 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Matt Locker
Date: 2007-10-18 11:45
Has anyone used the new Zoom H2 yet? How does it compare performance wise to the Zoom H4?
It looks quite interesting & seems to have some extra features the H4 did not have. It's missing the balanced XLR mic inputs, only having a 1/8" mic input. How much of a deficiency is that? Seems minor if it's got good microphones built in.
Thanks,
Matt
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2007-10-18 13:29
I just bought one about a month ago and I love it. It's very easy to use and sounds great. I would have no problem recording myself with it and sending the recording for an audition.
Honestly, I would not use it with a separate microphone, it's not made for it. And I am not sure you would gain much. Use the built in mics they are just fine. I f you want top notch high fidelity quality then you have to spend many more $$$ and to my ear the difference in quality does not justify the price.
I'll post reordings of myself when I get a chance.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: redwine
Date: 2007-10-18 14:53
Hello,
I opted for the Edirol, basically the same thing made by a different company. Based on my research, it was more user friendly and my thought was that in some cases, I may be on a live gig and just ask someone in the audience to record for me. So, as little explanation about how it works, the better. Mine did cost about $100 more than the Zoom. I've had great results so far using the in-system mics.
That being said, I just finished a huge recording project playing (and writing 1) new music for 1920s era silent films. On every recording except for two, we used someone else's Zoom, with exterior mics. The recordings came out great and will be commercially released (with contracts already with Turner Classic Movie Channel), if that gives you any indication about how good they sound.
My friend who owns the Zoom owns a more recent version than the one I researched and said that the user friendliness has been corrected, so the Zoom would probably be a great bet--go for it!
Ben Redwine, DMA
owner, RJ Music Group
Assistant Professor, The Catholic University of America
Selmer Paris artist
www.rjmusicgroup.com
www.redwinejazz.com
www.reedwizard.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Matt Locker
Date: 2007-10-18 16:50
Sylvain & Ben:
Thank you for the information. That's good to hear. I think I will take the plunge.
Matt
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2007-10-18 18:04
Check wingfieldaudio.com for sound samples and brief but good reviews on several of these small recorders. Disclaimer, the owner is my friend.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2007-10-18 20:59
I recently purchased the Zoom H2 but haven't used it yet.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2007-10-18 21:38
I think it was a Zoom H2 (it was a Zoom I'm just not 100% sure of the model) that a friend of mine used to record us a few days ago. I listened to the recording (through crappy headphones) and it sounded pretty good (especially considering the terrible room we had).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: C2thew
Date: 2007-10-18 23:46
Thanks for the link! definitely helps distinguish the quality of sound between the H2 and the H4. the h4 has a richer mid range versus the h2 which seems overpowered in the lower register in comparison to the upper. (then again it was a cello)
Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. they are but improved means to an unimproved end, an end which was already but too easy to arrive as railroads lead to Boston to New York
-Walden; Henry Thoreau
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
