I'd appreciate some advice on the relative merits of these products, based on hands-on experience.
My intended purpose is to get good-to-high quality recording of personal playing, workshops, and sessions, with possible subsequent downloading to a PC for audio editing (I'm getting fed up with assorted tiny mp3 player/recorders and the inconvenience of tape).
I'll factor the price into my decision after I've considered advice on the relative technical merits of the products.
Thanks.
I have a Zoom H2 and a friend has an H4. Both would work well for what you want. I was very surprised by the quality of the recordings with my H2.
You would probably have to play with the settings to get them exactly where you want, but even so, you can adjust quite a bit afterward if you record in 4 track mode.
The only advantages I see in the H4 over the H2 is the ability to plug stuff in. Also I think the H4 comes with some music editing software. I use Audacity after I've transferred the files to my computer.
I bought a Zoom H2 a couple of weeks ago and find it to be a great little recorder. I used it to record a concert band tonight, from a seat in the audience, in a community hall with somewhat indifferent acoustics, and was surprised at how well the recorded sound came out, just using the unit's in-built microphones. Results are even better when recording at home or in a more controllable environment.
The H2 is easy to use for basic recording, but a bit fiddly for more advanced adjustment of settings, which requires navigating through menus on the small screen (especially for those of us with eyesight that no longer rivals that of eagles).
The next model up, the Zoom H4 is more expensive due to:
1. the two phantom powered ports for plugging in professional style microphones with XLR fittings (with the ability to record up to 4 channels separately),
2. the large number of sound conditioning options built into the unit, and
3. the bundled Cubase LE music processing software.
In comparison, the Zoom H2 only has a single mini-jack socket for an external microphone, and no bundled software, but it does have four inbuilt microphones, so you can record from the front two, or the back two, or all four. According to a reviewer on an Internet site, the four inbuilt microphones of the Zoom H2 are the same quality as the two in the Zoom H4.
I can't comment on the Edirol. It may be better quality and more robustly built than the Zoom H2, but it is significantly more expensive. I bought the Zoom H2 for A$235 from an Australian online shop, which I think equates to about 100 UK pounds. Great value for money.
There's lots of information on these recorders on the Internet, plus tutorials of varying usefulness on youtube.
A brief comparison of handheld recorders is at: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/newsLetter/Digital-Audio-Recorders-Buyers-Guide.jsp
Good luck!
I have here in front of me the Sony PCM-D50. It's an equivalent product, perhaps a bit more pricey that Edirol or Zoom, probably $400 range now. It's a great recorder, excellent sound, records in WAVE format so you can dump directly to your computer and create a CD no time. Very well made, solid (not plastic), stereo mics, etc. You might want to check it out on the web. Not the cheapest, but probably the best recording quality.
Yeah, The H2 is great. I've previoulsly used a Sony MD but the H2 beats it hands down for sound quality and drag & drop convience.
I found the supplied 512mb memory card miserable and it will last only 48mins of 16bit Wav recording. Longer using MP3 compression, but you are better to factor in a 4GB or 8GB SD card or a few 2GB cards. Battery life is quite short say 4hrs recording but it uses rechargeable AA batteries fine.
All in all a great recorder with many options but needs careful setup, recording level is critical & really needs to be set manually. I found the auto gain control of no use.
Galvin Ralston featured a good article on the H2 earlier this year in 'Irish Music' magazine.
I second what SpoonsNBones said about the memory. MP3 is fine for casual sessions and practice but for higher quality you'd want to record in wav. Also, you have to record in wav format to use the 4 channel feature and adjust individual levels.
Whichever one you get, get the most memory you can for it.
I'm still not convinced the Zoom H2 is the best tool for the job - ie. capturing tunes for learning. It works fine, and the sound quality is good, but I wanted something I could put in my pocket and use as an MP3 player as well. The H2 is too big, and the transport controls are unhandy. For the price, you get a lot of stuff though.
