[Gary Eickmeier]

Check this out:

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

The most amazing recorder I have yet seen. I could get rid of my mixer,
multichannel recorder (Zoom R16) and my battery powered Phantom power
supply. It is a six channel recorder and full studio in a box!

Gary Eickmeier

[William Sommerwerck]

Best-sounding? Unlikely.

And where is the SoundField module?

[Gary Eickmeier]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Best-sounding? Unlikely.

And where is the SoundField module?

Six simultaneous channel input! Use whatever mikes you want! Portable!
Flexible!

Clever.... these guys seem to have thought of everything as far as our
needs. Did you note the simultaneous -12 dB track just in case you went
overboard on the gain? Like, brilliant.

Gary Eickmeier

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

And where is the SoundField module?

Six simultaneous channel input! Use whatever mikes
you want! Portable! Flexible!

Do you know how much trouble it is to carry a minimum of three mics, plus the
stands, for a SoundField setup?

[Gary Eickmeier]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

And where is the SoundField module?

Six simultaneous channel input! Use whatever mikes
you want! Portable! Flexible!

Do you know how much trouble it is to carry a minimum of three mics,
plus the stands, for a SoundField setup?

Three mikes? I thought it was just one Calrec Soundfield microphone.

Gary Eickmeier

[William Sommerwerck]

And where is the SoundField module?

And to drive home my point... A SoundField configuration lets you synthesize a
pair of mics with /any/ pattern, pointing in /any/ direction, with /any/
angular separation. It's the Swiss Army Knife of miking.

Marc is probably right about the noisy electronics, etc.

[Gary Eickmeier]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
And where is the SoundField module?

And to drive home my point... A SoundField configuration lets you
synthesize a pair of mics with /any/ pattern, pointing in /any/
direction, with /any/ angular separation. It's the Swiss Army Knife
of miking.
Marc is probably right about the noisy electronics, etc.

Well, the remark does bother me, but I have a Tascam DR-07, a Zoom R16, a
Zoom H2n, and even a little digital voice recorder that have no problem in
this area. I am confident that they know how to build a quality product and
from the care taken in the design of its functions I don't see why they
wouldn't. Will let you know in about a week!

Gary Eickmeier

[Mike Rivers]

On 9/28/2013 10:49 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Did you note the simultaneous -12 dB track just in case you went
overboard on the gain? Like, brilliant.

That's a fairly common feature of handheld recorders these days.
Brilliant is how the Sony PCM-D50 handles "overs." It's always recording
a backup stereo track 10 dB or so below the primary recording.. When it
detects an overload, it automatically replaces the overloaded portion
with the backup track and normalizes it so that it goes to full scale,
but not clipped. It's the perfect limiter. I wish they could put it in a
box with analog inputs and outputs.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[John Williamson]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/28/2013 10:49 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Did you note the simultaneous -12 dB track just in case you went
overboard on the gain? Like, brilliant.

That's a fairly common feature of handheld recorders these days.
Brilliant is how the Sony PCM-D50 handles "overs." It's always recording
a backup stereo track 10 dB or so below the primary recording.. When it
detects an overload, it automatically replaces the overloaded portion
with the backup track and normalizes it so that it goes to full scale,
but not clipped. It's the perfect limiter. I wish they could put it in a
box with analog inputs and outputs.


Just out of interest, does it do the trick by just reducing the digital
output from the ADC or does it have an analogue signal path with levels
10dB below the one in use? From your phrasing, I'd guess the latter, but
my cynic's hat says otherwise.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Tobiah]

On 10/01/2013 11:44 AM, John Williamson wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/28/2013 10:49 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Did you note the simultaneous -12 dB track just in case you went
overboard on the gain? Like, brilliant.

Just out of interest, does it do the trick by just reducing the digital output from the ADC or does it have an analogue signal path
with levels 10dB below the one in use? From your phrasing, I'd guess the latter, but my cynic's hat says otherwise.



