"H4N Setup for DSLR audio" tutorial?
- Thread starter Spartacus
- Start date
Your best source is the owner's manual. Just like the settings on a camera are dependant on the situation particular to the shot, so are the setting and configuration of the zoom (or any other sound recording gear).
The basics are, get the mic as close to the talent as possible, select the right microphone for the environment, and keep your levels from peaking while at the same time capturing adequate level. Use wind protection when needed, record at 24bit/48khz minimum, slate each shot, and keep the boom out of frame.
The basics are, get the mic as close to the talent as possible, select the right microphone for the environment, and keep your levels from peaking while at the same time capturing adequate level. Use wind protection when needed, record at 24bit/48khz minimum, slate each shot, and keep the boom out of frame.
photonashville
Well-known member
Not knowing what you know already w.r.t to audio, here's some places to get more info.
My experience (for what it's worth): http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=2083276&postcount=3 from this thread: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=220774
Ken Stone's site: http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/h4n_audio_recorder_graham.html
NoFilmSchool site: http://nofilmschool.com/2010/08/how-to-shoot-with-dual-system-sound-on-a-canon-dslr/
Audio section of cinema5d.com: http://www.cinema5d.com/viewforum.php?f=32
Jon Fairhurst is someone to follow on that audio section. He's quite knowledgeable on the DSLR audio needs.
While the settings on the H4n are important, your technique is equally if not more important. Quality mics, not just the onboard Zoom mics, are necessary. Having a good wired lav and a good shotgun for boom use are vital, I think.
Lav reviews: http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/lavs_brockett.html
Shotgun reviews: http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/right_mic_brockett.html
You can read 'til you're blue in the face, getting gear and experimenting and learning is paramount. You will make mistakes, a lot of them, learn from them. You may need to try some different mics, maybe rent if possible, or buy and sell if needed to find what works best for you.
And FYI, the Zoom and Rode NTG-2 is a bad combo, they don't play well together with the levels simply too low with the Zoom maxed out. An NTG-3, AT875R, Octava MK-012 set, all good choices and reasonable in cost to a varying degree. Go wired lav long before going wireless.
My experience (for what it's worth): http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=2083276&postcount=3 from this thread: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=220774
Ken Stone's site: http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/h4n_audio_recorder_graham.html
NoFilmSchool site: http://nofilmschool.com/2010/08/how-to-shoot-with-dual-system-sound-on-a-canon-dslr/
Audio section of cinema5d.com: http://www.cinema5d.com/viewforum.php?f=32
Jon Fairhurst is someone to follow on that audio section. He's quite knowledgeable on the DSLR audio needs.
While the settings on the H4n are important, your technique is equally if not more important. Quality mics, not just the onboard Zoom mics, are necessary. Having a good wired lav and a good shotgun for boom use are vital, I think.
Lav reviews: http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/lavs_brockett.html
Shotgun reviews: http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/right_mic_brockett.html
You can read 'til you're blue in the face, getting gear and experimenting and learning is paramount. You will make mistakes, a lot of them, learn from them. You may need to try some different mics, maybe rent if possible, or buy and sell if needed to find what works best for you.
And FYI, the Zoom and Rode NTG-2 is a bad combo, they don't play well together with the levels simply too low with the Zoom maxed out. An NTG-3, AT875R, Octava MK-012 set, all good choices and reasonable in cost to a varying degree. Go wired lav long before going wireless.
Last edited:
There is a good article in this magazine which is put out by Coffey sound in LA.
http://www.coffeysound.com/The-Coffey-Audio-Files.html
http://www.coffeysound.com/The-Coffey-Audio-Files.html
Spartacus
Veteran
Thanks for the advice guys!
I´m really only interested in the Zooms (additional) settings. I´m pretty solid when it comes to on location audio recording, booming, choice of mics, choosing the right location etc. and using a sqn or sounddevices mixer is standard procedure - but the Zoom just makes me uncomfortable, maybe I just don´t like the menu and the tiny buttons...