I use the Edirol myself. I've had the chance to play with the Zoom and it has more features at a lower price and it's definitely the way to go if you need multi-track recording. And it has very good sound quality.
But the Edirol has better sound quality; it is absolutely amazing at how accurately it captures sound. The built-in mics have a very flat frequency response and when you listen to a recording it's like going back in time and hearing it live again. Plus, the Edirol is quite small and easily fits in your pocket, making it quite handy since you have to carry your field recorder around with you.
The Zoom is a great choice and offers much more in the way of features. But if you don't need the extra features, the Edirol has superb sound quality in a smaller package, and a very long battery life.
I use Edirol and it's great. The battery life as mentioned is long---about 16 hours. It's small , light and easy to use and the sound quality is amazing. It can transfer recordings to a PC and can be used as a Mp3 player. It's pricey but well worth it if you need to record tunes and attend workshops. I've no experience of the Zoom but I know it's bigger in size
I have been using a Sony Minidisc. I really like the ability to make "track" marks while recording and also later on as well. Do either of these machines perform "track mark" functions?
No experience of the H4, but the H2 makes very good recordings, although the frequency response rolls off very early using internal mics aking the recordings slightly dull. Easily fixed though.
The Edirol RO-9 is equally as good, and exhibits the same roll off characteristics. However, it is appallingly designed internally and very very fragile, especially the mic and line sockets. If you buy one, the first thing you have to do is open it up (not easy) and encapsulate the two jack sockets at the top with a potting compound. Any device that requires this out of the ox should be avoided.
Another thing I've noticed (with 3 different RO-9s) is that the level of one channel will be up to 3dB down from the other. Again, indicative of poor build standard and/or quality control.
As noted, the H2 is significantly cheaper - I'd tend to go with it.
Edirol or Zoom h2/h4 ?
Edirol or Zoom h2/h4 ?
I'd appreciate some advice on the relative merits of these products, based on hands-on experience.
My intended purpose is to get good-to-high quality recording of personal playing, workshops, and sessions, with possible subsequent downloading to a PC for audio editing (I'm getting fed up with assorted tiny mp3 player/recorders and the inconvenience of tape).
I'll factor the price into my decision after I've considered advice on the relative technical merits of the products.
Thanks.
# Posted on September 13th 2008 by lazyhound
Re: Edirol or Zoom h2/h4 ?
Zoom H4... couldnt be simpler... no experiance of edirol.
4 trk as well . records in most all formats. plug in your condensor mics too ... sorted.
# Posted on September 13th 2008 by Ionannas
Re: Edirol or Zoom h2/h4 ?
I have a Zoom H2 and a friend has an H4. Both would work well for what you want. I was very surprised by the quality of the recordings with my H2.
You would probably have to play with the settings to get them exactly where you want, but even so, you can adjust quite a bit afterward if you record in 4 track mode.
The only advantages I see in the H4 over the H2 is the ability to plug stuff in. Also I think the H4 comes with some music editing software. I use Audacity after I've transferred the files to my computer.
# Posted on September 13th 2008 by CleverName
Re: Edirol or Zoom h2/h4 ?
I bought a Zoom H2 a couple of weeks ago and find it to be a great little recorder. I used it to record a concert band tonight, from a seat in the audience, in a community hall with somewhat indifferent acoustics, and was surprised at how well the recorded sound came out, just using the unit's in-built microphones. Results are even better when recording at home or in a more controllable environment.
The H2 is easy to use for basic recording, but a bit fiddly for more advanced adjustment of settings, which requires navigating through menus on the small screen (especially for those of us with eyesight that no longer rivals that of eagles).
The next model up, the Zoom H4 is more expensive due to:
1. the two phantom powered ports for plugging in professional style microphones with XLR fittings (with the ability to record up to 4 channels separately),
2. the large number of sound conditioning options built into the unit, and
3. the bundled Cubase LE music processing software.