If it only digitally cut the ADC output, then it would reproduce the clipping.
It seems that there must be two ADC's.

Tobiah

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/1/2013 2:44 PM, John Williamson wrote:

Brilliant is how the Sony PCM-D50 handles "overs." It's always
recording a backup stereo track 10 dB or so below the primary
recording.. When it detects an overload, it automatically replaces the
overloaded portion with the backup track and normalizes it so that it
goes to full scale, but not clipped.

Just out of interest, does it do the trick by just reducing the digital
output from the ADC or does it have an analogue signal path with levels
10dB below the one in use?

I don't know, but I screamed really close to the mics with the input
gain up full and what came out wasn't clipped. I suspect that it's
possible to overload the front end feeding the "emergency" track at some
point - it's not absolutely foolproof, but the record level control
appears to work right at the input stage, or else it has a phenomenal
amount of headroom. I could put +28 dBu or so into the external line
inputs, turn the input level control so that the meters were below full
scale, and not have clipping.


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

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Best-sounding? Unlikely.

And where is the SoundField module?

Six simultaneous channel input! Use whatever mikes you want! Portable!
Flexible!

Mike preamps jammed into a tiny box with noisy digital electronics. Tiny
controls with multiple menus to do even the simplest of operations.

Clever.... these guys seem to have thought of everything as far as our
needs. Did you note the simultaneous -12 dB track just in case you went
overboard on the gain? Like, brilliant.

I think you need to try using some professional equipment and get some idea
of just what is out there and what is possible. Not that you can't make
good recordings with cheap gear, but it's a lot more work.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Gary Eickmeier]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Best-sounding? Unlikely.

And where is the SoundField module?

Six simultaneous channel input! Use whatever mikes you want!
Portable! Flexible!

Mike preamps jammed into a tiny box with noisy digital electronics.
Tiny controls with multiple menus to do even the simplest of
operations.

Clever.... these guys seem to have thought of everything as far as
our needs. Did you note the simultaneous -12 dB track just in case
you went overboard on the gain? Like, brilliant.

I think you need to try using some professional equipment and get
some idea of just what is out there and what is possible. Not that
you can't make good recordings with cheap gear, but it's a lot more
work. --scott

Well, Shure, but I am not you and doing it for a living - yet - and from my
photography experience you can come pretty close to the best pro standards
with some amateur equipment. I need to stay portable, battery powered, and
flexible and out of the way at these concerts Will let you know in about a
week how it sounds!

Gary

[George Graves]

On Sunday, September 29, 2013 5:25:39 AM UTC-7, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Best-sounding? Unlikely.



And where is the SoundField module?



Six simultaneous channel input! Use whatever mikes you want! Portable!

Flexible!



Mike preamps jammed into a tiny box with noisy digital electronics. Tiny

controls with multiple menus to do even the simplest of operations.



Clever.... these guys seem to have thought of everything as far as our

needs. Did you note the simultaneous -12 dB track just in case you went

overboard on the gain? Like, brilliant.



I think you need to try using some professional equipment and get some idea

of just what is out there and what is possible. Not that you can't make

good recordings with cheap gear, but it's a lot more work.

--scott

--

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

These devices can make amazing quality recordings, despite all of the drawbacks that you, correctly, point out. I recently recorded a classical string trio using a zoom H2 and it's built-in microphones. I recorded it at 24-bit/96KHz stereo and then used Audacity to boost the bass a bit (luckily I found a frequency response graph of the H2's microphones on-line and was able to flatten the bass-out nicely (the mikes' low-end response is not terrible to begin with). The results are amazing. The recording COULD be released commercially and nobody would complain about the recordings audio quality at all. In fact several people to whom I have sent the file say that not only is it "audiophile quality" sound wise, but that the imaging is absolutely holographic!

