Review Zoom H6

[Gary Eickmeier]

I finally have had some experience in the field with the Zoom H6, and would
like to report my impressions. I wrote to Tobiah in the previous thread
about its wonderful industrial design, ergonomics and features. But how does
it respond when the rubber meets the road?

As planned, I set up my big mikes on the high stand, drop the 3 XLRs and
attached them directly to the recorder, channels 1,2, and 3 for left,
center, and right. I had previously adjusted the mixer monitor panning to L,
C, and R in order to be able to tell something about the stereo on
headphone. The LR channel was set to Center as well, which means panned
evenly to L and R from the onboard mike capsules. Monitor gains were at 0 or
full gain, but a separate headphone volume control is also available.

The Zoom was placed on a shorter stand next to the big mike stand so that I
could operate the controls and record from the internal mikes
simultaneously. You can set which channels will be recording with a row of
buttons on top, so I am setting LR, 1, 2, and 3. A red light appears for
all. Levels are set approximately to #5, which is midpoint on the dials.
Identical gain controls for the 4 XLR inputs on the body, and one on the
mike capsule.

https://www.zoom-na.com/

The little full color monitor at the bottom of the Zoom is not just a level
meter for all channels, it is a screen for setting all controls, of which
there are many. You can read about them in the link above, so I will
concentrate on the use and workflow.

First, the meters - just fabulous. Tho they are small, they are once again
very useful because they are very finely segmented, so you can tell exactly
how close you are to peaking and it has the feature that shows you the
highest point achieved in the last second or so. You therefore know your
gain settings for all channels very precisely for balancing as well as
setting gain.

Biggest observation surprise - the good news is that it can record up to six
channels simultaneously plus a safety track that is 12 dB lower than the
main one. The surprise is that this affects the recording time available
directly. For example, the Zoom shows a constant readout of the remaining
time available on a readout at the lower right corner of the monitor. The
book says with a 2G chip you can go 3 hours, so I just leave that little
fellow in for tonight's maiden voyage. I set all of those options except the
4th XLR track and begin recording. I look down and see that I have 39
minutes of record time left! So I get a clue and shut off the safety track
and the LR track and just use the 3 XLR inputs, and I am back to over 2
hours available.

Battery life, it says 21 hours but I don't know where or under what
conditions they get that. I am using most of the functions and headphones at
full tilt and the battery level is on one dot before the two hour rehearsal
is over. Well, I did do some testing and fooling around before today, and I
think they were fres Coppertops, but I dunno, so I just leave those
battgeries in and see if it fails. But it continues to operate just fine on
one dot, so I guess it's not time to panic, and I can get at least one
concert out of a set. The disappointment is that the Zoom H2n will run for
about 20 hours on two AA batteries. So I assume that all of the features and
processing take their toll, but the final figures are not in yet.

Second major observation - If I am recording with the mike capsule and the
XLR channels all at once, what am I hearing when moniitoring with my phones?
All 5 channels. Don't want that, but what to do? It seems like if I turn
down the monitor mixer gain for the LR channel that I lose the metering for
those channels. I get nervous about that, so I just stop doing the LR for a
few numbers. Then I turn it back on again to continue comparing the various
microphones without worrying about monitoring, because I can still see all
levels. But I found out later at home that you CAN turn down the monitoring
gain to those chanels but still have the LR level meters during recording.
So I put the MS capsule on and set it to RAW so that I can manipulate the MS
mix at home.

The recorder is a dream to use in the field. Not only does it have the
accurate meters and easy to use menu structure and Phantom power and
flexible inputs and all that, but it is also easy to check playback,
choosing which cut and then being able to FF and Rewind with numbers visible
to check various sections.

Back at the ranch, also a dream to download and identify tracks and takes.
With the R16 I just couldn't tell which channel was which track except by
listening for channel ID during the mike checks. With the H6 the channels
are clearly labeled as to LR, 1, 2, 3, or 4 and the safety track is labelled
and they appear in the folder that you put them in when recording. This may
be normal for you, but the Zoom R16 was a nightmare for folder and channel
ID on download.

RESULTS - It was also a dream to edit in Audition 3.0 because of the channle
identification and the consistent levels that ai got off the recorder due to
the better meters. I can now set pecise levels at the output mixer and get a
very clean, even, rich stereo output on mixdown. Because of this, I can set
levels of the LR tracks exactly the same as the XLR tracks with the big
microphones for a comparison on playback.

Well, I am here to tell ya that the microphone capsules are no slouch when
it comes to full freq response and imaging! In fact, I began to question my
expenses for the big mikes, and I would not be ashamed of my product if I
were at a venue where I could not set up a large stand etc for the big mikes
and had to rely on the internal capsules. And remember, this compact little
recorder is ideal for ad hoc field recording because of its size and that
you can put it on a microphone stand and let it go! The XY mikes set to 120°
were terrific on the stereo and the freq response. The MS was a little
annoying because I had to figure out how to mix RAW MS manually on the
computer all over again. Next time I will use the ability to do all that
within the H6 and thn just download to stereo already mixed.

So as I say I sat there in the listening room mouth agape trying to hear a
difference between the XY internal capsule and the big AT-2050s. Maybe I
would be able to better when I have a less noisy environment to record in,
but for now I ain't complaining!

Highly recommended, no sig complaints. And it is gorgeous!

Gayr Eickmeier
Industrial Designer, recording enthusiast, happy camper

[Gary Eickmeier]

> Gayr Eickmeier
> Industrial Designer, recording enthusiast, happy camper
Er, Gary Eickmeier - not that there is anything wrong with that....

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> I finally have had some experience in the field with the Zoom H6, and
> would like to report my impressions. I wrote to Tobiah in the
> previous thread about its wonderful industrial design, ergonomics and
> features. But how does it respond when the rubber meets the road?

Thanks for posting. There is not a lot of gain adjustments to be made in
digital 24 bit recording so the ease of doing it is less of an issue than it
once was, now the issue is to learn to leave it set to a safe setting for
easiest post and then sit on your fingers while recording.

This also because that is how to preserve the actual event dynamics. Those
may then need modification, some of the time via gain riding and some of the
time via scaling instead of gain riding. I have for quite some time been of
the opinion that _wise_ compression can be better fidelity and less audibly
distracting than gain riding, be it manual or via volume envelope in post.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Trevor]

"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...
>> Gayr Eickmeier
> Er, Gary Eickmeier - not that there is anything wrong with that....

:-)
Freudian slip, or just an embarrassing slip? :-)

Trevor.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
>> I finally have had some experience in the field with the Zoom H6, and
>> would like to report my impressions. I wrote to Tobiah in the
>> previous thread about its wonderful industrial design, ergonomics and
>> features. But how does it respond when the rubber meets the road?
>
> Thanks for posting. There is not a lot of gain adjustments to be made in
> digital 24 bit recording so the ease of doing it is less of an issue than
> it once was, now the issue is to learn to leave it set to a safe setting
> for easiest post and then sit on your fingers while recording.
>
> This also because that is how to preserve the actual event dynamics. Those
> may then need modification, some of the time via gain riding and some of
> the time via scaling instead of gain riding. I have for quite some time
> been of the opinion that _wise_ compression can be better fidelity and
> less audibly distracting than gain riding, be it manual or via volume
> envelope in post.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

Thanks Peter, and you have hit on two of my latest areas of interest - or
weakest areas - increasing the bit depth and compression.

I have read that there is little point in going to 24 bit because the lowest
8 will be lost in noise anyway and not doing a thing for you dynamic range.
Against that I am thinking that at least you would have those extra bits to
work with before mastering, and you would lose less in the conversion to 16
bit.

I have dabbled in compression without knowing anything about a proper
workflow or a way of going about it step by step to accomplish what you
want. There is an article in th current Recording magazine that I am
reading, but I haven't found the definitive, easy to understand book on it
yet. My main problem in the past has been loudness. I have been making all
of my recordings with full dynamics, and when you do that the peaks boss the
general gain for the whole track and you end up with a product that doesn't
play well in a car. Or probably a boombox, but I don't know. So I am
thinking smashing the peaks a little and then bringing up the gain will
solve a lot of that. Or would using a limiter during recording help a lot
more? Or are they usually too abrupt?

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Trevor" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> Gayr Eickmeier

>> Er, Gary Eickmeier - not that there is anything wrong with that....
>
> :-)
> Freudian slip, or just an embarrassing slip? :-)
>
> Trevor.

You don't know how we Garys suffer in fear of typos.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

Just one more thing - the Zoom has the ability to do both compression and
limiting during recording, but I am not familiar enough with those controls
to know what I am doing with them. Would that be the smartest way to capture
the full dynamics without hitting peaks, and then you could manipulate that
in post for the best sounding product? Or would there be a danger of pumping
and breathing in quiet passages? Maybe the limiting is the way to go to
diminish audibility of compression artifacts?

Gary Eickmeier

[Rasta Robert]

On 2013-10-12, Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
> Just one more thing - the Zoom has the ability to do both compression and
> limiting during recording, but I am not familiar enough with those controls
> to know what I am doing with them. Would that be the smartest way to capture
> the full dynamics without hitting peaks, and then you could manipulate that
> in post for the best sounding product? Or would there be a danger of pumping
> and breathing in quiet passages? Maybe the limiting is the way to go to
> diminish audibility of compression artifacts?
>
> Gary Eickmeier

For best results, one can best record at safe levels well below peaking,
on the level meter while recoding, keeping the peeks somewhere between -12
and -6 dB, and apply compression and (hard) limiting in postprocessing.
You have way more control and can always go back, while you can not undo
compression applied while recording.

--
<http://rr.www.cistron.nl/> -!- <http://www.rr.dds.nl/>
<http://www.dread.demon.nl/>

[david gourley[_2_]]

"Gary Eickmeier" > said...news:pAe6u.8844$xp2.253
@fx19.am4:

> Just one more thing - the Zoom has the ability to do both compression and
> limiting during recording, but I am not familiar enough with those
controls
> to know what I am doing with them. Would that be the smartest way to
capture
> the full dynamics without hitting peaks, and then you could manipulate
that
> in post for the best sounding product? Or would there be a danger of
pumping
> and breathing in quiet passages? Maybe the limiting is the way to go to
> diminish audibility of compression artifacts?
>
> Gary Eickmeier
>
>
>

If you can hear it, then it's too much already. Having limited control
over parameters (or difficulty setting them via menu) is not attractive to
me. Just because they're there doesn't mean you have to use them. They can
exaggerate room artifacts as well.

I'd just turn down the input gain then bring it back up in post with idea
being just to keep the recording as unaffected as possible.

Maybe your circumstance dictates something else (ie YMMV).

david

david

[Audio_Empire]

In article >,
"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote:

> Just one more thing - the Zoom has the ability to do both compression and
> limiting during recording, but I am not familiar enough with those controls
> to know what I am doing with them. Would that be the smartest way to capture
> the full dynamics without hitting peaks, and then you could manipulate that
> in post for the best sounding product? Or would there be a danger of pumping
> and breathing in quiet passages? Maybe the limiting is the way to go to
> diminish audibility of compression artifacts?
>
> Gary Eickmeier

Gary, that depends on the limiting and compression algorithms used. For
instance, the Zoom H2's compression and limiting aren't very good, and
while I've certainly tried them, I'd never use them for a recording. Too
bad to. As a backup recorder the ability to "set it and forget it" would
make things much easier for me at a location recording.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Frank Stearns]

"Gary Eickmeier" > writes:

>Just one more thing - the Zoom has the ability to do both compression and
>limiting during recording, but I am not familiar enough with those controls
>to know what I am doing with them. Would that be the smartest way to capture
>the full dynamics without hitting peaks, and then you could manipulate that
>in post for the best sounding product? Or would there be a danger of pumping
>and breathing in quiet passages? Maybe the limiting is the way to go to
>diminish audibility of compression artifacts?

This is where your 24 bits is handy.

Don't compress or limit while tracking. It's hard to undo. (I just did a restoration
project like that, and it is bloody hard to get the eggs and flour out of that cake
and back into their original form.)

Set your levels at not more than -10 from the biggest peaks in a rehearsal... "0 vu"
-- if you have a feel for what that means -- is down around -16 to a -20, dbFS.
Then, for a performance, set levels down another 6 to 10.

In post, you can bring levels back up to something more rational, now that you can
see the overall dynamic envelope required for the recording. You can also limit or
compress a bit, if that's what you want. And in post you can finesse all this stuff
without penalty.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Audio_Empire]

In article >,
Rasta Robert > wrote:

> On 2013-10-12, Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
> > Just one more thing - the Zoom has the ability to do both compression and
> > limiting during recording, but I am not familiar enough with those controls
> > to know what I am doing with them. Would that be the smartest way to
> > capture
> > the full dynamics without hitting peaks, and then you could manipulate that
> > in post for the best sounding product? Or would there be a danger of
> > pumping
> > and breathing in quiet passages? Maybe the limiting is the way to go to
> > diminish audibility of compression artifacts?
> >
> > Gary Eickmeier
>
> For best results, one can best record at safe levels well below peaking,
> on the level meter while recoding, keeping the peeks somewhere between -12
> and -6 dB, and apply compression and (hard) limiting in postprocessing.
> You have way more control and can always go back, while you can not undo
> compression applied while recording.

In my estimation that's the best reason to record 24-bit. You can set
the average record level way below "0" Vu without being down in the mud.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
acquisition...


> This is where your 24 bits is handy.
>
> Don't compress or limit while tracking. It's hard to undo. (I just did a
> restoration
> project like that, and it is bloody hard to get the eggs and flour out of
> that cake
> and back into their original form.)
>
> Set your levels at not more than -10 from the biggest peaks in a
> rehearsal... "0 vu"
> -- if you have a feel for what that means -- is down around -16 to a -20,
> dbFS.
> Then, for a performance, set levels down another 6 to 10.
>
> In post, you can bring levels back up to something more rational, now that
> you can
> see the overall dynamic envelope required for the recording. You can also
> limit or
> compress a bit, if that's what you want. And in post you can finesse all
> this stuff
> without penalty.
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio

Sounds good - so to speak. Thanks to all. I can see now the benefits of 24
bit, being able to record under a little and still be well within the 16 bit
range of the final product. Kind of like shooting RAW in photography. I have
set my recorder to 24/96 now, and will try it out again tomorrow at a church
rehearsal of bell ringers and chorus. Something tells me bell ringers in a
small rehearsal room could be murder on dynamic range... but what an imaging
test that will be!

Gary Eickmeier

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> I have read that there is little point in going to 24 bit because the
> lowest 8 will be lost in noise anyway and not doing a thing for you
> dynamic range.

Read less and fix your playback system if the longer duration of the room
reverb is not audible in a 24 bit recording.

> Against that I am thinking that at least you would
> have those extra bits to work with before mastering, and you would
> lose less in the conversion to 16 bit.

If you record with 16 bits you end up, nah, I end up, with recording 17
bits, ie. relying on the inaudiblity of small overs. In 24 bit recording you
aim for having 2 unused bits in the rehearsal and one in the concert, as we
say in HD24 land: yellow is the new red.

> I have dabbled in compression without knowing anything about a proper
> workflow or a way of going about it step by step to accomplish what
> you want.

There is no replacement for trying it and learn what what settings do. What
Phildo calls New York Compression - other just call it parallel - is often
useful when you do it in hardware, I learned it from an Audio And Recording
application note. It is fairly easy to emulate in case you can draw your own
transfer characteristic as is possible with some audio software. See also:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_compression

> There is an article in th current Recording magazine that I
> am reading, but I haven't found the definitive, easy to understand
> book on it yet.

BBC is the motherlode for a lot of information.

> My main problem in the past has been loudness. I have
> been making all of my recordings with full dynamics, and when you do
> that the peaks boss the general gain for the whole track and you end
> up with a product that doesn't play well in a car. Or probably a
> boombox, but I don't know. So I am thinking smashing the peaks a
> little and then bringing up the gain will solve a lot of that.

It is way too easy if you do it like that to end up with a recording with
two levels: piano and forte. Some of the time being scared of compression
and doing too little is the worse choice. Lifting the ppp's to a single p
may be better for the listenability than chopping two F's of the forte.

> Or
> would using a limiter during recording help a lot more? Or are they
> usually too abrupt?

Pure disaster, with a decent unclip you are better off actually clipping it
a few dB, since that results in a curve-shape that is reasonably
recoverable, hard limiting isn't.

> Gary Eickmeier

Forgive me for bing terse, but this is not a subject matter that is best
dealt with in a few lines of text. You need to experiment yourself or to try
working with someone who knows what one usually gets away with and what one
doesn't get away with.

The multiband compressor in Audition is Izotopes, and it is very good if you
set it correctly, whatever that is. Street wisdom is to compress first and
add verb afterwards, doing it like that with something that is inaudibly
multiband compressed can make the compression stand out like a sore thumb.

A little bit of many spices is often good in a kitchen, post is not all that
different from cooking. Do a lot of something, whatever it is, and it is
likely a dead giveaway, do a little bit of various things and some of the
time some of the people will think that you did nothing.

Mostly I do my post in the multitrack view because it allows me to do it all
in one DSP processing, but some things need to be done in the edit view.
Remember to use the FFT equalizer for filtering unwanted stuff and the
parametric minimum phase equalizer for correcting microphone frequency
response.

Oh, remember also that there is in my opinion zilch, zero, nothing that you
can do by adding a third microphone to a pair that you can not do BETTER and
CLEANER via altering the relationship between MID and SIDE over in MS land.
That preset ("stereo to ms" and "ms to stereo") for channel mixer fell out
of A3 because of developer incompetence .... adding something rear facing to
a pair is another talk, as is adding a shotgun, both can be useful tricks do
deploy when appropiate.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Frank Stearns]

"Gary Eickmeier" > writes:

snips

>rehearsal of bell ringers and chorus. Something tells me bell ringers in a
>small rehearsal room could be murder on dynamic range... but what an imaging
>test that will be!

Well, that and it'll be the next best thing to a "jangling keys" test. If you start
hearing thumping on the attacks regardless of level, you've got distortion issues.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> I have read that there is little point in going to 24 bit because the lowest
> 8 will be lost in noise anyway and not doing a thing for you dynamic range.

Which may prove that anyone can write anything somewhere and elsewhere
someone will take it as fact, and sufficient reason not to try it.

Try 24 bits, and leave about three of them alone at the top for good
measure.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
<snip>
>
> I have read that there is little point in going to 24 bit because the lowest
> 8 will be lost in noise anyway and not doing a thing for you dynamic range.
> Against that I am thinking that at least you would have those extra bits to
> work with before mastering, and you would lose less in the conversion to 16
> bit.
>


I try to track 24 bits to peaks @ -20 or -25dB. That is a big
advantage over 16 bit.

For media to distribute mixes, it makes less difference (you
can "cheat" and raise the gain ) . But it's eminently useful at
tracking.

>
> Gary Eickmeier
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich > wrote:
>Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
>> I have read that there is little point in going to 24 bit because the lowest
>> 8 will be lost in noise anyway and not doing a thing for you dynamic range.
>
>Which may prove that anyone can write anything somewhere and elsewhere
>someone will take it as fact, and sufficient reason not to try it.
>
>Try 24 bits, and leave about three of them alone at the top for good
>measure.

AND, actually look at the noise floor spectrum. Not just the envelope,
the spectrum.

My guess is that with the Zoom you'll be lucky to get 16 bits worth of
resolution with the mike preamp at any reasonable gain, but maybe not.
Run a plot and find out.

Also, let me point out that narrowband noises are often very audible,
even if they are below the noise floor of the rest of the system and
masked by considerable signal. This is where a lot of that worrying
about noise floor comes from.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Audio_Empire]

In article >,
(Ralf R. Radermacher) wrote:

> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
> > Or would using a limiter during recording help a lot
> > more?
>
> A word of warning: if the built-in limiter of the H6 works in the same
> way as in all other Zoom recorders, it's an 'effect' applied to the
> digital signal, i.e. after the A/D-converter, and it won't prevent
> converter clipping.
>
> Yes, I know this is total nonsense but it is the way Zoom make their
> recorders.
>
> Ralf

That explains much. Thanks.

George Graves

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Gary Eickmeier]

I want to try Tobiah's little uploader to show you the comparison between
the built-in mike capsule and the AT-2050 mikes with a short passage from a
rehearsal. See if this works:

http://tobiah.org/rap_upload/index.html

Gary Eickmeier

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 04:17:45 -0400, "Gary Eickmeier"
> wrote:

>I want to try Tobiah's little uploader to show you the comparison between
>the built-in mike capsule and the AT-2050 mikes with a short passage from a
>rehearsal. See if this works:
>
>http://tobiah.org/rap_upload/index.html
>
>Gary Eickmeier
>

Better-defined image from the AT. Listen to the snare particularly.
Both, however are suffering from a rather slappy room.

d

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 04:17:45 -0400, "Gary Eickmeier"
> > wrote:
>
>> I want to try Tobiah's little uploader to show you the comparison
>> between the built-in mike capsule and the AT-2050 mikes with a short
>> passage from a rehearsal. See if this works:
>>
>> http://tobiah.org/rap_upload/index.html
>>
>> Gary Eickmeier
>>
>
> Better-defined image from the AT. Listen to the snare particularly.
> Both, however are suffering from a rather slappy room.

+1

> d

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:40:04 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article >):

> Well, I am here to tell ya that the microphone capsules are no slouch when
> it comes to full freq response and imaging! In fact, I began to question my
> expenses for the big mikes, and I would not be ashamed of my product if I
> were at a venue where I could not set up a large stand etc for the big mikes
> and had to rely on the internal capsules.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

What "big mikes" have you used again? What preamps?

These make a huge difference in recording quality. In fact, I'd go so far to
say that mic type, mic placement, and preamps probably have a greater effect
on sound quality than the recorder per se -- assuming a modern recorder with
reasonable specs.

My biggest problem with the Zoom recorders is the fact tha they're basically
using $10 mics and $1 preamps (my guess, based on size and specs). The
recorder by itself isn't horrible, but it's not a good choice for serious
recording where sound quality is the priority.

Again: try using serious studio mics like a decent Sennheiser or a Neumann,
fed to a great preamp. It's a whole different world. Not cheap, but the
difference is startling. There are rental shops in Tampa that can get you
this stuff affordably.

--MFW

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/12/2013 2:40 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> As planned, I set up my big mikes on the high stand, drop the 3 XLRs and
> attached them directly to the recorder, channels 1,2, and 3 for left,
> center, and right. I had previously adjusted the mixer monitor panning to L,
> C, and R in order to be able to tell something about the stereo on
> headphone.

Is this fiddly enough so that you felt that you needed to set it in
advance, or could you just set it up, hit record(ready) and move the pan
and level controls without much trouble?

> The Zoom was placed on a shorter stand next to the big mike stand so that I
> could operate the controls and record from the internal mikes
> simultaneously.

That's clever. It doesn't require table space, or lap space.

> Levels are set approximately to #5, which is midpoint on the dials.
> Identical gain controls for the 4 XLR inputs on the body, and one on the
> mike capsule.

Are the knobs on the front the record level controls? Hopefully they've
made them work once you start recording. Some of the early handheld
recorders wouldn't let you change the record level once you started
writing data ("recording").

> The little full color monitor at the bottom of the Zoom is not just a level
> meter for all channels, it is a screen for setting all controls, of which
> there are many.

Is this a control panel, or just indicators? I didn't read the link
above, I expect you to include this in the review (as I would).

> First, the meters - just fabulous. Tho they are small, they are once again
> very useful because they are very finely segmented

Did you check them with a generator so you could verify that all of the
fine segments are actually indicated levels, and that they don't work in
groups? A number of meters of that nature look like they have good
resolution, but when you put in a constant signal and change its
amplitude, you'll find bigger steps than you thought you could see. The
reality, though, is that you really don't need to set the level all that
accurately (unless you're testing, of course) as long as you have a good
indication as to how much headroom you have. Not all meters are scaled
that way. I'd like to see FS, -2, -6, -10, and -20 dBFS but sometimes
there's more resolution than you need at the low end and not enough at
the top end.

> Biggest observation surprise - the good news is that it can record up to six
> channels simultaneously plus a safety track that is 12 dB lower than the
> main one. The surprise is that this affects the recording time available
> directly.

I wouldn't be surprised at both. Recording uses memory. Is there a
safety track for each of the six tracks? Figure about .5 GB/hour at 48
kHz 24-bit.

> book says with a 2G chip you can go 3 hours

That sounds like an incomplete specification to me (a topic of our panel
at AES next Saturday) - This would be correct for 16-bit 48 kHz stereo.

,> I set all of those options except the
> 4th XLR track and begin recording. I look down and see that I have 39
> minutes of record time left!

That's just about right for 7 tracks (3 XLRs + 2 built-in mics + 2
backup tracks) at 44.1 kHz, 24-bit. This suggests that only the L/R
(built-in mics) track is backed up.

> Battery life, it says 21 hours but I don't know where or under what
> conditions they get that.

Again, something not specified. It's probably for 2 tracks, no backup.
Put in a set of fresh batteries, put all six tracks plus the backup into
record, let it run out, and then you'll know. You don't need to watch it
full time, but it would be useful information if you could find the
approximate time when each level of the battery life indicator turns
off. When I have one "bar" on the battery meter on my TASCAM DR-40, I
can record about 2 more hours of stereo. There's also probably a setting
for alkaline or rechargeable batteries that adjusts how the battery
meter works. The default is usually alkaline so it's probably right but
take a look.

> Second major observation - If I am recording with the mike capsule and the
> XLR channels all at once, what am I hearing when moniitoring with my phones?
> All 5 channels. Don't want that, but what to do? It seems like if I turn
> down the monitor mixer gain for the LR channel that I lose the metering for
> those channels.

That suggests that the meters are post-fader on the mixer. That's odd.
Look into that a little further.

> But I found out later at home that you CAN turn down the monitoring
> gain to those chanels but still have the LR level meters during recording.

Was this cockpit error or are there different settings for the metering?

Can you solo channels in the headphones while you're recording? If so,
how much trouble is it to find the buttons and how responsive is it?
This was one of the annoyances I had with the TASCAM DR-680. You had to
change the buttons to solo mode, and then it took at least half a second
for the audio to respond to pressing a solo button. I want that to occur
instantly so I can do quick checks and not waste five seconds or more
seeing what's coming into each mic.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/12/2013 12:15 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> the Zoom has the ability to do both compression and
> limiting during recording, but I am not familiar enough with those controls
> to know what I am doing with them. Would that be the smartest way to capture
> the full dynamics without hitting peaks, and then you could manipulate that
> in post for the best sounding product?

Leave compression off when you're recording, and set the record level to
a safe indication on the meters (you should learn what this means as you
work). Then switch on the limiter just to protect yourself. But the
limiter should only be working on levels that are unexpectedly higher
than you anticipated and allowed for.

Compression and limiting reduces dynamic range - that's what it's
supposed to do. You can play with this at your mixing and "mastering" stage.



--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[hank alrich]

Marc Wielage > wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:40:04 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
> (in article >):
>
> > Well, I am here to tell ya that the microphone capsules are no slouch when
> > it comes to full freq response and imaging! In fact, I began to question my
> > expenses for the big mikes, and I would not be ashamed of my product if I
> > were at a venue where I could not set up a large stand etc for the big mikes
> > and had to rely on the internal capsules.
> >------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
>
> What "big mikes" have you used again? What preamps?
>
> These make a huge difference in recording quality. In fact, I'd go so far to
> say that mic type, mic placement, and preamps probably have a greater effect
> on sound quality than the recorder per se -- assuming a modern recorder with
> reasonable specs.
>
> My biggest problem with the Zoom recorders is the fact tha they're basically
> using $10 mics and $1 preamps (my guess, based on size and specs). The
> recorder by itself isn't horrible, but it's not a good choice for serious
> recording where sound quality is the priority.
>
> Again: try using serious studio mics like a decent Sennheiser or a Neumann,
> fed to a great preamp. It's a whole different world. Not cheap, but the
> difference is startling. There are rental shops in Tampa that can get you
> this stuff affordably.

Today's reasonably-priced kit is pretty danged good. A couple of
evenings ago in Austin I went to a studio-in-a-house where a single guy
lives solo. He has a good rep for his recording and production work, and
I know from hearing him that he is an excellent songwriter, picker, and
performer.

I went to contribute mandolin tracks. I played in a small, kid-sized
bedroom with a bit of acoustic foam, lots of instruments on stands, a
tall, filled bookshelf, i.e., stuff that helps break up the acoustical
space, into an SM81, which wouldn't have been my first choice but which
was his best SDC, into a MOTU portable interface.

The mandolin has wonderful tone, and that made it through to storage
with no difficulty at all. Before we started the engineer/producer asked
me where folks usually put the mic, and as I explained "away from it a
distance roughly equivalent to the length of the entire instrument I
could tell that his initial impulse had been to mic it much more
closely.

I came away reminded how much operator competence comes into this, and
how easily a setup like that can deliver competitive work in an era
where it's often done a-track-at-a-time.

