Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
These mike graphs look terrific! Especially at the bass end! Look almost as good as my Audio Technicas! Oh, yes, it's all about the way sound looks. Jesus deliver us. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I like to SEE my imaging, where the individual instrumental images are in relation to the speaker boxes. Great. Keep it up until you realize your ears hear more when your eyes are closed, and your mouth is open but silent. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
"Gary Eickmeier" writes:
George Graves wrote: snips audition some Wilson WAMMs. We both thought they were pretty harsh and forward sounding. Indeed. Not only harsh, but weird higher mid resonances, making for a very plastic-y sound, somewhat akin to typical headphones. I've never understood how various wilsons (a) commanded the price they typically did and (b) had any kind of following. Just shows that many so-called audiophiles really aren't clued into sonic purity, but rather something else -- some kind of arty cabinet design, high-gloss lacquer, or boasting rights as to how much money they spent. Sound is secondary. This dealer liked to darken the room to listen, which was very annoying to me. I like to SEE my imaging, where the individual instrumental images are in relation to the speaker boxes. Yikes! Yikes! Yikes! Human vision, which commands a great deal of brain energy and processing (some 25% IIRC), can often override/skew/compensate other sensory input. Worse, because you're not at a live performance but instead listening in a room, you're often primed for visual imagination. Is there imaging ambiguity due to room problems? If it's not terrible but simply mediocre (like many rooms), take a peek. Imagine a spot where you think something should be -- a "best fit" based on what you imagine you "see" -- then let the visual cortex "lock it in." The bottom-line truth being told by your ears has just been overriden. By far the most pure, most representative brain audio processing you're going to get is to occasionally disable that big wetware signal processing hog, vision, and let the aural processing take center stage. (I prefer eye-closing to room light removal. Eye-closing signals the visual centers that I intentionally initiated this momentary visual rest, and that visual processing need not scramble to find input.) When mixing, I'll be sure to take a few check listens with the "eyes off." I'll even do this at concerts when simply listening as an audience member. There can be a more complete connection to the sonic experience, on many levels, without distractions. That's for classical/pure acoustic music. Pop/rock is a different story, where other things need to supplement the sometimes thin nature of the work. So we have 130 dB levels, lots of flashing and colored light, gyrations on stage, etc. (Not my interest, but hey, to each his own.) YMMV. Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
|
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Wow - this is terrific George - I never saw this before. He doesn't have a lot of good to say for the device except that all of these measurements that he badmouths would not be very audible. As for the response graphs of the microphones, I cannot see where you need any of the bass boost you are talking about. These mike graphs look terrific! Especially at the bass end! Look almost as good as my Audio Technicas! Hint: do not believe the bass end of anybody's response plots. Most folks using small chambers can't make accurate measurements below 100 Hz or so. There are only a couple folks out there that can make accurate measurements below 20 Hz. There is invariably a lot of fudging and extrapolation. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote: I just looked at the specs for the H6. I might have missed something, but /nowhere/ do I see a S/N spec for a specified SPL. No, nor do they publish any graphs or specs for their microphone capsules. But I have some experience with their products now, and I see no reason to fear. I have great hope that this will be the best one yet. I am sure the marketing guys are cheering as you walk into the store with your wallet out. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
In the world of audio, the 8 year old could be wrong. In this case, I don't think so. Mr Rockwell is probably right about the Zoom's failings not being easily audible -- but I would never record anything truly important with -- what appears to be -- such a poorly designed and executed product. Mr Alrich puts it rather rudely -- but you ought to take what he says seriously. |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message ... "Marc Wielage" wrote in message .com... On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 15:58:43 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote (in article ): The most amazing recorder I have yet seen. I could get rid of my mixer, multichannel recorder (Zoom R16) and my battery powered Phantom power supply. It is a six channel recorder and full studio in a box! ------------------------------snip------------------------------ Get this instead: http://www.sounddevices.com/products/788t/ It costs about twenty times more ($8000) than the Zoom H6, but often in pro sound, you get what you pay for. The Sound Devices is going to have far more flexibility, reliability, better sound quality, and much, much quieter mic preamps. Note that you'll still need microphones -- and you can't get six great mics for $400, for the most part. If you can't afford to buy one, RENT one. Blimey, an 8 year old child could tell you that an $8000 system is going to perform better than a $400 dollar one. And would sometimes be wrong. (Probably not in that case however :-) Remember the old saying is simply wrong. You usually have to pay for what you get, but don't always get what you pay for! Trevor. |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Gareth Magennis wrote: Blimey, an 8 year old child could tell you that an $8000 system is going to perform better than a $400 dollar one. In the world of audio, the 8 year old could be wrong. Gary Not when you understand various anthropic principles. -- Les