[Geoff]

John Whorfin wrote:
geoff wrote:
Cripes, what's Low Speed !?!!

1.5 Mb/s

Well, if I ever need a longer nap, I'll know what to wind it down to !

geoff

[Richard Crowley]

"geoff" wrote ...
The specs at the back indeed say "USB2 full-speed", which really is a kind
of misleading term , no ?

It was the maximum speed at the time it was named.
You are looking back at it from a perspective of
several years (and revisions and improvements)
later in its life-cycle (which isn't over yet).

[[email protected]]

On Jan 10, 2:49 pm, "geoff" wrote:
coreybenson wrote:
On Jan 7, 9:45 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
On Jan 7, 7:42 pm, "geoff" wrote:

I did, but I don't necessarily want to sleep before every time I do
a task. Afterwards is more like it - tasks can be tiring....

So get a good night's sleep before you start editing.

Hey Mike... just an FYI: About halfway down the specs page, it
specifically mentions that it's a USB 2.0 interface:

"Use the USB 2.0 Interface to move your files to a PC or Mac for
storage, editing and playback."

http://www.samsontech.com/products/p...fm?prodID=1916

Not sure why the OP thinks it's USB 1.1 only. Bad card on his 'puter
perhaps?

Anyway, since it sounded like you might be interested in one, thought
you might like to know it IS a USB 2.0 device.

I see you are right - I take it back - maybe it was the PC I plugged it to
only had USB1.1 !!!

So my H2 is *perfect* after all. Has already saved my life once, when used
as a 'safety'.

geoff

In that you are probably not gaining much of anything at all by
recording at beyond 16 bit 44.1 with this thing (given the analog
audio electronics and convertors likely to be in a $200 device), just
record @ 16/44.1 (or 48) and the transfers will be plenty fast
enough. I've used a similar recorder on MANY jobs over the years,
with the same USB interface, and transferring off it to a DVD burning
on a laptop was something that is usually able to happen while I'm
packing up at the end of the day.

Philip Perkins

[Mike Rivers]

On Jan 10, 8:33 pm, "geoff" wrote:

The specs at the back indeed say "USB2 full-speed", which really is a kind
of misleading term , no ?

If it's misleading, it sure misled me. But then I don't believe that
no two devices ever transfer data between them at the theoretically
maximum rate. There are too many things other than raw data transfer
that need to happen that the actual transfer rate is always slower
than "advertised."

[Mike Rivers]

On Jan 10, 1:53 pm, (Ralf R. Radermacher) wrote:

But it's only a crippled "full-speed" USB 2.0 interface as opposed to a
"high-speed" USB 2.0 interface. USB 2.0 with the electrical specs of 2.0
and the speed of 1.0 that is. 12 MBit/sec instead of 480.

Apparently someone believes in Truth in USB-ing, From the specs of the
new Yamaha 2G pocket recorder:

Data transfer Connection USB direct (slide connector)
Transfer speed USB 2.0 High Speed, 1500 kbps

[Don Pearce]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:02:19 -0800 (PST), Mike Rivers
wrote:

On Jan 10, 1:53 pm, (Ralf R. Radermacher) wrote:

But it's only a crippled "full-speed" USB 2.0 interface as opposed to a
"high-speed" USB 2.0 interface. USB 2.0 with the electrical specs of 2.0
and the speed of 1.0 that is. 12 MBit/sec instead of 480.

Apparently someone believes in Truth in USB-ing, From the specs of the
new Yamaha 2G pocket recorder:

Data transfer Connection USB direct (slide connector)
Transfer speed USB 2.0 High Speed, 1500 kbps

If it is any help, I just put a stopwatch on a big file transfer onto
a memory stick, and it managed an average of just over 36Mbits/sec.

I'm guessing that this (a very cheap and cheerful one) is typical for
this kind of transfer.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[coreybenson]

On Jan 10, 4:43*pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
On Jan 10, 1:05 pm, coreybenson wrote:

Hey Mike... just an FYI: About halfway down the specs page, it
specifically mentions that it's a USB 2.0 interface:

"Use the USB 2.0 Interface to move your files to a PC or Mac for
storage, editing and playback."

Don't "hey" me. It was someone else who was complaining that it didn't
use USB2. I was never in enough of a hurry, with large enough files,
to care. There are only two ways I can tell if something is USB1 or
USB2. One is by reading the manual and remembering what I read, the
other is to plug a USB2 device into a computer that has only a USB1
interface and see the little pop-up box that tells me about the
horrible thing I've just done.

Not sure why the OP thinks it's USB 1.1 only. Bad card on his 'puter
perhaps?

Probably never read the manual.

LOL - "Hey Mike" as in "Hey! I just found out this bit you might be
intersted in!" not "Hey! You should have looked harder cuz it's this!"

Sorry... tone didn't translate via the net. I'll check my gain
settings and try again some other time! lol

I'm probably going to pick one up regardless. With a card reader it
won't be an issue for my needs, and I already have the card reader.

Corey

[Mike Rivers]

On Jan 11, 1:12 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:

If it is any help, I just put a stopwatch on a big file transfer onto
a memory stick, and it managed an average of just over 36Mbits/sec.

See? And does anyone complain about the speed of those things?

[Richard Corfield]

On 2008-01-11, wrote:

In that you are probably not gaining much of anything at all by
recording at beyond 16 bit 44.1 with this thing (given the analog
audio electronics and convertors likely to be in a $200 device), just
record @ 16/44.1 (or 48) and the transfers will be plenty fast
enough. I've used a similar recorder on MANY jobs over the years,
with the same USB interface, and transferring off it to a DVD burning
on a laptop was something that is usually able to happen while I'm
packing up at the end of the day.

It does seem nifty, especially for the price. I'm currently listening
to the Ring.mp3 linked from earlier in this thread and it sounds fine.