My biggest problem with Zoom recorders, now needing to replace my second
one which suffers from a failed power switch that I have failed to
repair, is the flimsy build quality, and the wide variation in mic
capsule sensitivities.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> On 10/12/2013 12:15 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> > the Zoom has the ability to do both compression and
> > limiting during recording, but I am not familiar enough with those controls
> > to know what I am doing with them. Would that be the smartest way to capture
> > the full dynamics without hitting peaks, and then you could manipulate that
> > in post for the best sounding product?
>
> Leave compression off when you're recording, and set the record level to
> a safe indication on the meters (you should learn what this means as you
> work). Then switch on the limiter just to protect yourself. But the
> limiter should only be working on levels that are unexpectedly higher
> than you anticipated and allowed for.
>
> Compression and limiting reduces dynamic range - that's what it's
> supposed to do. You can play with this at your mixing and "mastering" stage.

I avoid it now and leave so much headroom nothing is going to clip
unless the mic stand falls over. Goes without saying that 24 bit is very
much appreciated. I don't need a clean take of the mic stand falling
over from the point of view of the mic that was riding it. Anything else
having anything to do with the music is going to pass cleanly or
disappear into the noise floor of the room.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Ralf R. Radermacher > wrote:

> Marc Wielage > wrote:
>
> > Again: try using serious studio mics like a decent Sennheiser or a Neumann,
> > fed to a great preamp. It's a whole different world. Not cheap, but the
> > difference is startling. There are rental shops in Tampa that can get you
> > this stuff affordably.
>
> Not everybody taking the occasional photograph needs a Leica nor does
> everybody need to rent an articulated lorry to go shopping.
>
> Many people are happy with what they get from portable devices like the
> Zoom recorders and I hear the mics and preamps of the H6 are
> substantially better than those in the predecessor models.
>
> Ralf

Marc's point is that absent comparison with higher quality tools one has
little awareness of the real differences. Someone serious about
learning, who lives in a large metro area, could easily rent the good
stuff for a day or weekend. I would consider that a worthy cost of
education, were it me in their ears.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Gary Eickmeier]

Answers to all attempted within and below.

My "big mikes" are the Audio Technica 2050, selected because they are
affordable, good specs, and are multipattern. I have had no complaints, and
there is little need to EQ them afterwards.

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 10/12/2013 2:40 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
>> As planned, I set up my big mikes on the high stand, drop the 3 XLRs and
>> attached them directly to the recorder, channels 1,2, and 3 for left,
>> center, and right. I had previously adjusted the mixer monitor panning to
>> L,
>> C, and R in order to be able to tell something about the stereo on
>> headphone.
>
> Is this fiddly enough so that you felt that you needed to set it in
> advance, or could you just set it up, hit record(ready) and move the pan
> and level controls without much trouble?

I don't believe you can manipulate these while recording. I set them in
advance.


>
>> The Zoom was placed on a shorter stand next to the big mike stand so that
>> I
>> could operate the controls and record from the internal mikes
>> simultaneously.
>
> That's clever. It doesn't require table space, or lap space.
>
>> Levels are set approximately to #5, which is midpoint on the dials.
>> Identical gain controls for the 4 XLR inputs on the body, and one on the
>> mike capsule.
>
> Are the knobs on the front the record level controls? Hopefully they've
> made them work once you start recording. Some of the early handheld
> recorders wouldn't let you change the record level once you started
> writing data ("recording").

That would be unacceptable! Yes, they are record controls.


>
>> The little full color monitor at the bottom of the Zoom is not just a
>> level
>> meter for all channels, it is a screen for setting all controls, of which
>> there are many.
>
> Is this a control panel, or just indicators? I didn't read the link above,
> I expect you to include this in the review (as I would).

Just indicators.


>
>> First, the meters - just fabulous. Tho they are small, they are once
>> again
>> very useful because they are very finely segmented
>
> Did you check them with a generator so you could verify that all of the
> fine segments are actually indicated levels, and that they don't work in
> groups? A number of meters of that nature look like they have good
> resolution, but when you put in a constant signal and change its
> amplitude, you'll find bigger steps than you thought you could see. The

No, I don't have such equipment. I just learn as I go how good they are.


> reality, though, is that you really don't need to set the level all that
> accurately (unless you're testing, of course) as long as you have a good
> indication as to how much headroom you have. Not all meters are scaled
> that way. I'd like to see FS, -2, -6, -10, and -20 dBFS but sometimes
> there's more resolution than you need at the low end and not enough at the
> top end.
>
>> Biggest observation surprise - the good news is that it can record up to
>> six
>> channels simultaneously plus a safety track that is 12 dB lower than the
>> main one. The surprise is that this affects the recording time available
>> directly.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised at both. Recording uses memory. Is there a safety
> track for each of the six tracks? Figure about .5 GB/hour at 48 kHz
> 24-bit.
>
>> book says with a 2G chip you can go 3 hours
>
> That sounds like an incomplete specification to me (a topic of our panel
> at AES next Saturday) - This would be correct for 16-bit 48 kHz stereo.
>
> ,> I set all of those options except the
>> 4th XLR track and begin recording. I look down and see that I have 39
>> minutes of record time left!
>
> That's just about right for 7 tracks (3 XLRs + 2 built-in mics + 2 backup
> tracks) at 44.1 kHz, 24-bit. This suggests that only the L/R (built-in
> mics) track is backed up.
>
>> Battery life, it says 21 hours but I don't know where or under what
>> conditions they get that.
>
> Again, something not specified. It's probably for 2 tracks, no backup. Put
> in a set of fresh batteries, put all six tracks plus the backup into
> record, let it run out, and then you'll know. You don't need to watch it


I suspect that driving 3 phantom powered mikes plus all the other functions
drains batteries faster.


> full time, but it would be useful information if you could find the
> approximate time when each level of the battery life indicator turns off.
> When I have one "bar" on the battery meter on my TASCAM DR-40, I can
> record about 2 more hours of stereo. There's also probably a setting for
> alkaline or rechargeable batteries that adjusts how the battery meter
> works. The default is usually alkaline so it's probably right but take a
> look.
>
>> Second major observation - If I am recording with the mike capsule and
>> the
>> XLR channels all at once, what am I hearing when moniitoring with my
>> phones?
>> All 5 channels. Don't want that, but what to do? It seems like if I turn
>> down the monitor mixer gain for the LR channel that I lose the metering
>> for
>> those channels.
>
> That suggests that the meters are post-fader on the mixer. That's odd.
> Look into that a little further.
>
>> But I found out later at home that you CAN turn down the monitoring
>> gain to those chanels but still have the LR level meters during
>> recording.
>
> Was this cockpit error or are there different settings for the metering?
>
> Can you solo channels in the headphones while you're recording? If so, how
> much trouble is it to find the buttons and how responsive is it? This was
> one of the annoyances I had with the TASCAM DR-680. You had to change the
> buttons to solo mode, and then it took at least half a second for the
> audio to respond to pressing a solo button. I want that to occur instantly
> so I can do quick checks and not waste five seconds or more seeing what's
> coming into each mic.

No, no soloing during recording. I check that all channels are good in prep
phase by hitting one channel at a time on the front panel. This checks
channels, levels, and panning for the monitor mixer. During recording I can
see levels on all channels and I am monitoring in stereo if panning controls
are set properly. I can't switch between XLR mikes and capsule mikes, but I
can see all levels so I know they are working etc. So I choose to monitor
just the XLR channels during important recordings and consider the capsule
just a backup.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

Yes - thanks - and the room is a disaster, with the band not situated
properly and the AC noise that you can hear in quieter passages. What a
pleasure it is to record in a nice room! Can't convince them to move though.
This one is free.

Gary


"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
...
> Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 04:17:45 -0400, "Gary Eickmeier"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I want to try Tobiah's little uploader to show you the comparison
>>> between the built-in mike capsule and the AT-2050 mikes with a short
>>> passage from a rehearsal. See if this works:
>>>
>>> http://tobiah.org/rap_upload/index.html
>>>
>>> Gary Eickmeier
>>>
>>
>> Better-defined image from the AT. Listen to the snare particularly.
>> Both, however are suffering from a rather slappy room.
>
> +1
>
>> d
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
>
>
>
>

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 18:11:48 +0000 (UTC), Jeff Henig
> wrote:

>Ralf R. Radermacher > wrote:
>> Marc Wielage > wrote:
>>
>>> Again: try using serious studio mics like a decent Sennheiser or a Neumann,
>>> fed to a great preamp. It's a whole different world. Not cheap, but the
>>> difference is startling. There are rental shops in Tampa that can get you
>>> this stuff affordably.
>>
>> Not everybody taking the occasional photograph needs a Leica nor does
>> everybody need to rent an articulated lorry to go shopping.
>>
>> Many people are happy with what they get from portable devices like the
>> Zoom recorders and I hear the mics and preamps of the H6 are
>> substantially better than those in the predecessor models.
>>
>> Ralf
>
>
>I'm recording with a Delta 1010lt, an Mbox2 Mini, and a Digi001 with both
>ProTools and Reaper and a Rode K2 and an EV757.
>
>While I'm not happy with my results and OF COURSE would like better gear,
>I'm pretty sure that the gear is not the bottleneck on my recording quality
>at this point. Were I still using my old PortaStudio, I might say that, but
>there's something to be said for keeping things simple for a while.
>
>JMHSO

It's never the gear. It is the room every time.

d

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Jeff Henig wrote:
> Ralf R. Radermacher > wrote:
>> Marc Wielage > wrote:
>>
>>> Again: try using serious studio mics like a decent Sennheiser or a Neumann,
>>> fed to a great preamp. It's a whole different world. Not cheap, but the
>>> difference is startling. There are rental shops in Tampa that can get you
>>> this stuff affordably.
>>
>> Not everybody taking the occasional photograph needs a Leica nor does
>> everybody need to rent an articulated lorry to go shopping.
>>
>> Many people are happy with what they get from portable devices like the
>> Zoom recorders and I hear the mics and preamps of the H6 are
>> substantially better than those in the predecessor models.
>>
>> Ralf
>
>
> I'm recording with a Delta 1010lt, an Mbox2 Mini, and a Digi001 with both
> ProTools and Reaper and a Rode K2 and an EV757.
>
> While I'm not happy with my results and OF COURSE would like better gear,

... that *is* pretty good gear.

> I'm pretty sure that the gear is not the bottleneck on my recording quality
> at this point. Were I still using my old PortaStudio, I might say that, but
> there's something to be said for keeping things simple for a while.
>
> JMHSO
>

I have stuff I did on a Porta that came out quite good. But it was in
this one particular garage that sounded pretty good.

Yeah, it's smeary and the image comes and goes ( it was a Tascam 488
Mark II w/dbx ) but it's punchy and present.

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Ralf R. Radermacher > wrote:
>Marc Wielage > wrote:
>
>> Again: try using serious studio mics like a decent Sennheiser or a Neumann,
>> fed to a great preamp. It's a whole different world. Not cheap, but the
>> difference is startling. There are rental shops in Tampa that can get you
>> this stuff affordably.
>
>Not everybody taking the occasional photograph needs a Leica nor does
>everybody need to rent an articulated lorry to go shopping.

No, but everyone should rent a Leica and an articulated lorry for an
afternoon some time just to have the experience.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Audio_Empire]

In article >, Mike Rivers >
wrote:

> On 10/12/2013 2:40 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
> > As planned, I set up my big mikes on the high stand, drop the 3 XLRs and
> > attached them directly to the recorder, channels 1,2, and 3 for left,
> > center, and right. I had previously adjusted the mixer monitor panning to L,
> > C, and R in order to be able to tell something about the stereo on
> > headphone.
>
> Is this fiddly enough so that you felt that you needed to set it in
> advance, or could you just set it up, hit record(ready) and move the pan
> and level controls without much trouble?
>
> > The Zoom was placed on a shorter stand next to the big mike stand so that I
> > could operate the controls and record from the internal mikes
> > simultaneously.
>
> That's clever. It doesn't require table space, or lap space.

What I don't understand is what Zoom insists on wired remote control
wands for their products. What is needed is to be able to screw the
recorder onto a tripod, and set it (using it's on-board mikes) in an
optimum position in front of the ensemble to be recorded, then to be
able to go back and sit down in the audience, and start-and-stop
the recording with a wireless remote control box, Ideally, said box
would be two-way and would also have "repeater" meters on it and
remote record level controls. That would be really useful. As it is, the
remote is wired, and has, what looks like, a short cable.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[jason]

On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 23:52:59 +0200 "Ralf R. Radermacher"
> wrote in article <1lape3n.j3s4j8onix4cN%
>
>
> Audio_Empire > wrote:
>
> > ... a wireless remote control box, Ideally, said box
> > would be two-way and would also have "repeater" meters on it and
> > remote record level controls. That would be really useful.
>
> NIce idea, but are you sure the average buyer of a simple WAV recorder
> would be ready to fork out an estimated 150 USD/euros for this?
>
> In my book, the main purpose of the cable remote is the possibility to
> operate the main unit without provoking hand noises and/or without
> having to lower the tripod for access.
>
> Ralf

WiFi! My teeny little GoPro video recorder has WiFi built in and exports
the controls and a video preview to an Apple or Android smart phone. It
works great. The WiFi-enabled camera costs $50 more than the next model
down without that feature.

[Trevor]

"Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
...
> In my estimation that's the best reason to record 24-bit. You can set
> the average record level way below "0" Vu without being down in the mud.

Not that any devices get anywhere near 24 real bits, but you do gain a
couple of bits more headroom in most cases. But none at all for some
devices, so it's always worth checking first.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message
...
> It's not necessarily possible to undo compression or especially limiting.
> With certain classes of tools, you can undo *some* of it, but
> never completely. You have 144 dB of digital bandwidth; use it.

Unfortunately *NO* audio device is capable of 144dB dynamic range, and never
will be without cryogenic cooling!
Fortunately what we do have now is more than enough.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> My guess is that with the Zoom you'll be lucky to get 16 bits worth of
> resolution with the mike preamp at any reasonable gain, but maybe not.

I'd suspect the former. But hell, all those tape guys are still happy with
60dB, so ~96dB is hardly something to sneeze at for live recordings IMO.


> Also, let me point out that narrowband noises are often very audible,
> even if they are below the noise floor of the rest of the system and
> masked by considerable signal. This is where a lot of that worrying
> about noise floor comes from.

And where understanding the difference between narrow band and wide band
noise measurements helps!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message
...
> I try to track 24 bits to peaks @ -20 or -25dB. That is a big
> advantage over 16 bit.

That only gives you 16bits of real resolution with any real world audio
device of course, but does give you plenty of headroom. Somehow I doubt the
Zoom has even a *real* 120dB of DNR though.
And if recording with mics it will be less again of course, and you can't
even measure it properly to know exactly, but you CAN measure the fact that
the noise floor of any live recording will be WELL above that in any case.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Ralf R. Radermacher" > wrote in message
...
> A word of warning: if the built-in limiter of the H6 works in the same
> way as in all other Zoom recorders, it's an 'effect' applied to the
> digital signal, i.e. after the A/D-converter, and it won't prevent
> converter clipping.
>
> Yes, I know this is total nonsense but it is the way Zoom make their
> recorders.

It's not nonsense, it costs little to add compression in the digital domain,
and looks good on the spec sheet to the uninformed, and is probably usefull
for those recording direct to MP3. (Yes some people might) Adding analog
compression would cost more. And any converter already provides "brick wall"
limiting of course :-)

Trevor.

[Frank Stearns]

Jeff Henig > writes:

-snips-

>Yeah, I'm thinking I need to start on room treatments now that we're moved
>in to the new home.

Yup. There's gold in that seam.

Been working on my new room; listening as I go, starting on the back wall first.

- First the corner bass traps go in. Each one flattens out the low end.

- then the lower back wall full-width trap. Still better low end.

- then the back wall RPGs, one by one. The mid and top sweetness reappears; image
depth swells.

- then the limp mass in front of the traps, some select sections of 6" thick 703 are
placed on the back wall in front of additional traps. Bass is now firm and
remarkably clear, though I can tell the front traps still need to go in.

Anyway, it's always amazing to go through this process and listen as you go.

Study up; build or buy some treatment, play around with it. You will be amazed. :)

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>>Not everybody taking the occasional photograph needs a Leica nor does
>>everybody need to rent an articulated lorry to go shopping.
>
> No, but everyone should rent a Leica and an articulated lorry for an
> afternoon some time just to have the experience.

Many camera's are better than Leica, in fact many of their digital ones are
simply badge engineered anyway.
I'd at least suggest they rent a Hasselblad or better. But they'd never
*start* to get the best from it in one afternoon.

Trevor.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
...

> What I don't understand is what Zoom insists on wired remote control
> wands for their products. What is needed is to be able to screw the
> recorder onto a tripod, and set it (using it's on-board mikes) in an
> optimum position in front of the ensemble to be recorded, then to be
> able to go back and sit down in the audience, and start-and-stop
> the recording with a wireless remote control box, Ideally, said box
> would be two-way and would also have "repeater" meters on it and
> remote record level controls. That would be really useful. As it is, the
> remote is wired, and has, what looks like, a short cable.

On those occasions when I need to use the recorder (such as the Zoom line)
on a stand by itself I just set levels and let it run for the length of the
event and edit later. If I am not too sure about levels, I put it on AGC. My
H2n has a very smooth AGC that doesn't pump up and down constantly and
doesn't go way up in quiet passages. But for music recording I would never
use such methods.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

Well I must add that the H6 passes the high bells test. I recorded some hand
bells stuff today and the linearity of the ADC was just fine, the bells
sounding like bells with wide, clear response and steady tone. I think high
bells are the hardest thing for digital to get right.

Gary Eickmeier

[Frank Stearns]

Jeff Henig > writes:

>Frank Stearns > wrote:
>> Jeff Henig > writes:
>>
>> -snips-
>>
>>> Yeah, I'm thinking I need to start on room treatments now that we're moved
>>> in to the new home.
>>
>> Yup. There's gold in that seam.
>>
>> Been working on my new room; listening as I go, starting on the back wall first.
>>
>> - First the corner bass traps go in. Each one flattens out the low end.
>>
>> - then the lower back wall full-width trap. Still better low end.
>>
>> - then the back wall RPGs, one by one. The mid and top sweetness reappears; image
>> depth swells.
>>
>> - then the limp mass in front of the traps, some select sections of 6" thick 703 are
>> placed on the back wall in front of additional traps. Bass is now firm and
>> remarkably clear, though I can tell the front traps still need to go in.
>>
>> Anyway, it's always amazing to go through this process and listen as you go.
>>
>> Study up; build or buy some treatment, play around with it. You will be amazed. :)
>>
>> Frank
>> Mobile Audio


>Cut, print, and saved. Thanks, Frank.

>I also have a couple of unfinished attic spaces sizeable enough to put
>together a project studio from scratch, and I'm trying to plan ahead for
>that as I see what works in the already finished area.

F. Alton Everest is your best friend. <w>

Frank
Mobile Audio

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> Well I must add that the H6 passes the high bells test. I recorded some hand
> bells stuff today and the linearity of the ADC was just fine, the bells
> sounding like bells with wide, clear response and steady tone. I think high
> bells are the hardest thing for digital to get right.
>
> Gary Eickmeier

Ever done the key test on a good analog machine?

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Tobiah]

On 10/12/2013 02:26 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> I have read that there is little point in going to 24 bit because the lowest
>> 8 will be lost in noise anyway and not doing a thing for you dynamic range.
>> Against that I am thinking that at least you would have those extra bits to
>> work with before mastering, and you would lose less in the conversion to 16
>> bit.
>>
>
>
> I try to track 24 bits to peaks @ -20 or -25dB. That is a big
> advantage over 16 bit.

24 bits is a lot of digital headroom, but isn't it still important
to record near the max output of the ADC, so as not to be forced
to amplify the intrinsic noise from the analog part of the signal path?


> For media to distribute mixes, it makes less difference (you
> can "cheat" and raise the gain ) . But it's eminently useful at
> tracking.
>
>>
>> Gary Eickmeier
>>
>>
>
> --
> Les Cargill

[hank alrich]

Tobiah > wrote:

> On 10/12/2013 02:26 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
> > Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> > <snip>
> >>
> >> I have read that there is little point in going to 24 bit because the
> >> lowest 8 will be lost in noise anyway and not doing a thing for you
> >> dynamic range. Against that I am thinking that at least you would have
> >> those extra bits to work with before mastering, and you would lose less
> >> in the conversion to 16 bit.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I try to track 24 bits to peaks @ -20 or -25dB. That is a big
> > advantage over 16 bit.
>
> 24 bits is a lot of digital headroom, but isn't it still important
> to record near the max output of the ADC, so as not to be forced
> to amplify the intrinsic noise from the analog part of the signal path?

In most live recording situations, assuming equipment that isn't either
truly bad or broken, the system noise floor is swamped by ambient sound
in the room.

Moreover, keeping ADC input well below peak allows analog stages
upstream to relax and pass trainsients cleanly, easily.

If we have 106 dB to work with (a practical figure, not theoretical, and
one met by a lot of affordable gear), and leave alone the top
two-to-five bits, we still have dynamic range exceeding both the dynamic
range of most music and the available dynamic range in most venues.

> > For media to distribute mixes, it makes less difference (you
> > can "cheat" and raise the gain ) . But it's eminently useful at
> > tracking.
> >
> >>
> >> Gary Eickmeier
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Les Cargill


--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Gary Eickmeier]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Tobiah > wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/2013 02:26 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>> > Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> > <snip>
>> >>
>> >> I have read that there is little point in going to 24 bit because the
>> >> lowest 8 will be lost in noise anyway and not doing a thing for you
>> >> dynamic range. Against that I am thinking that at least you would have
>> >> those extra bits to work with before mastering, and you would lose
>> >> less
>> >> in the conversion to 16 bit.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > I try to track 24 bits to peaks @ -20 or -25dB. That is a big
>> > advantage over 16 bit.
>>
>> 24 bits is a lot of digital headroom, but isn't it still important
>> to record near the max output of the ADC, so as not to be forced
>> to amplify the intrinsic noise from the analog part of the signal path?
>
> In most live recording situations, assuming equipment that isn't either
> truly bad or broken, the system noise floor is swamped by ambient sound
> in the room.
>
> Moreover, keeping ADC input well below peak allows analog stages
> upstream to relax and pass trainsients cleanly, easily.
>
> If we have 106 dB to work with (a practical figure, not theoretical, and
> one met by a lot of affordable gear), and leave alone the top
> two-to-five bits, we still have dynamic range exceeding both the dynamic
> range of most music and the available dynamic range in most venues.

But the question is, if those bottom 8 bits are going to be lost in the
noise floor, don't we want to record with a gain setting that lifts all of
the music above that noise floor? In two extreme examples, one person
records near the max but not exceeding the peaks, another records in the
bottom 16 bits, throwing away the MSBs. Which would convert to 16 bit
better?

Gary Eickmeier
I may be wrong, but I don't want to be around when it happens

[Gary Eickmeier]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
>> Well I must add that the H6 passes the high bells test. I recorded some
>> hand
>> bells stuff today and the linearity of the ADC was just fine, the bells
>> sounding like bells with wide, clear response and steady tone. I think
>> high
>> bells are the hardest thing for digital to get right.
>>
>> Gary Eickmeier
>
> Ever done the key test on a good analog machine?

I've heard of it, but not heard it. What happens?

Gary

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
>But the question is, if those bottom 8 bits are going to be lost in the
>noise floor, don't we want to record with a gain setting that lifts all of
>the music above that noise floor? In two extreme examples, one person
>records near the max but not exceeding the peaks, another records in the
>bottom 16 bits, throwing away the MSBs. Which would convert to 16 bit
>better?

If you know exactly what the peak level is going to be, by all means
record as high as possible.

But... I don't know how high the peak level is going to be. I can guess
it will probably be about 6dB louder than what the band does in rehearsal
when you ask them for the loudest possible note in the piece. But sometimes
it's louder than that.

Having extra dynamic range means you don't need to guess, you can leave
headroom. That's what headroom is for.

The consequences of the levels being too low are not very severe in the
digital world, because of the available range. On the other hand, the
consequences of the levels being too high are catastrophic. So if you
are going to err, which side do you want to err on?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>"hank alrich" > wrote in message
>> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>>
>>> Well I must add that the H6 passes the high bells test. I recorded some
>>> hand
>>> bells stuff today and the linearity of the ADC was just fine, the bells
>>> sounding like bells with wide, clear response and steady tone. I think
>>> high
>>> bells are the hardest thing for digital to get right.
>>>
>>> Gary Eickmeier
>>
>> Ever done the key test on a good analog machine?
>
>I've heard of it, but not heard it. What happens?

Usually it sounds pretty bad.

The first machine I ever used that could do a respectable job was the
ATR-100, and even that isn't really quite transparent to a key test.

It's _much_ easier for digital systems to handle.

That said, most microphones and speakers make such a mash of it that
the tape machine problems are small in comparison.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
> >
> >But the question is, if those bottom 8 bits are going to be lost in the
> >noise floor, don't we want to record with a gain setting that lifts all of
> >the music above that noise floor? In two extreme examples, one person
> >records near the max but not exceeding the peaks, another records in the
> >bottom 16 bits, throwing away the MSBs. Which would convert to 16 bit
> >better?
>
> If you know exactly what the peak level is going to be, by all means
> record as high as possible.
>
> But... I don't know how high the peak level is going to be. I can guess
> it will probably be about 6dB louder than what the band does in rehearsal
> when you ask them for the loudest possible note in the piece. But sometimes
> it's louder than that.
>
> Having extra dynamic range means you don't need to guess, you can leave
> headroom. That's what headroom is for.
>
> The consequences of the levels being too low are not very severe in the
> digital world, because of the available range. On the other hand, the
> consequences of the levels being too high are catastrophic. So if you
> are going to err, which side do you want to err on?
> --scott

All this was easily resolved for me by the simple act of trying it and
listening to the result. In theory that's good practice - just try it.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/13/2013 11:14 AM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:

> Not everybody taking the occasional photograph needs a Leica nor does
> everybody need to rent an articulated lorry to go shopping.

> Many people are happy with what they get from portable devices like the
> Zoom recorders and I hear the mics and preamps of the H6 are
> substantially better than those in the predecessor models.

It's true. These things just keep getting better. It sounds like Gary
has some experience and has some idea of what he wants to accomplish.
It's also important that he's doing what he's doing for him, not
bursting out on the scene with a sophisticated recorder trying to do
mission critical work.



--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
>> A number of meters of that nature look like they have good
>> > resolution, but when you put in a constant signal and change its
>> > amplitude, you'll find bigger steps than you thought you could see.

On 10/13/2013 12:52 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> No, I don't have such equipment. I just learn as I go how good they are.

Oh, I'm sure you can cobble something up. There are a number of free
signal generator applications for computers and mobile devices. With
that all it takes is a cable to connect the generator to an input and
watch the meters with one eyeball while keeping the other eyeball on the
level display on the generator. I always do things like this when I get
a new piece of gear. It tells me how it works so I can better adjust the
way I work with it.

> I suspect that driving 3 phantom powered mikes plus all the other functions
> drains batteries faster.

Yes, phantom power indeed increases the drain on the batteries. Again,
it's something you should experiment with. Is there an option to turn
off the speaker and headphone amplifier? With the Sony PCM-M10, doing
this nearly doubles the battery life. It really surprised me. Get
yourself a set of rechargeable batteries for it and start learning how
much effect things have on their service life. Check the operating time
with everything turned off, then start turning things on and see how
much faster the batteries go dead.

> No, no soloing during recording.

That's kind of annoying. I have a Cymatic LR-16 here that has the same
non-feature, and making the solo buttons active during recording was one
of the first things to go on to my wish list. The second thing was to
make them so that it didn't take five or six button presses to solo and
un-solo a channel. This function is one reason why I like recording with
a real mixer, even though it means more stuff to carry and something
else to find room for while recording. But that's the way I work.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/13/2013 5:09 PM, Audio_Empire wrote:
> What I don't understand is what Zoom insists on wired remote control
> wands for their products. What is needed is to be able to screw the
> recorder onto a tripod, and set it (using it's on-board mikes) in an
> optimum position in front of the ensemble to be recorded, then to be
> able to go back and sit down in the audience, and start-and-stop
> the recording with a wireless remote control box,

I guess they have to draw the line somewhere. Roland has wireless remote
control on one or more of their pocket recorders, but few others do. I
don't know how the Roland one works, whether it's infra-red optical or
RF, but either way, it requires power that could otherwise be used for
keeping the recorder recording.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Audio_Empire]

In article >,
"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote:

> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Tobiah > wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/12/2013 02:26 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
> >> > Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> >> > <snip>
> >> >>
> >> >> I have read that there is little point in going to 24 bit because the
> >> >> lowest 8 will be lost in noise anyway and not doing a thing for you
> >> >> dynamic range. Against that I am thinking that at least you would have
> >> >> those extra bits to work with before mastering, and you would lose
> >> >> less
> >> >> in the conversion to 16 bit.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I try to track 24 bits to peaks @ -20 or -25dB. That is a big
> >> > advantage over 16 bit.
> >>
> >> 24 bits is a lot of digital headroom, but isn't it still important
> >> to record near the max output of the ADC, so as not to be forced
> >> to amplify the intrinsic noise from the analog part of the signal path?
> >
> > In most live recording situations, assuming equipment that isn't either
> > truly bad or broken, the system noise floor is swamped by ambient sound
> > in the room.
> >
> > Moreover, keeping ADC input well below peak allows analog stages
> > upstream to relax and pass trainsients cleanly, easily.
> >
> > If we have 106 dB to work with (a practical figure, not theoretical, and
> > one met by a lot of affordable gear), and leave alone the top
> > two-to-five bits, we still have dynamic range exceeding both the dynamic
> > range of most music and the available dynamic range in most venues.
>
> But the question is, if those bottom 8 bits are going to be lost in the
> noise floor, don't we want to record with a gain setting that lifts all of
> the music above that noise floor? In two extreme examples, one person
> records near the max but not exceeding the peaks, another records in the
> bottom 16 bits, throwing away the MSBs. Which would convert to 16 bit
> better?