Cargill |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote: In the world of audio, the 8 year old could be wrong. In this case, I don't think so. Mr Rockwell is probably right about the Zoom's failings not being easily audible -- but I would never record anything truly important with -- what appears to be -- such a poorly designed and executed product. Mr Alrich puts it rather rudely -- Not actually, no. but you ought to take what he says seriously. -- Les Cargill |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Peter Larsen wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote: Peter Larsen wrote: I had a Zoom R16 for half an hour, that was the time it took to determine that it would go back to the shop. It's a toy. Perhaps you should look into an Oade modified R44. The main problem with it was the meters. No, the sound. We are a bunch of guys here that keep telling you that with different levels and skills of diplomacy. A bunch who try to tell me the R16 has bad sound? I think this is the first time it has come up! So why did you buy one then? Gary Eickmeier |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
hank alrich wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote: In the owners manual that you can download it seems to have a 120 dB signal to noise ratio. Heh heh heh. Wonder how that measures. ----- Signal-to-Noise Ratios Input 100 mV balanced at 1 kHz, input gain at 39, output 1 VRMS (output gain at 84), measured analog input to analog output: 88.7 dB (14.4 effective bits, A-weighted) at 96/24 bits WAV. 89.1 dB (14.5 effective bits, A-weighted) at 44.1/24 bits WAV. 88.9 dB (14.4 effective bits, A-weighted) at 44.1/16 bits WAV. ----- Next?. Next, the H6. Gary |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
On 9/30/2013 2:00 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
All I am after is something that can record more than two channels at once! Is that all? If you want a portable recorder, the TASCAM DR-680 is the way to go. It's really well designed and works pretty sensibly. The mic inputs sound good, there are six of them (two are on 1/4" TRS jacks but they have phantom power and only need adapters for using with standard mics), It has a stereo S/PDIF digital input and output (plays the mix), a built-in mixer, automatic MS-to-L/R conversion, either to the recording or just in the mixer (for monitoring). And you can set it on a table and operate it. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
On 9/30/2013 2:06 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
George - where did you find response graphs of these little recorders? I have been searching for such a thing. I wrote to the Zoom US Office to ask what the response of the H6 might be. In the owners manual that you can download it seems to have a 120 dB signal to noise ratio. Specifications? Haw! Come to our panel at the AES convention. You really don't need frequency response graphs for the line inputs. There's no reason for them to be anything but flat except for any filters you might have switched in. Although frequency response graphs are commonly provided for "professional" microphones, very few of those are actually the frequency response for the particular capsule that you get. 120 dB signal-to-noise ratio is the theoretical limit for 20 bit recording however there are few devices that, when you combine analog and digital noise, in practice exceed about 115 dB. Don't worry about the electrical specs, and to my knowledge there's no specification for ease of use. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
hank alrich wrote: Next?. Next, the H6. Ah yes, a completely new design with new preamps and new AD setup, NOT! - it is has its context, but serious recording isn't one of them. If you want a budget contraption to record with, then get a MR8HD, remember to fix its polarity error in post, and an external preamp or two - and 4 good microphones, four of a kind is good if you get them right, two pairs can offer you a wider range of properties. The MR8HD sounds like plastic with low input levels, but gets cleaner with the gain turned down below about "4". Two passable candidates that have gotten nice mentionings by othes in the past are probably Symetrix 302 or RNP. Or a Mackie 1202, its preamps are in fact OK, I made one of my very best recordings using a 1202's preamps and a MR8HD and 4 well chosen identical microphones, sonic properties came together in a good way, so it was a very good setup. Note: I only used the preamps, this does not constitute A comment of any kind on the 1202's general properties. Again: An Oade modified R44 is a good choice for a stand alone recording implement for those that do not care to drag external preamps along, the one I know of (not mine) is impressively well aounding and very clean. Gary Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Jeff Henig wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote: Gary Eickmeier wrote: In the world of audio, the 8 year old could be wrong. In this case, I don't think so. Mr Rockwell is probably right about the Zoom's failings not being easily audible -- but I would never record anything truly important with -- what appears to be -- such a poorly designed and executed product. Mr Alrich puts it rather rudely -- but you ought to take what he says seriously. One thing--among many--that Hank does well is to make a point vividly enough that it doesn't want to leave the brain housing group. OK, now that I have been solidly put in my place, I am here because I am learning recording. I have purchased some good microphones in the form of AT-2050 multi patterns and the stands and XLRs to go with them. I have fabricated some mike brackets to hold them in a number of patterns, and lately devised some patterns of my own to try. I have bought the book that Scott recommended, which was good for describing all of the recording techniques. I am recording all that I can find that will let me record them, mainly a concert band of old timers, but they are many and have all of the wind band instruments, which is good for testing freq response and imaging. To record their main live concerts I have to comply with their wishes and keep it to one