I wonder about its self noise and lack of level control though.
Researching around it looks as if the only useful level control is the
H/M/L switch on the side which gives 10dB steps. Someone somewhere said
that M peaked at around 90dB SPL which is quite loud. I'm not sure how
accurate that bit of info is. Someone else gave a practical noise floor
at about -70dB if you roll off the bass a little and yet someone else
attributed that to the A/D converters.

So really really rough fag packet maths says its self noise is around
the 30dB area. About the same as my PC apparently which is audible in a
quiet room. I remember somewhere a long time ago the idea that theatre air
conditioning systems were allowed to make that amount of noise worse case.

This would seem to bear out. Recordings people have made of bands and
things that are quite loud sound good. Over on the wildlife recording
sites they find the self noise a problem.

I'd want to record all sorts of things, from a church choir which has
huge dynamic range, Hindu temple which can be very interesting, to sound
effects and ambients, also the idea of using it as a stereo recording mic
for amateur dramatics instead of the on-camera mic. My plan would be to
record uncompressed so I'd want to be nominally lower on the scale. This
could mean that the limited control and the higher noise floor could be
a pain?

The alternative in my budget would be something like the Fostex FR2-LE
which is twice the cost, needs external mic and the software looking at
the manual doesn't seem as nice. It does less but presumably does it quite
well. I don't know if there's any other kit that people here recommend.

The Zoom seems a handy very portable bit of kit - a bit like the compact
camera of the photography world. Am I getting too worried about numbers,
or would I do well off this? To date when I've needed to record I've
either taken my little iRiver MP3 recorder and run it off the back of
a mixing desk or tried its internal mic. Internal mic useless, back of
desk actually quite usable with care over levels.

Thanks

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone

[Mike Rivers]

On Jan 12, 6:58 am, Richard Corfield
wrote:

I wonder about its self noise and lack of level control though.
Researching around it looks as if the only useful level control is the
H/M/L switch on the side which gives 10dB steps.

That switch is an input attenuator. There's a software record level
control as well. You can use that control to make the meters read
wherever you want, but if you use it to turn down the level if it's
running too high, you'll be sure of getting clipping. You have to
understand what it does, and most people don't. The only legitimate
application for it is if you're going to use the recording directly
and not massage it in a computer before doing any serious listening or
preparing it for publication. In that case, you might want to set the
attenuator so that you see peaks around -15 dBFS and boost it a few
more dB after the A/D converter so your recording will be a little
hotter. But if you're going to work on it in "post" you can do that
more accurately and with more control using a computer, and achieve
the same or better effect.

There are many opinions as to why there's something "wrong" with a
device like this, as well as many opinions as to whether there's
anything wrong at all. I'm mostly in the second camp and I only wish
there was one more step of attenuation, or that they positioned that
30 dB of padding a little differently relative to the input
sensitivity of the A/D converter. But it's quite workable. I only
wanted more attenuation when I was connecting the line input to the
output of a PA console that was capable of putting out +24 dBu before
clipping (and most of the time was run pretty close to that level).

So really really rough fag packet maths says its self noise is around
the 30dB area. About the same as my PC apparently which is audible in a
quiet room.

If I had a quiet room in which to record, and something worthy of a
quiet recording, I'd not the H2 in any case. Not because of its
perceived internal noise, but because I have better gear for more
critical projects. This is the recorder I'd carry in my guitar case to
record some tunes at a jam session, or to to record an interview or
lecture for later transcription or perhaps a sound byte, but not
extended listening. I did make some measurements and I found that it
was impressively quiet, however.

Over on the wildlife recording
sites they find the self noise a problem.

What do they use where it isn't a problem? That's all I ever hear from
people wanting to record wildlife and other ambient sound that don't
have a lot of experience doing it.

I'd want to record all sorts of things, from a church choir which has
huge dynamic range, Hindu temple which can be very interesting, to sound
effects and ambients, also the idea of using it as a stereo recording mic
for amateur dramatics instead of the on-camera mic.

You can certainly do all of that, but understand that this $200
recorder and microphone that you can put in a jacket pocket is not a
universal replacement for the right equipment to do each of those
tasks. It's fine for recording a choir rehearsal, but when the church
wants to make a Christmas CD that they expect all 5,000 members to buy
for $15 to support the building fund (and for which you get paid
nothing), that's the time to get out the Schoeps mics and maybe the
RME Fireface (or the Nagra) - and record at night so that traffic and
aircraft noise will be minimal, and turn off the air handler.

The alternative in my budget would be something like the Fostex FR2-LE
which is twice the cost

That's a completely different animal. You might want to have both. The
Fostex would allow you to use "real" mics, assuming the preamps are
good enough. You don't really need to worry about the A/D converters -
their performance is all pretty much the same, but it's what's ahead
of them where the biggest difference in noise, sensitivity, and
overall "sound quality" lie.

The Zoom seems a handy very portable bit of kit - a bit like the compact
camera of the photography world.

Exactly. I have a $100 Fuji digital camera that's fine for casual
photographs or magazine article illustrations, but I still have my
(film) Leica that I get out now and then when I know I'm going to want
a print.

Am I getting too worried about numbers

I think so.

To date when I've needed to record I've
either taken my little iRiver MP3 recorder and run it off the back of
a mixing desk or tried its internal mic. Internal mic useless, back of
desk actually quite usable with care over levels.

I think you'll find the internal mic of the H2 will be better and more
useful than that on your iRiver, and that the recording from a line
level source will be at least as good if not better, but that may or
may not matter.