No, because the 8 LSBs are NOT lost in the noise floor. Even were that
true, that still leaves 16-bits ABOVE the noise floor. With 16-bit
recording, that only leaves 8-bits above the noise floor, so you would
still are better off recording 24-bit.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Audio_Empire]

In article >,
(hank alrich) wrote:

> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
> > Well I must add that the H6 passes the high bells test. I recorded some hand
> > bells stuff today and the linearity of the ADC was just fine, the bells
> > sounding like bells with wide, clear response and steady tone. I think high
> > bells are the hardest thing for digital to get right.
> >
> > Gary Eickmeier
>
> Ever done the key test on a good analog machine?

Oh, yes. I once had a JVC Dummy Head Binaural Microphone/headphone set.
I used to walk around the styrofoam head jangling keys while my Otari
MX-5050, recorded it half-track/15ips. The keys really sounded
marvelous - quite real, actually (especially played back on a pair of
good headphones).

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Tobiah wrote:
> On 10/12/2013 02:26 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> I have read that there is little point in going to 24 bit because the
>>> lowest
>>> 8 will be lost in noise anyway and not doing a thing for you dynamic
>>> range.
>>> Against that I am thinking that at least you would have those extra
>>> bits to
>>> work with before mastering, and you would lose less in the conversion
>>> to 16
>>> bit.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I try to track 24 bits to peaks @ -20 or -25dB. That is a big
>> advantage over 16 bit.
>
> 24 bits is a lot of digital headroom, but isn't it still important
> to record near the max output of the ADC, so as not to be forced
> to amplify the intrinsic noise from the analog part of the signal path?
>

The usual tradeoffs in gain staging always apply. I use a USB2.0
interface where the trim knobs, A/D and all that live in the same box,
so it isn't a problem here - the Focusrite people made it work. The
noise floor falls as the trim pots are turned down.

If you're still using a 70s/'80s Tapco mixer into a 24 bit interface,
it might be time for a quieter mixer :)

And room tone totally dominates all other forms of noise for
any case I personally have seen.

>
>> For media to distribute mixes, it makes less difference (you
>> can "cheat" and raise the gain ) . But it's eminently useful at
>> tracking.
>>
>>>
>>> Gary Eickmeier
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>

--
Les Cargill

[Trevor]

"Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
...
>> But the question is, if those bottom 8 bits are going to be lost in the
>> noise floor, don't we want to record with a gain setting that lifts all
>> of
>> the music above that noise floor? In two extreme examples, one person
>> records near the max but not exceeding the peaks, another records in the
>> bottom 16 bits, throwing away the MSBs. Which would convert to 16 bit
>> better?
>
> No, because the 8 LSBs are NOT lost in the noise floor. Even were that
> true, that still leaves 16-bits ABOVE the noise floor. With 16-bit
> recording, that only leaves 8-bits above the noise floor, so you would
> still are better off recording 24-bit.

What rubbish. If a device has a real world SNR of 94dB for 16 bits, and
106dB for 24 bits, the difference is 2 bits. Some devices even reach 3 bits.
There is *NEVER* 8 bits difference between recording 16 and 24 bits, unless
the device is broken.

That said, when you have no problem recording in 24 bits, (storage capacity
etc.) why not! There isn't much downside these days.

Trevor.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rivers wrote:
>>> A number of meters of that nature look like they have good
>>> > resolution, but when you put in a constant signal and change its
>>> > amplitude, you'll find bigger steps than you thought you could see.
>
> On 10/13/2013 12:52 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> No, I don't have such equipment. I just learn as I go how good they are.
>
> Oh, I'm sure you can cobble something up. There are a number of free
> signal generator applications for computers and mobile devices. With that
> all it takes is a cable to connect the generator to an input and watch the
> meters with one eyeball while keeping the other eyeball on the level
> display on the generator. I always do things like this when I get a new
> piece of gear. It tells me how it works so I can better adjust the

A CD might be the best signal generator. I wonder if some of those recording
techniques books like David Moulton's would have something like that
included.


> way I work with it.
>
>> I suspect that driving 3 phantom powered mikes plus all the other
>> functions
>> drains batteries faster.
>
> Yes, phantom power indeed increases the drain on the batteries. Again,
> it's something you should experiment with. Is there an option to turn off
> the speaker and headphone amplifier? With the Sony PCM-M10, doing this
> nearly doubles the battery life. It really surprised me. Get yourself a
> set of rechargeable batteries for it and start learning how much effect
> things have on their service life. Check the operating time with
> everything turned off, then start turning things on and see how much
> faster the batteries go dead.

I wonder if just taking the headphone jack out of the recorder will reduce
power drain. Bad assumption? Tonight I got to 2 dashes remaining at about
the 2 hour point, 1 dash at about the 3 hour point. That is running 3
phantoms and one headset. Meter is on low power.


>
>> No, no soloing during recording.
>
> That's kind of annoying. I have a Cymatic LR-16 here that has the same
> non-feature, and making the solo buttons active during recording was one
> of the first things to go on to my wish list. The second thing was to make
> them so that it didn't take five or six button presses to solo and un-solo
> a channel. This function is one reason why I like recording with a real
> mixer, even though it means more stuff to carry and something else to find
> room for while recording. But that's the way I work.

I might be annoyed by that too, when I learn a little more. So far I can
live with it.

Gary Eickmeier

[Ralph Barone[_2_]]

"Trevor" > wrote:
> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> Not everybody taking the occasional photograph needs a Leica nor does
>>> everybody need to rent an articulated lorry to go shopping.
>>
>> No, but everyone should rent a Leica and an articulated lorry for an
>> afternoon some time just to have the experience.
>
> Many camera's are better than Leica, in fact many of their digital ones are
> simply badge engineered anyway.
> I'd at least suggest they rent a Hasselblad or better. But they'd never
> *start* to get the best from it in one afternoon.
>
> Trevor.

I suspect that for a beginner photographer to rent a Leica or Hasselblad
would be a giant waste of money. At each level of experience, there is
probably a limit to how far "up" you can go before the tools exceed your
ability to use them.

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 09:23:05 -0700, hank alrich wrote
(in article >):

> Marc's point is that absent comparison with higher quality tools one has
> little awareness of the real differences. Someone serious about
> learning, who lives in a large metro area, could easily rent the good
> stuff for a day or weekend. I would consider that a worthy cost of
> education, were it me in their ears.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

Exactly. Gary can get a huge audio education in a single weekend just by
renting or borrowing two world-class mics, some decent preamps, and a simple
digital audio recorder (or even a laptop). If a neophyte experiments with
this kind of setup for 20 hours, and compares it to a $399 all-in-one
portable like the Zoom H6, they'll at least understand what the fundamental
compromises are.

I don't dispute that a $10,000 set-up is probably not 25 times better than a
Zoom. Gordon Holt and others have noted that you often have to spend a lot
more money just to get that last 10-20% quality improvement. But again, just
the mics alone in a $399 recorder are suspect.

Two Chinese-made mic clones and a modest preamp will probably yield better
results than the cheap capsules on the Zoom, and those won't cost more than a
few hundred bucks. And at least you can move those around and try different
positioning, which you can't with a unit like the Zoom where the mics are
stuck in one place.

--MFW

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 11:11:48 -0700, Jeff Henig wrote
(in article
>):

>
> I'm recording with a Delta 1010lt, an Mbox2 Mini, and a Digi001 with both
> ProTools and Reaper and a Rode K2 and an EV757.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

Yes, even that would be a better alternative to the Zoom H6, in my opinion.
All reasonably-good mics, OK preamps, decent recorder.

--MFW

[Rasta Robert]

On 2013-10-14, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
> It's true. These things just keep getting better. It sounds like Gary
> has some experience and has some idea of what he wants to accomplish.
> It's also important that he's doing what he's doing for him, not
> bursting out on the scene with a sophisticated recorder trying to do
> mission critical work.
>

Homebrewedmusic blog has been doing some testing and comparing on the H6:

<http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2013/08/15/zoom-h6-acoustic-guitar-shootout/>

<http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2013/08/21/zoom-h6-ms-noise-issue/>

<http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2013/08/28/zoom-h6-vs-rme-ufx/>


--
<http://rr.www.cistron.nl/> -!- <http://www.rr.dds.nl/>
<http://www.dread.demon.nl/>

[Tom McCreadie]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote:


>A CD might be the best signal generator.

Just use the tone generator already in Adobe Audition.
Or download the free TGEN. The web's awash with audio test tones and
generators.

[Scott Dorsey]

Ralph Barone > wrote:
>
>I suspect that for a beginner photographer to rent a Leica or Hasselblad
>would be a giant waste of money. At each level of experience, there is
>probably a limit to how far "up" you can go before the tools exceed your
>ability to use them.

Absolutely, and it may be years later that you remember something and
finally figure out why it was done that way. But it is a worthwhile
experience to use tools that exceed your ability to use them briefly,
if only to help understand the limits of your abilities. And I say
that having only briefly driven the 18-wheeled remote truck on a closed
track... I wouldn't want to be out on the highway with it.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 10/13/2013 5:09 PM, Audio_Empire wrote:
>> What I don't understand is what Zoom insists on wired remote control
>> wands for their products. What is needed is to be able to screw the
>> recorder onto a tripod, and set it (using it's on-board mikes) in an
>> optimum position in front of the ensemble to be recorded, then to be
>> able to go back and sit down in the audience, and start-and-stop
>> the recording with a wireless remote control box,
>
> I guess they have to draw the line somewhere. Roland has wireless
> remote control on one or more of their pocket recorders, but few
> others do. I don't know how the Roland one works, whether it's
> infra-red optical or RF, but either way, it requires power that could
> otherwise be used for keeping the recorder recording.
>
Is that really an issue these days? With typically over 16 hours of
recording time on a set of batteries, a 25% loss for wireless remote doesn't
sound like a big deal, and I doubt that it would require that much power to
implement.
--
best regards,

Neil

[hank alrich]

Ralf R. Radermacher > wrote:

> Marc Wielage > wrote:
>
> > Exactly. Gary can get a huge audio education in a single weekend just by
> > renting or borrowing two world-class mics, some decent preamps, and a simple
> > digital audio recorder (or even a laptop). If a neophyte experiments with
> > this kind of setup for 20 hours, and compares it to a $399 all-in-one
> > portable like the Zoom H6, they'll at least understand what the fundamental
> > compromises are.
>
> Has the thought ever crossed your mind that there might be a good reason
> why there are simple self-contained units like the Zooms and elaborate
> set-ups with individual mics, preamps and recorders?
>
> I have both and I still find that I'm using my Zoom recorders quite a
> lot.
>
> Horses für courses...
>
> Ralf

How did you miss the point about using better kit at least one time
around to learn what it's about?

I have two H2's. They both lasted a little while, and then broke. They
are cheap plastic build, with low quality switiches, etc.
Capsule-to-capsule variation in the H2's I've checked can be huge, as in
+/- 3 or 4 dB. I cherrypicked stock to arrive at one with about +/- 1
dB. How many of us get to do that?

I have made decent recordings with the Zooms, given their limitations.

I have also made recordings with the Schoeps into the Great River.
Comparison to the best H2 tracks is just silly, about like the Studer
versus an old cassette deck.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Ralf R. Radermacher > wrote:

> Ralph Barone > wrote:
>
> > I suspect that for a beginner photographer to rent a Leica or Hasselblad
> > would be a giant waste of money. At each level of experience, there is
> > probably a limit to how far "up" you can go before the tools exceed your
> > ability to use them.
>
> Exactly. But hard to sell in a forum which is obviously more about gear
> than about its practical use.
>
> Ralf

Just going to call bull**** here. Many professionals use high grade kit.
Because _they care about the results_.

Anyone is welcome to maintain their ignorance, perhaps even rigorously.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Marc Wielage" > wrote in message
.com...
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 09:23:05 -0700, hank alrich wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> Marc's point is that absent comparison with higher quality tools one has
>> little awareness of the real differences. Someone serious about
>> learning, who lives in a large metro area, could easily rent the good
>> stuff for a day or weekend. I would consider that a worthy cost of
>> education, were it me in their ears.
>>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
>
> Exactly. Gary can get a huge audio education in a single weekend just by
> renting or borrowing two world-class mics, some decent preamps, and a
> simple
> digital audio recorder (or even a laptop). If a neophyte experiments with
> this kind of setup for 20 hours, and compares it to a $399 all-in-one
> portable like the Zoom H6, they'll at least understand what the
> fundamental
> compromises are.
>
> I don't dispute that a $10,000 set-up is probably not 25 times better than
> a
> Zoom. Gordon Holt and others have noted that you often have to spend a
> lot
> more money just to get that last 10-20% quality improvement. But again,
> just
> the mics alone in a $399 recorder are suspect.
>
> Two Chinese-made mic clones and a modest preamp will probably yield better
> results than the cheap capsules on the Zoom, and those won't cost more
> than a
> few hundred bucks. And at least you can move those around and try
> different
> positioning, which you can't with a unit like the Zoom where the mics are
> stuck in one place.
>
> --MFW

I am not using the mikes in the Zoom.

Gary

[hank alrich]

Ralf R. Radermacher > wrote:

> hank alrich > wrote:
>
> > How did you miss the point about using better kit at least one time
> > around to learn what it's about?
>
> Granted, but not at the very beginning. Besides, trying better equipment
> doesn't make sense if someone isn't able or ready to eventually spend
> the money for buying it.

So education is worthless. I see. I am not saying one must go out and
buy the good stuff. I am saying one knows nothing of the good stuff and
nothing about the differences offered unless one tries the good stuff.
If one lives near big cities this is neither terribly expensive nor
difficult.

> > I have two H2's. They both lasted a little while, and then broke. They
> > are cheap plastic build, with low quality switiches, etc.
>
> My H2 is one of the first to have hit the shops over here, it has been
> thrown to the ground from a height of about 2 meters by some female
> nutcase, but it's still working fine. What am I doing wrong?

Nothing. Mine have worn out. I used them a lot for casual recordings,
and catching board mixes at our shows. They are not easily repaired.

> > I have made decent recordings with the Zooms, given their limitations.
> >
> > I have also made recordings with the Schoeps into the Great River.
> > Comparison to the best H2 tracks is just silly, about like the Studer
> > versus an old cassette deck.
>
> Wouldn't we all like the best equipment, the greatest car, the biggest
> house etc.?

No, I'm over cars, and I don't want a huge house. I do like good audio
equipment. The difference has been impressed upon me starting with
ReVoxes instead of Sonys and Roberts', then Studers, a console we built
around API components, etc.

I have reason to own and retain that good stuff. It will be working when
I pass on. Meanwhile, Zooms worldwide will be garbage.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

hank alrich wrote:
> Ralf R. Radermacher > wrote:
>
>> Ralph Barone > wrote:
>>
>>> I suspect that for a beginner photographer to rent a Leica or Hasselblad
>>> would be a giant waste of money. At each level of experience, there is
>>> probably a limit to how far "up" you can go before the tools exceed your
>>> ability to use them.
>>
>> Exactly. But hard to sell in a forum which is obviously more about gear
>> than about its practical use.
>>
>> Ralf
>
> Just going to call bull**** here. Many professionals use high grade kit.
> Because _they care about the results_.
>

So in this case, the distinction is that a pro might take depreciation
on the gear, have a tax number that's used in purchasing said gear, fill
out different tax forms, stuff like that.

In that case, paying for it devolves to an accounting problem, not
a "how much credit can you fling at Guitar Center" thing.

ObDisclosure: I am still at the "Guitar Center" phase w.r.t my own gear.
This is a hobby for me. And there are pros that buy at GC.
So it's not cut and dried.

> Anyone is welcome to maintain their ignorance, perhaps even rigorously.
>

It's still nice that there's better gear than a Tascam 38 or
a Fostex 1" 16-track at consumer prices, regardless.

--
Les Cargill

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/15/2013 8:43 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

> Is that really an issue these days? With typically over 16 hours of
> recording time on a set of batteries, a 25% loss for wireless remote doesn't
> sound like a big deal, and I doubt that it would require that much power to
> implement.

Well, go ask Zoom or TASCAM or Sony or Yamaha or Olympus or . . .

I've often wished for a remote control, particularly with meters and a
record level control, but now I have the capability. I put a stereo mic
where I want it, connect it with a nice reliable cable to my portable
recorder (XLRs with phantom power), and I'm good to go. I've never
thought about these things as a recorder with a built-in mic, but rather
a mic with a built-in recorder. And now that I have one that can use a
mic that I already own and like, I can keep everything in the palm of my
hand.

True, I can't get back a couple of hundred feet from it like I could
with a wireless remote, but then I don't want to leave my gear
essentially unattended. I'm perfectly happy sitting near the base of the
mic stand for anything that I'd want to record.

I think that one manufacturer that offers a wireless remote is
sufficient in today's marketplace. It's not the tool that a professional
would use, but would be handy for the hobbyist who wants to set up a
mic/recorder and get out of the way.



--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[S. King]

On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:27:53 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:


>>
> So in this case, the distinction is that a pro might take depreciation
> on the gear, have a tax number that's used in purchasing said gear, fill
> out different tax forms, stuff like that.
>
> In that case, paying for it devolves to an accounting problem, not a
> "how much credit can you fling at Guitar Center" thing.
>
> ObDisclosure: I am still at the "Guitar Center" phase w.r.t my own gear.
> This is a hobby for me. And there are pros that buy at GC.
> So it's not cut and dried.
>
>> Anyone is welcome to maintain their ignorance, perhaps even rigorously.
>>
>>
> It's still nice that there's better gear than a Tascam 38 or a Fostex 1"
> 16-track at consumer prices, regardless.

Could we put this thread to rest? It has stimulated a wide ranging
discussion and lots of divergent opinions many of which I found
interesting and occasionally enlightening, but we're devolving into name
calling and petty crap now, IMO. Of course, in calling for the demise of
the thread, I allow myself a final comment. **Flames go here.** In
summary, hobbyists and professional recordists often have widely differing
criteria. For instance, hobbyists tend to choose monitoring
characteristics for their own pleasure, for what gets their endorphins
going. Professionals tend to monitor for accuracy based on how
translatable the result is to a wide variety of playback systems, or to
some convention accepted by enough of the industry to be called a
standard. God help us, NS10s and those awful little cube speakers are an
example of the latter. The hobbyist is often satisfied with results that
are pleasing to themselves. Professionals need to achieve results that
not only please themselves but are good enough exceed the expectations of
our clients and avoid the disrespect of our peers. Hobbyists usually, but
not always, have budgets that differ from professionals. But, as we have
read, most of the professionals here from time to time use lower end
equipment. Horses for courses. With respect to Gary, many have commented
that his (I gather) long experience recording with lower-end tools and
monitoring with a very personal approach to playback has left him with
'standards' that do not command the respect of many of the professionals
here. In my case, his reference to his "big" room and his "big" mics and
his 'invention' of his '3-card monty' mic placement stamped him as a
pretty pretentious amateur. I rather enjoy exchanges with inexperienced
audio people. I really admire someone who can squeeze out a decent
recording in an awful room with a restricted tool set. It is the stubborn
pretentiousness that lights my fuse. From the reactions I guess I'm not
alone. However, I think he really wants to understand his recording
endeavours better. Maybe we should back off. And, maybe, this newsgroup
will get back to its former diversity rather than the recent focus, where
most of the messages are by or about Gary.

Steve King

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill > wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
> > Ralf R. Radermacher > wrote:
> >
> >> Ralph Barone > wrote:
> >>
> >>> I suspect that for a beginner photographer to rent a Leica or Hasselblad
> >>> would be a giant waste of money. At each level of experience, there is
> >>> probably a limit to how far "up" you can go before the tools exceed your
> >>> ability to use them.
> >>
> >> Exactly. But hard to sell in a forum which is obviously more about gear
> >> than about its practical use.
> >>
> >> Ralf
> >
> > Just going to call bull**** here. Many professionals use high grade kit.
> > Because _they care about the results_.
> >
>
> So in this case, the distinction is that a pro might take depreciation
> on the gear, have a tax number that's used in purchasing said gear, fill
> out different tax forms, stuff like that.

Yes.

> In that case, paying for it devolves to an accounting problem, not
> a "how much credit can you fling at Guitar Center" thing.

Yes.

> ObDisclosure: I am still at the "Guitar Center" phase w.r.t my own gear.
> This is a hobby for me. And there are pros that buy at GC.
> So it's not cut and dried.

And GC has had a Pro division for years. Help there varies greatly with
location. What you'll get near Hollywood and what you'll get in Austin
are two different levels of "pro".

Still, I could walk into a GC here now and walk out with tools I know
able to do the job well. I could spend a lot or a lot less on the kit.

> > Anyone is welcome to maintain their ignorance, perhaps even rigorously.
> >
>
> It's still nice that there's better gear than a Tascam 38 or
> a Fostex 1" 16-track at consumer prices, regardless.

I agree. Not knocking that even 1 bit.

Last week's mandolin tracking adventure at Tommy Byrd's Byrd House
Studio in Austin reminded me how good contemporary kit is. SM81 into a
MOTU portable interface. Sounded terrific. Played in a small bedroom,
with a bunch of stuff and some aptly positioned acoustic foam. No warts
or flies on the result.

What little it cost the artist for production and engineering reminded
me how damn tough it is out there now, too.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 10/15/2013 2:56 PM, hank alrich wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>
> < ...snip... >
>
>> ObDisclosure: I am still at the "Guitar Center" phase w.r.t my own gear.
>> This is a hobby for me. And there are pros that buy at GC.
>> So it's not cut and dried.
>
> And GC has had a Pro division for years. Help there varies greatly with
> location. What you'll get near Hollywood and what you'll get in Austin
> are two different levels of "pro".
>
> Still, I could walk into a GC here now and walk out with tools I know
> able to do the job well. I could spend a lot or a lot less on the kit.
>
> < ...snip.... >

I worked wit my local GC Pro division guy for a number of years
and he was great with all my semi-pro needs. I got my venue's
32 Ch Soundcraft MH3 there and he arranged demos so I could
check out the setup properly. He's a lot more than the typical
sales droid there. Yes YMMV, and you still need to do your
homework as always, but that should go without saying.

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Gary Eickmeier]

If the big argument is about the accuracy of meters, the Zoom H6 meters are
finely enough segmented that I can tell exactly what they are indicating
during recording. Then, on capture and display in Audition, it is easy to
see how the peaks compare to what you saw during recording. Not rocket
science.

If the big argument is about the crummy quality of the Zooms, well, that is
why I am reporting my impressions of the new H6. I hope that someone with a
lab and measurement capability will soon report on the technical side, just
how accurate it is.

So far so good on the sound quality.

Gary Eickmeier

[Trevor]

"Ralph Barone" > wrote in message
news:680528344403502658.421243address_is-invalid.invalid@shawnews...
> "Trevor" > wrote:
>> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> Not everybody taking the occasional photograph needs a Leica nor does
>>>> everybody need to rent an articulated lorry to go shopping.
>>>
>>> No, but everyone should rent a Leica and an articulated lorry for an
>>> afternoon some time just to have the experience.
>>
>> Many camera's are better than Leica, in fact many of their digital ones
>> are
>> simply badge engineered anyway.
>> I'd at least suggest they rent a Hasselblad or better. But they'd never
>> *start* to get the best from it in one afternoon.
>>
> I suspect that for a beginner photographer to rent a Leica or Hasselblad
> would be a giant waste of money. At each level of experience, there is
> probably a limit to how far "up" you can go before the tools exceed your
> ability to use them.

Exactly, same goes for recording equipment these days, even fairly cheap
stuff exceeds most users requirements and abilities.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Marc Wielage" > wrote in message
.com...
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 11:11:48 -0700, Jeff Henig wrote
>> I'm recording with a Delta 1010lt, an Mbox2 Mini, and a Digi001 with both
>> ProTools and Reaper and a Rode K2 and an EV757.
>>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
>
> Yes, even that would be a better alternative to the Zoom H6, in my
> opinion.

Not if small size is a requirement though.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Ralf R. Radermacher > wrote:
>> > I suspect that for a beginner photographer to rent a Leica or
>> > Hasselblad
>> > would be a giant waste of money. At each level of experience, there is
>> > probably a limit to how far "up" you can go before the tools exceed
>> > your
>> > ability to use them.
>>
>> Exactly. But hard to sell in a forum which is obviously more about gear
>> than about its practical use.
>
> Just going to call bull**** here. Many professionals use high grade kit.
> Because _they care about the results_.

And "professionals" get paid for it so can justify the expense. Most
amateurs cannot.
Of course this is rec.audio.PRO, and hopefully a pro already has enough
experience to understand what level of equipment he needs for the work he
does. And even pro's operate at various ends of the quality/cost spectrum.
If they don't even understand their requirements and suitable equipment,
they aren't much of a "pro" IMO though.

Trevor.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"S. King" > wrote in message
...


.. With respect to Gary, many have commented
> that his (I gather) long experience recording with lower-end tools and
> monitoring with a very personal approach to playback has left him with
> 'standards' that do not command the respect of many of the professionals
> here. In my case, his reference to his "big" room and his "big" mics and
> his 'invention' of his '3-card monty' mic placement stamped him as a
> pretty pretentious amateur. I rather enjoy exchanges with inexperienced
> audio people. I really admire someone who can squeeze out a decent
> recording in an awful room with a restricted tool set. It is the stubborn
> pretentiousness that lights my fuse. From the reactions I guess I'm not
> alone. However, I think he really wants to understand his recording
> endeavours better. Maybe we should back off. And, maybe, this newsgroup
> will get back to its former diversity rather than the recent focus, where
> most of the messages are by or about Gary.
>
> Steve King

I can take it Steve. I am just as fascinated by the behavior on my threads
as you are. Possibly the nasties cop an attitude toward me because of my
need for experimentation. Doesn't bother me. I know exactly what I am doing
and have received great compliments on my recordings from audio
professionals that I trust.

Like in photography, where I am not in the "In Crowd" unless I am using a
Canon or a Nikon. I use a Sony Alpha 77. The snob behind the counter at the
photography store in Tampa asked why I am a Sony guy. I went out to the car
and brought in a 13 x 19 print I took at my nephew's wedding. He was
speechless.

There is a well-known story in the photography groups about the difference
between equipment and ability. A photographer gets rave reviews for his
work, and a woman adds that he must have a really good camera. He
compliments her back on her cooking and says she must have a really good
stove.

As for my playback system, none of you has any idea what I am doing.

I also drive a Prius instead of a BMW or Mercedes.

[Trevor]

"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...
> Like in photography, where I am not in the "In Crowd" unless I am using a
> Canon or a Nikon. I use a Sony Alpha 77. The snob behind the counter at
> the photography store in Tampa asked why I am a Sony guy. I went out to
> the car and brought in a 13 x 19 print I took at my nephew's wedding. He
> was speechless.

Why, the Sony is no better or worse than similar level Canon or Nikon
equipment. The Olympus sometimes surprises only because it uses a smaller
sensor than the rest, but they have nothing to compete with the FF DSLR's,
even though their lenses are just as good.


> There is a well-known story in the photography groups about the difference
> between equipment and ability. A photographer gets rave reviews for his
> work, and a woman adds that he must have a really good camera. He
> compliments her back on her cooking and says she must have a really good
> stove.

Exactly, a professional cook with half a brain uses a good stove just as a
professional photographer uses a good camera.
As they say, there are more CRAPPY photo's taken on the iPhone every day
than any other camera! :-)

Trevor.

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 10/15/2013 8:43 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> Is that really an issue these days? With typically over 16 hours of
>> recording time on a set of batteries, a 25% loss for wireless remote
>> doesn't sound like a big deal, and I doubt that it would require
>> that much power to implement.
>
> Well, go ask Zoom or TASCAM or Sony or Yamaha or Olympus or . . .
>
> I've often wished for a remote control, particularly with meters and a
> record level control, but now I have the capability. I put a stereo
> mic where I want it, connect it with a nice reliable cable to my
> portable recorder (XLRs with phantom power), and I'm good to go. I've
> never thought about these things as a recorder with a built-in mic,
> but rather a mic with a built-in recorder. And now that I have one
> that can use a mic that I already own and like, I can keep everything
> in the palm of my hand.
>
Totally rational, and I do the same thing. It just is not much of an
argument against a wireless remote.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Trevor wrote:
> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ralf R. Radermacher > wrote:
>>>> I suspect that for a beginner photographer to rent a Leica or
>>>> Hasselblad
>>>> would be a giant waste of money. At each level of experience,
>>>> there is probably a limit to how far "up" you can go before the
>>>> tools exceed your
>>>> ability to use them.
>>>
>>> Exactly. But hard to sell in a forum which is obviously more about
>>> gear than about its practical use.
>>
>> Just going to call bull**** here. Many professionals use high grade
>> kit. Because _they care about the results_.
>
> And "professionals" get paid for it so can justify the expense. Most
> amateurs cannot.
> Of course this is rec.audio.PRO, and hopefully a pro already has
> enough experience to understand what level of equipment he needs for
> the work he does. And even pro's operate at various ends of the
> quality/cost spectrum. If they don't even understand their
> requirements and suitable equipment, they aren't much of a "pro" IMO
> though.
>
IMO, this thread has danced around the issue. It's not about the tax
deductions, it's about the flexibility. A professional needs to meet someone
else's expectations, and in order to do that, s/he needs equipment that
won't restrict their ability to do so. The "cheap stuff" is OK, and probably
more than sufficient for most, but will have compromises in performance,
durability and flexibility that will impact the pro's work.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Trevor" > wrote in message
...