In comparison, the Zoom H2 only has a single mini-jack socket for an external microphone, and no bundled software, but it does have four inbuilt microphones, so you can record from the front two, or the back two, or all four. According to a reviewer on an Internet site, the four inbuilt microphones of the Zoom H2 are the same quality as the two in the Zoom H4.
I can't comment on the Edirol. It may be better quality and more robustly built than the Zoom H2, but it is significantly more expensive. I bought the Zoom H2 for A$235 from an Australian online shop, which I think equates to about 100 UK pounds. Great value for money.
There's lots of information on these recorders on the Internet, plus tutorials of varying usefulness on youtube.
A brief comparison of handheld recorders is at:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/newsLetter/Digital-Audio-Recorders-Buyers-Guide.jsp
Good luck!
# Posted on September 13th 2008 by GraemeO
Re: Edirol or Zoom h2/h4 ?
i use the h2 and is dead handy as well as being totally easy to use.
# Posted on September 13th 2008 by beyonce 2
Re: Edirol or Zoom h2/h4 ?
Definite vote for H2. I've seen several people produce these "electric shavers" at sessions, and the sound quality is great.
I've yet to see the "tazer" H4 in use.
# Posted on September 13th 2008 by grego
Re: Edirol or Zoom h2/h4 ?
I have here in front of me the Sony PCM-D50. It's an equivalent product, perhaps a bit more pricey that Edirol or Zoom, probably $400 range now. It's a great recorder, excellent sound, records in WAVE format so you can dump directly to your computer and create a CD no time. Very well made, solid (not plastic), stereo mics, etc. You might want to check it out on the web. Not the cheapest, but probably the best recording quality.
# Posted on September 14th 2008 by ayedbl
Re: Edirol or Zoom h2/h4 ?
Yeah, The H2 is great. I've previoulsly used a Sony MD but the H2 beats it hands down for sound quality and drag & drop convience.
I found the supplied 512mb memory card miserable and it will last only 48mins of 16bit Wav recording. Longer using MP3 compression, but you are better to factor in a 4GB or 8GB SD card or a few 2GB cards. Battery life is quite short say 4hrs recording but it uses rechargeable AA batteries fine.
All in all a great recorder with many options but needs careful setup, recording level is critical & really needs to be set manually. I found the auto gain control of no use.
Galvin Ralston featured a good article on the H2 earlier this year in 'Irish Music' magazine.
# Posted on September 14th 2008 by SpoonsNBonesMan
Re: Edirol or Zoom h2/h4 ?
Eddy
# Posted on September 14th 2008 by cag
Re: Edirol or Zoom h2/h4 ?
I second what SpoonsNBones said about the memory. MP3 is fine for casual sessions and practice but for higher quality you'd want to record in wav. Also, you have to record in wav format to use the 4 channel feature and adjust individual levels.
Whichever one you get, get the most memory you can for it.
# Posted on September 14th 2008 by CleverName
Re: Edirol or Zoom h2/h4 ?
Neither. Buy the Olympus LS-10. It's a great little machine.
# Posted on September 14th 2008 by Upsetter
Re: Edirol or Zoom h2/h4 ?
I have the H4 and the sound quality is brilliant. Pity about my playing tho.
# Posted on September 14th 2008 by davydd
Re: Edirol or Zoom h2/h4 ?
I'm still not convinced the Zoom H2 is the best tool for the job - ie. capturing tunes for learning. It works fine, and the sound quality is good, but I wanted something I could put in my pocket and use as an MP3 player as well. The H2 is too big, and the transport controls are unhandy. For the price, you get a lot of stuff though.
Here's a comparison chart of digital recorders:
http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/audio/portable-recorder-comparison/
Here's a page about "How to get the best from the Zoom H2":
http://www.2090.org/zoom/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=9745&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=
# Posted on September 14th 2008 by Gzeg
Re: Edirol or Zoom h2/h4 ?
I use the Edirol myself. I've had the chance to play with the Zoom and it has more features at a lower price and it's definitely the way to go if you need multi-track recording. And it has very good sound quality.