For what it's worth, I find that I rarely use a casual recording for
"enjoyment listening." It's great for learning a song or a banjo lick,
but I don't get that much fun out of "reliving" a concert - there are
just too many performance mistakes and technical problems. I'd rather
listen to a CD if it's someone who has recorded one, or go to another
live performance if I liked the musician enough to want to hear again.
But I understand that there are people who live for those little
mistakes or comments made between songs. I'm not that kind of
collector. So my requirements and applications are different. It's OK
if yours are, too.

[Fran Guidry]

On Jan 12, 3:58 am, Richard Corfield
wrote:
On 2008-01-11, wrote:



In that you are probably not gaining much of anything at all by
recording at beyond 16 bit 44.1 with this thing (given the analog
audio electronics and convertors likely to be in a $200 device), just
record @ 16/44.1 (or 48) and the transfers will be plenty fast
enough. I've used a similar recorder on MANY jobs over the years,
with the same USB interface, and transferring off it to a DVD burning
on a laptop was something that is usually able to happen while I'm
packing up at the end of the day.

It does seem nifty, especially for the price. I'm currently listening
to the Ring.mp3 linked from earlier in this thread and it sounds fine.

I wonder about its self noise and lack of level control though.
Researching around it looks as if the only useful level control is the
H/M/L switch on the side which gives 10dB steps. Someone somewhere said
that M peaked at around 90dB SPL which is quite loud. I'm not sure how
accurate that bit of info is. Someone else gave a practical noise floor
at about -70dB if you roll off the bass a little and yet someone else
attributed that to the A/D converters.

So really really rough fag packet maths says its self noise is around
the 30dB area. About the same as my PC apparently which is audible in a
quiet room. I remember somewhere a long time ago the idea that theatre air
conditioning systems were allowed to make that amount of noise worse case.

This would seem to bear out. Recordings people have made of bands and
things that are quite loud sound good. Over on the wildlife recording
sites they find the self noise a problem.

I'd want to record all sorts of things, from a church choir which has
huge dynamic range, Hindu temple which can be very interesting, to sound
effects and ambients, also the idea of using it as a stereo recording mic
for amateur dramatics instead of the on-camera mic. My plan would be to
record uncompressed so I'd want to be nominally lower on the scale. This
could mean that the limited control and the higher noise floor could be
a pain?

The alternative in my budget would be something like the Fostex FR2-LE
which is twice the cost, needs external mic and the software looking at
the manual doesn't seem as nice. It does less but presumably does it quite
well. I don't know if there's any other kit that people here recommend.

The Zoom seems a handy very portable bit of kit - a bit like the compact
camera of the photography world. Am I getting too worried about numbers,
or would I do well off this? To date when I've needed to record I've
either taken my little iRiver MP3 recorder and run it off the back of
a mixing desk or tried its internal mic. Internal mic useless, back of
desk actually quite usable with care over levels.

Thanks

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone

Last night I got together with a buddy and did a shootout between the
H2, an Edirol R09, a Fostex FR2-LE, and a Sound Devices 744. I'll have
the clips posted sometime today. We got some nice long tails and
Doug's studio has a pretty low noise floor so you can get some idea of
the noise level of the H2 in comparison to the Fostex.

Several folks have commented very positively on the new Sony PMD-50,
but I haven't tried one.

Fran

[Richard Corfield]

Thanks for the reply. I think my best bet is to look at one in the flesh
and if I like it buy it and play with it, then upgrade later if I need
to.

On 2008-01-12, Mike Rivers wrote:
That switch is an input attenuator. There's a software record level
control as well. You can use that control to make the meters read
wherever you want, but if you use it to turn down the level if it's
running too high, you'll be sure of getting clipping. You have to
understand what it does, and most people don't. The only legitimate
application for it is if you're going to use the recording directly
and not massage it in a computer before doing any serious listening or
preparing it for publication. In that case, you might want to set the
attenuator so that you see peaks around -15 dBFS and boost it a few
more dB after the A/D converter so your recording will be a little
hotter. But if you're going to work on it in "post" you can do that
more accurately and with more control using a computer, and achieve
the same or better effect.

I'd expect to do it all in post production in Audacity at the moment.

Over on the wildlife recording
sites they find the self noise a problem.

What do they use where it isn't a problem? That's all I ever hear from
people wanting to record wildlife and other ambient sound that don't
have a lot of experience doing it.

The other review I read that was of low enough priced gear was the
FR2-LE and some suitably expensive microphone to go with it. They also
had the advantage of being able to place the mic near the nest they were
recording which would have made a world of difference.

You can certainly do all of that, but understand that this $200
recorder and microphone that you can put in a jacket pocket is not a
universal replacement for the right equipment to do each of those
tasks. It's fine for recording a choir rehearsal, but when the church
wants to make a Christmas CD that they expect all 5,000 members to buy
for $15 to support the building fund (and for which you get paid
nothing), that's the time to get out the Schoeps mics and maybe the
RME Fireface (or the Nagra) - and record at night so that traffic and
aircraft noise will be minimal, and turn off the air handler.

There have been noises about recording the choir for a Christmas CD
for ... For such one-off we could always hire kit and probably the
expertise to really use it well.

To be fair, we could hire a decent microphone setup for recording the
Am-Dram productions. We hire the camera anyway which comes with a single
dynamic mic attached to it for mono recording. (It's a while since I
was in proper theatre, and back then we were on 1/4 inch reel to reel
and editing with razor blades).

The Zoom seems a handy very portable bit of kit - a bit like the compact
camera of the photography world.

Exactly. I have a $100 Fuji digital camera that's fine for casual
photographs or magazine article illustrations, but I still have my
(film) Leica that I get out now and then when I know I'm going to want
a print.

I have a Nikon D70s, and old F606 and a compact. I notice the difference
between the compact and the D70. I used to find I could do really well in
the dark room with the F606, but now I've learned to work with digital
I'm finding the results are better and getting them is less smelly and
doesn't stain your clothes I expect the F606 and good film and a good
lab could still outdo my D70.