Usually I use an Avantone CK-40 with a mixer and a Korg MR1 for most of my location work. I bought the Zoom H2 about 6 years ago as a backup or safety recorder. I just paralleled it with my mixer, hit "record" and let it go. Until August of this year, I had never used it's internal mikes before. I took it to a concert on a whim because, being self contained, I could just stick it in my pocket.

[Gary Eickmeier]

George Graves wrote:


These devices can make amazing quality recordings, despite all of the
drawbacks that you, correctly, point out. I recently recorded a
classical string trio using a zoom H2 and it's built-in microphones.
I recorded it at 24-bit/96KHz stereo and then used Audacity to boost
the bass a bit (luckily I found a frequency response graph of the
H2's microphones on-line and was able to flatten the bass-out nicely
(the mikes' low-end response is not terrible to begin with). The
results are amazing. The recording COULD be released commercially and
nobody would complain about the recordings audio quality at all. In
fact several people to whom I have sent the file say that not only is
it "audiophile quality" sound wise, but that the imaging is
absolutely holographic!

Usually I use an Avantone CK-40 with a mixer and a Korg MR1 for most
of my location work. I bought the Zoom H2 about 6 years ago as a
backup or safety recorder. I just paralleled it with my mixer, hit
"record" and let it go. Until August of this year, I had never used
it's internal mikes before. I took it to a concert on a whim because,
being self contained, I could just stick it in my pocket.

Yes, as you know I have had a similar experience with my Zoom H2n. But
George - where did you find response graphs of these little recorders? I
have been searching for such a thing. I wrote to the Zoom US Office to ask
what the response of the H6 might be. In the owners manual that you can
download it seems to have a 120 dB signal to noise ratio.

Gary Eickmeier

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Not that you can't make
good recordings with cheap gear, but it's a lot more work.

And you won't do it until you know what you're doing. This is the real
issue here, and one only Gary can address. This would require a
significant change of mindset.

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

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Clever.... these guys seem to have thought of everything as far as our
needs. Did you note the simultaneous -12 dB track just in case you went
overboard on the gain? Like, brilliant.

You're new at this, arent you? "Our needs"? Okay, then, carry on€¦

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

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 15:58:43 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ):

The most amazing recorder I have yet seen. I could get rid of my mixer,
multichannel recorder (Zoom R16) and my battery powered Phantom power
supply. It is a six channel recorder and full studio in a box!
------------------------------snip------------------------------

Get this instead:

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

It costs about twenty times more ($8000) than the Zoom H6, but often in pro
sound, you get what you pay for. The Sound Devices is going to have far more
flexibility, reliability, better sound quality, and much, much quieter mic
preamps. Note that you'll still need microphones -- and you can't get six
great mics for $400, for the most part.

If you can't afford to buy one, RENT one.

--MFW

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Marc Wielage wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 15:58:43 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ):

The most amazing recorder I have yet seen. I could get rid of my mixer,
multichannel recorder (Zoom R16) and my battery powered Phantom power
supply. It is a six channel recorder and full studio in a box!
------------------------------snip------------------------------

Get this instead:

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

It costs about twenty times more ($8000) than the Zoom H6, but often in pro
sound, you get what you pay for. The Sound Devices is going to have far more
flexibility, reliability, better sound quality, and much, much quieter mic
preamps. Note that you'll still need microphones -- and you can't get six
great mics for $400, for the most part.

If you can't afford to buy one, RENT one.

--MFW


Just throwing this out there - Focusrite's USB2.0 line works with a
netbook for up to 18 channels ( two would have to be S/PDIF, eight
lightpipe ). That runs about (omitting the S/PDIF for now ):

$500 for the Focusrite
plus $500 for an Octopre ( or ADA8000 for less )
plus $250 for the netbook,
plus $60 for a Reaper license.
for around $1300

The preamps aren't all that noisy, and Reaper would probably*
enable a -20dB parallel track with a little finagling.

*meaning I know how I'd try to do it, but haven't - set up two
tracks from the same input(s) and throw a gain control plugin
on one.