But the Edirol has better sound quality; it is absolutely amazing at how accurately it captures sound. The built-in mics have a very flat frequency response and when you listen to a recording it's like going back in time and hearing it live again. Plus, the Edirol is quite small and easily fits in your pocket, making it quite handy since you have to carry your field recorder around with you.
The Zoom is a great choice and offers much more in the way of features. But if you don't need the extra features, the Edirol has superb sound quality in a smaller package, and a very long battery life.
# Posted on September 14th 2008 by Marklar
Re: Edirol or Zoom h2/h4 ?
We use the Edirol. It is extremely easy to use and has great sound quality. I'll second the long battery life.
# Posted on September 15th 2008 by rob zouk
Re: Edirol or Zoom h2/h4 ?
I use Edirol and it's great. The battery life as mentioned is long---about 16 hours. It's small , light and easy to use and the sound quality is amazing. It can transfer recordings to a PC and can be used as a Mp3 player. It's pricey but well worth it if you need to record tunes and attend workshops. I've no experience of the Zoom but I know it's bigger in size
# Posted on September 15th 2008 by banjoian
Re: Edirol or Zoom h2/h4 ?
Lazyh
There was a useful chat about this recently - with sound samples-
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/16922
I got one of these a week ago and it's great
Cheers
D
# Posted on September 15th 2008 by domnull
Re: Edirol or Zoom h2/h4 ?
By the way I did the research on best price - best was £127.99 at Amazon, and that included a 4Gb card. Absolute bargain.
# Posted on September 15th 2008 by domnull
Re: Edirol or Zoom h2/h4 ?
T
There's more useful info and sound examples here
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/18638/comments#comment390114
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/18836/comments#comment395126
Mactavish seems to be your man to ask technical things!!
# Posted on September 15th 2008 by domnull
Edirol
That's it
# Posted on September 15th 2008 by Random_notes
Re: Edirol or Zoom h2/h4 ?
I have been using a Sony Minidisc. I really like the ability to make "track" marks while recording and also later on as well. Do either of these machines perform "track mark" functions?
w
# Posted on September 15th 2008 by what
Re: Edirol or Zoom h2/h4 ?
Many thanks, everyone, for those very useful comments.
I can now think about drafting my annual letter to Santa Claus.
# Posted on September 16th 2008 by lazyhound
Re: Edirol or Zoom h2/h4 ?
No experience of the H4, but the H2 makes very good recordings, although the frequency response rolls off very early using internal mics aking the recordings slightly dull. Easily fixed though.
The Edirol RO-9 is equally as good, and exhibits the same roll off characteristics. However, it is appallingly designed internally and very very fragile, especially the mic and line sockets. If you buy one, the first thing you have to do is open it up (not easy) and encapsulate the two jack sockets at the top with a potting compound. Any device that requires this out of the ox should be avoided.
Another thing I've noticed (with 3 different RO-9s) is that the level of one channel will be up to 3dB down from the other. Again, indicative of poor build standard and/or quality control.
As noted, the H2 is significantly cheaper - I'd tend to go with it.
# Posted on September 16th 2008 by bigdee
Re: Edirol or Zoom h2/h4 ?
And many thanks for that insight into the quality build of the Edirol. That pushes it way down the list for me.
# Posted on September 16th 2008 by lazyhound
Re: Edirol or Zoom h2/h4 ?
my long reply disappeared, so here it is in note form
h4
high quality stereo mic
phantom power your stereo xlr mics, ie you can wack a professional feed into this.
4track recording ie record a track, and record 3 more over the top, all saved separately to disc. great for doodling
metronome
tuner
eq
fx if you want them
take your 4track rec, and edit it in the bundled cube low end software, which is ok for audio , but not midi
negs
mics point away from the display, ie you cant watch display and sit in front of mics at same time.
like most of cheap these devices, you get few buttons , but big phat menus, so you sometimes have to do some searching for the setting you want.
havent used the others, but this is a good device
# Posted on October 23rd 2008 by blimp