Also I found with film I used to take more care over each shot so got
fewer better ones. Going to a wedding with only 72 shots not 300odd
makes you take more care. It's only now I've made myself realise that
that my digital has improved as I was starting to get snap-happy. You
have to spend the time to get the picture if you want a good one.

To date when I've needed to record I've
either taken my little iRiver MP3 recorder and run it off the back of
a mixing desk or tried its internal mic. Internal mic useless, back of
desk actually quite usable with care over levels.

I think you'll find the internal mic of the H2 will be better and more
useful than that on your iRiver, and that the recording from a line
level source will be at least as good if not better, but that may or
may not matter.

For what it's worth, I find that I rarely use a casual recording for
"enjoyment listening." It's great for learning a song or a banjo lick,
but I don't get that much fun out of "reliving" a concert - there are
just too many performance mistakes and technical problems. I'd rather
listen to a CD if it's someone who has recorded one, or go to another
live performance if I liked the musician enough to want to hear again.
But I understand that there are people who live for those little
mistakes or comments made between songs. I'm not that kind of
collector. So my requirements and applications are different. It's OK
if yours are, too.

I think my biggest use would be sound effects be it spot effects like
me hitting something or ambience, recording the show for those that
want to relive it would be next, professional style recording more a
rarity. Maybe as I get better at the guitar the use for self-assessment
would be more interesting without the need to get the heavy equipment
out of the upstairs cupboard where it lives.

Thanks

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone

[Fran Guidry]

On Jan 12, 10:14 am, Richard Corfield
wrote:
Thanks for the reply. I think my best bet is to look at one in the flesh
and if I like it buy it and play with it, then upgrade later if I need
to.

On 2008-01-12, Mike Rivers wrote:

That switch is an input attenuator. There's a software record level
control as well. You can use that control to make the meters read
wherever you want, but if you use it to turn down the level if it's
running too high, you'll be sure of getting clipping. You have to
understand what it does, and most people don't. The only legitimate
application for it is if you're going to use the recording directly
and not massage it in a computer before doing any serious listening or
preparing it for publication. In that case, you might want to set the
attenuator so that you see peaks around -15 dBFS and boost it a few
more dB after the A/D converter so your recording will be a little
hotter. But if you're going to work on it in "post" you can do that
more accurately and with more control using a computer, and achieve
the same or better effect.

I'd expect to do it all in post production in Audacity at the moment.

Over on the wildlife recording
sites they find the self noise a problem.

What do they use where it isn't a problem? That's all I ever hear from
people wanting to record wildlife and other ambient sound that don't
have a lot of experience doing it.

The other review I read that was of low enough priced gear was the
FR2-LE and some suitably expensive microphone to go with it. They also
had the advantage of being able to place the mic near the nest they were
recording which would have made a world of difference.

You can certainly do all of that, but understand that this $200
recorder and microphone that you can put in a jacket pocket is not a
universal replacement for the right equipment to do each of those
tasks. It's fine for recording a choir rehearsal, but when the church
wants to make a Christmas CD that they expect all 5,000 members to buy
for $15 to support the building fund (and for which you get paid
nothing), that's the time to get out the Schoeps mics and maybe the
RME Fireface (or the Nagra) - and record at night so that traffic and
aircraft noise will be minimal, and turn off the air handler.

There have been noises about recording the choir for a Christmas CD
for ... For such one-off we could always hire kit and probably the
expertise to really use it well.

To be fair, we could hire a decent microphone setup for recording the
Am-Dram productions. We hire the camera anyway which comes with a single
dynamic mic attached to it for mono recording. (It's a while since I
was in proper theatre, and back then we were on 1/4 inch reel to reel
and editing with razor blades).

The Zoom seems a handy very portable bit of kit - a bit like the compact
camera of the photography world.

Exactly. I have a $100 Fuji digital camera that's fine for casual
photographs or magazine article illustrations, but I still have my
(film) Leica that I get out now and then when I know I'm going to want
a print.

I have a Nikon D70s, and old F606 and a compact. I notice the difference
between the compact and the D70. I used to find I could do really well in
the dark room with the F606, but now I've learned to work with digital
I'm finding the results are better and getting them is less smelly and
doesn't stain your clothes I expect the F606 and good film and a good
lab could still outdo my D70.

Also I found with film I used to take more care over each shot so got
fewer better ones. Going to a wedding with only 72 shots not 300odd
makes you take more care. It's only now I've made myself realise that
that my digital has improved as I was starting to get snap-happy. You
have to spend the time to get the picture if you want a good one.



To date when I've needed to record I've
either taken my little iRiver MP3 recorder and run it off the back of
a mixing desk or tried its internal mic. Internal mic useless, back of
desk actually quite usable with care over levels.

I think you'll find the internal mic of the H2 will be better and more
useful than that on your iRiver, and that the recording from a line
level source will be at least as good if not better, but that may or
may not matter.

For what it's worth, I find that I rarely use a casual recording for
"enjoyment listening." It's great for learning a song or a banjo lick,
but I don't get that much fun out of "reliving" a concert - there are
just too many performance mistakes and technical problems. I'd rather
listen to a CD if it's someone who has recorded one, or go to another
live performance if I liked the musician enough to want to hear again.
But I understand that there are people who live for those little
mistakes or comments made between songs. I'm not that kind of
collector. So my requirements and applications are different. It's OK
if yours are, too.

I think my biggest use would be sound effects be it spot effects like
me hitting something or ambience, recording the show for those that
want to relive it would be next, professional style recording more a
rarity. Maybe as I get better at the guitar the use for self-assessment
would be more interesting without the need to get the heavy equipment
out of the upstairs cupboard where it lives.