So a video tutorial running through the important or often used settings when using it with a dslr would be nice.
For example: Is it possible to listen to the tracks separately, like a solo prefade?
Or can I record the same source to different tracks at different levels, to have a quiet backup track for sudden loud moments?
I´m really only interested in the Zooms (additional) settings. I´m pretty solid when it comes to on location audio recording, booming, choice of mics, choosing the right location etc. and using a sqn or sounddevices mixer is standard procedure - but the Zoom just makes me uncomfortable, maybe I just don´t like the menu and the tiny buttons...
So a video tutorial running through the important or often used settings when using it with a dslr would be nice.
For example: Is it possible to listen to the tracks separately, like a solo prefade?
Or can I record the same source to different tracks at different levels, to have a quiet backup track for sudden loud moments?
There is no PFL or solo function on the zoom. I use a Tascam DR-100, put the boom in the left channel, the lav in the right, and thru my in-ears hear it that way, boom in left ear, lav in right. I've gotten used to this and this is about as fancy as you'll get without a separate mixer with solo function.
In the tascam, I can set it for mono, and having something plugged into the left or the right xlr will send it to both channels, and I can set levels separately, high gain for the detail, low gain to prevent clipping. I don't think the zoom will let you set levels separately for left and right.
In the tascam, I can set it for mono, and having something plugged into the left or the right xlr will send it to both channels, and I can set levels separately, high gain for the detail, low gain to prevent clipping. I don't think the zoom will let you set levels separately for left and right.
photonashville
Well-known member
Only with the Zoom in stamina mode can you separate the 2 xlr tracks for independent levels, but that's at 16/44.1, where as in 4channel mode you get up to 24bit/48kHz.
I do the same, put a lav on my left channel and boom on my right, monitor with Sony headphones, but the lav is through the mic in on the back mini plug, boom is through XLR. It works fine. But here's where it gets annoying, in 4ch mode, playback lets you listen to your recording but the built-in/mics 2ch part is going live feed at the same time. You can turn the levels down on the internal/mic in side for playback. It's goofy. Just no way in 24bit/48kHz to have separate levels for the 2 XLRs, because it requires 4ch mode.
Having another mixer feeding the Zoom would allow the best bit/kHz, XLRs and independent channel levels, along with the built-in mics dropped to zero.
I do the same, put a lav on my left channel and boom on my right, monitor with Sony headphones, but the lav is through the mic in on the back mini plug, boom is through XLR. It works fine. But here's where it gets annoying, in 4ch mode, playback lets you listen to your recording but the built-in/mics 2ch part is going live feed at the same time. You can turn the levels down on the internal/mic in side for playback. It's goofy. Just no way in 24bit/48kHz to have separate levels for the 2 XLRs, because it requires 4ch mode.
Having another mixer feeding the Zoom would allow the best bit/kHz, XLRs and independent channel levels, along with the built-in mics dropped to zero.
Man, I am so glad I opted for the tascam DR-100. All the things you listed below are not an issue with the tascam. I have separate level controls (on a wheel) for each channel which recording at up to 24/96, I can turn both internal/external mics on or off (the live feed issue you mention) by using the monitor function.
The one thing I wish the tascam had was balanced outs for a camera feed. It does have separate headphone out and line out. I take the line out run it thru a 1ft lead to a 2 channel active direct box (9v powered), and then send that thru as long a pair of xlr cables as needed to the camera. I calibrate the levels on the camera to my levels on the tascam, and I have level control at the tascam for both channels feeding line level to the camera. It's not as neat as a separate mixer, but I get very clean signals, and level control from my bag. Oh, and did I say how much I dig have the tascam wired remote attached to my boom pole and when the director says "sound", I push record on my pole, look for the red light (on the remote), and yell "rolling" without having to reach my bag. That is, until action starts and levels start going places they never went to during the rehearsal
The one thing I wish the tascam had was balanced outs for a camera feed. It does have separate headphone out and line out. I take the line out run it thru a 1ft lead to a 2 channel active direct box (9v powered), and then send that thru as long a pair of xlr cables as needed to the camera. I calibrate the levels on the camera to my levels on the tascam, and I have level control at the tascam for both channels feeding line level to the camera. It's not as neat as a separate mixer, but I get very clean signals, and level control from my bag. Oh, and did I say how much I dig have the tascam wired remote attached to my boom pole and when the director says "sound", I push record on my pole, look for the red light (on the remote), and yell "rolling" without having to reach my bag. That is, until action starts and levels start going places they never went to during the rehearsal
Petros Kolyvas
Well-known member
About recorder resolution:
Just as most "1080p" cameras can't actually resolve 1080p, the same applies to audio recorder resolution. Manufacturers and consumers constantly obsess about 24-bit audio. But there's a huge caveat that preys upon those who don't know enough about digital audio and the "more is better" syndrome.