> Exactly, a professional cook with half a brain uses a good stove just as a
> professional photographer uses a good camera.
> As they say, there are more CRAPPY photo's taken on the iPhone every day
> than any other camera! :-)
>
> Trevor.

That wasn't the point Trevor.

Obviously, if you were serious about photography you wouldn't be using an
iPhone at a wedding or portrait shoot, but if you have a good enough camera
and know lighting and posing, you can do a fully professional job with a mid
level DSLR. So to tell a fellow he isn't serious until he goes out and rents
a Hasselblad, veers toward the unfair and off point.

I started my recording adventures with 3 Sony lapel mikes ($29.95 plus tax)
and a Zoom R16 with the crummy meters. I got some good results from that
with the middle school concerts. I was even able to do some discrete
surround sound experiments, encoded to DTS on DVD discs. Then I found the
Concert Band and had a desire to experiment with mike patterns and other
techniques, so I found the AT-2050 variable pattern mikes with XLR cables
and so it went as I learned as much as I could, with the help of this group
and a few books and my experimentation.

I love all things audio and visual, with the goal of reproducing life's
experiences as realisically as possible. I was the king of Super 8 Sound
filmmakers, double system stereo sound, widescreen anamorphics, the works. I
once made a widescreen, surround sound, multiple track air show film that
had marching bands all around, aircraft flying overhead, the view from the
control tower, and a narration from the air show announcer that won the
international widescreen association best film in the annual competition. It
took a team of their best people just to project it.

I am on my 4th prototype loudspeaker now, based on Image Model Theory, and I
don't care if anyone else understands what I am doing, they will hear the
result some fine time and I will see if all of the grief was worth it.

In the meantime, I would like to continue to share, bounce ideas, and absorb
information in this group. I can take it if you guys can take me with a
sense of humor. Maybe I will even tell you again some day how stereo is more
than two speakers and a listener in an equilateral triangle.

Gary Eickmeier

[Tobiah]

> Exactly, a professional cook with half a brain uses a good stove just as a
> professional photographer uses a good camera.
> As they say, there are more CRAPPY photo's taken on the iPhone every day
> than any other camera! :-)

I love the Apple campaign in which they boast that more
people listen to music on the iPhone than any other phone.
Well, yeah, because there are probably 100 different android
devices out there with 80% of the market share, but no *one*
model weighs in bigger than the iPhone, which is apples only
contender.

[Tobiah]

> Trying to make comparisons with audio by using photographic examples is
> misguided, IMO. In photography, image quality is almost entirely dependent
> on lens quality.

Right, and in audio the microphone used really makes no difference!

I think it's a valid comparison. In both cases you
need a decent instrument, and have to know where to point it.
Perhaps the similarities fade after that, but I wouldn't
say that the comparison is misguided.

Tobiah

[Neil Gould]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> "Trevor" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>> Exactly, a professional cook with half a brain uses a good stove
>> just as a professional photographer uses a good camera.
>> As they say, there are more CRAPPY photo's taken on the iPhone every
>> day than any other camera! :-)
>>
>> Trevor.
>
> That wasn't the point Trevor.
>
> Obviously, if you were serious about photography you wouldn't be
> using an iPhone at a wedding or portrait shoot, but if you have a
> good enough camera and know lighting and posing, you can do a fully
> professional job with a mid level DSLR. So to tell a fellow he isn't
> serious until he goes out and rents a Hasselblad, veers toward the
> unfair and off point.
>
Trying to make comparisons with audio by using photographic examples is
misguided, IMO. In photography, image quality is almost entirely dependent
on lens quality. Relatively inexpensive cameras, such as Sony and others,
are available with Carl Zeiss lenses, which are some of the best lenses
available. OTOH, I have some lenses for my Leica and Rollei cameras that
cost many times that of the best "mid range pro" camera outfits such as
Nikon and Canon, and they would be hard to justify if they didn't make a
visible difference in the resulting images.

If my DR-40 came with Schoeps mics on it, perhaps such comparisons might be
possible. But it didn't, and so they aren't. ;-)
--
best regards,

Neil

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
news:l3mikc$tn3$1@dont-

> OTOH, if you still don't get it, well perhaps others with more experience
> in
> both media will.
> --
> best regards,
>
> Neil

Whew! I see I am not the only punching bag! What is up with you people?

Gary Eickmeier

[Neil Gould]

Tobiah wrote:
>> Trying to make comparisons with audio by using photographic examples
>> is misguided, IMO. In photography, image quality is almost entirely
>> dependent on lens quality.
>
> Right, and in audio the microphone used really makes no difference!
>
???

> I think it's a valid comparison. In both cases you
> need a decent instrument, and have to know where to point it.
> Perhaps the similarities fade after that, but I wouldn't
> say that the comparison is misguided.
>
Perhaps if you didn't omit the rest of my paragraph, which stated:
"Relatively inexpensive cameras, such as Sony and others,
are available with Carl Zeiss lenses, which are some of the best lenses
available."
And my concluding remark:
"If my DR-40 came with Schoeps mics on it, perhaps such comparisons might be
possible. But it didn't, and so they aren't.
The reasons why such a comparison is miguided would be clearer to you.

OTOH, if you still don't get it, well perhaps others with more experience in
both media will.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Tobiah]

On 10/16/2013 11:28 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
> Tobiah wrote:
>>> Trying to make comparisons with audio by using photographic examples
>>> is misguided, IMO. In photography, image quality is almost entirely
>>> dependent on lens quality.
>>
>> Right, and in audio the microphone used really makes no difference!
>>
> ???
>
>> I think it's a valid comparison. In both cases you
>> need a decent instrument, and have to know where to point it.
>> Perhaps the similarities fade after that, but I wouldn't
>> say that the comparison is misguided.
>>
> Perhaps if you didn't omit the rest of my paragraph, which stated:
> "Relatively inexpensive cameras, such as Sony and others,
> are available with Carl Zeiss lenses, which are some of the best lenses
> available."
> And my concluding remark:
> "If my DR-40 came with Schoeps mics on it, perhaps such comparisons might be
> possible. But it didn't, and so they aren't.
> The reasons why such a comparison is miguided would be clearer to you.
>
> OTOH, if you still don't get it, well perhaps others with more experience in
> both media will.
>

So are you saying that although mic quality is as important
as lens quality, the fact that lenses with at least a famous
moniker can be had for cheap, but the same is not true for
microphones, so that's why the comparison is invalid?

I was just getting at the idea that mic quality, and placement
has such a rich analog in the photography world that I think
comparing the two can be useful in many sets of circumstances.

Tobiah

[Tobiah]

> Technique is important, no argument. However, the quality of
> professional-grade mics, preamps, and electronics has no equivalent in these
> inexpensive portable recorders, so what valid basis is there for comparison?
> How do *you* find it "useful"?
>

Well, here was the original assertion by Gary:

> Obviously, if you were serious about photography you wouldn't be
> using an iPhone at a wedding or portrait shoot, but if you have a
> good enough camera and know lighting and posing, you can do a fully
> professional job with a mid level DSLR. So to tell a fellow he isn't
> serious until he goes out and rents a Hasselblad, veers toward the
> unfair and off point.

In this case, I thought the comparison was useful, and then I read the
part where you said it's not useful to compare photography to audio
because with photography, it's all in the lens. It's true that I didn't
analyze the rest of your post to see whether there was any deeper intent.
I just felt like what Gary was saying had little to do with whether the
iPhone had a good lens or not. That's why I put in the sarcasm about
microphones not having anything to do with audio quality.

Tobiah

[Neil Gould]

Tobiah wrote:
> On 10/16/2013 11:28 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
>> Tobiah wrote:
>>>> Trying to make comparisons with audio by using photographic
>>>> examples is misguided, IMO. In photography, image quality is
>>>> almost entirely dependent on lens quality.
>>>
>>> Right, and in audio the microphone used really makes no difference!
>>>
>> ???
>>
>>> I think it's a valid comparison. In both cases you
>>> need a decent instrument, and have to know where to point it.
>>> Perhaps the similarities fade after that, but I wouldn't
>>> say that the comparison is misguided.
>>>
>> Perhaps if you didn't omit the rest of my paragraph, which stated:
>> "Relatively inexpensive cameras, such as Sony and others,
>> are available with Carl Zeiss lenses, which are some of the best
>> lenses available."
>> And my concluding remark:
>> "If my DR-40 came with Schoeps mics on it, perhaps such comparisons
>> might be possible. But it didn't, and so they aren't.
>> The reasons why such a comparison is miguided would be clearer to
>> you.
>>
>> OTOH, if you still don't get it, well perhaps others with more
>> experience in both media will.
>>
>
> So are you saying that although mic quality is as important
> as lens quality, the fact that lenses with at least a famous
> moniker can be had for cheap, but the same is not true for
> microphones, so that's why the comparison is invalid?
>
Well, except that it's not about the "moniker". Zeiss is not going to ruin
their reputation by making crap, nor would Schoeps, Neumann, Sennheiser,
etc.

> I was just getting at the idea that mic quality, and placement
> has such a rich analog in the photography world that I think
> comparing the two can be useful in many sets of circumstances.
>
Technique is important, no argument. However, the quality of
professional-grade mics, preamps, and electronics has no equivalent in these
inexpensive portable recorders, so what valid basis is there for comparison?
How do *you* find it "useful"?
--
best regards,

Neil

[Audio_Empire]

In article >, Tobiah >
wrote:

> On 10/16/2013 11:28 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
> > Tobiah wrote:
> >>> Trying to make comparisons with audio by using photographic examples
> >>> is misguided, IMO. In photography, image quality is almost entirely
> >>> dependent on lens quality.
> >>
> >> Right, and in audio the microphone used really makes no difference!
> >>
> > ???
> >
> >> I think it's a valid comparison. In both cases you
> >> need a decent instrument, and have to know where to point it.
> >> Perhaps the similarities fade after that, but I wouldn't
> >> say that the comparison is misguided.
> >>
> > Perhaps if you didn't omit the rest of my paragraph, which stated:
> > "Relatively inexpensive cameras, such as Sony and others,
> > are available with Carl Zeiss lenses, which are some of the best lenses
> > available."
> > And my concluding remark:
> > "If my DR-40 came with Schoeps mics on it, perhaps such comparisons might be
> > possible. But it didn't, and so they aren't.
> > The reasons why such a comparison is miguided would be clearer to you.
> >
> > OTOH, if you still don't get it, well perhaps others with more experience in
> > both media will.
> >
>
> So are you saying that although mic quality is as important
> as lens quality, the fact that lenses with at least a famous
> moniker can be had for cheap, but the same is not true for
> microphones, so that's why the comparison is invalid?

He might be saying that, but it's not true at all. I have a pair of
Neummann KM-84's that I've had for about 30 years (give or take) and
when I use them X-Y, I cannot, honestly, by ear, anyway, tell the
difference between them and my Behringer B-2 Pro's except by direct
comparison. Both are excellent, but the Behringer's were almost
throw-away cheap while I had to really stretch my budget to purchase the
KM-84s.

> I was just getting at the idea that mic quality, and placement
> has such a rich analog in the photography world that I think
> comparing the two can be useful in many sets of circumstances.

The comparison is anything but odious. The parallels are surprisingly
rich. Just as a great photographer can take artistic pictures with a
simple box camera, so can a gifted recording engineer get amazing
results with a Zoom H2. The technical parallel holds as well. While the
gifted photographer might get a great atmospheric shot with a box
camera, the technical quality of the picture is going to be noticeably
poorer than the same shot taken with a professional Nikon and Nikkor
lenses, and the H2 recording will be likewise compromised in frequency
response (at both extremes) noise and distortion. OTOH, the photographer
might be actually striving for the soft, low contrast image that the box
camera gives him - a quality that he mightn't be able to get using a
pro-quality camera and lenses. I don't believe that any recording
engineer would be purposely compromising the quality of his recording if
he didn't have to due to some circumstance beyond his control. Stll, a
lot can be done to fix the Zoom recording using editing software, while
there is little the photographer can do in the lab (or Photoshop) to fix
a picture taken with a fixed-focus single-element plastic lens and a
single-speed guillotine shutter.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Trevor]

"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...
>> Exactly, a professional cook with half a brain uses a good stove just as
>> a professional photographer uses a good camera.
>> As they say, there are more CRAPPY photo's taken on the iPhone every day
>> than any other camera! :-)
>
> That wasn't the point Trevor.
> Obviously, if you were serious about photography you wouldn't be using an
> iPhone at a wedding or portrait shoot, but if you have a good enough
> camera and know lighting and posing, you can do a fully professional job
> with a mid level DSLR. So to tell a fellow he isn't serious until he goes
> out and rents a Hasselblad, veers toward the unfair and off point.

Right, just as I said already in another post, professionals operate at
various ends of the cost/quality spectrum. And certainly a Hasselblad would
not be a suitable tool for *many* professional photographers requirements
anyway. (sports photographers for a start)
What I said was most Leica's are unlikely to provide any benefit that a good
mid level DSLR doesn't for most people either, pro's included. But a real
pro in *any* field is unlikely to use really cheap/crappy tools, be it
recorder, camera or stove.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> Trying to make comparisons with audio by using photographic examples is
> misguided, IMO. In photography, image quality is almost entirely dependent
> on lens quality. Relatively inexpensive cameras, such as Sony and others,
> are available with Carl Zeiss lenses, which are some of the best lenses
> available.

True in the days of film where you could use any film in any camera. However
these days it is the *combination* of sensor and lens. Putting an expensive
L series lens on a Canon 1000D won't necessarily give you a better picture
than a $100 50mm f1.8 on a 6D for example. Most likely the reverse.


>OTOH, I have some lenses for my Leica and Rollei cameras that
> cost many times that of the best "mid range pro" camera outfits such as
> Nikon and Canon, and they would be hard to justify if they didn't make a
> visible difference in the resulting images.

And then there are some expensive lenses that don't anyway. Not even all
Carl Zeiss badged lenses are stellar performers unfortunately. Same goes for
many of the pro Canon and Nikons unfortunately. Thankfully things are much
better in the world of digital pro audio, where performance now is almost
pretty much taken for granted, and other features are often the deciding
factor.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
>> So are you saying that although mic quality is as important
>> as lens quality, the fact that lenses with at least a famous
>> moniker can be had for cheap, but the same is not true for
>> microphones, so that's why the comparison is invalid?
>>
> Well, except that it's not about the "moniker". Zeiss is not going to ruin
> their reputation by making crap, nor would Schoeps, Neumann, Sennheiser,
> etc.

So a $100 Sennheiser mic is all you need then? Or does quality vary in a
huge spectrum for abysmal to stellar, with "good" brands occupying a range
towards the higher end, but their lesser ones may still be regarded as
"crap" by some people, for some requirements, in some situations?
That is my experience anyway.

Trevor.

[Neil Gould]

Trevor wrote:
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> So are you saying that although mic quality is as important
>>> as lens quality, the fact that lenses with at least a famous
>>> moniker can be had for cheap, but the same is not true for
>>> microphones, so that's why the comparison is invalid?
>>>
>> Well, except that it's not about the "moniker". Zeiss is not going
>> to ruin their reputation by making crap, nor would Schoeps, Neumann,
>> Sennheiser, etc.
>
> So a $100 Sennheiser mic is all you need then?
>
How on Earth did you arrive at this conclusion?

> Or does quality vary
> in a huge spectrum for abysmal to stellar, with "good" brands
> occupying a range towards the higher end, but their lesser ones may
> still be regarded as "crap" by some people, for some requirements, in
> some situations?
> That is my experience anyway.
>
I haven't experienced quality from "abysmmal to stellar" in pro-level
products, and I'd doubt that this is due to luck. I also don't think that
situational variables such as whether one is recording garage bands or
shooting "art" are relevant to the point. Quality differences can be
understood by the intended use of the products. The Zeiss lens on the Sony
camera may not be up to the quality of those for a Rolleiflex, but there
isn't much reason why it should be; it still out-performs the Canon and
Nikon lenses. OTOH, the Rollei's lens won't improve the Sony's image quality
(I'm agreeing with a similar point you made in another post). I'm pretty
sure that a matched pair of $100 Sennheisers would be a noticeable
improvement over the DR-40's mics, and plugging $1k Sennheisers would be
obviously superior. So, a user can improve the performance of their consumer
audio gear by using pro-level accessories, but the same generalization can't
be made for consumer photo gear.

I'm only suggesting that the variables in photographic equipment are not
comparable to those in audio beyond a very rudimentary level, hence there
isn't much basis for an analogy. But more to the point, the thrust of the
discussion by those who think otherwise has been to negate the value of
trying pro-level gear to better understand the compromises of the consumer
recorders, a notion that I disagree with.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
> Neil Gould > wrote:
>
>> In photography, image quality is almost entirely dependent
>> on lens quality.
>
> This might have been true - albeit with many if's and but's - in the
> days of film. You may not have noticed but we have digital cameras
> nowadays.
>
Irrelevant. The lens is still the critical element for image quality;
sensors are merely a constant that will be a limiting factor.
--
best regards,

Neil


> Ralf

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Trevor" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> Exactly, a professional cook with half a brain uses a good stove just as
>>> a professional photographer uses a good camera.
>>> As they say, there are more CRAPPY photo's taken on the iPhone every day
>>> than any other camera! :-)
>>
>> That wasn't the point Trevor.
>> Obviously, if you were serious about photography you wouldn't be using an
>> iPhone at a wedding or portrait shoot, but if you have a good enough
>> camera and know lighting and posing, you can do a fully professional job
>> with a mid level DSLR. So to tell a fellow he isn't serious until he goes
>> out and rents a Hasselblad, veers toward the unfair and off point.
>
> Right, just as I said already in another post, professionals operate at
> various ends of the cost/quality spectrum. And certainly a Hasselblad
> would not be a suitable tool for *many* professional photographers
> requirements anyway. (sports photographers for a start)
> What I said was most Leica's are unlikely to provide any benefit that a
> good mid level DSLR doesn't for most people either, pro's included. But a
> real pro in *any* field is unlikely to use really cheap/crappy tools, be
> it recorder, camera or stove.
>
> Trevor.

So what would be a really crappy recorder nowadays? A Casio voice recorder?
A dictation machine? But the Zoom H6 is a full-featured audio recorder, and
in this digital age I don't think anyone could tell it apart from any other
good, competent digital recorder. It takes XLR microphones, so that opens up
the entire world of professional microphones to it. That brings us to the
only criticism left being its low price, $399. Personally, I don't mind a
low price - do you? If there are any pro features missing from it that you
need, I would love to know what.

Gary Eickmeier

[Tobiah]

On 10/17/2013 11:32 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> "Trevor" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> Exactly, a professional cook with half a brain uses a good stove just as
>>>> a professional photographer uses a good camera.
>>>> As they say, there are more CRAPPY photo's taken on the iPhone every day
>>>> than any other camera! :-)
>>>
>>> That wasn't the point Trevor.
>>> Obviously, if you were serious about photography you wouldn't be using an
>>> iPhone at a wedding or portrait shoot, but if you have a good enough
>>> camera and know lighting and posing, you can do a fully professional job
>>> with a mid level DSLR. So to tell a fellow he isn't serious until he goes
>>> out and rents a Hasselblad, veers toward the unfair and off point.
>>
>> Right, just as I said already in another post, professionals operate at
>> various ends of the cost/quality spectrum. And certainly a Hasselblad
>> would not be a suitable tool for *many* professional photographers
>> requirements anyway. (sports photographers for a start)
>> What I said was most Leica's are unlikely to provide any benefit that a
>> good mid level DSLR doesn't for most people either, pro's included. But a
>> real pro in *any* field is unlikely to use really cheap/crappy tools, be
>> it recorder, camera or stove.
>>
>> Trevor.
>
> So what would be a really crappy recorder nowadays? A Casio voice recorder?
> A dictation machine? But the Zoom H6 is a full-featured audio recorder, and
> in this digital age I don't think anyone could tell it apart from any other
> good, competent digital recorder. It takes XLR microphones, so that opens up
> the entire world of professional microphones to it. That brings us to the
> only criticism left being its low price, $399. Personally, I don't mind a
> low price - do you? If there are any pro features missing from it that you
> need, I would love to know what.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
>

It's an awesome recorder. You got a steal of a deal.

There. :)

[S. King]

On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:32:21 -0400, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> "Trevor" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> Exactly, a professional cook with half a brain uses a good stove just
>>>> as a professional photographer uses a good camera.
>>>> As they say, there are more CRAPPY photo's taken on the iPhone every
>>>> day than any other camera! :-)
>>>
>>> That wasn't the point Trevor.
>>> Obviously, if you were serious about photography you wouldn't be using
>>> an iPhone at a wedding or portrait shoot, but if you have a good
>>> enough camera and know lighting and posing, you can do a fully
>>> professional job with a mid level DSLR. So to tell a fellow he isn't
>>> serious until he goes out and rents a Hasselblad, veers toward the
>>> unfair and off point.
>>
>> Right, just as I said already in another post, professionals operate at
>> various ends of the cost/quality spectrum. And certainly a Hasselblad
>> would not be a suitable tool for *many* professional photographers
>> requirements anyway. (sports photographers for a start)
>> What I said was most Leica's are unlikely to provide any benefit that a
>> good mid level DSLR doesn't for most people either, pro's included. But
>> a real pro in *any* field is unlikely to use really cheap/crappy tools,
>> be it recorder, camera or stove.
>>
>> Trevor.
>
> So what would be a really crappy recorder nowadays? A Casio voice
> recorder? A dictation machine? But the Zoom H6 is a full-featured audio
> recorder, and in this digital age I don't think anyone could tell it
> apart from any other good, competent digital recorder. It takes XLR
> microphones, so that opens up the entire world of professional
> microphones to it. That brings us to the only criticism left being its
> low price, $399. Personally, I don't mind a low price - do you? If
> there are any pro features missing from it that you need, I would love
> to know what.
>
> Gary Eickmeier

I'd say rugged build, convenient operator interface, and resale value for
starters. Of course, one would have to have a good reason, such as
earning money from use, to pay 10 times the cost of the H6 or more. But,
for that working professional, who can't afford on-the-job equipment
failure and expects his equipment to last for decades and still have high
value in the market, it is probably worth it. And, I guess that I am not
surprised that someone with that set of criteria might refer to the H6 as
'crappy'. Although I haven't tried the H6 I suspect that for a person who
intends to use it for non-critical purposes (meaning that failure of
equipment is an acceptable risk) it is more than adequate. Anybody know
if a competent evaluation of the H6's mic preamp/ADC/DAC performance has
been done and published? Frequency response, third harmonic and intermod
distortion?

Steve King

[Frank Stearns]

"Gary Eickmeier" > writes:

snips

>So what would be a really crappy recorder nowadays? A Casio voice recorder?
>A dictation machine? But the Zoom H6 is a full-featured audio recorder, and
>in this digital age I don't think anyone could tell it apart from any other
>good, competent digital recorder. It takes XLR microphones, so that opens up
>the entire world of professional microphones to it. That brings us to the
>only criticism left being its low price, $399. Personally, I don't mind a
>low price - do you? If there are any pro features missing from it that you
>need, I would love to know what.

Just a general comment...

There are many levels and layers of design and construction, stuff that will never
cross your mind or be reflected in a spec if you're not aware of it -- or take the
time to do a serious comparison. While most of this boils down to competent
engineering, there is a bit of art involved as well.

Well, I take that back... good analog engineers are hard to find in the first place
because these days the engineering schools have been (mostly) graduating computer HW
designers. So, finding a gray beard who's been around for a while to do a top-notch
analog front end (where many of the shortfalls are introduced) can be tricky
business.

So at $399 a box, you'll likely not get a Michael Grace or David Hill doing the
input section. You'll get some 22 year old (nothing wrong with being 22), fresh out
of school where perhaps analog design was grudingly taught. He/she might be
irritated because as their first job they got the grunt work of messing with the
linear crap -- where there is little margin for error, and the weirdest things can
go wrong.

Oh sure, they'll get something to pass a signal and more or less meet spec -- but
that's when you make the comparison to see what really can be done. Then there's
long-term reliability; another complex topic.

Much more to it than just the above, but you get the general idea. There are
reasons why Grace Design just had its 20th anniversary; same for the others as well.

Nothing wrong with commodity stuff; I might even own a piece or two. Just be aware
of the limitations.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[John Williamson]

Frank Stearns wrote:

> Nothing wrong with commodity stuff; I might even own a piece or two. Just be aware
> of the limitations.
>
To go back to the photographic analogy, if all you do is take snaps in
good lighting conditions, then a budget camera will do an acceptable
job. When you start pushing the limits, then the Hasselblad or whatever
will be worth the extra, especially if you're being paid tomproduce a
good picture by a client.

Substitute a good performance in a good room for the good lighting, and
a bunch of amateurs in an echo chamber (Exaggeration...) for the picture
of a black cat in a coal cellar without using flash, if you wish.

Although, I do have a compact digital camera that will fit comfortably
in my shirt pocket that would do a reasonable job of the cat, just as an
H2 will give surprisingy good results on occasions where it's correctly
used.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Neil Gould]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> So what would be a really crappy recorder nowadays?
>
Is that the right question to ask, if comparative quality is what you want
to know about?

> But the Zoom H6 is a full-featured
> audio recorder, and in this digital age I don't think anyone could
> tell it apart from any other good, competent digital recorder.
>
So... in your view, *no one* could tell the difference between the audio
quality of the mic pres, A/D, etc. of the Zoom and a Focusrite, Presonus or
True Systems. Do you think that GIGO no longer applies because "it's
digital"?
--
best regards,

Neil

[hank alrich]

Neil Gould > wrote:

> Frank Stearns wrote:
> >
> > Nothing wrong with commodity stuff; I might even own a piece or two.
> > Just be aware of the limitations.
> >
> Well said. I do not have any reservations about the commodity pieces that I
> own, as they are suitable for the intended uses. But having used high-end
> tools, I'm not the least bit confused about whether there are
> observable/audible differences.

It didn't take long for the on/off switch to fail on my second H2. One
who buys and uses this stuff routinely will keep buying as bitty cheapo
parts fail after moderate usage.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Neil Gould]

Frank Stearns wrote:
>
> Nothing wrong with commodity stuff; I might even own a piece or two.
> Just be aware of the limitations.
>
Well said. I do not have any reservations about the commodity pieces that I
own, as they are suitable for the intended uses. But having used high-end
tools, I'm not the least bit confused about whether there are
observable/audible differences.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>> So what would be a really crappy recorder nowadays?
>>>
>> Is that the right question to ask, if comparative quality is what
>> you want to know about?
>>
>>> But the Zoom H6 is a full-featured
>>> audio recorder, and in this digital age I don't think anyone could
>>> tell it apart from any other good, competent digital recorder.
>>>
>> So... in your view, *no one* could tell the difference between the
>> audio quality of the mic pres, A/D, etc. of the Zoom and a
>> Focusrite, Presonus or
>> True Systems. Do you think that GIGO no longer applies because "it's
>> digital"?
>
> Er, well, I don't want to get into a whole argument in another
> sidetrack, but how exactly - by what criterion or spec - would you be
> able to hear some difference?
>
I think the best answer to this question lies in having experience with
better preamps, A/D converters, etc.

> I'm just thinking about the hi fi
> industry with a level of performance in most digital gear that
> exceeds any audible differences at any price.
>
I have yet to see such gear. I can easily hear differences in performance
between consumer hi fi and pro audio systems.

> Photo analogy - if the microphone is a lens, and the recorder is the
> camera, tell me how much difference you could see between two DSLRs
> with the same lens? Assuming both are over 10 mp.
>
As one who regularly deals with 100 mp images, I'd say that a 10 mp image
would not be all that revealing of a lens' capability, since many lenses
have much higher resolving power than a 10 mp sensor. But, your analogy
works; a good mic connected to a cheap preamp and A/D converter in a small
plastic box will not result in an optimal recording.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Trevor]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
>>>> So are you saying that although mic quality is as important
>>>> as lens quality, the fact that lenses with at least a famous
>>>> moniker can be had for cheap, but the same is not true for
>>>> microphones, so that's why the comparison is invalid?
>>>>
>>> Well, except that it's not about the "moniker". Zeiss is not going
>>> to ruin their reputation by making crap, nor would Schoeps, Neumann,
>>> Sennheiser, etc.
>>
>> So a $100 Sennheiser mic is all you need then?
>>
> How on Earth did you arrive at this conclusion?