Thanks

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone

OK, as promised, I've got a blog page up with comparison recordings of
the Sound Devices 744, Fostex FR2-LE, Zoom H2, and Edirol R09.

http://www.fxguidry.com/pblog/index....y080112-121236

These were solo acoustic guitar recordings rather than recordings of a
performance, so they may not be directly applicable to your projected
use, but it's some kind of data point.

I also learned yesterday of this page:
http://www.wingfieldaudio.com/portab...d-samples.html
I haven't listened to these, but they may provide more useful
examples.

Fran

[Mike Rivers]

On Jan 12, 10:00 pm, Fran Guidry wrote:

OK, as promised, I've got a blog page up with comparison recordings of
the Sound Devices 744, Fostex FR2-LE, Zoom H2, and Edirol R09.

So what was your conclusion? I would expect that the Schoeps mics
wherever they were used to sound better than either of the recorders'
built-in mics, and probably also be quieter. Was that the case?

Did you see any evidence that there was any difference in noise beyond
the front end? It would have been interesting to feed the monitor
output of the Sound Devices or Fostex recorder to the line input of
each of the others to see how they sound using the same mics.

[Kevin T]

On Jan 11, 1:02*pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
On Jan 10, 1:53 pm, (Ralf R. Radermacher) wrote:

But it's only a crippled "full-speed" USB 2.0 interface as opposed to a
"high-speed" USB 2.0 interface. USB 2.0 with the electrical specs of 2.0
and the speed of 1.0 that is. 12 MBit/sec instead of 480.

Apparently someone believes in Truth in USB-ing, From the specs of the
new Yamaha 2G pocket recorder:

Data transfer * Connection * * *USB direct (slide connector)
Transfer speed *USB 2.0 High Speed, 1500 kbps

With this Flood of cheap compact stealth recorders you tube etc will
soon overflow with
High- Fi mp3s of Britney Barfing I take my H2 everywhere lately

[Richard Corfield]

On 2008-01-13, Mike Rivers wrote:
OK, as promised, I've got a blog page up with comparison recordings of
the Sound Devices 744, Fostex FR2-LE, Zoom H2, and Edirol R09.

So what was your conclusion? I would expect that the Schoeps mics
wherever they were used to sound better than either of the recorders'
built-in mics, and probably also be quieter. Was that the case?

Did you see any evidence that there was any difference in noise beyond
the front end? It would have been interesting to feed the monitor
output of the Sound Devices or Fostex recorder to the line input of
each of the others to see how they sound using the same mics.

My first thought listening in my dining room on speakers was they that all
sounded very similar. It took repeated listening to spot the differences.
Headphones would be more telling.

In fact it was very educational. No 3 sounded a lot brighter than the
others so was the first to stand out. 1 sounded different in lows than
2. The lowest level shown by Audacity for all of them was the same,
presumably that last note. The only difference is when I ask it for the
spectrum where there's quite visible difference - but now I'm getting
into the numbers game.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone

[Geoff]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"geoff" wrote ...
The specs at the back indeed say "USB2 full-speed", which really is
a kind of misleading term , no ?

It was the maximum speed at the time it was named.
You are looking back at it from a perspective of
several years (and revisions and improvements)
later in its life-cycle (which isn't over yet).

So they originally designed USB2 to have a "full-speed" that was the same as
USB 1.1 ?

geoff

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

geoff wrote:

So they originally designed USB2 to have a "full-speed" that was the same as
USB 1.1 ?

I rather suspect this was intended as part of the downward compatibility
of USB 2.0 until people like Zoom adopted it as a 'feature' in its own
right.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

[Richard Crowley]

"geoff" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
"geoff" wrote ...
The specs at the back indeed say "USB2 full-speed", which really is
a kind of misleading term , no ?

It was the maximum speed at the time it was named.
You are looking back at it from a perspective of
several years (and revisions and improvements)
later in its life-cycle (which isn't over yet).

So they originally designed USB2 to have a "full-speed"
that was the same as USB 1.1 ?

Yes. But perhaps you are not aware that USB 2 was about
much more than just the transmission speed. Perhaps some
study is in order... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usb

[Geoff]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"geoff" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
"geoff" wrote ...
The specs at the back indeed say "USB2 full-speed", which really is
a kind of misleading term , no ?

It was the maximum speed at the time it was named.
You are looking back at it from a perspective of
several years (and revisions and improvements)
later in its life-cycle (which isn't over yet).

So they originally designed USB2 to have a "full-speed"
that was the same as USB 1.1 ?

Yes. But perhaps you are not aware that USB 2 was about
much more than just the transmission speed. Perhaps some
study is in order... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usb

Yep, but the main feature of USB2 is a 40-fold (ish) increase in speed, and
that is tthe only factor than most people recognise, and one which they
expect when they see the spec cited.

I suspect that the feature was incorporated into the H2 without the person
who specified it actually realising.

geoff

[Fran Guidry]

On Jan 12, 8:29 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
On Jan 12, 10:00 pm, Fran Guidry wrote:

OK, as promised, I've got a blog page up with comparison recordings of
the Sound Devices 744, Fostex FR2-LE, Zoom H2, and Edirol R09.

So what was your conclusion? I would expect that the Schoeps mics
wherever they were used to sound better than either of the recorders'
built-in mics, and probably also be quieter. Was that the case?

Did you see any evidence that there was any difference in noise beyond
the front end? It would have been interesting to feed the monitor
output of the Sound Devices or Fostex recorder to the line input of
each of the others to see how they sound using the same mics.