--
Les Cargill

[gareth magennis]

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

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 15:58:43 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ):

The most amazing recorder I have yet seen. I could get rid of my mixer,
multichannel recorder (Zoom R16) and my battery powered Phantom power
supply. It is a six channel recorder and full studio in a box!
------------------------------snip------------------------------

Get this instead:

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

It costs about twenty times more ($8000) than the Zoom H6, but often in pro
sound, you get what you pay for. The Sound Devices is going to have far
more
flexibility, reliability, better sound quality, and much, much quieter mic
preamps. Note that you'll still need microphones -- and you can't get six
great mics for $400, for the most part.

If you can't afford to buy one, RENT one.

--MFW




Blimey, an 8 year old child could tell you that an $8000 system is going to
perform better than a $400 dollar one.


Gareth.

[Gary Eickmeier]

Gareth Magennis wrote:

Blimey, an 8 year old child could tell you that an $8000 system is
going to perform better than a $400 dollar one.

In the world of audio, the 8 year old could be wrong.

Gary

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Gareth Magennis wrote:

Blimey, an 8 year old child could tell you that an $8000 system is
going to perform better than a $400 dollar one.

In the world of audio, the 8 year old could be wrong.

Gary

When talking awedeeoh phoolery, yes. When talking about Sound Devices
versus Zoom portables, no. Period.

Will we reach a point where you start talking about what you know? Or
are we going to float onward in a fog of delusional ignorance?

Reading about any work is not the same as doing the work.

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

[William Sommerwerck]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

In the world of audio, the 8 year old could be wrong.

In this case, I don't think so. Mr Rockwell is probably right about the Zoom's
failings not being easily audible -- but I would never record anything truly
important with -- what appears to be -- such a poorly designed and executed
product.

Mr Alrich puts it rather rudely -- but you ought to take what he says
seriously.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Gareth Magennis wrote:

Blimey, an 8 year old child could tell you that an $8000 system is
going to perform better than a $400 dollar one.

In the world of audio, the 8 year old could be wrong.

Gary



Not when you understand various anthropic principles.


--
Les Cargill

[Trevor]

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message
...


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

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 15:58:43 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ):

The most amazing recorder I have yet seen. I could get rid of my mixer,
multichannel recorder (Zoom R16) and my battery powered Phantom power
supply. It is a six channel recorder and full studio in a box!
------------------------------snip------------------------------

Get this instead:

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

It costs about twenty times more ($8000) than the Zoom H6, but often in
pro
sound, you get what you pay for. The Sound Devices is going to have far
more
flexibility, reliability, better sound quality, and much, much quieter mic
preamps. Note that you'll still need microphones -- and you can't get six
great mics for $400, for the most part.

If you can't afford to buy one, RENT one.


Blimey, an 8 year old child could tell you that an $8000 system is going
to perform better than a $400 dollar one.


And would sometimes be wrong.
(Probably not in that case however :-)
Remember the old saying is simply wrong. You usually have to pay for what
you get, but don't always get what you pay for!

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

I almost don't know where to begin. You are correct in that more expensive equipment yields better results, but the real question is: is that last bit of improvement in quality worth the difference in price? I say no, provided that you want a device that will do what the Zoom h6 does.

This device functions exactly as it is purported to. The quality of an actual recording from this device is remarkably high, and I don't believe a quantifiably 1% improvement is worth the much greater expense.

We now live in a world where remotes for national news casts are recorded on sub-$1k devices, and almost all audio is compressed before final distribution. The artifacts from 192kbps mp3 or aac are much more noticeable than the noise from the preamps in this device.

If you have the money to spend on equipment like you mentioned, then you can certainly afford the $400 this thing costs; so, give it a try.

[Mike Rivers]

On 9/28/2013 6:58 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

I could get rid of my mixer,
multichannel recorder (Zoom R16) and my battery powered Phantom power
supply. It is a six channel recorder and full studio in a box!