Well lets see, you say Sennheiser won't ruin their reputation by making
crap. As usual the argument is pointless since you don't define "crap". I at
least indicated there are *many* levels between crap and stellar, and even a
stellar choice for one requirement may be crap for another.


>> Or does quality vary
>> in a huge spectrum for abysmal to stellar, with "good" brands
>> occupying a range towards the higher end, but their lesser ones may
>> still be regarded as "crap" by some people, for some requirements, in
>> some situations?
>> That is my experience anyway.
>>
> I haven't experienced quality from "abysmmal to stellar" in pro-level
> products, and I'd doubt that this is due to luck.

Perhaps a lack of experience then? Or simply a case of defining "pro-level"
to match your argument?


> I also don't think that
> situational variables such as whether one is recording garage bands or
> shooting "art" are relevant to the point.

Of course they are. Any sensible pro matches his equipment expenditure to
the requirements and income stream. A point you seem to reject?


>Quality differences can be
> understood by the intended use of the products. The Zeiss lens on the Sony
> camera may not be up to the quality of those for a Rolleiflex, but there
> isn't much reason why it should be; it still out-performs the Canon and
> Nikon lenses.

Some do, some don't. You seem to be a brand snob rather than accept actual
measurements for each lens.


>OTOH, the Rollei's lens won't improve the Sony's image quality
> (I'm agreeing with a similar point you made in another post). I'm pretty
> sure that a matched pair of $100 Sennheisers would be a noticeable
> improvement over the DR-40's mics, and plugging $1k Sennheisers would be
> obviously superior. So, a user can improve the performance of their
> consumer
> audio gear by using pro-level accessories, but the same generalization
> can't
> be made for consumer photo gear.

Ties with what I said already about the current state of digital recorder
performance. Reliabilty and useability are another matter.


> I'm only suggesting that the variables in photographic equipment are not
> comparable to those in audio beyond a very rudimentary level, hence there
> isn't much basis for an analogy.


I simply made the statement that ALL sensible pro's with a reputation to
protect select equipment that matches their requirements be it camera,
recorder or stove, you are the one stretching the analogy IMO.


>But more to the point, the thrust of the
> discussion by those who think otherwise has been to negate the value of
> trying pro-level gear to better understand the compromises of the consumer
> recorders, a notion that I disagree with.

I have no issue with trying better equipment, I'm all for it. However not
much point trying out an SSL desk if your budget is Behringer, especially if
you haven't even learned to drive the Behringer yet!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
>> Neil Gould > wrote:
>>> In photography, image quality is almost entirely dependent
>>> on lens quality.
>>
>> This might have been true - albeit with many if's and but's - in the
>> days of film. You may not have noticed but we have digital cameras
>> nowadays.
>>
> Irrelevant. The lens is still the critical element for image quality;
> sensors are merely a constant that will be a limiting factor.

:-) :-) Please define your difference between "critical element" and
"limiting factor"?
IMO any "limiting factor" to performance *is* a "critical element", at least
when you are arguning about "image quality"!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...
> So what would be a really crappy recorder nowadays? A Casio voice
> recorder? A dictation machine? But the Zoom H6 is a full-featured audio
> recorder, and in this digital age I don't think anyone could tell it apart
> from any other good, competent digital recorder.

Ignoring relaibilty and useabilty issues, that's what I said already in this
thread.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Ralf R. Radermacher" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>> So what would be a really crappy recorder nowadays?
>
> A 1985 Uher Report. Now, *that's* noisy.

Yeah, but they still beat cassette recorders without Dolby.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...
> Photo analogy - if the microphone is a lens, and the recorder is the
> camera, tell me how much difference you could see between two DSLRs with
> the same lens? Assuming both are over 10 mp.

Totally depends on the sensor limitations, a point you still fail to accept.
The best camera sensors are NOT yet at the performance level of even cheap
digital audio. I can't wait for the day we get cheap digital camera sensors
with a REAL 16 bit performance. (something easily surpassed in digital audio
a couple of decades ago) We don't have any commercial photo sensors at any
price as yet! Until we do people have to use techniques like multiple image
HDR, which doesn't work for moving subjects. You CAN however easily record
multiple audio tracks at different levels in real time to gain even greater
dymanic range, something I regularly did when all I had was 16 bit
equipment.

Trevor.

[Luxey]

I'm not too familiar with ZOOM thingie, H2. Looked at it, but could not justify spending EUR150 for something I don't need. Nevertheless, in principle, ...

- some breakbox with XLRs, "hardwired" to H2 would greatly reduce potential mechanical problems. This "box" could be some kind of DI, or mic pre.
I don't know about Zoom inputs, so I'll shut up.

- Noise floor is more less irrelevant at the current level of modern electronics.

- 16/24bit Zoom file is not worse than any other 16/24bit file.

So, it's down to quality of mics, understanding of their capabilities and positioning techniques.

- I think, for live gig, with audience (obviously Puppet situation in other thread is special case), ie. out of pro acoustically treated studio, any modern mic is good enough.

Leaving us with understanding/ previous knowledge of tools and goals, needed for critical decisions and satisfactory compromises.

Importance of knowledge is influenced by proposed goals and their number.
If one goal is defined as satisfaction per capita, narrowing the pool of goals to one person, or couple, greatly reduces need for knowledge and compromises.
(This compromise thing could turn reverse reciprocal. I'll just give an example here: Bands break up arguing over some tiny sound, while global auditorium won't give a **** about it, let alone notice any difference.)

If other goal is defined as "getting some knowledge", the issue of "previous knowledge" becomes irrelevant, more so by reducing the number of tools and simplifying user interface.

All in all, I think there's no reason for Gary not to make very good recordings with his gear, not restricted but more so, if the recording is to be enjoyed by himself in his own listening room.

[Neil Gould]

Trevor wrote:
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
>>> Neil Gould > wrote:
>>>> In photography, image quality is almost entirely dependent
>>>> on lens quality.
>>>
>>> This might have been true - albeit with many if's and but's - in the
>>> days of film. You may not have noticed but we have digital cameras
>>> nowadays.
>>>
>> Irrelevant. The lens is still the critical element for image quality;
>> sensors are merely a constant that will be a limiting factor.
>
> :-) :-) Please define your difference between "critical element" and
> "limiting factor"?
>
Good grief. In context, a component which cannot be changed is a *constant*
and will be a *limiting factor* in the performance of a device by defintion.

> IMO any "limiting factor" to performance *is* a "critical element",
> at least when you are arguning about "image quality"!
>
An interchangeable component, such as a lens on a digital camera, a
microphone on a recorder, etc. will determine the quality, and is therefore
the "critical element" in the context that I've used it. It's all rather
simple, really.
--
best regards,

Neil


> Trevor.

[Luxey]

On Friday, 18 October 2013 13:34:43 UTC+2, Neil Gould wrote:
> In addition to reliability and usability, ultimate performace is another
>
> matter. You are lining up with Gary's notion that there is no audible
>
> difference between the preamps and A/D converters in a Zoom and pro-level
>
> equipment. I simply disagree, based on my experience with both.

I don't disagree, just to point out couple of points.

1. Whenever there's AD, there must be DA.
2. wherever there are AD and DA, there's there's some more components/ electronics around. Possibly, the more pro a device is, more surrounding components/ electronics.

What I wanted to say actually, we should be careful about the source of what we perceive as certain quality. I don't think there's any real difference in performance of ADDA chips built into both the cheapest and the most pro gear.

In this particular example, something that got in via cheapo, but sparse electronics around AD chip, might come out through expensive pro DA, with adequate electronics, possibly making it sound as pro as possible.
However, possibility is, instead of "halving" the difference, it just might reveal all the crap that went in?

[Neil Gould]

Trevor wrote:
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> Quality differences can be
>> understood by the intended use of the products. The Zeiss lens on
>> the Sony camera may not be up to the quality of those for a
>> Rolleiflex, but there isn't much reason why it should be; it still
>> out-performs the Canon and Nikon lenses.
>
> Some do, some don't. You seem to be a brand snob rather than accept
> actual measurements for each lens.
>
I purchase all products, whether they be lenses, microphones or furnaces
(just bought one yesterday) based on the actual measurements of their
performance. With lenses, this is relatively easy to do with some brands,
Leica, Zeiss, and Schneider Kreutznach to name a few. It's not so easy with
others, mainly due quality control issues. There might be an occasional
outlier, but generally speaking, truly "stellar performance" is unlikely in
consumer-level products. So, to an extent, you are right about my "defining
pro level to match" my argument, just as you seem to be defining "stellar
performance" to fit yours. But, to be clear, IMO a brand name does not
define whether a product is pro-level.

>> OTOH, the Rollei's lens won't improve the Sony's image quality
>> (I'm agreeing with a similar point you made in another post). I'm
>> pretty sure that a matched pair of $100 Sennheisers would be a
>> noticeable improvement over the DR-40's mics, and plugging $1k
>> Sennheisers would be obviously superior. So, a user can improve the
>> performance of their consumer
>> audio gear by using pro-level accessories, but the same
>> generalization can't
>> be made for consumer photo gear.
>
> Ties with what I said already about the current state of digital
> recorder performance. Reliabilty and useability are another matter.
>
In addition to reliability and usability, ultimate performace is another
matter. You are lining up with Gary's notion that there is no audible
difference between the preamps and A/D converters in a Zoom and pro-level
equipment. I simply disagree, based on my experience with both.

>> But more to the point, the thrust of the
>> discussion by those who think otherwise has been to negate the value
>> of trying pro-level gear to better understand the compromises of the
>> consumer recorders, a notion that I disagree with.
>
> I have no issue with trying better equipment, I'm all for it. However
> not much point trying out an SSL desk if your budget is Behringer,
> especially if you haven't even learned to drive the Behringer yet!
>
I agree with your above statement, but that's a different tack from those
who are essentially stating that there is no appreciable difference in
performance between the Behringer and the SSL.
--
best regards,

Neil

[hank alrich]

Luxey > wrote:

> I'm not too familiar with ZOOM thingie, H2. Looked at it, but could not
>justify spending EUR150 for something I don't need. Nevertheless, in
>principle, ...
>
> - some breakbox with XLRs, "hardwired" to H2 would greatly reduce
> potential mechanical problems. This "box" could be some kind of DI, or mic
> pre. I don't know about Zoom inputs, so I'll shut up.
>
> - Noise floor is more less irrelevant at the current level of modern
>electronics.
>
> - 16/24bit Zoom file is not worse than any other 16/24bit file.
>
> So, it's down to quality of mics, understanding of their capabilities and
>positioning techniques.
>
> - I think, for live gig, with audience (obviously Puppet situation in
>other thread is special case), ie. out of pro acoustically treated
>studio, any modern mic is good enough.
>

Mic-to-mic sensitivity within a single H2 can vary by an unacceptable
amount unless one cares not at all about left/right balance.

I agree most modern mics are acceptable for casual recording, and in
controlled environments, many will deliver good results when used with a
very good preamp.

> Leaving us with understanding/ previous knowledge of tools and goals,
>needed for critical decisions and satisfactory compromises.
>
> Importance of knowledge is influenced by proposed goals and their number.
> If one goal is defined as satisfaction per capita, narrowing the pool of
> goals to one person, or couple, greatly reduces need for knowledge and
> compromises. (This compromise thing could turn reverse reciprocal. I'll
> just give an example here: Bands break up arguing over some tiny sound,
> while global auditorium won't give a **** about it, let alone notice any
> difference.)
>
> If other goal is defined as "getting some knowledge", the issue of
>"previous knowledge" becomes irrelevant, more so by reducing the number
>of tools and simplifying user interface.
>
> All in all, I think there's no reason for Gary not to make very good
>recordings with his gear, not restricted but more so, if the recording
>is to be enjoyed by himself in his own listening room.
>

Certainly.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Neil Gould]

Luxey wrote:
> On Friday, 18 October 2013 13:34:43 UTC+2, Neil Gould wrote:
>> In addition to reliability and usability, ultimate performace is
>> another
>>
>> matter. You are lining up with Gary's notion that there is no audible
>>
>> difference between the preamps and A/D converters in a Zoom and
>> pro-level
>>
>> equipment. I simply disagree, based on my experience with both.
>
> I don't disagree, just to point out couple of points.
>
> 1. Whenever there's AD, there must be DA.
>
Not necessarily. One can transfer a recorded file from a digital recorder
into another system. In doing so, it is the other system's DA that one might
listen to.

> 2. wherever there are AD and DA, there's there's some more
> components/ electronics around. Possibly, the more pro a device is,
> more surrounding components/ electronics.
>
The purpose of those other electronic components is to improve the
performance of the device.

> What I wanted to say actually, we should be careful about the source
> of what we perceive as certain quality. I don't think there's any
> real difference in performance of ADDA chips built into both the
> cheapest and the most pro gear.
>
Your above comments point out pretty clearly that it isn't the chip that
makes the difference in the performance of the device.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Tobiah]

> Photo analogy - if the microphone is a lens, and the recorder is the camera,
> tell me how much difference you could see between two DSLRs with the same
> lens? Assuming both are over 10 mp.

I think that I'd say that the CCD, or other sensor in the camera
is the microphone, with the lens being something more like a parabolic
dish, or the design of shotgun mic, etc.

Anyway the sensor and the camera can be just as important as the
lens in certain situations. Consider high ISO settings where
any prosumer camera I've seen reviewed suffers from the introduction
of noise, and then we have the dynamic range issue, etc.

Tobiah

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:29:27 -0700, Tobiah > wrote:

>> Photo analogy - if the microphone is a lens, and the recorder is the camera,
>> tell me how much difference you could see between two DSLRs with the same
>> lens? Assuming both are over 10 mp.
>
>I think that I'd say that the CCD, or other sensor in the camera
>is the microphone, with the lens being something more like a parabolic
>dish, or the design of shotgun mic, etc.
>
>Anyway the sensor and the camera can be just as important as the
>lens in certain situations. Consider high ISO settings where
>any prosumer camera I've seen reviewed suffers from the introduction
>of noise, and then we have the dynamic range issue, etc.
>
>Tobiah

I think the analogy has passed its sell-by date. Oh, ok then - just
one more. Whether it be a camera or a microphone, the most important
thing is what you point it at.

d

[hank alrich]

Luxey > wrote:

> I don't think there's any real difference in performance of ADDA chips
>built into both the cheapest and the most pro gear.
>

I have observed obvious differences, and it comes from the manner in
which the necesssary analog componentry has been handled. This is
non-trivial in the extreme.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Don Pearce > wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:29:27 -0700, Tobiah > wrote:
>
> >> Photo analogy - if the microphone is a lens, and the recorder is the
> >> camera, tell me how much difference you could see between two DSLRs
> >> with the same lens? Assuming both are over 10 mp.
> >
> >I think that I'd say that the CCD, or other sensor in the camera is the
> >microphone, with the lens being something more like a parabolic dish, or
> >the design of shotgun mic, etc.
> >
> >Anyway the sensor and the camera can be just as important as the lens in
> >certain situations. Consider high ISO settings where any prosumer camera
> >I've seen reviewed suffers from the introduction of noise, and then we
> >have the dynamic range issue, etc.
> >
> >Tobiah
>
> I think the analogy has passed its sell-by date. Oh, ok then - just one
> more. Whether it be a camera or a microphone, the most important thing is
> what you point it at.
>
> d

+1

I paraphrase, but Bob O replied to a question "If you had $10,000 to
spend for recording, where would you spend it?" by saying "In front of
the micropohone".

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Tobiah]

On 10/18/2013 09:56 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:29:27 -0700, Tobiah > wrote:
>
>>> Photo analogy - if the microphone is a lens, and the recorder is the camera,
>>> tell me how much difference you could see between two DSLRs with the same
>>> lens? Assuming both are over 10 mp.
>>
>> I think that I'd say that the CCD, or other sensor in the camera
>> is the microphone, with the lens being something more like a parabolic
>> dish, or the design of shotgun mic, etc.
>>
>> Anyway the sensor and the camera can be just as important as the
>> lens in certain situations. Consider high ISO settings where
>> any prosumer camera I've seen reviewed suffers from the introduction
>> of noise, and then we have the dynamic range issue, etc.
>>
>> Tobiah
>
> I think the analogy has passed its sell-by date. Oh, ok then - just
> one more. Whether it be a camera or a microphone, the most important
> thing is what you point it at.


True, I alluded to that early on before this became about quality
of reproduction. I was saying that the real problem was to know
where to stand and where to point, and what zoom level (pickup pattern?)
and shutter speed (gain?) and aperture (no parallel?) to use.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 10:32:54 -0700, Tobiah > wrote:

>On 10/18/2013 09:56 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:29:27 -0700, Tobiah > wrote:
>>
>>>> Photo analogy - if the microphone is a lens, and the recorder is the camera,
>>>> tell me how much difference you could see between two DSLRs with the same
>>>> lens? Assuming both are over 10 mp.
>>>
>>> I think that I'd say that the CCD, or other sensor in the camera
>>> is the microphone, with the lens being something more like a parabolic
>>> dish, or the design of shotgun mic, etc.
>>>
>>> Anyway the sensor and the camera can be just as important as the
>>> lens in certain situations. Consider high ISO settings where
>>> any prosumer camera I've seen reviewed suffers from the introduction
>>> of noise, and then we have the dynamic range issue, etc.
>>>
>>> Tobiah
>>
>> I think the analogy has passed its sell-by date. Oh, ok then - just
>> one more. Whether it be a camera or a microphone, the most important
>> thing is what you point it at.
>
>
>True, I alluded to that early on before this became about quality
>of reproduction. I was saying that the real problem was to know
>where to stand and where to point, and what zoom level (pickup pattern?)
>and shutter speed (gain?) and aperture (no parallel?) to use.
>
>
Yeah, no.... Not really what I meant.

d

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Don Pearce wrote:

> Yeah, no.... Not really what I meant.

Can we please just let the poor horse have a rest before we all have
forgotten why the thread mentions an audio recording gizxmagongi? - please!

> d

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[hank alrich]

Peter Larsen > wrote:

> Don Pearce wrote:
>
> > Yeah, no.... Not really what I meant.
>
> Can we please just let the poor horse have a rest before we all have
> forgotten why the thread mentions an audio recording gizxmagongi? - please!
>
> > d
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

What is the best camera to photograph a dead horse?

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Audio_Empire]

In article >,
(hank alrich) wrote:

> Peter Larsen > wrote:
>
> > Don Pearce wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, no.... Not really what I meant.
> >
> > Can we please just let the poor horse have a rest before we all have
> > forgotten why the thread mentions an audio recording gizxmagongi? - please!
> >
> > > d
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Peter Larsen
>
> What is the best camera to photograph a dead horse?

a Horesman bellows camera

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Luxey]

петак, 18. октобар 2013. 15.26.05 UTC+2, hank alrich је напи�ао/ла:
> Mic-to-mic sensitivity within a single H2 can vary by an unacceptable
>
> amount unless one cares not at all about left/right balance.

I have no doubt you know what you speak. I just took in consideration Gary is actually using external mics, in some awkward arrangement, though.

[Luxey]

петак, 18. октобар 2013. 15.55.15 UTC+2, Neil Gould је напи�ао/ла:
> > 1. Whenever there's AD, there must be DA.
>
> >
>
> Not necessarily. One can transfer a recorded file from a digital recorder
>
> into another system. In doing so, it is the other system's DA that one might
>
> listen to.

Exactly my point. There must be DA. To quote my self:

"In this particular example, something that got in via cheapo, but sparse electronics around AD chip, might come out through expensive pro DA, with adequate electronics, possibly making it sound as pro as possible.
However, possibility is, instead of "halving" the difference, it just might reveal all the crap that went in? ".

>> > 2. wherever there are AD and DA, there's there's some more
>
> > components/ electronics around. Possibly, the more pro a device is,
>
> > more surrounding components/ electronics.
>
> >
>
> The purpose of those other electronic components is to improve the
>
> performance of the device.

Exactly my point. See my quote of my own post, above.

[Luxey]

петак, 18. октобар 2013. 19.27.32 UTC+2, hank alrich је напи�ао/ла:
> I have observed obvious differences, and it comes from the manner in
>
> which the necesssary analog componentry has been handled. This is
>
> non-trivial in the extreme.

I agree, Pro in + Pro Out is the best option.
In the last sentence of my post you commented on, I actually posed a question:

Would reproduction on "Pro" DA make it better, or it'd make the fact the AD was "Cheapo", even more obvious?

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

hank alrich wrote:
> Peter Larsen > wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, no.... Not really what I meant.
>>
>> Can we please just let the poor horse have a rest before we all have
>> forgotten why the thread mentions an audio recording gizxmagongi? - please!
>>
>>> d
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Peter Larsen
>
> What is the best camera to photograph a dead horse?
>

One a' them Mattew Brady ones from the Civil War?

--
Les Cargill

[hank alrich]

Luxey > wrote:

> ?????, 18. ??????? 2013. 19.27.32 UTC+2, hank alrich ?? ???????/??:
> > I have observed obvious differences, and it comes from the manner in
> >
> > which the necesssary analog componentry has been handled. This is
> >
> > non-trivial in the extreme.
>
> I agree, Pro in + Pro Out is the best option. n the last sentence of my
> Ipost you commented on, I actually posed a question:
>
> Would reproduction on "Pro" DA make it better, or it'd make the fact the
>AD was "Cheapo", even more obvious?
>

The latter, in my experience.

In a forum about mastering that I lurk, there's a thread where engineers
with _serious_ plackback setups are duscussing the audible differences
in DA's that cost a furtune. While I have no comparable listening
environment, when I have attended mastering sessions in facilities that
do have that grade of gear and room, I have been startled by what I
could hear.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Luxey > wrote:

> ?????, 18. ??????? 2013. 15.26.05 UTC+2, hank alrich ?? ???????/??:
> > Mic-to-mic sensitivity within a single H2 can vary by an unacceptable
> >
> > amount unless one cares not at all about left/right balance.
>
> I have no doubt you know what you speak. I just took in consideration Gary
>is actually using external mics, in some awkward arrangement, though.
>

Yes, and he's much better off doing that. An H2 with decently matched
mics does a good job for casual recording, and as a utility recorder
being fed with a low line level signal.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Audio_Empire]

In article >,
(hank alrich) wrote:

> Luxey > wrote:
>
> > ?????, 18. ??????? 2013. 15.26.05 UTC+2, hank alrich ?? ???????/??:
> > > Mic-to-mic sensitivity within a single H2 can vary by an unacceptable
> > >
> > > amount unless one cares not at all about left/right balance.
> >
> > I have no doubt you know what you speak. I just took in consideration Gary
> >is actually using external mics, in some awkward arrangement, though.
> >
>
> Yes, and he's much better off doing that. An H2 with decently matched
> mics does a good job for casual recording, and as a utility recorder
> being fed with a low line level signal.

The H2 makes a great back-up or "safety" recorder, connected to the
mixer's line outputs. sure saved me once or twice.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Trevor]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> In photography, image quality is almost entirely dependent
>>>>> on lens quality.
>>>>
>>>> This might have been true - albeit with many if's and but's - in the
>>>> days of film. You may not have noticed but we have digital cameras
>>>> nowadays.
>>>>
>>> Irrelevant. The lens is still the critical element for image quality;
>>> sensors are merely a constant that will be a limiting factor.
>>
>> :-) :-) Please define your difference between "critical element" and
>> "limiting factor"?
>>
> Good grief. In context, a component which cannot be changed is a
> *constant*
> and will be a *limiting factor* in the performance of a device by
> defintion.

And a critical element by definition, so you still haven't told us why you
think sensors are unimortant and "image quality is almost entirely dependent
on lens quality" ?


>> IMO any "limiting factor" to performance *is* a "critical element",
>> at least when you are arguning about "image quality"!
>>
> An interchangeable component, such as a lens on a digital camera, a
> microphone on a recorder, etc. will determine the quality, and is
> therefore
> the "critical element" in the context that I've used it. It's all rather
> simple, really.

Well obviously you are, but that still doesn't prove why you say "image
quality is almost entirely dependent on lens quality", and why you think
sensors are not just as important.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
>>> Quality differences can be
>>> understood by the intended use of the products. The Zeiss lens on
>>> the Sony camera may not be up to the quality of those for a
>>> Rolleiflex, but there isn't much reason why it should be; it still
>>> out-performs the Canon and Nikon lenses.
>>
>> Some do, some don't. You seem to be a brand snob rather than accept
>> actual measurements for each lens.
>>
> I purchase all products, whether they be lenses, microphones or furnaces
> (just bought one yesterday) based on the actual measurements of their
> performance. With lenses, this is relatively easy to do with some brands,
> Leica, Zeiss, and Schneider Kreutznach to name a few. It's not so easy
> with
> others, mainly due quality control issues. There might be an occasional
> outlier, but generally speaking, truly "stellar performance" is unlikely
> in
> consumer-level products.

Gee, I wonder why more pro photographers use Canon and Nikon products than
the brands you desire if they are only good as "consumer level products"
then! :-)


>So, to an extent, you are right about my "defining
> pro level to match" my argument, just as you seem to be defining "stellar
> performance" to fit yours. But, to be clear, IMO a brand name does not
> define whether a product is pro-level.

And yet you bandy them about as if it does, and ignore the fact even those
companies have made lenses inferior to some Canon, Nikon, Zuiko products.
What you buy is your choice of course, but simply ignoring measurements
doesn't support your argument.


>>> OTOH, the Rollei's lens won't improve the Sony's image quality
>>> (I'm agreeing with a similar point you made in another post). I'm
>>> pretty sure that a matched pair of $100 Sennheisers would be a
>>> noticeable improvement over the DR-40's mics, and plugging $1k
>>> Sennheisers would be obviously superior. So, a user can improve the
>>> performance of their consumer
>>> audio gear by using pro-level accessories, but the same
>>> generalization can't
>>> be made for consumer photo gear.
>>
>> Ties with what I said already about the current state of digital
>> recorder performance. Reliabilty and useability are another matter.
>>
> In addition to reliability and usability, ultimate performace is another
> matter. You are lining up with Gary's notion that there is no audible
> difference between the preamps and A/D converters in a Zoom and pro-level
> equipment.

Nope, there are definitely differences in the mics and mic preamps. The
Digital side, not so much.
But even then the performance is more than adequate for many, and the sound
may not even improve all that much by using the most expensive equipment in
many recording situations, since I doubt people buy Zooms for studio use, I
certainly wouldn't!


>>> But more to the point, the thrust of the
>>> discussion by those who think otherwise has been to negate the value
>>> of trying pro-level gear to better understand the compromises of the
>>> consumer recorders, a notion that I disagree with.
>>
>> I have no issue with trying better equipment, I'm all for it. However
>> not much point trying out an SSL desk if your budget is Behringer,
>> especially if you haven't even learned to drive the Behringer yet!
>>
> I agree with your above statement, but that's a different tack from those
> who are essentially stating that there is no appreciable difference in
> performance between the Behringer and the SSL.

Not sure anybody did, I sure wouldn't. Nor would I use an SSL desk for
location recording of an inexperienced garage band.
As I've been saying all along, horses for courses, pro or not.

Trevor.

[Neil Gould]

Trevor wrote:
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>> Quality differences can be
>>>> understood by the intended use of the products. The Zeiss lens on
>>>> the Sony camera may not be up to the quality of those for a
>>>> Rolleiflex, but there isn't much reason why it should be; it still
>>>> out-performs the Canon and Nikon lenses.
>>>
>>> Some do, some don't. You seem to be a brand snob rather than accept
>>> actual measurements for each lens.
>>>
>> I purchase all products, whether they be lenses, microphones or
>> furnaces (just bought one yesterday) based on the actual
>> measurements of their performance. With lenses, this is relatively
>> easy to do with some brands, Leica, Zeiss, and Schneider Kreutznach
>> to name a few. It's not so easy with
>> others, mainly due quality control issues. There might be an
>> occasional outlier, but generally speaking, truly "stellar
>> performance" is unlikely in
>> consumer-level products.
>
> Gee, I wonder why more pro photographers use Canon and Nikon products
> than the brands you desire if they are only good as "consumer level
> products" then! :-)
>
Where did I say that Canon and Nikon are *just* consumer level products?
That is purely *your* assertion, and not oen I agree with at all.

>> So, to an extent, you are right about my "defining
>> pro level to match" my argument, just as you seem to be defining
>> "stellar performance" to fit yours. But, to be clear, IMO a brand
>> name does not define whether a product is pro-level.
>
> And yet you bandy them about as if it does, and ignore the fact even
> those companies have made lenses inferior to some Canon, Nikon, Zuiko
> products. What you buy is your choice of course, but simply ignoring
> measurements doesn't support your argument.
>
You have produced not one "measurement" that disputes my statements, and you
are the only one that is trying to generalize product quality to a brand
name. OTOH, I own and use Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Leica and Rollei cameras,
and know which lenses outperform the others, so my comments are based not
only on the measurements, but on real-world experience. If you wish to
dispute that, ante up with some facts.

>> In addition to reliability and usability, ultimate performace is
>> another matter. You are lining up with Gary's notion that there is
>> no audible difference between the preamps and A/D converters in a
>> Zoom and pro-level equipment.
>
> Nope, there are definitely differences in the mics and mic preamps.
> The Digital side, not so much.
>
Since you think that everything behind the mic preamp is doesn't affect
performance, perhaps you should gain a little experience with pro-level vs.
consumer level AD converters. The performance differences can be measured
and are audible.