Mike, I was planning to leave the conclusions for others. The clips
are up there, blind, for people to pull down and compare. But since
you asked grin we found the SD and Fostex to be indistinguishable.
The SD is clearly the vastly superior unit in its overall
functionality, but the sonics of the Fostex are just fine. The Zoom
has a bit of HF rolloff, has a bump at 200hz, and is a few db down
from 1 to 4k, and again a little down at 7k or so, so it sounds a bit
dull compared to either Schoeps rig. A little tweaking with EQ largely
erased those differences. Doug's space is nice and quiet, so we got
some long tails and the noise performance of the Zoom was a pleasant
surprise. It's certainly noisier than the Schoeps setups (what do the
Zoom mics cost, $.39 each??) but it's pretty darned quiet. The Edirol
is missing a lot of bottom end, its omni mics picked up a bit more
room, and it's a lot noisier than any of the others.

Doug pointed out that there was a vast difference in imaging between
the two omis of the Edirol and the two cardioids of the Zoom, but I
made the tracks mono to level the playing field so that difference is
missing.

We weren't really after a dissection kind of test. I started out
wanting to check the sonics of the Fostex against that gorgeous SD
744, and I'm real happy with the result there. We threw up the pocket
recorders because we had them in our pockets as it were. I've been
interested to find a few people who prefer the "warm" sound of the
Zoom H2 over the two recorders working with the Schoeps mics.

There's a site http://www.2090.org/zoom/bbs/viewforum.php?f=15 where
some technical folks are digging into the Zoom innards and it's
possible that folks are doing the same for the Edirol. We just kinda
wondered how they sounded next to each other.

Fran

[Fran Guidry]

On Jan 13, 9:18 am, Richard Corfield
wrote:
On 2008-01-13, Mike Rivers wrote:

OK, as promised, I've got a blog page up with comparison recordings of
the Sound Devices 744, Fostex FR2-LE, Zoom H2, and Edirol R09.

So what was your conclusion? I would expect that the Schoeps mics
wherever they were used to sound better than either of the recorders'
built-in mics, and probably also be quieter. Was that the case?

Did you see any evidence that there was any difference in noise beyond
the front end? It would have been interesting to feed the monitor
output of the Sound Devices or Fostex recorder to the line input of
each of the others to see how they sound using the same mics.

My first thought listening in my dining room on speakers was they that all
sounded very similar. It took repeated listening to spot the differences.
Headphones would be more telling.

In fact it was very educational. No 3 sounded a lot brighter than the
others so was the first to stand out. 1 sounded different in lows than
2. The lowest level shown by Audacity for all of them was the same,
presumably that last note. The only difference is when I ask it for the
spectrum where there's quite visible difference - but now I'm getting
into the numbers game.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone

Richard, thanks for giving a listen. I tried to get all the clips to
the same loudness, since our ears are so sensitive to volume
differences. That took some fooling around in post. But I didn't do
any eq, dynamics, or reverb processing. I agree with you that the
differences, except for 3, are not startling, and that _is_ startling
when you realize that one pocket recorder is going out the door under
$200 and the SD 744/Schoeps combination will set you back well over
$5K. Now, nobody is going to do sound for a movie with any budget
using the Zoom, but I gotta wonder about these "taper" folks who are
buying SD recorders and Schoeps mics to record a band blasting away
through a PA system.

Fran

[Mike Rivers]

On Jan 13, 6:26 pm, Fran Guidry wrote:

But since
you asked grin we found the SD and Fostex to be indistinguishable.
The SD is clearly the vastly superior unit in its overall
functionality, but the sonics of the Fostex are just fine.

Thanks for the commentary. I figured that they'd be about the same.
It's hard to make a superior mic preamp, but it's pretty hard to make
a particularly inferior one these days, and same with A/D converters.
The SD does more "pro" tricks, and I think the mic preamp has more
gain. If you had pulled the mics back 20 feet so you needed to run
them at full gain, you'd probably hear some difference in the
preamps.

the noise performance of the Zoom was a pleasant
surprise. It's certainly noisier than the Schoeps setups (what do the
Zoom mics cost, $.39 each??) but it's pretty darned quiet. The Edirol
is missing a lot of bottom end, its omni mics picked up a bit more
room, and it's a lot noisier than any of the others.

That's a bit of a disappointment, but the low end rolloff might have
been intentional to reduce handling noise. Hard to guess. I'd expect
the stereo image to be different. Did you try the Zoom positioned on
the guitar with the mics pointing clearly left and right? I got a
pretty nice sound on a guitar that way, with the recorder about 2 feet
out.

There's a sitehttp://www.2090.org/zoom/bbs/viewforum.php?f=15where
some technical folks are digging into the Zoom innards and it's
possible that folks are doing the same for the Edirol.

I've found that with all of those pocket recorders, the record gain is
essentially fixed and that attenuator switch is your best friend. You
have to accept that you can't always get what you want (full scale
peaks all the time) and that it's OK to boost the level after you've
made the recording if it's really necessary. The Korg MR-1's
compressor and automatic gain control actually does work ahead of the
A/D converter

[Fran Guidry]

On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
On Jan 13, 6:26 pm, Fran Guidry wrote:

But since
you asked grin we found the SD and Fostex to be indistinguishable.
The SD is clearly the vastly superior unit in its overall
functionality, but the sonics of the Fostex are just fine.

Thanks for the commentary. I figured that they'd be about the same.
It's hard to make a superior mic preamp, but it's pretty hard to make
a particularly inferior one these days, and same with A/D converters.
The SD does more "pro" tricks, and I think the mic preamp has more
gain. If you had pulled the mics back 20 feet so you needed to run
them at full gain, you'd probably hear some difference in the
preamps.

the noise performance of the Zoom was a pleasant
surprise. It's certainly noisier than the Schoeps setups (what do the
Zoom mics cost, $.39 each??) but it's pretty darned quiet. The Edirol
is missing a lot of bottom end, its omni mics picked up a bit more
room, and it's a lot noisier than any of the others.