mike stand with bracket, raised as high as practical to be out of the way, and I have to stay portable and flexible, so I use these battery powered digital recorders. But I need to try more than a two mike technique, so I need a multichannel recorder that can download to the computer in separate files. The R16 could do that, but like the bunch of guys say it is sort of a toy. I can work around its limitations with great stealth, but it would be easier with some good meters. Previously to get multichannel without using the R16 I had to use a small Yamaha mixer. It has four powered XLR inputs, and I would mix down to 2 channel and record with the Tascam DR-07 - which has good, clean sound for less than $200. I have taken the sound off the band's sound board to get some additional clean sound, especially for vocals, but of late for a video of a rock band. I have therefore experienced most of the problems and solutions discussed in this group and come away with some quite successful recordings. This Zoom H6 caught my eye because of its extended capabilities that may permit me to be even more portable and flexible in both my jobs (video) and my learning curve with music recording. The "our needs" part referred to multiple channels XLR inputs that are powered and individually adjustable and all of the other features that I was wishing for. If you do not need multiple channels and all of that, then just read it as "my" needs. The reviews are starting to come in on the H6 and they are pretty good. They say the mike preamps have been completely redesigned and are good. The ergonomics are superb for both video and audio, and there is one clip on YouTube with a sound track on it. I am not lurking or kibitzing, I am doing the work. I enjoy it and I am learning more from recording than I ever did just playing recordings that were made by others. My remark abut how the 8 yr old may be wrong referred to the expensive gear that audiophiles get sucked into that have no audible benefit beyond the more reasonable equipment. I'm thinking that the engineer that knows what he is doing can get the 95% solution compared to the rich but clueless who can afford all the big stuff. Besides, you don't pay $8000 to record the local volunteer wind band. Gary Eickmeier |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Peter Larsen wrote: Gary Eickmeier wrote: Peter Larsen wrote: I had a Zoom R16 for half an hour, that was the time it took to determine that it would go back to the shop. It's a toy. Perhaps you should look into an Oade modified R44. The main problem with it was the meters. No, the sound. We are a bunch of guys here that keep telling you that with different levels and skills of diplomacy. A bunch who try to tell me the R16 has bad sound? I think this is the first time it has come up! So why did you buy one then? The same reason most folks buy them; they are cheap and disposable, great for applications where that's needed. They are a lifesaver for reporters and sound effects guys can keep one in the glove compartment if they are needed. You can't beat it for that sort of thing. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
hank alrich wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: Gary Eickmeier wrote: William Sommerwerck wrote: I just looked at the specs for the H6. I might have missed something, but /nowhere/ do I see a S/N spec for a specified SPL. No, nor do they publish any graphs or specs for their microphone capsules. But I have some experience with their products now, and I see no reason to fear. I have great hope that this will be the best one yet. I am sure the marketing guys are cheering as you walk into the store with your wallet out. They know their stuff. They've done their research. They are armed with theory and loaded with practice. Gary will buy. Poor dumb Gary, thinking you can get a good digital recorder for $399. Probably thinks you can get a good car for under 30 thou, or DSLR for $900. Poor *******. PB |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I don't understand the lack of interest in the freq response graphs. Microphone frequency response is a 3d concept so you need (valid) off axis graphs to see what really is going on. Some contexts warrants greatest possible midrange attenuation off axis and some warrants "identical response off axis". One of these microphones can be equalized to mimic linearity of some kind, the other can not but it may not always matter, rear- or side-rejection may matter more. Gary Eickmeier Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Frank Stearns wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" writes: George Graves wrote: snips audition some Wilson WAMMs. We both thought they were pretty harsh and forward sounding. Indeed. Not only harsh, but weird higher mid resonances, making for a very plastic-y sound, somewhat akin to typical headphones. I've never understood how various wilsons (a) commanded the price they typically did and (b) had any kind of following. Just shows that many so-called audiophiles really aren't clued into sonic purity, but rather something else -- some kind of arty cabinet design, high-gloss lacquer, or boasting rights as to how much money they spent. Sound is secondary. It's a spatial thing. The WAMMs sock their hot breath sound straight at you with the ferocity of a fire breathing dragon, have no spatial qualities at all. Most speaker designers are clueless about all this. This dealer liked to darken the room to listen, which was very annoying to me. I like to SEE my imaging, where the individual instrumental images are in relation to the speaker boxes. Yikes! Yikes! Yikes! Human vision, which commands a great deal of brain energy and processing (some 25% IIRC), can often override/skew/compensate other sensory input. Worse, because you're not at a live performance but instead listening in a room, you're often primed for visual imagination. Is there imaging ambiguity due to room problems? If it's not terrible but simply mediocre (like many rooms), take a peek. Imagine a spot where you think something should be -- a "best fit" based on what you imagine you "see" -- then let the visual cortex "lock it in." The bottom-line truth being told by