Here we go. Down the rabbit hole:
The Tascam DR-100's user manual states the Signal-to-Noise ratio (which admittedly isn't everything) is "90dB or more" for "line-in to line-out" performance, while the marketing blurbs on the website say "over 100dB." Let's even give them the benefit of the doubt and say the DR-100 is capable of converting an analog signal to an uncompressed digital audio format with 100dB of useable dynamic range. And by useable I mean any audio that isn't just noise.
The Zoom H4n doesn't have published specs. Let's say for argument's sake the same format of files produced by the H4n results in 96dB of dynamic range.
What this would mean, in real-world scenarios, is that both recorders can barely resolve more than 16-bits of dynamic range (aka 96dB.)
Each bit of resolution represents 6dB of dynamic range. 16-bit audio has a maximum of 96db of dynamic range and 24-bit audio is technically capable of 144dB of dynamic range though no PCM (let's not get into DSD just yet) recorder can lay that down as of yet (some do come close - not anywhere near this price range.)
The Tascam DR-100's 100dB claimed range equates to 17bits of useable digital resolution (I'm rounding up since bits are on or off and so we need that extra 1 bit to resolve the additional 4dB of "stated" resolution).
The Zoom's 96db of ESTIMATED dynamic range would essentially make the converters 16-bits only with the recorder unable to resolve any of the extra dynamic range that could be captured by 24-bit converters. We can go into why another time, but tightly packaged, cheap electronics have something to do with it.
So what does this all mean?
First of all – and this is a very very hard one to swallow – both these recorders will, for the most part (once you add internal preamp gain noise, microphone self-noise and a myriad of other factors) only resolve 16-bits of dynamic range even if the device is setup to save 24-bit files.
When recording 16-bit audio, most of these devices just truncate (lop off) the additional 8-bits (the "quietest" 48dB) so what is actually happening when recording 24bit audio is that the recording contains 33.3% of quiet noise that doesn't resolve to any really important reproducible audio information.
With both these recorders most people don't know that they can actually get recordings of the exact same quality running them in 16-bit mode. As an aside here, doing so can provide more recording time, and save some space and processing time when moving into post.
Don't get me wrong. Once you move to post, 24 bits becomes far more useful for mixing and re-recording - necessary in fact. However, that's only when summing all these recorded files together, where the useable dynamic range in a decent DAW can be as high as 110-115 dB.
Even there, if you do that math, a $10,000 Prism Sound converter capable of the very best digital to analog conversion is only producing resolvable detail in the ballpark 20-21bits of useable audio information if you take their "spurious aharmonics" figures at ~125dB as anything important.
What can we conclude from this brief and patchy post? You can safely record many audio sources at 16-bit since many recorders under $1000 have trouble resolving dynamic range that even approaches 18-bits. Most, like the two mentioned here, can lay down 24-bits of information, but only 16-bits of that information is anything we care about or anything we can use (unless you're a noise artist - which is totally solid).
It's a little off topic but I thought it should be said… also I'm happy to have any of my points challenged and I certainly hope people do some digging to see if what I'm describing is actually the case. I'm ready to tear down my very fragile wall of knowledge at a moment's notice - let's just all smile about it while we're doing it!