That's a bit of a disappointment, but the low end rolloff might have
been intentional to reduce handling noise. Hard to guess. I'd expect
the stereo image to be different. Did you try the Zoom positioned on
the guitar with the mics pointing clearly left and right? I got a
pretty nice sound on a guitar that way, with the recorder about 2 feet
out.

There's a sitehttp://www.2090.org/zoom/bbs/viewforum.php?f=15where
some technical folks are digging into the Zoom innards and it's
possible that folks are doing the same for the Edirol.

I've found that with all of those pocket recorders, the record gain is
essentially fixed and that attenuator switch is your best friend. You
have to accept that you can't always get what you want (full scale
peaks all the time) and that it's OK to boost the level after you've
made the recording if it's really necessary. The Korg MR-1's
compressor and automatic gain control actually does work ahead of the
A/D converter

Your description of the gain control matches what I've been reading
about the H2. The AGC, limiter, and gain setting are all post A/D so
basically useless. None of them will prevent clipping of the analog
front end or the converter itself, so the three position level switch
is all the only meaningful control. Still, since it works for what I
need, so it's OK.

The Sony, now out in a more affordable and more compact version,
apparently records a safety track 20 db down from the main track, and
crossfades the safety into the "keeper" stream if the main track
clips. If I were recording for money, or even doing fun stuff that
required a big dynamic range, I might have to forgive Sony for
infecting us with those virus propagating audio CDs and buy this PCM-
D50. But I don't, so I won't.

Fran

[Richard Corfield]

On 2008-01-14, Fran Guidry wrote:
The Sony, now out in a more affordable and more compact version,
apparently records a safety track 20 db down from the main track, and
crossfades the safety into the "keeper" stream if the main track
clips. If I were recording for money, or even doing fun stuff that
required a big dynamic range, I might have to forgive Sony for
infecting us with those virus propagating audio CDs and buy this PCM-
D50. But I don't, so I won't.

So presumably the Sony has 4 channels of ADC?

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone

[Mike Rivers]

On Jan 14, 2:08 am, Fran Guidry wrote:
Your description of the gain control matches what I've been reading
about the H2.

Maybe because I've been writing about it a lot. G I constantly
preach this to people who complain that their recordings are distorted
even though the meters never reach full scale.

The Sony, now out in a more affordable and more compact version,
apparently records a safety track 20 db down from the main track, and
crossfades the safety into the "keeper" stream if the main track
clips.

I don't recall having heard that, or maybe I heard it and don't recall
it. I'll have to ask. A common way of employing a stereo recorder for
interviews used to be to use one mic split to both channels, and
setting the gain on one channel 10 dB or so lower than the other
channel. Not all of the new flash memory recorders allow you to adjust
the gain of the two channels independently, though.

[Fran Guidry]

On Jan 14, 12:17 am, Richard Corfield
wrote:
On 2008-01-14, Fran Guidry wrote:

The Sony, now out in a more affordable and more compact version,
apparently records a safety track 20 db down from the main track, and
crossfades the safety into the "keeper" stream if the main track
clips. If I were recording for money, or even doing fun stuff that
required a big dynamic range, I might have to forgive Sony for
infecting us with those virus propagating audio CDs and buy this PCM-
D50. But I don't, so I won't.

So presumably the Sony has 4 channels of ADC?

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone

Looking at their product page,
http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Broadcastan...sp=83&id=90227
they talk about a "Dual A/D digital limiter and low cut filter" so
that appears to be true.

Now that you mention it, dual analog paths, or at least partial paths,
would be necessary as well, since what we're trying to avoid is
overloading the preamp, right?

Fran

[Fran Guidry]

On Jan 14, 7:28 am, Mike Rivers wrote:
On Jan 14, 2:08 am, Fran Guidry wrote:

Your description of the gain control matches what I've been reading
about the H2.

Maybe because I've been writing about it a lot. G I constantly
preach this to people who complain that their recordings are distorted
even though the meters never reach full scale.

The Sony, now out in a more affordable and more compact version,
apparently records a safety track 20 db down from the main track, and
crossfades the safety into the "keeper" stream if the main track
clips.

I don't recall having heard that, or maybe I heard it and don't recall
it. I'll have to ask. A common way of employing a stereo recorder for
interviews used to be to use one mic split to both channels, and
setting the gain on one channel 10 dB or so lower than the other
channel. Not all of the new flash memory recorders allow you to adjust
the gain of the two channels independently, though.

My unfortunately too noisy Marantz PMD-670 had a preset for exactly
the configuration you describe. I was impressed with the cleverness,
but the noise floor made it pretty marginal for music. I understand
the 671 was much better, but it was stupidly expensive. The new 620 is
getting good reviews, but doesn't do 48v phantom, like the older units
did.

Here's a link to the O'Reilly review of the PCM-D50:
http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/pub/...ew.html?page=1
the limiter is discussed on page 2.

Fran

[Richard Corfield]

On 2008-01-14, Fran Guidry wrote:
My unfortunately too noisy Marantz PMD-670 had a preset for exactly
the configuration you describe. I was impressed with the cleverness,
but the noise floor made it pretty marginal for music. I understand
the 671 was much better, but it was stupidly expensive. The new 620 is
getting good reviews, but doesn't do 48v phantom, like the older units
did.

A friend has recommended the PMD-660. Ergonomically it looks a great
design - hang over the shoulder, metering on top, cables hanging out of
the bottom, and deeper than wide so should be stable. It seems quite an
old bit of kit and has varied reviews.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone

[Geoff]

Fran Guidry wrote:

Now that you mention it, dual analog paths, or at least partial paths,
would be necessary as well, since what we're trying to avoid is
overloading the preamp, right?

More "overloading the A-D".

geoff

[Mike Rivers]

On Jan 14, 4:14 pm, "geoff" wrote:

More "overloading the A-D".