> But even then the performance is more than adequate for many, and the
> sound may not even improve all that much by using the most expensive
> equipment in many recording situations, since I doubt people buy
> Zooms for studio use, I certainly wouldn't!
>
Again, it is you that are creating a straw man argument. The differences in
performance won't stop me from using my DR-40, nor will they won't stop me
from using my Nikon, Canon or Olympus cameras. But your claim that those
differences don't exist or are imperceptable is unsupportable by facts.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Audio_Empire]

In article >, "Trevor" >
wrote:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> Quality differences can be
> >>> understood by the intended use of the products. The Zeiss lens on
> >>> the Sony camera may not be up to the quality of those for a
> >>> Rolleiflex, but there isn't much reason why it should be; it still
> >>> out-performs the Canon and Nikon lenses.
> >>
> >> Some do, some don't. You seem to be a brand snob rather than accept
> >> actual measurements for each lens.
> >>
> > I purchase all products, whether they be lenses, microphones or furnaces
> > (just bought one yesterday) based on the actual measurements of their
> > performance. With lenses, this is relatively easy to do with some brands,
> > Leica, Zeiss, and Schneider Kreutznach to name a few. It's not so easy
> > with
> > others, mainly due quality control issues. There might be an occasional
> > outlier, but generally speaking, truly "stellar performance" is unlikely
> > in
> > consumer-level products.
>
> Gee, I wonder why more pro photographers use Canon and Nikon products than
> the brands you desire if they are only good as "consumer level products"
> then! :-)

Because Canon and Nikon cameras and lenses ARE designed with
professional photographers in mind. Anybody who thinks that a Nikon D3X
digital camera (at $8K, body only) or an F6 film camera ($2.7, body

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Gary Eickmeier]

Hopefully I will settle all questions about the capabilities of the Zoom H6
and my "misguided" microphone arrangement that I called TCM for Three
Card(ioid) Monte and Gunther Thiele called OCT for Optimized Cardioid Trio.
I am going to record some church music that will have chorus, piano, string
orchestra, handbells, and organ on what they call Music Sunday. In one of
the services I will use the TCM, in others I will use the XY capsule of the
H6. This will keep the microphone/recorder setup unobtrusive for the service
to not distract from the performance. I think in order to be able to put the
recorder on a high stand I will make my best guess on the manual gain
setting, and use the -12 dB backup track to bail me out if they are louder
than I thought. Fresh batteries would then be the only other consideration.
I can then go up to the balcony and take some photos of the whole group for
their purposes and it will show the mike setup for our purposes, if anyone
is interested. Can then put clips and photos on Tobiah's uploader.

Sound good?

Gary Eickmeier

[jason]

On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 08:10:11 -0500 "Neil Gould" >
wrote in article >
>
> Mike Rivers wrote:
> > On 10/15/2013 8:43 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
> >
> >> Is that really an issue these days? With typically over 16 hours of
> >> recording time on a set of batteries, a 25% loss for wireless remote
> >> doesn't sound like a big deal, and I doubt that it would require
> >> that much power to implement.
> >
> > Well, go ask Zoom or TASCAM or Sony or Yamaha or Olympus or . . .
> >
> > I've often wished for a remote control, particularly with meters and a
> > record level control, but now I have the capability. I put a stereo
> > mic where I want it, connect it with a nice reliable cable to my
> > portable recorder (XLRs with phantom power), and I'm good to go. I've
> > never thought about these things as a recorder with a built-in mic,
> > but rather a mic with a built-in recorder. And now that I have one
> > that can use a mic that I already own and like, I can keep everything
> > in the palm of my hand.
> >
> Totally rational, and I do the same thing. It just is not much of an
> argument against a wireless remote.

Sorry if this duplicates an earlier post, but I couldn't find it.

I have a tiny GoPro HD video recorder with WiFi built in. It exports the
controls and the preview (audio and video) to my Android phone. It works
very well. I suspect the WiFi transceiver these days is a minute bit of
circuitry, perhaps, like EtherNet, it's even a chip "macro"..sans
antenna, of course.

[Audio_Empire]

In article >,
Jason > wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 08:10:11 -0500 "Neil Gould" >
> wrote in article >
> >
> > Mike Rivers wrote:
> > > On 10/15/2013 8:43 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
> > >
> > >> Is that really an issue these days? With typically over 16 hours of
> > >> recording time on a set of batteries, a 25% loss for wireless remote
> > >> doesn't sound like a big deal, and I doubt that it would require
> > >> that much power to implement.
> > >
> > > Well, go ask Zoom or TASCAM or Sony or Yamaha or Olympus or . . .
> > >
> > > I've often wished for a remote control, particularly with meters and a
> > > record level control, but now I have the capability. I put a stereo
> > > mic where I want it, connect it with a nice reliable cable to my
> > > portable recorder (XLRs with phantom power), and I'm good to go. I've
> > > never thought about these things as a recorder with a built-in mic,
> > > but rather a mic with a built-in recorder. And now that I have one
> > > that can use a mic that I already own and like, I can keep everything
> > > in the palm of my hand.
> > >
> > Totally rational, and I do the same thing. It just is not much of an
> > argument against a wireless remote.
>
> Sorry if this duplicates an earlier post, but I couldn't find it.
>
> I have a tiny GoPro HD video recorder with WiFi built in. It exports the
> controls and the preview (audio and video) to my Android phone. It works
> very well. I suspect the WiFi transceiver these days is a minute bit of
> circuitry, perhaps, like EtherNet, it's even a chip "macro"..sans
> antenna, of course.

It's probably a single, very cheap wi-fi chip that costs little to
implement.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Jason wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 08:10:11 -0500 "Neil Gould" >
> wrote in article >
>>
>> Mike Rivers wrote:
>>> On 10/15/2013 8:43 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is that really an issue these days? With typically over 16 hours of
>>>> recording time on a set of batteries, a 25% loss for wireless remote
>>>> doesn't sound like a big deal, and I doubt that it would require
>>>> that much power to implement.
>>>
>>> Well, go ask Zoom or TASCAM or Sony or Yamaha or Olympus or . . .
>>>
>>> I've often wished for a remote control, particularly with meters and a
>>> record level control, but now I have the capability. I put a stereo
>>> mic where I want it, connect it with a nice reliable cable to my
>>> portable recorder (XLRs with phantom power), and I'm good to go. I've
>>> never thought about these things as a recorder with a built-in mic,
>>> but rather a mic with a built-in recorder. And now that I have one
>>> that can use a mic that I already own and like, I can keep everything
>>> in the palm of my hand.
>>>
>> Totally rational, and I do the same thing. It just is not much of an
>> argument against a wireless remote.
>
> Sorry if this duplicates an earlier post, but I couldn't find it.
>
> I have a tiny GoPro HD video recorder with WiFi built in. It exports the
> controls and the preview (audio and video) to my Android phone. It works
> very well. I suspect the WiFi transceiver these days is a minute bit of
> circuitry, perhaps, like EtherNet, it's even a chip "macro"..sans
> antenna, of course.
>

Chances are very good much of it is built into the processor chip.

--
Les Cargill

[Trevor]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> Trevor wrote:
>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>> Quality differences can be
>>>>> understood by the intended use of the products. The Zeiss lens on
>>>>> the Sony camera may not be up to the quality of those for a
>>>>> Rolleiflex, but there isn't much reason why it should be; it still
>>>>> out-performs the Canon and Nikon lenses.
>>>>
>>>> Some do, some don't. You seem to be a brand snob rather than accept
>>>> actual measurements for each lens.
>>>>
>>> I purchase all products, whether they be lenses, microphones or
>>> furnaces (just bought one yesterday) based on the actual
>>> measurements of their performance. With lenses, this is relatively
>>> easy to do with some brands, Leica, Zeiss, and Schneider Kreutznach
>>> to name a few. It's not so easy with
>>> others, mainly due quality control issues. There might be an
>>> occasional outlier, but generally speaking, truly "stellar
>>> performance" is unlikely in
>>> consumer-level products.
>>
>> Gee, I wonder why more pro photographers use Canon and Nikon products
>> than the brands you desire if they are only good as "consumer level
>> products" then! :-)
>>
> Where did I say that Canon and Nikon are *just* consumer level products?
> That is purely *your* assertion, and not oen I agree with at all.

Well you should be more careful when stating "Leica, Zeiss, and Schneider
Kreutznach" are good brands, and excluding the most used professional
photagraphic equipment made by Canon and Nikon, who's lenses you DID suggest
(in this very thread) were inferior. Since no inferior brands other than
that have been mentioned, you NEED to describe what are "consumer-level
products" you mention, or why bother writing superflous crap? Simply to
obfuscate your argument even more?


>>> So, to an extent, you are right about my "defining
>>> pro level to match" my argument, just as you seem to be defining
>>> "stellar performance" to fit yours. But, to be clear, IMO a brand
>>> name does not define whether a product is pro-level.
>>
>> And yet you bandy them about as if it does, and ignore the fact even
>> those companies have made lenses inferior to some Canon, Nikon, Zuiko
>> products. What you buy is your choice of course, but simply ignoring
>> measurements doesn't support your argument.
>>
> You have produced not one "measurement" that disputes my statements,

Nor you a single measurement that supports your broad claim. UNLESS you
mention the SPECIFIC lens that you think is superior, I can't possibly
provide any data to the contrary!
I hardly care what you buy, so have no interest in what you think. There are
plenty of lens tests readily available on the net if you actually cared to
look.Some very professionally performed, far better than you could possibly
conduct I am certain.

>and you
> are the only one that is trying to generalize product quality to a brand
> name.

YOU were the one who mentioned "Leica, Zeiss, and Schneider" as if that
meant something, not me. YOU said :
>>>>>The Zeiss lens on
>>>>> the Sony camera may not be up to the quality of those for a
>>>>> Rolleiflex, but there isn't much reason why it should be; it still
>>>>> out-performs the Canon and Nikon lenses.

Something you still fail to support, and indeed now appear to contradict.



>OTOH, I own and use Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Leica and Rollei cameras,
> and know which lenses outperform the others, so my comments are based not
> only on the measurements, but on real-world experience. If you wish to
> dispute that, ante up with some facts.

I'm glad to see you include those other brands you left out originally, the
ones *I* have suggested all along make many good, and some not so good
lenses, just like the manufacturers you listed in the first place, So it
seems you now agree, and this argument is now a non issue.
I'm glad.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Trevor" >
> wrote:
>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>> Quality differences can be
>> >>> understood by the intended use of the products. The Zeiss lens on
>> >>> the Sony camera may not be up to the quality of those for a
>> >>> Rolleiflex, but there isn't much reason why it should be; it still
>> >>> out-performs the Canon and Nikon lenses.
>> >>
>> >> Some do, some don't. You seem to be a brand snob rather than accept
>> >> actual measurements for each lens.
>> >>
>> > I purchase all products, whether they be lenses, microphones or
>> > furnaces
>> > (just bought one yesterday) based on the actual measurements of their
>> > performance. With lenses, this is relatively easy to do with some
>> > brands,
>> > Leica, Zeiss, and Schneider Kreutznach to name a few. It's not so easy
>> > with
>> > others, mainly due quality control issues. There might be an occasional
>> > outlier, but generally speaking, truly "stellar performance" is
>> > unlikely
>> > in
>> > consumer-level products.
>>
>> Gee, I wonder why more pro photographers use Canon and Nikon products
>> than
>> the brands you desire if they are only good as "consumer level products"
>> then! :-)
>
> Because Canon and Nikon cameras and lenses ARE designed with
> professional photographers in mind.


Of course, but Neil says :
"The Zeiss lens on the Sony camera may not be up to the quality of those for
a
Rolleiflex, it still out-performs the Canon and Nikon lenses."

No specific lenses mentioned, so what a stupid broad sweeping load of
absolute crap IMO.

Trevor.

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 16:09:29 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article >):

> Photo analogy - if the microphone is a lens, and the recorder is the camera,
> tell me how much difference you could see between two DSLRs with the same
> lens? Assuming both are over 10 mp.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

Dynamic range, noise, color accuracy, exposure latitude, freedom from
artifacts... there are a lot of things that make different cameras with
identical resolution specs look different. Resolution is just one of many
numbers; as with audio gear, much depends on what you measure and how you
measure it, and there's some things that can't be easily measured.

In your case, you've got a mediocre digital recorder with VERY mediocre
preamps, so that's kind of suspect. If you fed in a digital signal from a
great A/D, and fed the A/D from a great preamp, and fed great mics into the
preamp, that might be a very good recording, depending on the mic technique
and the room acoustics. But that's a lot of if's.

--MFW

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/16/2013 12:36 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> If the big argument is about the accuracy of meters, the Zoom H6 meters are
> finely enough segmented that I can tell exactly what they are indicating
> during recording.

My question was whether each those "segments" actually corresponds to a
discrete level. That's why I suggested testing it with an oscillator and
see how much of a change in input level it takes to turn on the next
segment.

> If the big argument is about the crummy quality of the Zooms, well, that is
> why I am reporting my impressions of the new H6. I hope that someone with a
> lab and measurement capability will soon report on the technical side, just
> how accurate it is.

I spoke to the Zoom folks at the AES show and once again, they said
they'd get my request for a review unit into the proper hands. Something
that I didn't know, and maybe others here don't, is that there's a new
company called Zoom North America that distributes and supports Zoom
products in the US. It's new and right now the H6 is the only product
that they've phased in. Their premise is that Zoom recorders are indeed
being used in professional applications now and they deserve to be
supported as a professional product.

For what it's worth, just from handling the H6 on display at the show, I
believe that it's not nearly as cheaply built as my H2. I still wold be
careful about dropping it, but it doesn't feel like a toy. Incidentally,
we were talking about remote control somewhere along the line. It uses
the same remote as the H4n which has a fairly short cable, but they're
shipping an extension cord with it that should at least get it down to
the floor from a tall mic stand.

These things are starting to develop niches in the marketplace now that
they don't just record stereo with a built-in mic. The H6 will probably
find its place for people who need its features and don't need what it
doesn't offer.


>
> So far so good on the sound quality.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
>
>




--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/18/2013 3:58 AM, Luxey wrote:

> - some breakbox with XLRs, "hardwired" to H2 would greatly reduce
> potential mechanical problems. This "box" could be some kind of DI,
> or mic pre. I don't know about Zoom inputs, so I'll shut up.

It would be a mic preamp. The H2 "mic input" works OK with a remote
powered (which it supplies) high output condenser mic, but there's too
little gain (or barely enough gain with too much hiss when you turn it
all the way up) to be used with a dynamic mic on anything but a really
loud source.

> - Noise floor is more less irrelevant at the current level of modern
> electronics.

Not with the H2 when you turn the record gain all the way up and use an
external mic. But this is an exception. The mic inputs on the TASCAM
DR-40 (and Zoom H4n) are reasonably quiet.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Gary Eickmeier]

Thanks for that Mike! Agrees with my impressions of it. I didn't think about
them being at the convention, tho I don't have the money or time to go to
those any more.

Yes, it is small enough to worry about dropping it, but it feels well built
and a more serious device than past models. It is a delight to use in the
field, once you have set all the parameters in the menu structure
beforehand.

I still don't see the need for a remote. Unless it provided some sort of
feedback on the remote to assure you that it IS running and recording, I
would tend to not trust it. Nor would you be able to see any meters if the
recorder is up high on a stand. I may have to operate this way next Sunday
at the church music recording, but what I will do is set all levels, set it
to record, then hoist it up and let it go for the whole hour. I wanted to
use my big mikes, but we decided that would be kind of visually obtrusive,
so I guess my XY mike capsule will get a thorough workout.

I recorded a rehearsal of the chorus with piano yesterday with both kinds of
mikes, so maybe that will tell how they compare. Can post some clips.

Gary Eickmeier


"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 10/16/2013 12:36 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> If the big argument is about the accuracy of meters, the Zoom H6 meters
>> are
>> finely enough segmented that I can tell exactly what they are indicating
>> during recording.
>
> My question was whether each those "segments" actually corresponds to a
> discrete level. That's why I suggested testing it with an oscillator and
> see how much of a change in input level it takes to turn on the next
> segment.
>
>> If the big argument is about the crummy quality of the Zooms, well, that
>> is
>> why I am reporting my impressions of the new H6. I hope that someone with
>> a
>> lab and measurement capability will soon report on the technical side,
>> just
>> how accurate it is.
>
> I spoke to the Zoom folks at the AES show and once again, they said they'd
> get my request for a review unit into the proper hands. Something that I
> didn't know, and maybe others here don't, is that there's a new company
> called Zoom North America that distributes and supports Zoom products in
> the US. It's new and right now the H6 is the only product that they've
> phased in. Their premise is that Zoom recorders are indeed being used in
> professional applications now and they deserve to be supported as a
> professional product.
>
> For what it's worth, just from handling the H6 on display at the show, I
> believe that it's not nearly as cheaply built as my H2. I still wold be
> careful about dropping it, but it doesn't feel like a toy. Incidentally,
> we were talking about remote control somewhere along the line. It uses the
> same remote as the H4n which has a fairly short cable, but they're
> shipping an extension cord with it that should at least get it down to the
> floor from a tall mic stand.
>
> These things are starting to develop niches in the marketplace now that
> they don't just record stereo with a built-in mic. The H6 will probably
> find its place for people who need its features and don't need what it
> doesn't offer.
>
>
>>
>> So far so good on the sound quality.
>>
>> Gary Eickmeier
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
>

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Marc Wielage" > wrote in message
.com...

> In your case, you've got a mediocre digital recorder with VERY mediocre
> preamps, so that's kind of suspect.

Now how do you know that?

Gary

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> "Marc Wielage" > wrote in message
> .com...
>
> > In your case, you've got a mediocre digital recorder with VERY mediocre
> > preamps, so that's kind of suspect.
>
> Now how do you know that?
>
> Gary

You're new here, aren't you?

What are the best micropohone preamps you have ever used personally?

The best I have ever used are the original Great River MP2-MH and the
Gordon.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
>"Marc Wielage" > wrote in message
.com...
>
>> In your case, you've got a mediocre digital recorder with VERY mediocre
>> preamps, so that's kind of suspect.
>
>Now how do you know that?

Probably because he has used one, much like I have. You can use it, it's
possible to survive with them especially with high-output mikes, but you
have to be very careful.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/21/2013 9:48 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> I still don't see the need for a remote. Unless it provided some sort of
> feedback on the remote to assure you that it IS running and recording, I
> would tend to not trust it. Nor would you be able to see any meters if the
> recorder is up high on a stand.

Well, you have to trust that if you did the right things, your gear will
work. When I was recording to analog tape, I rarely monitored off-tape
(to see that it was actually recording). If it wasn't, it probably was
because I forgot to press the Record button. I'll admit that these
handhelds aren't always as intuitive as an analog recorder - with some,
you have to press the Record button a second time to start "the tape
rolling," (that's how the H2 works), and on others you need to press the
Play or Pause button to get it rolling after arming it with the Record
button. My biggest problem is remembering which one works in what
manner. Sometimes I think I'm starting to record and I take it out of
record-ready instead.

With the recorder out of reach on a high stand, I'd start it recording
before I put it up there since from the ground I couldn't see the
numbers changing. What I would like to see on a remote is an overload
indicator so at least you know there's a problem, you can mark it (most
create a BWF marker when you press the Record button when it's running)
and know where to pay attention when listening to a playback. Of course
a meter would be more useful, but in order to be able to do something
you''d need to have remote control of the record level, and then I'd
like a remote headphone jack so I can hear what the mics are hearing.

Then, pretty soon you've designed a remote that's as big as the
recorder. There's nothing wrong with that if you need it, but too many
people would consider it useless, and if they didn't make as many remote
controllers as the sold recorders and sold it as an accessory, it would
cost too much. So as long as it's still a "consumer" item, you can't win
this one. You just have to learn how to make the best use of it.




--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Neil Gould]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> "Marc Wielage" > wrote in message
> .com...
>
>> In your case, you've got a mediocre digital recorder with VERY
>> mediocre preamps, so that's kind of suspect.
>
> Now how do you know that?
>
Perhaps, like many of us, Marc has very good mic preamps, and realizes that
you won't fit 6 of them in a 3"x6"x2" plastic box that also contains
batteries, ADDA, DSP, meters, microphones, and so on.

Enjoy it, Gary... it doesn't have to be the greatest device ever built to be
useful.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Tobiah]

On 10/18/2013 11:06 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 10:32:54 -0700, Tobiah > wrote:
>
>> On 10/18/2013 09:56 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:29:27 -0700, Tobiah > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Photo analogy - if the microphone is a lens, and the recorder is the camera,
>>>>> tell me how much difference you could see between two DSLRs with the same
>>>>> lens? Assuming both are over 10 mp.
>>>>
>>>> I think that I'd say that the CCD, or other sensor in the camera
>>>> is the microphone, with the lens being something more like a parabolic
>>>> dish, or the design of shotgun mic, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway the sensor and the camera can be just as important as the
>>>> lens in certain situations. Consider high ISO settings where
>>>> any prosumer camera I've seen reviewed suffers from the introduction
>>>> of noise, and then we have the dynamic range issue, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Tobiah
>>>
>>> I think the analogy has passed its sell-by date. Oh, ok then - just
>>> one more. Whether it be a camera or a microphone, the most important
>>> thing is what you point it at.
>>
>>
>> True, I alluded to that early on before this became about quality
>> of reproduction. I was saying that the real problem was to know
>> where to stand and where to point, and what zoom level (pickup pattern?)
>> and shutter speed (gain?) and aperture (no parallel?) to use.
>>
>>
> Yeah, no.... Not really what I meant.
>
> d
>

Well, note that where you stand and where you point dictates what
you are pointing at, although there is an unmentioned time dimension
there that is also important.

[Audio_Empire]

In article >,
"Neil Gould" > wrote:

> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> > "Marc Wielage" > wrote in message
> > .com...
> >
> >> In your case, you've got a mediocre digital recorder with VERY
> >> mediocre preamps, so that's kind of suspect.
> >
> > Now how do you know that?
> >
> Perhaps, like many of us, Marc has very good mic preamps, and realizes that
> you won't fit 6 of them in a 3"x6"x2" plastic box that also contains
> batteries, ADDA, DSP, meters, microphones, and so on.
>
> Enjoy it, Gary... it doesn't have to be the greatest device ever built to be
> useful.

Exactly! My sentiments precisely.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Audio_Empire]

In article >, "Trevor" >
wrote:

> "Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Trevor" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >>> Quality differences can be
> >> >>> understood by the intended use of the products. The Zeiss lens on
> >> >>> the Sony camera may not be up to the quality of those for a
> >> >>> Rolleiflex, but there isn't much reason why it should be; it still
> >> >>> out-performs the Canon and Nikon lenses.
> >> >>
> >> >> Some do, some don't. You seem to be a brand snob rather than accept
> >> >> actual measurements for each lens.
> >> >>
> >> > I purchase all products, whether they be lenses, microphones or
> >> > furnaces
> >> > (just bought one yesterday) based on the actual measurements of their
> >> > performance. With lenses, this is relatively easy to do with some
> >> > brands,
> >> > Leica, Zeiss, and Schneider Kreutznach to name a few. It's not so easy
> >> > with
> >> > others, mainly due quality control issues. There might be an occasional
> >> > outlier, but generally speaking, truly "stellar performance" is
> >> > unlikely
> >> > in
> >> > consumer-level products.
> >>
> >> Gee, I wonder why more pro photographers use Canon and Nikon products
> >> than
> >> the brands you desire if they are only good as "consumer level products"
> >> then! :-)
> >
> > Because Canon and Nikon cameras and lenses ARE designed with
> > professional photographers in mind.
>
>
> Of course, but Neil says :
> "The Zeiss lens on the Sony camera may not be up to the quality of those for
> a
> Rolleiflex, it still out-performs the Canon and Nikon lenses."
>
> No specific lenses mentioned, so what a stupid broad sweeping load of
> absolute crap IMO.
>
> Trevor.

This is very specious. Canon and Nikkor lenses have proved over many
decades of published lens tests to be every bit as good or even better
than any German optic. In fact up until the 1970's Japanese lenses were
actually better than German lenses because Japanese optical glass
formulations and coating technology was better than the German
equivalents. And comparing 35 mm optics with 6 X 6 Cm optics is a
useless procedure as it's much harder to make equivalent quality lenses
in larger formats to the lenses used in 35 mm cameras - which always
have more lines of resolution per millimeter.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:39:36 -0700, Tobiah > wrote:

>On 10/18/2013 11:06 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 10:32:54 -0700, Tobiah > wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/18/2013 09:56 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:29:27 -0700, Tobiah > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Photo analogy - if the microphone is a lens, and the recorder is the camera,
>>>>>> tell me how much difference you could see between two DSLRs with the same
>>>>>> lens? Assuming both are over 10 mp.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that I'd say that the CCD, or other sensor in the camera
>>>>> is the microphone, with the lens being something more like a parabolic
>>>>> dish, or the design of shotgun mic, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway the sensor and the camera can be just as important as the
>>>>> lens in certain situations. Consider high ISO settings where
>>>>> any prosumer camera I've seen reviewed suffers from the introduction
>>>>> of noise, and then we have the dynamic range issue, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tobiah
>>>>
>>>> I think the analogy has passed its sell-by date. Oh, ok then - just
>>>> one more. Whether it be a camera or a microphone, the most important
>>>> thing is what you point it at.
>>>
>>>
>>> True, I alluded to that early on before this became about quality
>>> of reproduction. I was saying that the real problem was to know
>>> where to stand and where to point, and what zoom level (pickup pattern?)
>>> and shutter speed (gain?) and aperture (no parallel?) to use.
>>>
>>>
>> Yeah, no.... Not really what I meant.
>>
>> d
>>
>
>Well, note that where you stand and where you point dictates what
>you are pointing at, although there is an unmentioned time dimension
>there that is also important.
>

I was just talking about the artist/model.

d

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 10/21/2013 3:46 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:39:36 -0700, Tobiah > wrote:
>
>> On 10/18/2013 11:06 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 10:32:54 -0700, Tobiah > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/18/2013 09:56 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:29:27 -0700, Tobiah > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Photo analogy - if the microphone is a lens, and the recorder is the camera,
>>>>>>> tell me how much difference you could see between two DSLRs with the same
>>>>>>> lens? Assuming both are over 10 mp.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that I'd say that the CCD, or other sensor in the camera
>>>>>> is the microphone, with the lens being something more like a parabolic
>>>>>> dish, or the design of shotgun mic, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway the sensor and the camera can be just as important as the
>>>>>> lens in certain situations. Consider high ISO settings where
>>>>>> any prosumer camera I've seen reviewed suffers from the introduction
>>>>>> of noise, and then we have the dynamic range issue, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tobiah
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the analogy has passed its sell-by date. Oh, ok then - just
>>>>> one more. Whether it be a camera or a microphone, the most important
>>>>> thing is what you point it at.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> True, I alluded to that early on before this became about quality
>>>> of reproduction. I was saying that the real problem was to know
>>>> where to stand and where to point, and what zoom level (pickup pattern?)
>>>> and shutter speed (gain?) and aperture (no parallel?) to use.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yeah, no.... Not really what I meant.
>>>
>>> d
>>>
>>
>> Well, note that where you stand and where you point dictates what
>> you are pointing at, although there is an unmentioned time dimension
>> there that is also important.
>>
>
> I was just talking about the artist/model.
>
> d
>
Reminds me of a discussion here long ago on how
to get a good drum sound. At the top of the list was
start with a good drummer. :-)
I seem to recall good drum kit, good room, and proper
drum tuning all came before any of the mic' selection,
positioning, mixing, gates, etc., type tech stuff.

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 16:04:03 -0400, Ron C > wrote:

>On 10/21/2013 3:46 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:39:36 -0700, Tobiah > wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/18/2013 11:06 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 10:32:54 -0700, Tobiah > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/18/2013 09:56 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:29:27 -0700, Tobiah > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Photo analogy - if the microphone is a lens, and the recorder is the camera,
>>>>>>>> tell me how much difference you could see between two DSLRs with the same
>>>>>>>> lens? Assuming both are over 10 mp.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that I'd say that the CCD, or other sensor in the camera
>>>>>>> is the microphone, with the lens being something more like a parabolic
>>>>>>> dish, or the design of shotgun mic, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway the sensor and the camera can be just as important as the
>>>>>>> lens in certain situations. Consider high ISO settings where
>>>>>>> any prosumer camera I've seen reviewed suffers from the introduction
>>>>>>> of noise, and then we have the dynamic range issue, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tobiah
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the analogy has passed its sell-by date. Oh, ok then - just
>>>>>> one more. Whether it be a camera or a microphone, the most important
>>>>>> thing is what you point it at.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> True, I alluded to that early on before this became about quality
>>>>> of reproduction. I was saying that the real problem was to know
>>>>> where to stand and where to point, and what zoom level (pickup pattern?)
>>>>> and shutter speed (gain?) and aperture (no parallel?) to use.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Yeah, no.... Not really what I meant.
>>>>
>>>> d
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, note that where you stand and where you point dictates what
>>> you are pointing at, although there is an unmentioned time dimension
>>> there that is also important.
>>>
>>
>> I was just talking about the artist/model.
>>
>> d
>>
>Reminds me of a discussion here long ago on how
>to get a good drum sound. At the top of the list was
>start with a good drummer. :-)
>I seem to recall good drum kit, good room, and proper
>drum tuning all came before any of the mic' selection,
>positioning, mixing, gates, etc., type tech stuff.
>
A long, long way before.

d

[jason]

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:21:22 -0400 "Mike Rivers" > wrote
in article >
>
- snip -
>
> Then, pretty soon you've designed a remote that's as big as the
> recorder. There's nothing wrong with that if you need it, but too many
> people would consider it useless, and if they didn't make as many remote
> controllers as the sold recorders and sold it as an accessory, it would
> cost too much. So as long as it's still a "consumer" item, you can't win
> this one. You just have to learn how to make the best use of it.

