewforum.php?f=15
Looks great as a field recorder.
I contacted the manufacturer. They told my these values via mail:
Signal/noise on mic = 60 dBm
Signal/noise on line = 98 dBm
It seems to be that the mic preamp is not the best. What a pity, I would pay 100 Euro more for a good buildin preamp. But the mass of people don´t care about it and just look at the price.
-Erdie
Erdie
It seems to be that the mic preamp is not the best. What a pity, I would pay 100 Euro more for a good buildin preamp. But the mass of people don´t care about it and just look at the price.-Erdie
Erdie,
if you read the manual, the machine is obviously designed with musicians in mind. It's stuffed with all kind of effects, can be used as an audio interface and mixer. Master of all trades to my eyes, but at 300 $ they will sell a bunch of these.
The only advantages I see over the R09 (for a field-recordist) is the phantom powered XLR inputs that allow using with profesional mics, and that it is more solidly built.
You are right, another advantage in my eyes is that there are cardioid mic used in a YX setup. The omnidirectional mic in the Edirol definatly don´t make sense in terms of their distance of a few cm. You cannot use the whole base between the speakers with an 5cm AB System. Even sound from 180° side will be reproduced around the middle betweed the speakers. The YX setup in the Zoom H4 will have a recording angle about 100°. That´s still to wide but it works.
98 dBm for the line input is OK.
But what advantage will you take of professional mics if your preamp noisefloor is about 60dB ?
-Erdie
Erdie
The omnidirectional mic in the Edirol definatly don´t make sense in terms of their distance of a few cm. You cannot use the whole base between the speakers with an 5cm AB System. Even sound from 180° side will be reproduced around the middle betweed the speakers.
according to the R09 faq at taperssection these are "Omni at 120 degress from each other ....separation & imaging of the internal mics can be greatly improved with a simple folding Jecklin-like baffle
ErdieThe YX setup in the Zoom H4 will have a recording angle about 100°. That´s still to wide but it works.
But what advantage will you take of professional mics if your preamp noisefloor is about 60dB ?
That's a very good point...against the H4!
cheers
dobroideaccording to the R09 faq at taperssection these are "Omni at 120 degress from each other ....separation & imaging of the internal mics can be greatly improved with a simple folding Jecklin-like baffle
cheers
Sorry, I was wrong, the recording angle with the XY SYstem at the Zoom will be about 196° under the assumption, that the mics are cardioids.
Concerning you workaround with the Jecklin "disk". I not a friend of recording technique where the mics are separated with somthing between. This will cause spectral differences between the channels, which makes only sense by listening with headphones. Listening via loudspeakers will cause coloration of the sound. But this will cause in a endless discussion :wink:
cheers
Erdie
I bought a Zoom H4 this week. I don't have big expectations for it, except something MUCH more versatile on its built-in mics than my iRiver 120 (The iRiver has the worst built-in mic ever!) and not large enough to use at a show with pro mics and the Edirol R4.
The construction quality is somewhat budget, but in useability terms, since I'm a heavy BlackBerry user, the scroll-wheel/button combo is actually *very* familiar (Something the online review community hated!). I'll post some examples over the next few weeks for people to hear. I am unlikely to do a 'controlled' test of any kind. Even though the studio is almost complete, I find the best way to test a remote piece of gear is to use it remotely. Something like the H4 will undoubtedly sound like shit if trying to do something serious in pristine conditions.....
Its too bad you don't dig Jecklin or binaural stuff Erdie. Not everything can be accurate on speakers. The nature of our own hearing is that there is something between our ears. Mono doesn't really exist, and neither does the stereo we hear in loudspeakers. I'll endeavour to put more examples up of my DIY binaural stuff; I'm just partial to the stuff I guess. I only have one Jecklin sample up, and it is admittedly not an example which will change anyones mind on that topic.... I've done about 20 hours of budget DIY binaural, but its all music so far.
.
I'll let you all know what I think of the H4 after I've used it for a bit.
lonemonk
Something like the H4 will undoubtedly sound like shit if trying to do something serious in pristine conditions.....
Still, it would be useful to be able to make a direct comparison between the H4, the R-09 and the Microtrack, wouldn't it?
Also, the H2 looks somewhat intriguing for a compact 'point & shoot' type recorder.
I have had my zomm h4 for a couple of weeks. My recordings have all been at 16 bit, 44.1 kHz, stereo. Yes, it feels "plastic" and fragile because it is. I have posted, at this time of writing, about 5 field recordings - baseball hits, airplanes starting, thunder, and birds chirping. Most were with the internal mikes.
As to outdoor field recording, I'm a rookie. Heigh-hoo pointed out objectionable low frequency content in hoo_hoo_hoo and some handling noise in small_plane_ignition. After purchasing some "real" headphones, I now hear - all too well - the wind rumbles and handling clunks. I need to work on technique. These were not faults of the H4.
The sample by_3_seg_90db_gain was recorded on a quiet Sunday morning in my back yard with the AT825. The mike was resting on a forked branch in a bush. the recording (set at maximum gain) resulted in a very low recorded signal. I amplified the file's volume 90dB to create the posted MP3 file. Behind, about 100 feet, and to the left was a basement window where a clothes dryer was exhausting. Some distant neighborhood birds were singing. Both are evident in the recording. I was impressed with how little self noise was present in this 90 dB amplification of a recording made with the H4's maximum gain setting.
The sample hoo_hoo_hoo was recorded with the built-in mikes and without it's foam windscreen (not that it would have helped) by sitting the H4 down in the grass at the bottom of the chain link fence - roughly 10 feet behind and about 20 feet to the left of the catcher. The gain was, as I recall, set on low since I expected a lot of high-energy impact noises and loud crowd responses. The H4 caught the loud, leathery smack of the ball hitting the catcher's glove and many subtle sounds produced by the fans. but, as noted, there is significant low-frequency jolts in places.
The sample yeah_baby_score was recorded at the same game as hoo_hoo_hoo. However, I slapped some low-frequency EQ on it to filter out the rumble. Now, it now sounds as real as I can remember.
The H4 went through some cheap-o AA batteries quickly. Durcells last much much longer - but I haven't used it enough to suggest just how long.
Wind and handling noise aside, I have been greatly impressed by the frequencies captured - especially with the internal mikes. Learning the menu process took a few second thoughts - and then, actually reading the instructions 
Quickly, for stereo recording, the process becomes easy and second nature.
Bottom line - to date, the zoom h4 performs as advertised (for my stereo purposes) and I have no regrets. It's a good bang for the buck.