Don't sell your mixer, multichannel recorder, and phantom power supply
before you have time to work with the H6a for a few months. I guarantee
you'll miss the convenience of having all the controls right in front of
you.

I'm sure there are people for whom this is an ideal recorder.What do you
do that makes you believe it will replace most of what you're using now?
Are you doing surround recording on location? Or planning to work on
your next magnum opus at the beach?

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Gary Eickmeier]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/28/2013 6:58 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

I could get rid of my mixer,
multichannel recorder (Zoom R16) and my battery powered Phantom power
supply. It is a six channel recorder and full studio in a box!

Don't sell your mixer, multichannel recorder, and phantom power supply
before you have time to work with the H6a for a few months. I
guarantee you'll miss the convenience of having all the controls
right in front of you.

I'm sure there are people for whom this is an ideal recorder.What do
you do that makes you believe it will replace most of what you're
using now? Are you doing surround recording on location? Or planning
to work on your next magnum opus at the beach?

Right, well, OK, I will keep the other equipment until I am sure about the
H6, but I see no reason to think it will be any less quality than my Tascam
or other Zoom recorders.

I just record the local wind band for free, trying to perfect my technique
and learn about recording. Doing recording really is a fast track to
understanding a lot about audio in general, and you get to compare your
results to the live sound etc.

Gary

[Mike Rivers]

On 9/29/2013 1:19 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Right, well, OK, I will keep the other equipment until I am sure about the
H6, but I see no reason to think it will be any less quality than my Tascam
or other Zoom recorders.

It's not about quality - they're all about the same in this class. It's
about ease of use and whether you have to read the manual for anything
beyond pressing the record button.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Gary Eickmeier]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/29/2013 1:19 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Right, well, OK, I will keep the other equipment until I am sure
about the H6, but I see no reason to think it will be any less
quality than my Tascam or other Zoom recorders.

It's not about quality - they're all about the same in this class.
It's about ease of use and whether you have to read the manual for
anything beyond pressing the record button.

Not sure what you mean by that. The Zoom has a lot of functions, but seems
to be easy enough to use, and I am familiar with most all of them from my
other recorders. I have a little shirt pocket voice recorder that has not
much more than a red record button, but the H6 is a truly capable machine
that can do a lot for me.

Gary Eickmeier

[William Sommerwerck]

I just looked at the specs for the H6.

I might have missed something, but /nowhere/ do I see a S/N spec for a
specified SPL.

[Gary Eickmeier]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I just looked at the specs for the H6.

I might have missed something, but /nowhere/ do I see a S/N spec for a
specified SPL.

No, nor do they publish any graphs or specs for their microphone capsules.
But I have some experience with their products now, and I see no reason to
fear. I have great hope that this will be the best one yet.

Gary

[George Graves]

On Sunday, September 29, 2013 10:21:18 AM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:

I just looked at the specs for the H6.



I might have missed something, but /nowhere/ do I see a S/N spec for a

specified SPL.



No, nor do they publish any graphs or specs for their microphone capsules.

But I have some experience with their products now, and I see no reason to

fear. I have great hope that this will be the best one yet.



Gary

Gary;

Here is a VERY comprehensive review of the Zoom H4N complete with measurements. I know for a fact that the microphone capsules used in the H4n, the H2 and the H6 are the same, and I suspect that the rest of the audio performance is similar:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/audio/zoom/h4n.htm#meas

This is the review I used to get the microphone frequency response that I used to gauge the bass boost I added via Audacity on my recent string trio recording with my H2. It seems to be quite accurate, but, of course, this is highly subjective on my part.

[Gary Eickmeier]

George Graves wrote:

Gary;

Here is a VERY comprehensive review of the Zoom H4N complete with
measurements. I know for a fact that the microphone capsules used in
the H4n, the H2 and the H6 are the same, and I suspect that the rest
of the audio performance is similar:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/audio/zoom/h4n.htm#meas

This is the review I used to get the microphone frequency response
that I used to gauge the bass boost I added via Audacity on my recent
string trio recording with my H2. It seems to be quite accurate, but,
of course, this is highly subjective on my part.

