Re: Zoom H4 - Yet another device for recording music - opinion please
Looks nice!
It has some serious pro features, like the XLR mic inputs, that the others in the field don't have, certainly don't have at that price!
I'm not sure that I'd use the XLR inputs, tho... I've been using the Edirol R-09 and the mics in that are fine. It can take a stereo input on a 1/8" stereo mini-jack, and I have an AudioTechnica AT822 stereo mic that terminates in a mini-jack, but it's soooo simple to use the R-09 without an external mic that I haven't tried the AT with it yet.
One thing is a little odd about the page on the Zoom... "records to Secure Digital Media (SD) up to 2 GB allowing for up to 380 minutes of recording at CD quality audio" on a 2gig chip? The math doesn't work.
Well... CD audio is 16-bit, 44.1kHz and that audio takes up ten megabytes of storage space a minute in stereo... I get 1 hour and 37 minutes of 16/44.1 on a 1gig chip in the Edirol... Six hours of "CD" audio on a 2-gig chip? Ah... I don't know how they work that out... Unless they figure that some audio that is compressed (like mp3s) passes as "CD quality"... Maybe they have some proprietary data compression algorithm in there...
The exposed mic capsules are a very popular look and a high tech-looking design, but after having used mics, DAT recorders and now the Edirol, they look kind of vulnerable and exposed. I can imagine catching that little open labyrinth on stuff in everyday use... The Edirol's design, in which the mics are pretty much flush against the sides of the case, is
very easy to use in odd places and there is nothing there that catches or snags on stuff in tight or unusual environments.
Having had said all that, Zoom makes good stuff. I have studio pals who prefer Zoom boxes to others that have boutique names and cost loads more.
I am really enjoying the Edirol R-09 and it does really well in resolutions from 128kbps mp3s to 24-bit 44.1 files, and it's a real breeze to use. The only thing wrong with it is that I now make more recordings than I can process (that is, just doing some edits to take out gaps and conversations and making CDs of 'em, tho I sometimes can do quick edits to the mp3s and send them on via FTP sites). I've been working some extra long hours to deliver folks' recordings to them. But the files are very good to work with, and when I put them in ProTools at high resolution I don't find glitches or artifacts at all, so this box will make real good CD-quality audio.
We're just seeing the beginning of these sorts of devices, and already there's a 'flavor' for just about everyone, and the prices will keep on coming down. Pertty soon everybody will have one! Wooohoo!
Re: Zoom H4 - Yet another device for recording music - opinion please
That does seem strange. 1GB will hold 90 minutes of 16 bit/44.1 kHz of uncompressed stereo. This device will actually record at 24bit/96 kHz. That gives you only 30 minutes per gig. So I don't know about that. If it is just proprietary compression, it's pretty incredible. Or pretty crappy.
But, the 34 hours of stereo MP3 will fit on 2 GB of storage as they claim. Mono will give you around 72 hours, which you might deem reasonable if you're just recording a session.
Re: Zoom H4 - Yet another device for recording music - opinion please
Thanks for the comments. I suspect the stv is correct, that we are seeing the leading edge of these devices. My needs are currently met satisfactorily with a Sony MD recorder. However, I am always looking to the future.
Re: Zoom H4 - Yet another device for recording music - opinion please
I don't use (...yet!) any of the devices mentioned so far on this thread. For recording sessions, and more usually, tune workshops, I use a 512MB Logik mp3/wma player-recorder which records in mono from 8-30 kHz, and for my purposes gives me what I want.
Stv's comments about audio compression has led me to investigate what goes on inside my Logik. This evening I recorded a tune workshop which lasted 3 1/2 hours. When I got home I downloaded the WAV file onto my PC. My audio editor, CoolEdit2000, told me it was a ACM-compressed WAV file and that its size was 66808 KB (16-bit mono at 11 kHz). I re-saved the file in uncompressed PCM WAV format and its size now became 265402 KB, four times the size of the compressed version.
Just thought you'd like to know.
Re: Zoom H4 - Yet another device for recording music - opinion please
I just got the Zoom H4 last week. I'm not a techie-type but I did like the features on the Zoom (the 4-track recording option mostly) better than the Edirol and the M-Audio that I also considered.
I haven't got all the bells and whistles figured out yet. I haven't been able to download to my pc and will be on the phone tomorrow for tech support. But, I must say, the built in mics work VERY well, and overall, it's not terribly hard even for tech-challenged peeps like me to figure out.
Re: Zoom H4 - Yet another device for recording music - opinion please
Hello.
I want to buy a digital recording and need to choose among Edirol R-09 Microtrack 24/96 OR the Zoom H4.
I've read zoom H4 has got better micro quality ??
But it's much bigger, bigger than many pockets.
I think I'll buy the Edirol because the microtrack's battery issue and its microphone is worse ??
Zoom H4 - Yet another device for recording music - opinion please
Zoom H4 - Yet another device for recording music - opinion please
Anyone familiar with this device (Zoom H4) for field recordings?
http://www.music123.com/Zoom-H4-Handy-Recorder-i751158.music
For anyone in the know about such things, would you please give your opinion on how it stacks up against other recording options?
# Posted on October 10th 2006 by rob zouk
Re: Zoom H4 - Yet another device for recording music - opinion please
Sounds more impressive than the M-Audio Microtrack which I am so pleased with.
# Posted on October 10th 2006 by oldstrings
Re: Zoom H4 - Yet another device for recording music - opinion please
Looks nice!