your ears has just been overriden. By far the most pure, most representative brain audio processing you're going to get is to occasionally disable that big wetware signal processing hog, vision, and let the aural processing take center stage. (I prefer eye-closing to room light removal. Eye-closing signals the visual centers that I intentionally initiated this momentary visual rest, and that visual processing need not scramble to find input.) When mixing, I'll be sure to take a few check listens with the "eyes off." I'll even do this at concerts when simply listening as an audience member. There can be a more complete connection to the sonic experience, on many levels, without distractions. That's for classical/pure acoustic music. Pop/rock is a different story, where other things need to supplement the sometimes thin nature of the work. So we have 130 dB levels, lots of flashing and colored light, gyrations on stage, etc. (Not my interest, but hey, to each his own.) YMMV. It's just an observation I have made over many many years. It is very useful to see if you can place individual images relative to the speakers because that gives an enormous correlation between imaging and the physical characteristics of the setup in front of you. The "Big Three" of this audibility are radiation pattern, speaker positioning, and room acoustics. Observe these factors next time and notice where things image. In my system with the tight recordings of the instruments, the Big Three can place individual auditory events at points in space in my room, and I can almost "see" those players standing there in my room, not coming from either speaker. In total, I can get imaging all across the front of my room, not just speaker to speaker. If speakers are mis-positioned, you can get stretched soloists or a hole in the middle, effects you can experience if you can see the arrangement of speakers and walls and you try and "find the piano" if you know what I mean. And I know you do. Gary |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
hank alrich wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote: full studio in a box! And you are a clueless sucker overwhelmed by marketing-speak. Pray tell how much experience you have in any "full studio"? HTF would you know? "Please sir Mr. Fagin, I want some more..." |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
On 9/30/2013 4:34 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
This Zoom H6 caught my eye because of its extended capabilities that may permit me to be even more portable and flexible in both my jobs (video) and my learning curve with music recording. The "our needs" part referred to multiple channels XLR inputs that are powered and individually adjustable and all of the other features that I was wishing for. Technically and functionally, the H6 will meet your needs. Based on having one in my hands (though not actually recording with it), ergonomically it doesn't make very much sense. You're going to have cables sticking out all over the place - three or more mic cables on two or three planes, power supply (a good idea if you need phantom power), headphones, and maybe the remote control cable. I found the controls for the mixer to be pretty clumsy, and one of the things you'll need to do is set up a reasonable mix of your mics when you're recording so you'll have some idea of whether you have them placed correctly. Sure, you can do it, but it's not very quick or accurate. Like I said, spend some time on it, and if you find it as difficult to operate quickly as I did, take it back and consider another approach. It doesn't take too much of a computer to record four tracks (or six if you can afford that many mics). A USB interface from Focusrite (for example), a $150 used laptop computer (that really won't be so old), and a copy of Reaper will give you a fine setup for that kind of recording. You can make a rough mix quickly for the purpose of setting your mics, and you'll have all the files on the computer so you can do a better mix when you have a better monitoring situation. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Peter Larsen wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote: I don't understand the lack of interest in the freq response graphs. Microphone frequency response is a 3d concept so you need (valid) off axis graphs to see what really is going on. Some contexts warrants greatest possible midrange attenuation off axis and some warrants "identical response off axis". One of these microphones can be equalized to mimic linearity of some kind, the other can not but it may not always matter, rear- or side-rejection may matter more. Oh, it's worse than that. Because the actual on-axis response plots that you see on datasheets are usually quite fake, and don't even bear much resemblance to the real on-axis response anyway. They've been aggressively smoothed. With a handheld recorder you should see some high frequency aberrations due to diffraction around the case. If you're not seeing them, the plots are not reliable even on-axis. It's at the point where when I do microphone reviews, I won't publish a real plot, because readers who are too used to seeing fake plots panic and the manufacturers get angry. At the same time I won't publish the fake plots off the datasheet, because I don't want to perpetuate that nonsense either. So I wind up with a verbal description in text... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
In my limited experience of late with spaced omni vs my new closer together cardioids idea, the bass response improved dramatically (with the cardioids) because it was more solidly placed and did not have multiple arrivals, as Scott has mentioned. Actually, a lot of it has to do with the fact that it's easy to make cheap omnis with good low frequency response, and it's very very hard to make cardioids with good low frequency response. Don't believe ANY frequency response plots below about 200 Hz unless you know exactly what chamber it was made in and with what reference. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