Ideally, yes. Today's design goal seems to be to design the preamp so
that the maximum level before clipping is the level that drives the A/
D converter to full scale. If the preamp can put out just a tad more
level than the A/D converter can take before clipping, then the
recording will be clean up to full scale.

However, sometimes they miss the mark. I can't remember what it was,
but something I had here recently, even with plenty of attenuation in
the front end, reached clipping at about -1 dBFS. So the meters could
be in the "safe" range and you'd still be recording an analog-clipped
signal.

This is a system engineering problem - one interface designer didn't
know what the other interface's requirements were.

[anahata]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Today's design goal seems to be to design the preamp so
that the maximum level before clipping is the level that drives the A/
D converter to full scale. If the preamp can put out just a tad more
level than the A/D converter can take before clipping, then the
recording will be clean up to full scale.

That's not necessarily "A Good Thing".

Clipping should be done in the analog domain before the antialiasing
filters so that any harmonics produced by the clipping are removed by
the filter. If any clippnig happens after the filter the clipping
harmonics above 20kHz will get aliased into the audible range.

The analog clipping level must be set deliberately a little below
digital FS to allow for overshoot in the filter.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[Mike Rivers]

On Jan 15, 3:30 pm, anahata wrote:

Clipping should be done in the analog domain before the antialiasing
filters so that any harmonics produced by the clipping are removed by
the filter.

Clipping shouldn't happen at all. I can assure you that analog
clipping nicely reproduced through an A/D/A chain still sounds just as
bad as without the anti-aliasing filter. The problem with clipping
occurring below full scale analog level is that you can never reach
digital full scale. Since most digital devices have the meter on the
digital side, you'll never see the clipping indicator come on. This is
"The Portable Recorder Problem." The other part of the problem is that
hardly anyone plugs headphones into these things when they're
recording so they can't hear the clipping.

The analog clipping level must be set deliberately a little below
digital FS to allow for overshoot in the filter.

Overshoot is an issue but it's on the other end. Full scale digital,
even if it isn't clipped, when reconstructed, can cause peaks that
will overload the filter.

I'm not an expert in this and I don't want to argue the fine points of
A/D and D/A behavior. I only know what I hear, what I can measure, and
what I see on an oscilloscope.

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

anahata wrote:

Mike Rivers wrote:

Today's design goal seems to be to design the preamp so
that the maximum level before clipping is the level that drives the
A/ D converter to full scale. If the preamp can put out just a tad
more level than the A/D converter can take before clipping, then the
recording will be clean up to full scale.

That's not necessarily "A Good Thing".

Clipping should be done in the analog domain before the antialiasing
filters so that any harmonics produced by the clipping are removed by
the filter. If any clippnig happens after the filter the clipping
harmonics above 20kHz will get aliased into the audible range.

Hmmm ...

The analog clipping level must be set deliberately a little below
digital FS to allow for overshoot in the filter.

At a glance the clipping should be digital so as to be as neat as the
bandwidth allows for easy unclip.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Richard Corfield]

On 2008-01-15, Peter Larsen wrote:
Clipping should be done in the analog domain before the antialiasing
filters so that any harmonics produced by the clipping are removed by
the filter. If any clippnig happens after the filter the clipping
harmonics above 20kHz will get aliased into the audible range.

Hmmm ...

I heard my iRiver produce aliasing harmonics, or something sounding like
what the theory says it should sound like, when I accidentally had it
recording at 8kHz or something. Either that or the anti-aliasing just
wasn't happening.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:50:09 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
wrote:

At a glance the clipping should be digital so as to be as neat as the
bandwidth allows for easy unclip.


Digital clipping produces alias signals. It should never be allowed to
happen on extended programme material. Clipped transients are
generally brief enough that the alias products are lost in the click.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Randy Yates]

anahata writes:

Mike Rivers wrote:
Today's design goal seems to be to design the preamp so
that the maximum level before clipping is the level that drives the A/
D converter to full scale. If the preamp can put out just a tad more
level than the A/D converter can take before clipping, then the
recording will be clean up to full scale.

That's not necessarily "A Good Thing".

Clipping should be done in the analog domain before the antialiasing
filters so that any harmonics produced by the clipping are removed by
the filter. If any clippnig happens after the filter the clipping
harmonics above 20kHz will get aliased into the audible range.

The analog clipping level must be set deliberately a little below
digital FS to allow for overshoot in the filter.

Guys, Anahata's comments are right-on.
--
% Randy Yates % "Ticket to the moon, flight leaves here today
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % from Satellite 2"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Jason]

In article 47b351b9-44ba-4ddc-b538-
, says...
But then I don't believe that
no two devices ever transfer data between them at the theoretically
maximum rate.

I agree in general... but, to my surprise, USB2 external disks I use
seem to be able to run at very nearly 480Mb/s when performing operations
on large files. I've noticed that IEEE1394 devices seem to come closer
to the max rate than USB devices usually.


--
reverse my name in email address

[Mike Rivers]

On Jan 24, 9:01 pm, Jason wrote:
In article 47b351b9-44ba-4ddc-b538-
, says...
But then I don't believe that no two devices ever transfer data between them at the theoretically
maximum rate.

I agree in general... but, to my surprise, USB2 external disks I use
seem to be able to run at very nearly 480Mb/s when performing operations
on large files. I've noticed that IEEE1394 devices seem to come closer
to the max rate than USB devices usually.

That's not surprising for disk drives. I was thinking of "devices"
that have something other than data storage as their primary function.
I wonder how digital video cameras do in regard to external data
transfer compared to audio recorders.

I mentioned this issue to makers of a couple of the new portable
recorders at the NAMM show, and those who had any clue at all could
only quote the official USB2 transfer speed. It's something that I'm
going to have to check in the future, at least with a uniform
benchmark, like maybe a 1 GB audio file.