The remote's only a large & expensive & low-volume product unless there
isn't one. I mentioned WiFi for my tiny GoPro camera in an earlier post -
the remote's a smart phone or tablet. Audio is simpler to "remote" than
video so I imagine it wouldn't tax said smart gadget much at all.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/21/2013 5:16 PM, Jason wrote:

> The remote's only a large& expensive& low-volume product unless there
> isn't one. I mentioned WiFi for my tiny GoPro camera in an earlier post -
> the remote's a smart phone or tablet.

Oh, so the remote is free once you buy the $500 tablet. Are you sure
it's WiFi and not Bluetooth? WiFi can be very audio-intrusive. That may
not make enough difference to worry about when you're making an action
video, which is what the GoPro is really all about. When you're running
a few thousand dollars worth of microphones on a concert, you don't want
that WiFi signal leaking in to raise your noise floor. But Bluetooth
might work. Lynx has a remote Bluetooth control for their Aurora A/D/A
converters, and they sure wouldn't sacrifice noise floor for the sake of
remote control. And I think Roland has a portable recorder with a
Bluetooth remote. That will work for 30 feet or so, which should be good
enough.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[jason]

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 20:31:06 -0400 "Mike Rivers" > wrote
in article >
>
> On 10/21/2013 5:16 PM, Jason wrote:
>
> > The remote's only a large& expensive& low-volume product unless there
> > isn't one. I mentioned WiFi for my tiny GoPro camera in an earlier post -
> > the remote's a smart phone or tablet.
>
> Oh, so the remote is free once you buy the $500 tablet. Are you sure
> it's WiFi and not Bluetooth? WiFi can be very audio-intrusive. That may
> not make enough difference to worry about when you're making an action
> video, which is what the GoPro is really all about. When you're running
> a few thousand dollars worth of microphones on a concert, you don't want
> that WiFi signal leaking in to raise your noise floor. But Bluetooth
> might work. Lynx has a remote Bluetooth control for their Aurora A/D/A
> converters, and they sure wouldn't sacrifice noise floor for the sake of
> remote control. And I think Roland has a portable recorder with a
> Bluetooth remote. That will work for 30 feet or so, which should be good
> enough.

It's definitely WiFi, not Bluetooth. And, no, the remote isn't "free" in
any sense except that many folks are already carrying one disguised as a
phone. As for interference, I don't know how/if it would interfere and
hence mess up the noise floor. Bluetooth may be the better answer but
range is limited yet probably sufficent: 30m.

[jason]

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 21:23:18 -0400 "Jason" > wrote
in article


oops: 10m, not 30. Sorry.

[Gary Eickmeier]

Mike, I guess I don't thoroughly understand. Are you saying that you
sometimes also record with the recorder only, on a high stand, with the
built-in mikes? The normal procedure would be to put just the microphones up
on the stand and keep the recorder down where you can operate it. So what
situation are you talking about with a need for a remote?

Gary Eickmeier


"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 10/21/2013 9:48 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> I still don't see the need for a remote. Unless it provided some sort of
>> feedback on the remote to assure you that it IS running and recording, I
>> would tend to not trust it. Nor would you be able to see any meters if
>> the
>> recorder is up high on a stand.
>
> Well, you have to trust that if you did the right things, your gear will
> work. When I was recording to analog tape, I rarely monitored off-tape (to
> see that it was actually recording). If it wasn't, it probably was because
> I forgot to press the Record button. I'll admit that these handhelds
> aren't always as intuitive as an analog recorder - with some, you have to
> press the Record button a second time to start "the tape rolling," (that's
> how the H2 works), and on others you need to press the Play or Pause
> button to get it rolling after arming it with the Record button. My
> biggest problem is remembering which one works in what manner. Sometimes I
> think I'm starting to record and I take it out of record-ready instead.
>
> With the recorder out of reach on a high stand, I'd start it recording
> before I put it up there since from the ground I couldn't see the numbers
> changing. What I would like to see on a remote is an overload indicator so
> at least you know there's a problem, you can mark it (most create a BWF
> marker when you press the Record button when it's running) and know where
> to pay attention when listening to a playback. Of course a meter would be
> more useful, but in order to be able to do something you''d need to have
> remote control of the record level, and then I'd like a remote headphone
> jack so I can hear what the mics are hearing.
>
> Then, pretty soon you've designed a remote that's as big as the recorder.
> There's nothing wrong with that if you need it, but too many people would
> consider it useless, and if they didn't make as many remote controllers as
> the sold recorders and sold it as an accessory, it would cost too much. So
> as long as it's still a "consumer" item, you can't win this one. You just
> have to learn how to make the best use of it.
>
>
>
>
> --
> For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
>

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>>
>>"Marc Wielage" > wrote in message
.com...
>>
>>> In your case, you've got a mediocre digital recorder with VERY mediocre
>>> preamps, so that's kind of suspect.
>>
>>Now how do you know that?
>
> Probably because he has used one, much like I have. You can use it, it's
> possible to survive with them especially with high-output mikes, but you
> have to be very careful.
> --scott

You both have the H6? I thought you were railing against it!

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>
>> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> > "Marc Wielage" > wrote in message
>> > .com...
>> >
>> >> In your case, you've got a mediocre digital recorder with VERY
>> >> mediocre preamps, so that's kind of suspect.
>> >
>> > Now how do you know that?
>> >
>> Perhaps, like many of us, Marc has very good mic preamps, and realizes
>> that
>> you won't fit 6 of them in a 3"x6"x2" plastic box that also contains
>> batteries, ADDA, DSP, meters, microphones, and so on.
>>
>> Enjoy it, Gary... it doesn't have to be the greatest device ever built to
>> be
>> useful.
>
> Exactly! My sentiments precisely.

Er...ah...er... well, I am! I have just made some fairly holographic
recordings with it and my TCM miking technique. But hey, both you and I did
the same with a little Zoom H2, didn't we?

It just isn't that hard to make a good, quiet, linear preamp nowadays.

IMHO.

Gary

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> It just isn't that hard to make a good, quiet, linear preamp nowadays.

I repeat, with what preamps have you experience?

Every piece of cheap kit in the world now offers specs that look fine on
paper. Not a single unit I have used offers anything comparable to the
excellent preamps I have used.

I think you like to compare orange to your imagination, where you
imagine it's all oranges out there.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 10/18/2013 3:58 AM, Luxey wrote:
>> - some breakbox with XLRs, "hardwired" to H2 would greatly reduce
>> potential mechanical problems. This "box" could be some kind of DI,
>> or mic pre. I don't know about Zoom inputs, so I'll shut up.
>
> It would be a mic preamp. The H2 "mic input" works OK with a remote
> powered (which it supplies) high output condenser mic, but there's too
> little gain (or barely enough gain with too much hiss when you turn it all
> the way up) to be used with a dynamic mic on anything but a really loud
> source.
>
>> - Noise floor is more less irrelevant at the current level of modern
>> electronics.
>
> Not with the H2 when you turn the record gain all the way up and use an
> external mic. But this is an exception. The mic inputs on the TASCAM DR-40
> (and Zoom H4n) are reasonably quiet.

One would hope the H6 is at least as good as the H4n then.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...
> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>>>"Marc Wielage" > wrote in message
.com...
>>>> In your case, you've got a mediocre digital recorder with VERY mediocre
>>>> preamps, so that's kind of suspect.
>>>
>>>Now how do you know that?
>>
>> Probably because he has used one, much like I have. You can use it, it's
>> possible to survive with them especially with high-output mikes, but you
>> have to be very careful.
>> --scott
>
> You both have the H6? I thought you were railing against it!

Using and owning are *not* the same thing. One often uses a device in order
to decide you *don't* want to own it!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Trevor" >
> wrote:
>> "Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Trevor" >
>> > wrote:
>> >> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >>> Quality differences can be
>> >> >>> understood by the intended use of the products. The Zeiss lens on
>> >> >>> the Sony camera may not be up to the quality of those for a
>> >> >>> Rolleiflex, but there isn't much reason why it should be; it still
>> >> >>> out-performs the Canon and Nikon lenses.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Some do, some don't. You seem to be a brand snob rather than accept
>> >> >> actual measurements for each lens.
>> >> >>
>> >> > I purchase all products, whether they be lenses, microphones or
>> >> > furnaces
>> >> > (just bought one yesterday) based on the actual measurements of
>> >> > their
>> >> > performance. With lenses, this is relatively easy to do with some
>> >> > brands,
>> >> > Leica, Zeiss, and Schneider Kreutznach to name a few. It's not so
>> >> > easy
>> >> > with
>> >> > others, mainly due quality control issues. There might be an
>> >> > occasional
>> >> > outlier, but generally speaking, truly "stellar performance" is
>> >> > unlikely
>> >> > in
>> >> > consumer-level products.
>> >>
>> >> Gee, I wonder why more pro photographers use Canon and Nikon products
>> >> than
>> >> the brands you desire if they are only good as "consumer level
>> >> products"
>> >> then! :-)
>> >
>> > Because Canon and Nikon cameras and lenses ARE designed with
>> > professional photographers in mind.
>>
>>
>> Of course, but Neil says :
>> "The Zeiss lens on the Sony camera may not be up to the quality of those
>> for
>> a Rolleiflex, it still out-performs the Canon and Nikon lenses."
>> No specific lenses mentioned, so what a stupid broad sweeping load of
>> absolute crap IMO.
>>
>
> This is very specious. Canon and Nikkor lenses have proved over many
> decades of published lens tests to be every bit as good or even better
> than any German optic. In fact up until the 1970's Japanese lenses were
> actually better than German lenses because Japanese optical glass
> formulations and coating technology was better than the German
> equivalents. And comparing 35 mm optics with 6 X 6 Cm optics is a
> useless procedure as it's much harder to make equivalent quality lenses
> in larger formats to the lenses used in 35 mm cameras - which always
> have more lines of resolution per millimeter.

The only argument I would make there is that Japenese optics were not
necessarily better than German prior to 1970's, and almost definitely not
prior to WW2. All of the big manufacturers seems to have a range of glass
over the years ranging from crap to stellar according to actual
measurements. And price often has little bearing on the matter either
unfortunately.
Of course those who like paying more for a badge rarely want to know there
are better options at lower prices. And in the world of camera's you are
usually stuck with whatever is available with the lens mount you require,
and are unlikely to test lenses for lens mounts you don't have ;-)

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/21/2013 9:23 PM, Jason wrote:
> It's definitely WiFi, not Bluetooth. And, no, the remote isn't "free" in
> any sense except that many folks are already carrying one disguised as a
> phone.

But I don't. The "haves" don't seem to understand that there are some
"have nots" out there. I have a tablet, but it's an Android, and I like
it less and less. Next trade show I'm taking my TASCAM DR-40 and an EV
635 mic rather than the tablet and the iRig Mic. Takes up less room and
doesn't get inadvertently turned off (as my tablet did a couple of times
at AES).

Using an iPad as an accessory is a cool idea, but making it an essential
part of the product, it's necessary to account for its cost.



--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/22/2013 12:31 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> Mike, I guess I don't thoroughly understand. Are you saying that you
> sometimes also record with the recorder only, on a high stand, with the
> built-in mikes? The normal procedure would be to put just the microphones up
> on the stand and keep the recorder down where you can operate it. So what
> situation are you talking about with a need for a remote?

No, I've never put the recorder on a tall stand and recorded with the
built-in mics. There have been times when I would have liked to do that
rather than use external mics, but didn't because I didn't want to be
that far away from controls and monitoring. But with a proper remote,
this would be a viable option as long as the mics work OK for the
situation.

In real life, when I know I'll be using external mics, I take my Korg
MR-1000, not the TASCAM DR-40. I'd rather have something a little more
likely to stay on the table with two XLR cables hanging from it. I've
used the DR-40 on a short stand on top of the PA console or house rack,
recording one pair of tracks from the built-in mics and feeding the
other pair of tracks through line inputs from the console. I don't
record with three or more distant mics like you're doing.



--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> On 10/21/2013 9:23 PM, Jason wrote:

> Using an iPad as an accessory is a cool idea, but making it an
> essential part of the product, it's necessary to account for its cost.

Ah, well you see, it is kinda like buying a roller instead of a Bentley
because then you have a reason for hiring a chauffeur.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/22/2013 3:39 AM, Trevor wrote:
> One would hope the H6 is at least as good as the H4n then.

I'm sure it is (likely the same circuitry), and the H4n is quite OK. I'm
not one arguing that the mic preamps on the H6 are inadequate, but they
aren't as good as what Hank uses when he's doing serious recording.

Preamps do make a difference. Sometimes it matters, sometimes it
doesn't. For what Gary is doing, I doubt that the difference between
using the H6's mic inputs and, say, a Gordon going in through the line
inputs would make or break one of his recordings. I'd worry more about
something with a surface area of barely 12 square inches sliding off the
table with a bunch of mic cables hanging off it. I think he said he puts
it on a stand, which would improve its stability.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...

> No, I've never put the recorder on a tall stand and recorded with the
> built-in mics. There have been times when I would have liked to do that
> rather than use external mics, but didn't because I didn't want to be that
> far away from controls and monitoring. But with a proper remote, this
> would be a viable option as long as the mics work OK for the situation.
>
> In real life, when I know I'll be using external mics, I take my Korg
> MR-1000, not the TASCAM DR-40. I'd rather have something a little more
> likely to stay on the table with two XLR cables hanging from it. I've used
> the DR-40 on a short stand on top of the PA console or house rack,
> recording one pair of tracks from the built-in mics and feeding the other
> pair of tracks through line inputs from the console. I don't record with
> three or more distant mics like you're doing.

This Sunday, at Music Sunday, I will be forced to use the recorder on a
stand with its own XY mikes. Might even use the H6 and the H2n at the same
time, because it will be a spread out set of individual groups. The string
orchestra one place, the handbells another, then there will be the Praise
Band, organ, and chorus. There will be three similar services for me to
experiment on, so if I guess wrong or miss something I can get it right next
time. So the final product will be the music performances of all of the
groups, recorded from the best point I can reach. I will be fast and
flexible! Just hope I get the gains right!

At the first wind band concert in the concert hall, very different
philosophy. I will use strictly the big AT-2050s on a single stand, XLR
cables led down to the recorder sitting with the headphones on the lip of
the stage, me in the front row right behind it. Nothing can go wrong...

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Trevor" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>>>>"Marc Wielage" > wrote in message
.com...
>>>>> In your case, you've got a mediocre digital recorder with VERY
>>>>> mediocre
>>>>> preamps, so that's kind of suspect.
>>>>
>>>>Now how do you know that?
>>>
>>> Probably because he has used one, much like I have. You can use it,
>>> it's
>>> possible to survive with them especially with high-output mikes, but you
>>> have to be very careful.
>>> --scott
>>
>> You both have the H6? I thought you were railing against it!
>
> Using and owning are *not* the same thing. One often uses a device in
> order to decide you *don't* want to own it!
>
> Trevor.

Ya well, I suspect they are talking about the H2 or H4, not the H6.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 10/22/2013 3:39 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> One would hope the H6 is at least as good as the H4n then.
>
> I'm sure it is (likely the same circuitry), and the H4n is quite OK. I'm
> not one arguing that the mic preamps on the H6 are inadequate, but they
> aren't as good as what Hank uses when he's doing serious recording.
>
> Preamps do make a difference. Sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn't.
> For what Gary is doing, I doubt that the difference between using the H6's
> mic inputs and, say, a Gordon going in through the line inputs would make
> or break one of his recordings. I'd worry more about something with a
> surface area of barely 12 square inches sliding off the table with a bunch
> of mic cables hanging off it. I think he said he puts it on a stand, which
> would improve its stability.

No, it can just sit on the lip of the stage so I can pick it up and check
levels and change batteries fairly quickly. Although, it was also pretty
quick to change batteries when it was on a stand yesterday, because I just
pull the "handle" that is screwed into it out of the holster in the stand,
take the battery cover off, and change away. Might have to get a second
accessory pak for next Sunday so I can use 2 Zoom recorders at once.

I just hope the folks I give the recordings to don't run screaming from the
room holding their ears and crying "Those preamps, those preamps."

Gary

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>>>
>>>"Marc Wielage" > wrote in message
.com...
>>>
>>>> In your case, you've got a mediocre digital recorder with VERY mediocre
>>>> preamps, so that's kind of suspect.
>>>
>>>Now how do you know that?
>>
>> Probably because he has used one, much like I have. You can use it, it's
>> possible to survive with them especially with high-output mikes, but you
>> have to be very careful.
>
>You both have the H6? I thought you were railing against it!

I don't have one, but the local radio station has them for reporters; they
are a great choice for that sort of application. I wouldn't use them for
recording an orchestra but for sticking on top of a lectern they are marvelous.
Horses for courses.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Trevor > wrote:

> "Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
> >>>"Marc Wielage" > wrote in message
> .com...
> >>>> In your case, you've got a mediocre digital recorder with VERY mediocre
> >>>> preamps, so that's kind of suspect.
> >>>
> >>>Now how do you know that?
> >>
> >> Probably because he has used one, much like I have. You can use it, it's
> >> possible to survive with them especially with high-output mikes, but you
> >> have to be very careful.
> >> --scott
> >
> > You both have the H6? I thought you were railing against it!
>
> Using and owning are *not* the same thing. One often uses a device in order
> to decide you *don't* want to own it!
>
> Trevor.

And Mike Rivers is well-known as a keen reviewer of audio products. He
sees lots of kit before we do.

His reviews, along with those from Ty Ford, are among the best I've
seen.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> I just hope the folks I give the recordings to don't run screaming from the
> room holding their ears and crying "Those preamps, those preamps."

Musicians in general, and often including conductors, are not keen
listeners for audio quality. I say this having begun pro work in 1968.

There are outstanding outliers, of course, and those I deeply
appreciate.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Fran Guidry]

After using the H2 I bought an H4n when they came out. I didn't keep it, because in comparison to units like the Fostex FR2-LE and the Echo Audiofire the H4n introduced too much self-noise.

When I got the H6 I compared it to my RME UFX and I'm keeping the H6.

http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2013/08/28/zoom-h6-vs-rme-ufx/

Fran

[Tobiah]

>>>> True, I alluded to that early on before this became about quality
>>>> of reproduction. I was saying that the real problem was to know
>>>> where to stand and where to point, and what zoom level (pickup pattern?)
>>>> and shutter speed (gain?) and aperture (no parallel?) to use.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yeah, no.... Not really what I meant.
>>>
>>> d
>>>
>>
>> Well, note that where you stand and where you point dictates what
>> you are pointing at, although there is an unmentioned time dimension
>> there that is also important.
>>
>
> I was just talking about the artist/model.
>

I get it. I was hinting that a good technique involves making sure
that you stand near, and point at, a good performer.

[George Graves]

In article >, "Trevor" >
wrote:

> "Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Trevor" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, "Trevor" >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >>> Quality differences can be
> >> >> >>> understood by the intended use of the products. The Zeiss lens on
> >> >> >>> the Sony camera may not be up to the quality of those for a
> >> >> >>> Rolleiflex, but there isn't much reason why it should be; it still
> >> >> >>> out-performs the Canon and Nikon lenses.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Some do, some don't. You seem to be a brand snob rather than accept
> >> >> >> actual measurements for each lens.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > I purchase all products, whether they be lenses, microphones or
> >> >> > furnaces
> >> >> > (just bought one yesterday) based on the actual measurements of
> >> >> > their
> >> >> > performance. With lenses, this is relatively easy to do with some
> >> >> > brands,
> >> >> > Leica, Zeiss, and Schneider Kreutznach to name a few. It's not so
> >> >> > easy
> >> >> > with
> >> >> > others, mainly due quality control issues. There might be an
> >> >> > occasional
> >> >> > outlier, but generally speaking, truly "stellar performance" is
> >> >> > unlikely
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > consumer-level products.
> >> >>
> >> >> Gee, I wonder why more pro photographers use Canon and Nikon products
> >> >> than
> >> >> the brands you desire if they are only good as "consumer level
> >> >> products"
> >> >> then! :-)
> >> >
> >> > Because Canon and Nikon cameras and lenses ARE designed with
> >> > professional photographers in mind.
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course, but Neil says :
> >> "The Zeiss lens on the Sony camera may not be up to the quality of those
> >> for
> >> a Rolleiflex, it still out-performs the Canon and Nikon lenses."
> >> No specific lenses mentioned, so what a stupid broad sweeping load of
> >> absolute crap IMO.
> >>
> >
> > This is very specious. Canon and Nikkor lenses have proved over many
> > decades of published lens tests to be every bit as good or even better
> > than any German optic. In fact up until the 1970's Japanese lenses were
> > actually better than German lenses because Japanese optical glass
> > formulations and coating technology was better than the German
> > equivalents. And comparing 35 mm optics with 6 X 6 Cm optics is a
> > useless procedure as it's much harder to make equivalent quality lenses
> > in larger formats to the lenses used in 35 mm cameras - which always
> > have more lines of resolution per millimeter.
>
> The only argument I would make there is that Japenese optics were not
> necessarily better than German prior to 1970's, and almost definitely not
> prior to WW2. All of the big manufacturers seems to have a range of glass
> over the years ranging from crap to stellar according to actual
> measurements. And price often has little bearing on the matter either
> unfortunately.

I beg to differ, Trevor. Years of Modern Photography tests from the 1960's (mostly) show that lenses from Canon, Nikkor, and Takumar generally outperformed similar formulas from Zeiss, Leitz, and Krueznach.



> Of course those who like paying more for a badge rarely want to know there
> are better options at lower prices. And in the world of camera's you are
> usually stuck with whatever is available with the lens mount you require,
> and are unlikely to test lenses for lens mounts you don't have ;-)

That's what the photography magazines were for. Of course, each of the major
lens manufacturer had good lenses and lenses that were just adequate. Before
computer modeling, lenses were designed by formulas developed decades earlier
for three, four and five element lenses, mostly. Some, naturally, came out better
than others,

> Trevor.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Fran Guidry wrote:

> After using the H2 I bought an H4n when they came out. I didn't keep
> it, because in comparison to units like the Fostex FR2-LE and the
> Echo Audiofire the H4n introduced too much self-noise.

> When I got the H6 I compared it to my RME UFX and I'm keeping the H6.

> http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2013/08/28/zoom-h6-vs-rme-ufx/

Thank you for sharing, the Zoom sounds a wee bit less like a nylon string
instrument to me, RME gets the wood sound woodier. It is subtle.

Evaluated on Dell Optiplex 745 internal sound card, Sansui AU217-II
amplifier and KEF floorstanders.

> Fran

Kind regards'

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Fran Guidry wrote:

> Thanks for commenting Peter, but it's a steel string guitar. Kathy
> Wingert will be pleased to hear that someone mistook it for a
> classical.

Fascinating!

> Fran

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Matt Faunce]

On 10/22/13 7:43 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
> Fran Guidry wrote:
>
>> Thanks for commenting Peter, but it's a steel string guitar. Kathy
>> Wingert will be pleased to hear that someone mistook it for a
>> classical.
>
> Fascinating!
>
>> Fran
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

He's plucking with a combination of flesh and nails but his nails are
short so most of the force, and thus tone, is from the flesh, and the
nails just add a slight gleam. He controls it nicely. A player who puts
more nail into the pluck will get a much brighter tone, as will a
flat-picker, and this is what you mostly hear out of a steel string
guitar. Plus, this guy's hands are naturally strong, so he can get a big
round tone with less effort. He's got a really good thing going on there
with his tone.

--
Matt

[Matt Faunce]

On 10/22/13 9:44 PM, Matt Faunce wrote:
> On 10/22/13 7:43 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
>> Fran Guidry wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for commenting Peter, but it's a steel string guitar. Kathy
>>> Wingert will be pleased to hear that someone mistook it for a
>>> classical.
>>
>> Fascinating!
>>
>>> Fran
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Peter Larsen
>
> He's plucking with a combination of flesh and nails but his nails are
> short so most of the force, and thus tone, is from the flesh, and the
> nails just add a slight gleam. He controls it nicely. A player who puts
> more nail into the pluck will get a much brighter tone, as will a
> flat-picker, and this is what you mostly hear out of a steel string
> guitar. Plus, this guy's hands are naturally strong, so he can get a big
> round tone with less effort. He's got a really good thing going on there
> with his tone.

I simplified that a bit too much. A finger picker who uses more nail
than this guy used can still get a soft round tone by making the angle
of attack closer to 0 than 90. The closer to 90 the brighter. The player
here is using a 45 deg angle.

--
Matt

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 10/22/2013 3:39 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> One would hope the H6 is at least as good as the H4n then.
>
> I'm sure it is (likely the same circuitry), and the H4n is quite OK. I'm
> not one arguing that the mic preamps on the H6 are inadequate, but they
> aren't as good as what Hank uses when he's doing serious recording.

That much should be obvious to anyone. The only question is whether it is
adequate for the OP.


> Preamps do make a difference. Sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn't.
> For what Gary is doing, I doubt that the difference between using the H6's
> mic inputs and, say, a Gordon going in through the line inputs would make
> or break one of his recordings.

Right.

> I'd worry more about something with a surface area of barely 12 square
> inches sliding off the table with a bunch of mic cables hanging off it.

That would be the least of my concerns, I have gaffa tape for that :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"George Graves" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Trevor" >
> wrote:
>> "Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >> >>> understood by the intended use of the products. The Zeiss lens
>> >> >> >>> on
>> >> >> >>> the Sony camera may not be up to the quality of those for a
>> >> >> >>> Rolleiflex, but there isn't much reason why it should be; it
>> >> >> >>> still
>> >> >> >>> out-performs the Canon and Nikon lenses.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Some do, some don't. You seem to be a brand snob rather than
>> >> >> >> accept
>> >> >> >> actual measurements for each lens.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > I purchase all products, whether they be lenses, microphones or
>> >> >> > furnaces
>> >> >> > (just bought one yesterday) based on the actual measurements of
>> >> >> > their
>> >> >> > performance. With lenses, this is relatively easy to do with some
>> >> >> > brands,
>> >> >> > Leica, Zeiss, and Schneider Kreutznach to name a few. It's not so
>> >> >> > easy
>> >> >> > with
>> >> >> > others, mainly due quality control issues. There might be an
>> >> >> > occasional
>> >> >> > outlier, but generally speaking, truly "stellar performance" is
>> >> >> > unlikely
>> >> >> > in
>> >> >> > consumer-level products.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Gee, I wonder why more pro photographers use Canon and Nikon
>> >> >> products
>> >> >> than
>> >> >> the brands you desire if they are only good as "consumer level
>> >> >> products"
>> >> >> then! :-)
>> >> >
>> >> > Because Canon and Nikon cameras and lenses ARE designed with
>> >> > professional photographers in mind.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Of course, but Neil says :
>> >> "The Zeiss lens on the Sony camera may not be up to the quality of
>> >> those
>> >> for
>> >> a Rolleiflex, it still out-performs the Canon and Nikon lenses."
>> >> No specific lenses mentioned, so what a stupid broad sweeping load of
>> >> absolute crap IMO.
>> >>
>> >
>> > This is very specious. Canon and Nikkor lenses have proved over many
>> > decades of published lens tests to be every bit as good or even better
>> > than any German optic. In fact up until the 1970's Japanese lenses were
>> > actually better than German lenses because Japanese optical glass
>> > formulations and coating technology was better than the German
>> > equivalents. And comparing 35 mm optics with 6 X 6 Cm optics is a
>> > useless procedure as it's much harder to make equivalent quality lenses
>> > in larger formats to the lenses used in 35 mm cameras - which always
>> > have more lines of resolution per millimeter.
>>
>> The only argument I would make there is that Japenese optics were not
>> necessarily better than German prior to 1970's, and almost definitely not
>> prior to WW2. All of the big manufacturers seems to have a range of glass
>> over the years ranging from crap to stellar according to actual
>> measurements. And price often has little bearing on the matter either
>> unfortunately.
>
> I beg to differ, Trevor. Years of Modern Photography tests from the 1960's
> (mostly) show that lenses from Canon, Nikkor, and Takumar generally
> outperformed similar formulas from Zeiss, Leitz, and Krueznach.

That is not differening at all, I agree with you. But "prior to WW2" was
well before 1960's you realise, and in any case I prefer not to generalise
and that is exactly what I stated.