OK, now that I have been solidly put in my place, I am here because I am learning recording. I accept that, and I note your considerable enthusiasm for the process. I encourage that. What I'm trying to get you to realize is that in my opinion, which may or may not be shared by others here, is that years of enjoyment of a particularly fetching but vastly distorted reproduction configuration, coupled with your obvious intelligence, study, and appreciation of theory have deluded you into thinking this somehow constitutes a body of professional experience. This leads you to want to argue instead of _listening_ to what you are being told, much as you wish to look at waveforms to delude yourself/reinforce your mix concept instead of closing your eyes and listening. Gerzon's work may well enjoy further develoopment, but the basics of it have not been and likely will not be refuted. Accepting that and therefrom working through your own invalid concepts in order to understand the results of his work, the tools derived from that, and the sonic results thereof, is crucial for you if your desire to learn is sincere. And that's just for the fancy part of this work. The simpler steps are learning how to figure out where to put a mic or mics to capture as closely as possible what is intended. I was not kidding in an earlier post where I suggested giving up surround work right now, in favor of first learning how to get _an excellent monaural recording captured with a single mic_. Do some of that using different mics with a variety of patterns, Then advance to an X/Y config and appreciate what that offers, since you will have learned how to figure out where to put mics. Please note that I am not saying you should "learn where to put mics". That approach is for websites and magazines that will lead you to purchase stuff, and are therefore happy to tell you where to put which mic and when. Many people take that approach because it's a lot easier than learning how to figure out where the mics ought to go in various situations. They then accept that the sound, for better or worse, is what it should be, because they put the mic where it should go. As a result, mediocre work litters the landscape. And so forth, _after you set up a reasonablly well controlled playback room and system_. Get monitoring together, and then experiment one step at a time. You don't need six tracks right now. You need to learn how to get _one terrific track_. Stop listening to sound and start listening to music. The music will tell you what's wrong with the sound, whereas the sound will blame all its shortcomings on the music. Your job is to prevent the sound from getting away with that bull****. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote: Peter Larsen wrote: Gary Eickmeier wrote: Peter Larsen wrote: I had a Zoom R16 for half an hour, that was the time it took to determine that it would go back to the shop. It's a toy. Perhaps you should look into an Oade modified R44. The main problem with it was the meters. No, the sound. We are a bunch of guys here that keep telling you that with different levels and skills of diplomacy. A bunch who try to tell me the R16 has bad sound? I think this is the first time it has come up! So why did you buy one then? The same reason most folks buy them; they are cheap and disposable, great for applications where that's needed. They are a lifesaver for reporters and sound effects guys can keep one in the glove compartment if they are needed. You can't beat it for that sort of thing. --scott Glove compartment??? I don't think so! Gary |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 13:44:44 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ): The same reason most folks buy them; they are cheap and disposable, great for applications where that's needed. They are a lifesaver for reporters and sound effects guys can keep one in the glove compartment if they are needed. You can't beat it for that sort of thing. ------------------------------snip------------------------------ I agree -- the Zoom would be a perfect small recorder for emergency situations. But for serious music? Nope. I don't think it'd be a terrible backup recorder if you fed it line level from a real console and used real microphones placed in optimum positions. But that's a lotta if's. I notice Mr. Eickmeier is ignoring the suggestion to try a Sound Devices recorder before he dismisses it. Sad. --MFW |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/30/2013 2:00 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote: All I am after is something that can record more than two channels at once! Is that all? If you want a portable recorder, the TASCAM DR-680 is the way to go. It's really well designed and works pretty sensibly. The mic inputs sound good, there are six of them (two are on 1/4" TRS jacks but they have phantom power and only need adapters for using with standard mics), It has a stereo S/PDIF digital input and output (plays the mix), a built-in mixer, automatic MS-to-L/R conversion, either to the recording or just in the mixer (for monitoring). And you can set it on a table and operate it. Looks like a nice little recorder for $300 more. Doesn't seem as easy to mount on a stand and use as a video dual system recorder. Oops - doesn't have any built in mikes anyway. Gary Eickmeier |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Peter Larsen wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote: hank alrich wrote: Next?. Next, the H6. Ah yes, a completely new design with new preamps and new AD setup, NOT! - it is has its context, but serious recording isn't one of them. Peter, the reviews that I have looked at say that it does have a completely redesigned mike amps and possibly AD. Do you have info otherwise? Have you tried one? If you want a budget contraption to record with, then get a MR8HD, remember to fix its polarity error in post, and an external preamp or two - and 4 good microphones, four of a kind is good if you get them right, two pairs can offer you a wider range of properties. The MR8HD sounds like plastic with low input levels, but gets cleaner with the gain turned down below about "4". Two passable candidates that have gotten nice mentionings by othes in the past are probably Symetrix 302 or RNP. Or a Mackie 1202, its preamps are in fact OK, I made one of