UPDATED: BASIC MATH ERROR ON MY PART. It's 33.3% noise when recording 24bit with converters that can only resolve 16 bits.
Just as most "1080p" cameras can't actually resolve 1080p, the same applies to audio recorder resolution. Manufacturers and consumers constantly obsess about 24-bit audio. But there's a huge caveat that preys upon those who don't know enough about digital audio and the "more is better" syndrome.
Here we go. Down the rabbit hole:
The Tascam DR-100's user manual states the Signal-to-Noise ratio (which admittedly isn't everything) is "90dB or more" for "line-in to line-out" performance, while the marketing blurbs on the website say "over 100dB." Let's even give them the benefit of the doubt and say the DR-100 is capable of converting an analog signal to an uncompressed digital audio format with 100dB of useable dynamic range. And by useable I mean any audio that isn't just noise.
The Zoom H4n doesn't have published specs. Let's say for argument's sake the same format of files produced by the H4n results in 96dB of dynamic range.
What this would mean, in real-world scenarios, is that both recorders can barely resolve more than 16-bits of dynamic range (aka 96dB.)
Each bit of resolution represents 6dB of dynamic range. 16-bit audio has a maximum of 96db of dynamic range and 24-bit audio is technically capable of 144dB of dynamic range though no PCM (let's not get into DSD just yet) recorder can lay that down as of yet (some do come close - not anywhere near this price range.)
The Tascam DR-100's 100dB claimed range equates to 17bits of useable digital resolution (I'm rounding up since bits are on or off and so we need that extra 1 bit to resolve the additional 4dB of "stated" resolution).
The Zoom's 96db of ESTIMATED dynamic range would essentially make the converters 16-bits only with the recorder unable to resolve any of the extra dynamic range that could be captured by 24-bit converters. We can go into why another time, but tightly packaged, cheap electronics have something to do with it.
So what does this all mean?
First of all – and this is a very very hard one to swallow – both these recorders will, for the most part (once you add internal preamp gain noise, microphone self-noise and a myriad of other factors) only resolve 16-bits of dynamic range even if the device is setup to save 24-bit files.
When recording 16-bit audio, most of these devices just truncate (lop off) the additional 8-bits (the "quietest" 48dB) so what is actually happening when recording 24bit audio is that the recording contains 33.3% of quiet noise that doesn't resolve to any really important reproducible audio information.
With both these recorders most people don't know that they can actually get recordings of the exact same quality running them in 16-bit mode. As an aside here, doing so can provide more recording time, and save some space and processing time when moving into post.
Don't get me wrong. Once you move to post, 24 bits becomes far more useful for mixing and re-recording - necessary in fact. However, that's only when summing all these recorded files together, where the useable dynamic range in a decent DAW can be as high as 110-115 dB.
Even there, if you do that math, a $10,000 Prism Sound converter capable of the very best digital to analog conversion is only producing resolvable detail in the ballpark 20-21bits of useable audio information if you take their "spurious aharmonics" figures at ~125dB as anything important.
What can we conclude from this brief and patchy post? You can safely record many audio sources at 16-bit since many recorders under $1000 have trouble resolving dynamic range that even approaches 18-bits. Most, like the two mentioned here, can lay down 24-bits of information, but only 16-bits of that information is anything we care about or anything we can use (unless you're a noise artist - which is totally solid).
It's a little off topic but I thought it should be said… also I'm happy to have any of my points challenged and I certainly hope people do some digging to see if what I'm describing is actually the case. I'm ready to tear down my very fragile wall of knowledge at a moment's notice - let's just all smile about it while we're doing it!
UPDATED: BASIC MATH ERROR ON MY PART. It's 33.3% noise when recording 24bit with converters that can only resolve 16 bits.
Last edited:
Petros Kolyvas
Well-known member
Regarding the original question - I'm hoping to do a video tutorial with a variety of recorders (including the H4n) shortly. Will post here when it's up - looking like a three parter at the moment.
Spartacus
Veteran
Thanks, greatly appreciated!