It has some serious pro features, like the XLR mic inputs, that the others in the field don't have, certainly don't have at that price!
I'm not sure that I'd use the XLR inputs, tho... I've been using the Edirol R-09 and the mics in that are fine. It can take a stereo input on a 1/8" stereo mini-jack, and I have an AudioTechnica AT822 stereo mic that terminates in a mini-jack, but it's soooo simple to use the R-09 without an external mic that I haven't tried the AT with it yet.
One thing is a little odd about the page on the Zoom... "records to Secure Digital Media (SD) up to 2 GB allowing for up to 380 minutes of recording at CD quality audio" on a 2gig chip? The math doesn't work.
Well... CD audio is 16-bit, 44.1kHz and that audio takes up ten megabytes of storage space a minute in stereo... I get 1 hour and 37 minutes of 16/44.1 on a 1gig chip in the Edirol... Six hours of "CD" audio on a 2-gig chip? Ah... I don't know how they work that out... Unless they figure that some audio that is compressed (like mp3s) passes as "CD quality"... Maybe they have some proprietary data compression algorithm in there...
The exposed mic capsules are a very popular look and a high tech-looking design, but after having used mics, DAT recorders and now the Edirol, they look kind of vulnerable and exposed. I can imagine catching that little open labyrinth on stuff in everyday use... The Edirol's design, in which the mics are pretty much flush against the sides of the case, is
very easy to use in odd places and there is nothing there that catches or snags on stuff in tight or unusual environments.
Having had said all that, Zoom makes good stuff. I have studio pals who prefer Zoom boxes to others that have boutique names and cost loads more.
I am really enjoying the Edirol R-09 and it does really well in resolutions from 128kbps mp3s to 24-bit 44.1 files, and it's a real breeze to use. The only thing wrong with it is that I now make more recordings than I can process (that is, just doing some edits to take out gaps and conversations and making CDs of 'em, tho I sometimes can do quick edits to the mp3s and send them on via FTP sites). I've been working some extra long hours to deliver folks' recordings to them. But the files are very good to work with, and when I put them in ProTools at high resolution I don't find glitches or artifacts at all, so this box will make real good CD-quality audio.
We're just seeing the beginning of these sorts of devices, and already there's a 'flavor' for just about everyone, and the prices will keep on coming down. Pertty soon everybody will have one! Wooohoo!
stv
http://cdbaby.com/Cuchies
# Posted on October 10th 2006 by stv culchie
Re: Zoom H4 - Yet another device for recording music - opinion please
I have an iRiver h320 and it is great for recording - even with a separate Sony mic and carries all music for playing in the car.
There's one on eBay for $38.00 and I paid $400 for mine not that long ago - and would again but I think they're not built anymore.
http://electronics.listings.ebay.ca/MP3-Players_iRiver_W0QQfsooZ1QQfsopZ1QQsacatZ114622QQsocmdZListingItemList
# Posted on October 10th 2006 by P&P
Re: Zoom H4 - Yet another device for recording music - opinion please
That does seem strange. 1GB will hold 90 minutes of 16 bit/44.1 kHz of uncompressed stereo. This device will actually record at 24bit/96 kHz. That gives you only 30 minutes per gig. So I don't know about that. If it is just proprietary compression, it's pretty incredible. Or pretty crappy.
But, the 34 hours of stereo MP3 will fit on 2 GB of storage as they claim. Mono will give you around 72 hours, which you might deem reasonable if you're just recording a session.
# Posted on October 11th 2006 by mcdevincabe
Re: Zoom H4 - Yet another device for recording music - opinion please
Thanks for the comments. I suspect the stv is correct, that we are seeing the leading edge of these devices. My needs are currently met satisfactorily with a Sony MD recorder. However, I am always looking to the future.
# Posted on October 11th 2006 by rob zouk
Re: Zoom H4 - Yet another device for recording music - opinion please
I don't use (...yet!) any of the devices mentioned so far on this thread. For recording sessions, and more usually, tune workshops, I use a 512MB Logik mp3/wma player-recorder which records in mono from 8-30 kHz, and for my purposes gives me what I want.
Stv's comments about audio compression has led me to investigate what goes on inside my Logik. This evening I recorded a tune workshop which lasted 3 1/2 hours. When I got home I downloaded the WAV file onto my PC. My audio editor, CoolEdit2000, told me it was a ACM-compressed WAV file and that its size was 66808 KB (16-bit mono at 11 kHz). I re-saved the file in uncompressed PCM WAV format and its size now became 265402 KB, four times the size of the compressed version.
Just thought you'd like to know.
# Posted on October 12th 2006 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Zoom H4 - Yet another device for recording music - opinion please
I just got the Zoom H4 last week. I'm not a techie-type but I did like the features on the Zoom (the 4-track recording option mostly) better than the Edirol and the M-Audio that I also considered.
I haven't got all the bells and whistles figured out yet. I haven't been able to download to my pc and will be on the phone tomorrow for tech support. But, I must say, the built in mics work VERY well, and overall, it's not terribly hard even for tech-challenged peeps like me to figure out.
# Posted on October 16th 2006 by ketida
Re: Zoom H4 - Yet another device for recording music - opinion please
Hello.
I want to buy a digital recording and need to choose among Edirol R-09 Microtrack 24/96 OR the Zoom H4.
I've read zoom H4 has got better micro quality ??
But it's much bigger, bigger than many pockets.
I think I'll buy the Edirol because the microtrack's battery issue and its microphone is worse ??
# Posted on November 21st 2006 by skan