my very best recordings using a 1202's preamps and a MR8HD and 4 well chosen identical microphones, sonic properties came together in a good way, so it was a very good setup. Note: I only used the preamps, this does not constitute A comment of any kind on the 1202's general properties. Again: An Oade modified R44 is a good choice for a stand alone recording implement for those that do not care to drag external preamps along, the one I know of (not mine) is impressively well aounding and very clean. I have four AT-2050s and they sound good. As for the design of a portable recorder, I have certain needs that some of you may not have, that have to do with double system sound recording for video. The Zoom H6 is perfect for both of my purposes. Should arrive Thursday! Gary |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Marc Wielage wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 13:44:44 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote (in article ): The same reason most folks buy them; they are cheap and disposable, great for applications where that's needed. They are a lifesaver for reporters and sound effects guys can keep one in the glove compartment if they are needed. You can't beat it for that sort of thing. ------------------------------snip------------------------------ I agree -- the Zoom would be a perfect small recorder for emergency situations. But for serious music? Nope. I don't think it'd be a terrible backup recorder if you fed it line level from a real console and used real microphones placed in optimum positions. But that's a lotta if's. I notice Mr. Eickmeier is ignoring the suggestion to try a Sound Devices recorder before he dismisses it. Sad. Stop. I haven't "dismissed" anything. Just have no need for an $8000 recorder that doesn't fit my needs. You are dismissing the H6. All I came here to say is hey - have you seen this new Zoom H6, looks really interesting to me. I am interested and concerned that some of you say it wouldn't have very good audio quality, but from looking at reviews and from my own experience with other cheap little digital recorders, there doesn't seem to be all that much cause for alarm. I drive a Prius too, but I haven't dismissed the Bugatti Veyron. Gary |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/30/2013 2:06 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote: George - where did you find response graphs of these little recorders? I have been searching for such a thing. I wrote to the Zoom US Office to ask what the response of the H6 might be. In the owners manual that you can download it seems to have a 120 dB signal to noise ratio. Specifications? Haw! Come to our panel at the AES convention. You really don't need frequency response graphs for the line inputs. There's no reason for them to be anything but flat except for any filters you might have switched in. Although frequency response graphs are commonly provided for "professional" microphones, very few of those are actually the frequency response for the particular capsule that you get. 120 dB signal-to-noise ratio is the theoretical limit for 20 bit recording however there are few devices that, when you combine analog and digital noise, in practice exceed about 115 dB. Don't worry about the electrical specs, and to my knowledge there's no specification for ease of use. Thanks Mike, but I have been in audio long enough to know that specs are not the whole story. In this case, however, I am not talking about freq response of line inputs! I am talking about the built in mikes, which would be the most subject to a freq response curve. And in fact they sent me some, which are not sterling, but I could work with them for doing my video sound recording duties. Oops - I was going to post them, but they are PDFs, which I can not post in a newsgroup. If anyone is interested enough, I could Email you the microphone graphs. Gary Eickmeier |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/30/2013 4:34 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote: This Zoom H6 caught my eye because of its extended capabilities that may permit me to be even more portable and flexible in both my jobs (video) and my learning curve with music recording. The "our needs" part referred to multiple channels XLR inputs that are powered and individually adjustable and all of the other features that I was wishing for. Technically and functionally, the H6 will meet your needs. Based on having one in my hands (though not actually recording with it), ergonomically it doesn't make very much sense. You're going to have cables sticking out all over the place - three or more mic cables on two or three planes, power supply (a good idea if you need phantom power), headphones, and maybe the remote control cable. I found the controls for the mixer to be pretty clumsy, and one of the things you'll need to do is set up a reasonable mix of your mics when you're recording so you'll have some idea of whether you have them placed correctly. Sure, you can do it, but it's not very quick or accurate. Like I said, spend some time on it, and if you find it as difficult to operate quickly as I did, take it back and consider another approach. It doesn't take too much of a computer to record four tracks (or six if you can afford that many mics). A USB interface from Focusrite (for example), a $150 used laptop computer (that really won't be so old), and a copy of Reaper will give you a fine setup for that kind of recording. You can make a rough mix quickly for the purpose of setting your mics, and you'll have all the files on the computer so you can do a better mix when you have a better monitoring situation. You've got one? Well, I will too in a couple of days. Two points: It has the XLR power supplies built in, and I wonder if anyone makes some flatter, like right angle XLR connectors. I noticed the positioning of the XLR jacks as well, but I need to see if that could be a problem. What I do is mount the mikes on the stand, attach and dress the cables, hoist the mikes as high as they will go, and then set the recorder at the base of the stand with headphones attached so that I can monitor it periodically. The only other way to do it would be to mount it on the same mike bracket, start it recording with the built in mikes as a backup and some very short XLR cables attached to the mike inputs, and let it run for each half of the concert. That would require a lot of faith on my part, but would keep it off the stage and out of view. Gary |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