Wow - this is terrific George - I never saw this before. He doesn't have a
lot of good to say for the device except that all of these measurements that
he badmouths would not be very audible. As for the response graphs of the
microphones, I cannot see where you need any of the bass boost you are
talking about. These mike graphs look terrific! Especially at the bass end!
Look almost as good as my Audio Technicas!

Thanks, and I hope he reviews the H6 some time.

Gary

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

These mike graphs look terrific! Especially at the bass end!
Look almost as good as my Audio Technicas!

Oh, yes, it's all about the way sound looks.

Jesus deliver us.

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Wow - this is terrific George - I never saw this before. He doesn't have a
lot of good to say for the device except that all of these measurements that
he badmouths would not be very audible. As for the response graphs of the
microphones, I cannot see where you need any of the bass boost you are
talking about. These mike graphs look terrific! Especially at the bass end!
Look almost as good as my Audio Technicas!

Hint: do not believe the bass end of anybody's response plots. Most folks
using small chambers can't make accurate measurements below 100 Hz or so.
There are only a couple folks out there that can make accurate measurements
below 20 Hz. There is invariably a lot of fudging and extrapolation.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
I just looked at the specs for the H6.

I might have missed something, but /nowhere/ do I see a S/N spec for a
specified SPL.

No, nor do they publish any graphs or specs for their microphone capsules.
But I have some experience with their products now, and I see no reason to
fear. I have great hope that this will be the best one yet.

I am sure the marketing guys are cheering as you walk into the store
with your wallet out.
--scott

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

[George Graves]

On Sunday, September 29, 2013 7:21:13 AM UTC-7, William Sommerwerck wrote:
I just looked at the specs for the H6.



I might have missed something, but /nowhere/ do I see a S/N spec for a

specified SPL.

Hi Bill! Haven't communicated with you since our days at Stereophile together! Glad to see you're still active in audio.

Anyway, If the H6 is anything like the H2, the line-in S/N is excellent and the microphone input S/N is acceptable. Noise from the built-in mikes is better than acceptable and makes good recordings, a bit shy on bass (easily fixed in Audacity), but otherwise quiet enough to be near the threshold of audibility. Like you, I have been unable to find any REAL measured specs on the Zoom products S/N.

[Gary Eickmeier]

George Graves wrote:
On Sunday, September 29, 2013 7:21:13 AM UTC-7, William Sommerwerck
wrote:
I just looked at the specs for the H6.



I might have missed something, but /nowhere/ do I see a S/N spec for
a

specified SPL.

Hi Bill! Haven't communicated with you since our days at Stereophile
together! Glad to see you're still active in audio.

Anyway, If the H6 is anything like the H2, the line-in S/N is
excellent and the microphone input S/N is acceptable. Noise from the
built-in mikes is better than acceptable and makes good recordings, a
bit shy on bass (easily fixed in Audacity), but otherwise quiet
enough to be near the threshold of audibility. Like you, I have been
unable to find any REAL measured specs on the Zoom products S/N.

Well, this guy's measurements have about 88 dB, right? I think that is what
I saw.

I didn't realize you two were both Stereophile writers. I have known John
Atkinson since I was stationed in England in the 80s and he was at Hi Fi
News. Met Gordon Holt once, at a side tour to an audio dealer in L.A. to
audition some Wilson WAMMs. We both thought they were pretty harsh and
forward sounding. This dealer liked to darken the room to listen, which was
very annoying to me. I like to SEE my imaging, where the individual
instrumental images are in relation to the speaker boxes.

Gary Eickmeier

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

I like to SEE my imaging, where the individual
instrumental images are in relation to the speaker boxes.

Great. Keep it up until you realize your ears hear more when your eyes
are closed, and your mouth is open but silent.

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