>
>> Of course those who like paying more for a badge rarely want to know
>> there
>> are better options at lower prices. And in the world of camera's you are
>> usually stuck with whatever is available with the lens mount you require,
>> and are unlikely to test lenses for lens mounts you don't have ;-)
>
> That's what the photography magazines were for. Of course, each of the
> major
> lens manufacturer had good lenses and lenses that were just adequate.
> Before
> computer modeling, lenses were designed by formulas developed decades
> earlier
> for three, four and five element lenses, mostly. Some, naturally, came out
> better
> than others.

Exactly my point, and even today Canon, Nikon, Leitz, Zeiss etc all have
great and not so great lenses in their range. Canon and Nikon regularly
update their lens models to improve some of their models, but mostly just in
the most popular focal lengths. Some of those have been updated many times
while others (both good and bad) remain unchanged.
And of course some of the cheaper lenses are updated to reduce manufacturing
cost rather than actually improve performance.

Trevor.

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 07:11:55 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article >):

> I don't have one, but the local radio station has them for reporters; they
> are a great choice for that sort of application. I wouldn't use them for
> recording an orchestra but for sticking on top of a lectern they are
> marvelous.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

I agree completely -- a little unit like this would be fantastic for
interviews, assuming you can get close to the subject. I did a print
interview with a friend of mine a year or two ago and used an old MiniDisc
recorder with built-in mics, set about 3' from each of us at a desk. I was
very surprised at how good the sound quality was -- it was definitely as good
or better than anything that passes for a podcast these days.

But that was in a very quiet room, and we were equidistant from the mikes,
recording in stereo. No way would I use it for music unless it was just a
rehearsal or somebody trying to compose a song.

--MFW

[Trevor]

"Marc Wielage" > wrote in message
.com...
> I agree completely -- a little unit like this would be fantastic for
> interviews, assuming you can get close to the subject. I did a print
> interview with a friend of mine a year or two ago and used an old MiniDisc
> recorder with built-in mics, set about 3' from each of us at a desk. I
> was
> very surprised at how good the sound quality was -- it was definitely as
> good
> or better than anything that passes for a podcast these days.
>
> But that was in a very quiet room, and we were equidistant from the mikes,
> recording in stereo. No way would I use it for music unless it was just a
> rehearsal or somebody trying to compose a song.

Yeah, thankfully things have improved tremendously since the days of
minidisc and ATRAC though. Comparing that to a H6 is almost like comparing a
biplane and space shuttle :-)

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/23/2013 12:40 AM, Marc Wielage wrote:

> I did a print
> interview with a friend of mine a year or two ago and used an old MiniDisc
> recorder with built-in mics, set about 3' from each of us at a desk. I was
> very surprised at how good the sound quality was -- it was definitely as good
> or better than anything that passes for a podcast these days.

> But that was in a very quiet room, and we were equidistant from the mikes,
> recording in stereo. No way would I use it for music unless it was just a
> rehearsal or somebody trying to compose a song.

I've done interviews with my Zoom H2 but only in a quiet room. I used to
test these things by putting an electric fan in the room just to make
some background noise (not blasting air at the microphones - that would
be unfair) and assess the ability to reject what I didn't want to
record. It was never very good.

For the last few trade shows (exhibitors aren't printing literature any
more) I've tried to record some notes or a run-through by a rep. The
Zoom was totally unacceptable with the roaring background noise. I could
get it close enough to myself if I was "taking notes" with it, but I
couldn't get it close enough to another speaker without being intrusive.
So at last year's NAMM show, I mooched an iRig mic for IK Multimedia and
used that with my tablet. It has a steep low cut and a decent
hypercardioid pattern so it worked very well without having to get too
close. But the problem was with the tablet. It worked fine on the dining
room table, but I guess that in the field, where I started the recording
program, checked the level, and tossed the tablet back into my bag,

I must have bumped it in a place that made it stop recording. That
happened a couple of times. And before you ask (because I did) there's
no "lock" to keep it recording until you consciously press the button.
Maybe other programs have such a feature, but I just thought the whole
thing was too much fuss. Next time I'll take my TASCAM DR-40 and an EV
635 mic. Everyone in the public eye is used to getting one of those
stuck in his face.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[S. King]

On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:04:26 +1100, Trevor wrote:

> "Marc Wielage" > wrote in message
> .com...
>> I agree completely -- a little unit like this would be fantastic for
>> interviews, assuming you can get close to the subject. I did a print
>> interview with a friend of mine a year or two ago and used an old
>> MiniDisc recorder with built-in mics, set about 3' from each of us at a
>> desk. I was very surprised at how good the sound quality was -- it was
>> definitely as good or better than anything that passes for a podcast
>> these days.
>>
>> But that was in a very quiet room, and we were equidistant from the
>> mikes,
>> recording in stereo. No way would I use it for music unless it was
>> just a rehearsal or somebody trying to compose a song.
>
> Yeah, thankfully things have improved tremendously since the days of
> minidisc and ATRAC though. Comparing that to a H6 is almost like
> comparing a biplane and space shuttle :-)
>
> Trevor.

I used MiniDisc recorders extensively for interviews for several years.
I've always felt that ATRAC compression was actually better than MP3. I
loaned my MiniDisc recorder to a friend to fed the output of his live desk
to it to record his band. We were both impressed with how good it sounded.
Yes, new digital recorders are a step up, but the biplane and space
shuttle analogy is an exaggeration in my opinion. By the way, I'm
cleaning house here. Taking old equipment to the electronic recyclers.
Ahhhhg!!! I've got a couple of minidisc recorders if anyone is interested;-
)

Steve King

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 10/23/2013 12:40 AM, Marc Wielage wrote:
>
>> I did a print
>> interview with a friend of mine a year or two ago and used an old
>> MiniDisc
>> recorder with built-in mics, set about 3' from each of us at a desk. I
>> was
>> very surprised at how good the sound quality was -- it was definitely as
>> good
>> or better than anything that passes for a podcast these days.
>
>> But that was in a very quiet room, and we were equidistant from the
>> mikes,
>> recording in stereo. No way would I use it for music unless it was just
>> a
>> rehearsal or somebody trying to compose a song.
>
> I've done interviews with my Zoom H2 but only in a quiet room. I used to
> test these things by putting an electric fan in the room just to make some
> background noise (not blasting air at the microphones - that would be
> unfair) and assess the ability to reject what I didn't want to record. It
> was never very good.
>
> For the last few trade shows (exhibitors aren't printing literature any
> more) I've tried to record some notes or a run-through by a rep. The Zoom
> was totally unacceptable with the roaring background noise. I could get it
> close enough to myself if I was "taking notes" with it, but I couldn't get
> it close enough to another speaker without being intrusive. So at last
> year's NAMM show, I mooched an iRig mic for IK Multimedia and used that
> with my tablet. It has a steep low cut and a decent hypercardioid pattern
> so it worked very well without having to get too close. But the problem
> was with the tablet. It worked fine on the dining room table, but I guess
> that in the field, where I started the recording program, checked the
> level, and tossed the tablet back into my bag,
>
> I must have bumped it in a place that made it stop recording. That
> happened a couple of times. And before you ask (because I did) there's no
> "lock" to keep it recording until you consciously press the button. Maybe
> other programs have such a feature, but I just thought the whole thing was
> too much fuss. Next time I'll take my TASCAM DR-40 and an EV 635 mic.
> Everyone in the public eye is used to getting one of those stuck in his
> face.

We usually put a lapel and digital voice recorder on the groom to record the
vows for a wedding shoot. I am wondering if the least intrusive way of doing
an interview would be to put a lapel mike on you, and simply stand near the
subject. We always get the bride just as good as the groom, plus the
minister even if he is ot amplified.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

Thank you very much Fran! Very informative.

Gary Eickmeier


"Fran Guidry" > wrote in message
...
> After using the H2 I bought an H4n when they came out. I didn't keep it,
> because in comparison to units like the Fostex FR2-LE and the Echo
> Audiofire the H4n introduced too much self-noise.
>
> When I got the H6 I compared it to my RME UFX and I'm keeping the H6.
>
> http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2013/08/28/zoom-h6-vs-rme-ufx/
>
> Fran
>

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/23/2013 9:21 AM, S. King wrote:
> I used MiniDisc recorders extensively for interviews for several years.
> I've always felt that ATRAC compression was actually better than MP3.

It definitely is better than that common MP3 bit rates that were in use
at the time ATRAC was around, and it's last iteration was even better.
The thing that killed it was the many layers of anti-piracy that were
implemented in the earlier versions.



--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/23/2013 5:57 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> We usually put a lapel and digital voice recorder on the groom to record the
> vows for a wedding shoot. I am wondering if the least intrusive way of doing
> an interview would be to put a lapel mike on you, and simply stand near the
> subject.

A NAMM show floor has a whole lot more ambient noise than a wedding. An
omni mic, or even the Zoom H2 mics, would be useless. when a foot and a
half away from the subject. If I'm sitting down with someone and doing
an interview (which is really pretty rare) I wouldn't mind clipping a
tie tack on the subject if we were in a relatively quiet place. It
doesn't have to be a pristine recording, I just want to be able to
listen to it without hearing drums and guitars in the foreground.



--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 10/23/2013 5:57 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> We usually put a lapel and digital voice recorder on the groom to record
>> the
>> vows for a wedding shoot. I am wondering if the least intrusive way of
>> doing
>> an interview would be to put a lapel mike on you, and simply stand near
>> the
>> subject.
>
> A NAMM show floor has a whole lot more ambient noise than a wedding. An
> omni mic, or even the Zoom H2 mics, would be useless. when a foot and a
> half away from the subject. If I'm sitting down with someone and doing an
> interview (which is really pretty rare) I wouldn't mind clipping a tie
> tack on the subject if we were in a relatively quiet place. It doesn't
> have to be a pristine recording, I just want to be able to listen to it
> without hearing drums and guitars in the foreground.

Agreed. During the reception, when they are playing loud music, we can still
get an interview by having them hold the lapel mike about 6 inches from
their mouth. Hopefully, just brief comments!

Gary

[Trevor]

"S. King" > wrote in message
...
> I used MiniDisc recorders extensively for interviews for several years.
> I've always felt that ATRAC compression was actually better than MP3.

Yes, at low bit rates. Hardly saying much though when compared to an
uncompressed 24bit wave file!

Trevor.

[S. King]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:07:22 +1100, Trevor wrote:

> "S. King" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I used MiniDisc recorders extensively for interviews for several years.
>> I've always felt that ATRAC compression was actually better than MP3.
>
> Yes, at low bit rates. Hardly saying much though when compared to an
> uncompressed 24bit wave file!
>
> Trevor.

A masterful observation of the obvious!

Steve King

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:04:26 -0700, Trevor wrote
(in article >):

> Yeah, thankfully things have improved tremendously since the days of
> minidisc and ATRAC though. Comparing that to a H6 is almost like comparing a
> biplane and space shuttle :-)
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

I had a Fostex PD4 for about 10 years, and used Nagra 4S's before that.
Trust me, either will sound better than a Zoom H6, particularly in terms of
distortion and noise in the mic preamps. And a modern-day Sound Devices 788
will probably surpass either of those today in most ways.

I don't dispute that the quality of the H6 is amazing for $399. But it's not
something I'd turn to if I needed to record a local performance or musicians
in a decent room, even on no budget without a lot of time. There are better
ways to do it, even inexpensively. But I can see applications where for
ultra-portability or secrecy, like a clandestine concert recording, the H6
would be perfect.

--MFW

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 06:21:37 -0700, S. King wrote
(in article >):

> I used MiniDisc recorders extensively for interviews for several years.
> I've always felt that ATRAC compression was actually better than MP3.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

The original ATRAC compression was at 392kbps, which I would say compares
favorably with 256kbps AAC. And both are arguably better than MP3's at
256kbps.

--MFW

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> "Marc Wielage" > wrote in message
> .com...
>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:04:26 -0700, Trevor wrote
>> (in article >):

>>> Yeah, thankfully things have improved tremendously since the days of
>>> minidisc and ATRAC though. Comparing that to a H6 is almost like
>>> comparing a
>>> biplane and space shuttle :-)
>>> ------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

>> I had a Fostex PD4 for about 10 years, and used Nagra 4S's before
>> that. Trust me, either will sound better than a Zoom H6,
>> particularly in terms of
>> distortion and noise in the mic preamps. And a modern-day Sound
>> Devices 788
>> will probably surpass either of those today in most ways.

> Now how do you know that?

http://www.sounddevices.com/products/788t/system/

> Gary Eickmeier

--

Peter Larsen
Langeås 20
4281 Gørlev
3582 1612

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Marc Wielage" > wrote in message
.com...
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:04:26 -0700, Trevor wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> Yeah, thankfully things have improved tremendously since the days of
>> minidisc and ATRAC though. Comparing that to a H6 is almost like
>> comparing a
>> biplane and space shuttle :-)
>>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
>
> I had a Fostex PD4 for about 10 years, and used Nagra 4S's before that.
> Trust me, either will sound better than a Zoom H6, particularly in terms
> of
> distortion and noise in the mic preamps. And a modern-day Sound Devices
> 788
> will probably surpass either of those today in most ways.

Now how do you know that?

Gary Eickmeier

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>"Marc Wielage" > wrote in message
.com...
>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:04:26 -0700, Trevor wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> Yeah, thankfully things have improved tremendously since the days of
>>> minidisc and ATRAC though. Comparing that to a H6 is almost like
>>> comparing a
>>> biplane and space shuttle :-)
>>>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
>>
>> I had a Fostex PD4 for about 10 years, and used Nagra 4S's before that.
>> Trust me, either will sound better than a Zoom H6, particularly in terms
>> of
>> distortion and noise in the mic preamps. And a modern-day Sound Devices
>> 788
>> will probably surpass either of those today in most ways.
>
>Now how do you know that?

Probably the same way that I know it: he's used them.

The Sound Devices is hard to beat for a portable; I can attest at least that
the mike preamps are quieter than the PD4 preamps and the PD4 preamps are in
a different league than the Zooms. Even so... All that said, my gig
this morning used a Nagra IV because that's what the customer wanted.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>>"Marc Wielage" > wrote in message
.com...
>>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:04:26 -0700, Trevor wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>> Yeah, thankfully things have improved tremendously since the days of
>>>> minidisc and ATRAC though. Comparing that to a H6 is almost like
>>>> comparing a
>>>> biplane and space shuttle :-)
>>>>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
>>>
>>> I had a Fostex PD4 for about 10 years, and used Nagra 4S's before that.
>>> Trust me, either will sound better than a Zoom H6, particularly in terms
>>> of
>>> distortion and noise in the mic preamps. And a modern-day Sound Devices
>>> 788
>>> will probably surpass either of those today in most ways.
>>
>>Now how do you know that?
>
> Probably the same way that I know it: he's used them.
>
> The Sound Devices is hard to beat for a portable; I can attest at least
> that
> the mike preamps are quieter than the PD4 preamps and the PD4 preamps are
> in
> a different league than the Zooms. Even so... All that said, my gig
> this morning used a Nagra IV because that's what the customer wanted.
> --scott

But he would have to have used both to know that. And done a few double
blind tests for audibility under normal circumstances. Or are yuo talking
about gain full up electron peeping worst conditions torture testing?

Gary

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
> >>"Marc Wielage" > wrote in message
> .com...
> >>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:04:26 -0700, Trevor wrote
> >>> (in article >):
> >>>
> >>>> Yeah, thankfully things have improved tremendously since the days of
> >>>> minidisc and ATRAC though. Comparing that to a H6 is almost like
> >>>> comparing a
> >>>> biplane and space shuttle :-)
> >>>>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
> >>>
> >>> I had a Fostex PD4 for about 10 years, and used Nagra 4S's before that.
> >>> Trust me, either will sound better than a Zoom H6, particularly in terms
> >>> of
> >>> distortion and noise in the mic preamps. And a modern-day Sound Devices
> >>> 788
> >>> will probably surpass either of those today in most ways.
> >>
> >>Now how do you know that?
> >
> > Probably the same way that I know it: he's used them.
> >
> > The Sound Devices is hard to beat for a portable; I can attest at least
> > that
> > the mike preamps are quieter than the PD4 preamps and the PD4 preamps are
> > in
> > a different league than the Zooms. Even so... All that said, my gig
> > this morning used a Nagra IV because that's what the customer wanted.
> > --scott
>
> But he would have to have used both to know that. And done a few double
> blind tests for audibility under normal circumstances. Or are yuo talking
> about gain full up electron peeping worst conditions torture testing?
>
> Gary

That's what you think, since you are of extremely limited experience,
particularly vis a vis the level of work that Marc and Scott have done.

Long ago when I bought my MIO many people were raving about how good the
preamps were going to be based on the specs they were reading. Those
people were quite disappointed when the product arrived and the preamps
revealed some serious shortcomings at gain settings above 22dB. I was
not disappointed, because I felt certain from the gitgo that I was not
going to get Great River preamp equivalents in a device that included
very good conversion both ways, rugged construction, and many other
worthy attributes, for the cost of two channels of GR. The MIO preamps
are excellent, at low gain settings. They suck badly if one needs much
gain.

The H6 was built to a price point. The original Great River was never
intended for mass production, and it is no longer offered. There is a
qualitative difference between kit that is built to be the best it can
be, and kit built to a price point. A few decades of professional work
in areas where sound quality is very important leads to valuable
experience. One becomes quite realistic about what is probable and what
is likely, and while one may understand and appreciate technological
progress, one also understands that bit about getting what you pay for,
and not getting what you didn't pay for.

You got what you paid for. It's the best system with which you have
experience. You have no experience with equipment of the Sound Devices,
Great River, Schoeps, etc., level.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Gary Eickmeier]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:


>> But he would have to have used both to know that. And done a few double
>> blind tests for audibility under normal circumstances. Or are yuo talking
>> about gain full up electron peeping worst conditions torture testing?
>>
>> Gary
>
> That's what you think, since you are of extremely limited experience,
> particularly vis a vis the level of work that Marc and Scott have done.

You have read what Fran Guidry has said if you are following this thread.

Gary

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
>
> >> But he would have to have used both to know that. And done a few double
> >> blind tests for audibility under normal circumstances. Or are yuo talking
> >> about gain full up electron peeping worst conditions torture testing?
> >>
> >> Gary
> >
> > That's what you think, since you are of extremely limited experience,
> > particularly vis a vis the level of work that Marc and Scott have done.
>
> You have read what Fran Guidry has said if you are following this thread.
>
> Gary

Yes, I am familair with Fran's work and his excellent guitar playing for
many years. That doesn't mean I always agree with his opinions.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Fran Guidry]

On Saturday, October 26, 2013 9:18:37 PM UTC-7, hank alrich wrote:
> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "hank alrich" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> > > Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >> But he would have to have used both to know that. And done a few double
>
> > >> blind tests for audibility under normal circumstances. Or are yuo talking
>
> > >> about gain full up electron peeping worst conditions torture testing?
>
> > >>
>
> > >> Gary
>
> > >
>
> > > That's what you think, since you are of extremely limited experience,
>
> > > particularly vis a vis the level of work that Marc and Scott have done.
>
> >
>
> > You have read what Fran Guidry has said if you are following this thread.
>
> >
>
> > Gary
>
>
>
> Yes, I am familair with Fran's work and his excellent guitar playing for
>
> many years. That doesn't mean I always agree with his opinions.
>
>
>
> --
>
> shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
>
> HankandShaidriMusic.Com
>
> YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

Thanks for the kind words, Hank.

Have you by any chance listened to the same source level matched clips comparing the H6 to an RME UFX?

Without having worked as a pro in the recording and live sound field, I nonetheless do have experience with Great River and Schoeps and Sound Devices, by the way.

I have a lot of respect for your knowledge, and that of Scott and Mike, but you folks have been referring to Zoom as if all their products are the same. But Zoom engineers work to incorporate current generation LSI into their products, and the quality delivered by these chips is constantly improving.. I didn't keep the H4n I bought because I could hear the difference between that recorder and a decent prosumer audio interface. When I compare the H6 to the RME UFX I don't hear a difference at any reasonable listening level.

Fran

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/27/2013 12:27 PM, Fran Guidry wrote:
> I have a lot of respect for your knowledge, and that of Scott and
> Mike, but you folks have been referring to Zoom as if all their
> products are the same. But Zoom engineers work to incorporate current
> generation LSI into their products, and the quality delivered by
> these chips is constantly improving. I didn't keep the H4n I bought
> because I could hear the difference between that recorder and a
> decent prosumer audio interface. When I compare the H6 to the RME UFX
> I don't hear a difference at any reasonable listening level.

My quibble in this whole discussion was not about the sound. I really
have no reason to comment on that because I've never heard what an H6
sounds like. It's always been about the ease of setup and use. I can
tell something about that from looking at the unit and the pictures. I
don't want to have to tape down my recorder when I have four mic cables,
a power cable, maybe a remote control cable, and headphone cable coming
out of the relatively small case in several different directions. It
reminded me of my first portable digital recorder, a Creative Nomad
Jukebox 3. Most of the time I used it with a mixer, but when used it
with a Core Sound outboard mic preamp with A/D converter. I made up a
board with Velcro strips to hold the recorder and preamp, and to secure
the cables so it wouldn't go anywhere.

I thought that the Zoom H2 was pretty impressive when I got it, maybe 7
years ago, but these things just keep getting better. I'm surprised that
you found a significant difference between the H4n and H6 though.
They're just a couple of years apart and both targeted toward the pro
user who doesn't have a Sound Devices budget.

While they all sound different, because they're pretty much a closed
system, it's hard to say how much of a contribution to "sounds better"
the preamps, the A/D converters, the DSP and even the mics make. I guess
the best comparison you can make is line intpu to recorded file output.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Trevor]

"S. King" > wrote in message
...
>>> I used MiniDisc recorders extensively for interviews for several years.
>>> I've always felt that ATRAC compression was actually better than MP3.
>>
>> Yes, at low bit rates. Hardly saying much though when compared to an
>> uncompressed 24bit wave file!
>>
> A masterful observation of the obvious!

Apparently not to the person who brought up MiniDisc in a discussion about
the Zoom H6 though.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Marc Wielage" > wrote in message
.com...
>> Yeah, thankfully things have improved tremendously since the days of
>> minidisc and ATRAC though. Comparing that to a H6 is almost like
>> comparing a
>> biplane and space shuttle :-)
>>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
>
> I had a Fostex PD4 for about 10 years, and used Nagra 4S's before that.
> Trust me, either will sound better than a Zoom H6,

What a load of ********, completely unsupportable by any actual
measurements.


> particularly in terms of distortion and noise in the mic preamps.

Even if that were so, the preamp noise and distortion would be irrelevant
when swamped by the Nagra tape hiss.


> I don't dispute that the quality of the H6 is amazing for $399.

Yep, consider how much a Nagra 4S was worth back then in today's dollars!

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>"Marc Wielage" > wrote in message
>
>> particularly in terms of distortion and noise in the mic preamps.
>
>Even if that were so, the preamp noise and distortion would be irrelevant
>when swamped by the Nagra tape hiss.

Depends a lot on the mike. Try a good ribbon mike into a 4S and a Zoom
and I think you'll find the tape hiss is the least of your problems.
Especially in this modern day and age when you'd probably be using something
like 468 or 900 on the Nagra.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>>>Now how do you know that?
>>
>> Probably the same way that I know it: he's used them.
>>
>> The Sound Devices is hard to beat for a portable; I can attest at least
>> that
>> the mike preamps are quieter than the PD4 preamps and the PD4 preamps are
>> in
>> a different league than the Zooms. Even so... All that said, my gig
>> this morning used a Nagra IV because that's what the customer wanted.
>
>But he would have to have used both to know that. And done a few double
>blind tests for audibility under normal circumstances. Or are yuo talking
>about gain full up electron peeping worst conditions torture testing?

No, I'm talking about people who use recorders day in and day out, rolling
hours every day. When you're actually doing this on a constant basis, it does
not take much auditioning.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Fran Guidry]

On Monday, October 28, 2013 7:06:50 AM UTC-7, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>
> >"Marc Wielage" > wrote in message
>
> >
>
> >> particularly in terms of distortion and noise in the mic preamps.
>
> >
>
> >Even if that were so, the preamp noise and distortion would be irrelevant
>
> >when swamped by the Nagra tape hiss.
>
>
>
> Depends a lot on the mike. Try a good ribbon mike into a 4S and a Zoom
>
> and I think you'll find the tape hiss is the least of your problems.
>
> Especially in this modern day and age when you'd probably be using something
>
> like 468 or 900 on the Nagra.
>
> --scott
>
> --
>
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott, my comparison to the UFX includes a Beyer M260 with a Clarence Kane (ENAK) RCA re-ribbon.

Fran

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Trevor >
> wrote:
>>"Marc Wielage" > wrote in message
>>> particularly in terms of distortion and noise in the mic preamps.
>>
>>Even if that were so, the preamp noise and distortion would be irrelevant
>>when swamped by the Nagra tape hiss.
>
> Depends a lot on the mike. Try a good ribbon mike into a 4S and a Zoom
> and I think you'll find the tape hiss is the least of your problems.

So what is the worst problem? Never used a 4S, but the pre-amp in the 3 was
not particularly stellar IMO.
I'd still FAR prefer use a decent pre-amp into the Zoom if I was using a
ribbon mic, rather than a Nagra with or without an outboard pre-amp in any
case!


> Especially in this modern day and age when you'd probably be using
> something
> like 468 or 900 on the Nagra.

Can the Nagra even bias those tapes? It's been well over 30 years since I
used one, and never a 4S.

Trevor.

[Phil W[_3_]]

Trevor:

> So what is the worst problem?

I don´t understand it anymore...

Can´t we just agree, that everyone just has to dump whatever other
recorder(s) we have and get a Zoom H6 (or even better: several units!),
because it´s so incredibly great, that there can´t be anything with a better
price/performance ratio?!

Forget about all those overcome ideas of quality or ease of use/convenience
and get that old junk out.

It could be so simple... ;-)

Thou shalt not use any other recorder than a H6 for everything, because
there must not be anything better anywhere!


Yes, this is pure sarcasm, just in case anyone has still not gotten it.
If somebody really feels the need to wank about this greatest device of all
times, that´s fine - as long as they don´t feel the need to brag about it
here.

Concludingly, I would like to refer to the ALL-mighty All-o-gistics:

http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/descendents/allogistics.html


Can we go back to normal state now, please? If so, thank you very much!


Phil

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, Trevor >
>> wrote:
>>>"Marc Wielage" > wrote in message
>>>> particularly in terms of distortion and noise in the mic preamps.
>>>
>>>Even if that were so, the preamp noise and distortion would be irrelevant
>>>when swamped by the Nagra tape hiss.
>>
>> Depends a lot on the mike. Try a good ribbon mike into a 4S and a Zoom
>> and I think you'll find the tape hiss is the least of your problems.
>
>So what is the worst problem? Never used a 4S, but the pre-amp in the 3 was
>not particularly stellar IMO.

It'll be mike preamp noise. The Zoom might actually be a better match for
the ribbon than the low-Z transformer input on the 4S, but the 4S will be
amazingly quieter.

The preamp in the 3 was tonally very nice (if you didn't overload the
transformer) but it was pretty noisy owing to the use of leaky germanium
transistors throughout. I'll give them credit for careful bias on the front
end and not relying on leakage for biasing the way Uher did.

The preamp in the 4S is phenomenally better than that of the 3. There is
really a night and day difference between the 3 and 4 machines in terms of
noise and overall sound quality. (Also the 4 has phantom and female XLRs).

>I'd still FAR prefer use a decent pre-amp into the Zoom if I was using a
>ribbon mic, rather than a Nagra with or without an outboard pre-amp in any
>case!

I'd tend to agree although I think the Nagra 4 preamps are pretty good.
Certainly better than the internal mike preamps on any of the studio
recorders of the day, which seemed to be afterthoughts at best.

>> Especially in this modern day and age when you'd probably be using
>> something
>> like 468 or 900 on the Nagra.
>
>Can the Nagra even bias those tapes? It's been well over 30 years since I
>used one, and never a 4S.

The Nagra 4 can readily bias 900 and 911. I do not think it will bias
the ATR Magnetics tape although I have not tried it.

The Nagra 3 was designed for red oxide tape and it will bias HOLN tapes
when the bias transformer is put on the highest tap. There is a modification
from Dan Dugan that would increase the bias oscillator output by a bit so
that it could bias up 468 nicely on the highest tap, but the record amps
get colored at elevated levels so you find yourself using 468 at 185 nW/m.

The Nagra 4 machine is practical to use today... the Nagra 3 not so much so.

It's sort of like the Ford Model A and the Ford Model T. The Model A is old,
but it's a real car and you can take it on the road comfortably and I could
imagine doing city commutes in one today without any problem. The Model T is
like a golf cart; it was revolutionary when it was new but you wouldn't want
to actually drive one.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Phil W" > wrote in message
...

> Yes, this is pure sarcasm, just in case anyone has still not gotten it.
> If somebody really feels the need to wank about this greatest device of
> all times, that´s fine - as long as they don´t feel the need to brag about
> it here.
>
> Concludingly, I would like to refer to the ALL-mighty All-o-gistics:
>
> http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/descendents/allogistics.html
>
>
> Can we go back to normal state now, please? If so, thank you very much!

Phil -

Where did you get the "greatest device of all times" statement?

Gary Eickmeier