hank alrich wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote: OK, now that I have been solidly put in my place, I am here because I am learning recording. I accept that, and I note your considerable enthusiasm for the process. I encourage that. What I'm trying to get you to realize is that in my opinion, which may or may not be shared by others here, is that years of enjoyment of a particularly fetching but vastly distorted reproduction configuration, coupled with your obvious intelligence, study, and appreciation of theory have deluded you into thinking this somehow constitutes a body of professional experience. This leads you to want to argue instead of _listening_ to what you are being told, much as you wish to look at waveforms to delude yourself/reinforce your mix concept instead of closing your eyes and listening. Gerzon's work may well enjoy further develoopment, but the basics of it have not been and likely will not be refuted. Accepting that and therefrom working through your own invalid concepts in order to understand the results of his work, the tools derived from that, and the sonic results thereof, is crucial for you if your desire to learn is sincere. And that's just for the fancy part of this work. The simpler steps are learning how to figure out where to put a mic or mics to capture as closely as possible what is intended. I was not kidding in an earlier post where I suggested giving up surround work right now, in favor of first learning how to get _an excellent monaural recording captured with a single mic_. Do some of that using different mics with a variety of patterns, Then advance to an X/Y config and appreciate what that offers, since you will have learned how to figure out where to put mics. Please note that I am not saying you should "learn where to put mics". That approach is for websites and magazines that will lead you to purchase stuff, and are therefore happy to tell you where to put which mic and when. Many people take that approach because it's a lot easier than learning how to figure out where the mics ought to go in various situations. They then accept that the sound, for better or worse, is what it should be, because they put the mic where it should go. As a result, mediocre work litters the landscape. And so forth, _after you set up a reasonablly well controlled playback room and system_. Get monitoring together, and then experiment one step at a time. You don't need six tracks right now. You need to learn how to get _one terrific track_. Stop listening to sound and start listening to music. The music will tell you what's wrong with the sound, whereas the sound will blame all its shortcomings on the music. Your job is to prevent the sound from getting away with that bull****. Thanks for the considered reply, but I am not a novice. I am a 30 year member of the AES. I know you don't agree with my audio theories on reproduction, and that will have to be until you understand what I am talking about. I don't really think that learning recording is going to be as difficult as you describe. Nor is placing microphones that big a mystery. I have learned a great deal in this last year about coincident vs spaced, omni vs directional, all of the various microphone positioning patterns such as MS and XY and ORT-F and NOS. Just when I thought I had narrowed down my list of acceptable techniques I observe a recording engineer friend of mine putting his DPA omnis on a stand with a spacing of about 18 inches! And the sound he gets is so rich, precise, and great stereo, that is the method that I copied last season for the concerts, except I spaced mine more like 3 feet. Scott and some others convinced me about cardioid techniques, and another friend makes these superb, spacious recordings with his MS technique, so I made a bracket for that as well. However, the first rehearsal this season I got a hair up my ass and tried a spaced cardioid technique that I described earlier as TCM, Three Card Monte. It still seems to be working for me, and tonight I tried a variation on it, recording four tracks so that I can mix it various ways to try some patterns. Used the Zoom R16 for probably the last time. I have this need to create and invent and explore. I have always tried various new ideas and have invented several new ways of doing things in photography, air navigation, stereo theory, double system film production, video editing, designing my dedicated home theater and listening room. That's a long way of saying, simply, that I am not going to try monophonic recording for a while until I learn what sound is. I will never be able to do what the New York studio photographers do with their images, or the Hollywood studios can do with movies with a crew of 5000, and I will never make the recordings that most of you guys do routinely for a living, but I will study the bejeezus out of the subject until I learn the most important parts. And I will probably do it my way. Gary Eickmeier |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Peter Larsen wrote: Gary Eickmeier wrote: I don't understand the lack of interest in the freq response graphs. Microphone frequency response is a 3d concept so you need (valid) off axis graphs to see what really is going on. Some contexts warrants greatest possible midrange attenuation off axis and some warrants "identical response off axis". One of these microphones can be equalized to mimic linearity of some kind, the other can not but it may not always matter, rear- or side-rejection may matter more. Oh, it's worse than that. Because the actual on-axis response plots that you see on datasheets are usually quite fake, and don't even bear much resemblance to the real on-axis response anyway. They've been aggressively smoothed. With a handheld recorder you should see some high frequency aberrations due to diffraction around the case. If you're not seeing them, the plots are not reliable even on-axis. It's at the point where when I do microphone reviews, I won't publish a real plot, because readers who are too used to seeing fake plots panic and the manufacturers get angry. At the same time I won't publish the fake plots off the datasheet, because I don't want to perpetuate that nonsense either. So I wind up with a verbal description in text... --scott Kind of like loudspeakers! Interesting comments. I know the mike response isn't as simplistic as the graphs depict, but I wonder if there isn't a way to do some sort of waterfuall graphs that give this 3D picture? I might advocate testing a mike in the same way that you use it. If it is supposed to be one of an XY pair that are placed 20 feet from the front row of musicians and 15 ft in the air, then test them at that distance and angle. But how do you test a microphone in the first place? What is the source? Fascinating. Gary Eickmeier |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Marc Wielage:
I agree -- the Zoom would be a perfect small recorder for emergency situations. But for serious music? Nope. Well, sometimes the "TOY!"-factor is not obvious enough to some folks... I actually like the idea behind the R16, but I´m very reluctant to buy *anything* with the Zoom brand name on it - based on ca. 20 years of experience with their typical "plastic" sound. I don't think it'd be a terrible backup recorder if you fed it line level from a real console and used real microphones placed in optimum positions. But that's a lotta if's. Far too many to make it worth the investment IMHO. I notice Mr. Eickmeier is ignoring the suggestion to try a Sound Devices recorder before he dismisses it. Sad. There´s that kind of people, who prefer to ignore everything they don´t want to hear/read. There´s nothing you can do about it... |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
All I came here to say is hey - have you seen this new Zoom H6, looks really interesting to me. I am interested and concerned that some of you say it wouldn't have very good audio quality, but from looking at reviews and from my own experience with other cheap little digital recorders, there doesn't seem to be all that much cause for alarm. No, you came in her foaming over with enthusiasm about how wonderful the H6 was, that it was so good you could get rid of all your other equipment. You did this without having actually used one, or even touched one, based only on what marketing people told you about it. THIS is why people are boggling at you. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Peter, the reviews that I have looked at say that it does have a completely redesigned mike amps and possibly AD. Do you have info otherwise? Have you tried one? You're submitting theysay as evidence? I'll re-iterate, based on hearsay, which is to say that I tell you what I heard: If you want a budget contraption to record with, then get a MR8HD, remember to fix its polarity error in post, and an external preamp or two - and 4 good microphones, four of a kind is good if you get them right, two pairs can offer you a wider range of properties. The MR8HD sounds like plastic with low input levels, but gets cleaner with the gain turned down below about "4". Two passable candidates that have gotten nice mentionings by othes in the past are probably Symetrix 302 or RNP. Or a Mackie 1202, its preamps are in fact OK, I made one of my very best recordings using a 1202's preamps and a MR8HD and 4 well chosen identical microphones, sonic properties came together in a good way, so it was a very good setup. Note: I only used the preamps, this does not constitute A comment of any kind on the 1202's general properties. Again: An Oade modified R44 is a good choice for a stand alone recording implement for those that do not care to drag external preamps along, the one I know of (not mine) is impressively well aounding and very clean. And then there is the Sound Devices thing all suggest that you rent for a week-end, I'll chime in because you need to know what good is before choosing between the mediocre. I have four AT-2050s and they sound good. In Germany they want a car to be autobahnfest. I want my microphones to be violinfest. It is when you have those that are that you look into the ones for vox at 1 meter, such as the AT-2050 or - if you are good at selecting proper product - something chinese-chinese. There are bargains to be found out there. Oh, and it is irrelevant for the sound recording whether a simultanous video-recording is taking place that it will replace sound on, it not totally irrelevant in post. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
"hank alrich" wrote in message ...
A solid and sensible response from Hank. I concur. I used to do live recording, and enjoyed it very much. My basic problem was that I was never to make recordings, day-in and day-out, to learn the basics. * I made a lot of decent recordings, but -- with one exception, an Ambisonic recording -- never a great one. Theory is fine -- and you absolutely /have/ to have it -- but it is the grounding point for practical knowledge. * The suggestion that you learn how to make a good /mono/ recording is excellent. |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom H6
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote: All I came here to say is hey - have you seen this new Zoom H6, looks really interesting to me. I am interested and concerned that some of you say it wouldn't have very good audio quality, but from looking at reviews and from my own experience with other cheap little digital recorders, there doesn't seem to be all that much cause for alarm. No, you came in her foaming over with enthusiasm about how wonderful the H6 was, that it was so good you could get rid of all your other equipment. You did this without having actually used one, or even touched one, based only on what marketing people told you about it. THIS is why people are boggling at you. --scott Thank you, Scott. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Zoom H2n | High End Audio | |||
Zoom H2n | High End Audio | |||
Zoom H2? | Pro Audio | |||
Zoom H2 vs H4 | Pro Audio | |||
I just got the Zoom H2 | Pro Audio |