HMC-150 audio vs Zoom H4N

B

benno

New member
Hey all!

I'm about to shoot a low budget feature using both an HMC-150 and a 7D. I have a Zoom recorder for use with my 7D--but am wondering whether I should also use it when I shoot on the HMC-150.

It stands to reason that an audio recorder like the H4N likely has a better preamp than the one built into the camera--has anyone done a comparison? What do you all think?

Thanks for your help!

- B
 
I can't say anything about the sound quality but not having tethers attached to the camera is really nice.
 
I use both the 150 and the 7d and depend on the Zoom H4n for all my audio recording -- much better sound, fewer wires. I do a lot of event videography and running long mike cables from my HMC to external mikes is impractical -- you can hide an H4N almost anywhere.
 
I believe you need to make sure that it's set to record at 48kHz.

I just recently synced up a 44Khz recording and it was painful, but worked, only because the club was dark and I could slip the audio in the late middle of the recording to sync up the lips at the end. For those interested, you can view the results (great song by the way, worth listening just for that reason) at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3iK5x1FJ1o
I did not shoot or record this video, just took existing footage and recording from my friend's edirol (which was not set up correctly).
 
Last edited:
I would think if your are recording for over 5-7 min. at a time you would want to check how much drift you can expect between the two recording crystals.

These units might offer better sound but unless you have a word clock or video sync any two recording devices will drift even after 5 min.

I am looking at one of these or the Juiced link for the 5D and am favoring the Juicedlink now that the 5D has/will have defeatable AGC to avoid editing issues with audio sync.
 
If you are picky about audio, I found the Zoom H4N to be quite a bit noisier than the Sony PCM-50 and the Olympus LS-11. Also the Zoom H4N has harmonic distortion issues with it's unbalanced inputs:

Harmonic Distortions of the Unbalanced Inputs
http://www.martin-doppelbauer.de/fieldrecorder/distortions.html

...If buying new you might want to take a look at the Sony PCM-M10 / Sony PCM-D50 / Olympus LS-11 / Tascam DR-100.

To date I've owned the following portable recorders:

Marantz PMD-671 ( big and clunky, ate batteries like no tomorrow, but great sound )

Zoom H4 ( Terrible display, terrible pre-amps, faint beep when running from AA batteries )

Zoom H4N ( Not impressed with the noise level so I returned it two days later )

Sony PCM-50 ( Fantastic built in mics, amazing sound, but limited recording time at high bit rates. Used it for one year and then sold it. )

Olympus LS-10 ( Great sound, very quiet noise levels, but 150 Hz rolloff which has to be corrected afterwards if you want to hear the lower end sounds. Used for 6 months and then sold it. )

Olympus LS-11 ( Everything that the LS-10 does, but no 150 Hz rolloff. Currently own two of these and could not be happier. 10+ hours of recording on 2 AA batteries )
 
I have both the HMC150 and the zoom H4n

The bonus for the H4N is the sound op can go wherever he wants and it has some nice features like adjustable cutoffs. You are untethered great for steadicam work.

The HMC150 bonus is the batteries will last longer than on the H4n and I like to see the sound levels myself.

Together I think they are a good match for flexibility
 
TheDingo said:
If you are picky about audio, I found the Zoom H4N to be quite a bit noisier than the Sony PCM-50 and the Olympus LS-11. Also the Zoom H4N has harmonic distortion issues with it's unbalanced inputs:

Harmonic Distortions of the Unbalanced Inputs
http://www.martin-doppelbauer.de/fieldrecorder/distortions.html

...If buying new you might want to take a look at the Sony PCM-M10 / Sony PCM-D50 / Olympus LS-11 / Tascam DR-100.

To date I've owned the following portable recorders:

Marantz PMD-671 ( big and clunky, ate batteries like no tomorrow, but great sound )

Zoom H4 ( Terrible display, terrible pre-amps, faint beep when running from AA batteries )

Zoom H4N ( Not impressed with the noise level so I returned it two days later )

Sony PCM-50 ( Fantastic built in mics, amazing sound, but limited recording time at high bit rates. Used it for one year and then sold it. )

Olympus LS-10 ( Great sound, very quiet noise levels, but 150 Hz rolloff which has to be corrected afterwards if you want to hear the lower end sounds. Used for 6 months and then sold it. )

Olympus LS-11 ( Everything that the LS-10 does, but no 150 Hz rolloff. Currently own two of these and could not be happier. 10+ hours of recording on 2 AA batteries )
Click to expand...

The Zoom has XLR in and the Olympus could only take a minijack lavalier, this will be of consideration vor filmmakers.
That said, I would use the HMCs audio and not hazzle with syncing audio in post...

For documentary dialogue and general purpose/ENG/event sound it should be more than fine...
 
Spartacus said:
The Zoom has XLR in and the Olympus could only take a minijack lavalier
Click to expand...

...But all of the low cost ( less than $1000 ) field recorders have noisy mic pre-amps, so what's the point of having XLR inputs if the sound is not very good.

To get great sound from a field recorder with good XLR mic pre-amps then you have to step up to something like the Edirol R-44 ( about $1000 ) or any of the Sound Devices recorders. ( starting at $1900+ )

I use the LINE-IN on the Olympus LS-11 with either a Sennheiser UHF wireless unit with a good lav ( like the Sanken COS-11x or Countryman B6 ) or I use a Sound Devices mixer with boomed condenser mics ( like the AT4053b or the Rhode NTG-3 ), and in a pinch I'll even use the built-in mics of the LS-11.


Spartacus said:
For documentary dialogue and general purpose/ENG/event sound it should be more than fine...
Click to expand...

...But why put up with recorder noise when you don't have to?

"Good enough" is not good enough.
 
That is correct about setting your Zoom to 48/16 bit......I use one and it works great. However, if you end up with audio in 44 all you need to do is take the audio file and give it to someone with Logic or Pro Tools and ahve them bounce it down to 48/16 and then it will all sync up! I promise...I've done it several times.
 
I realize you're new and trying to increase your post count as soon as possible, but may I suggest you check the date on the posts you reply to...replying to threads that are almost 2 years old is kind of pointless.
 
Phil1076 said:
I realize you're new and trying to increase your post count as soon as possible, but may I suggest you check the date on the posts you reply to...replying to threads that are almost 2 years old is kind of pointless.
Click to expand...

The information he posted is not outdated. He is giving his input on a device that is still manufactured and purchased in large numbers and adding his vote of confidence in a particular workflow that is also still relevant.

You assume an awful lot when you accuse a new member of trying to run up their post count when they only (currently) have 2 posts, and it is relevant and useful and well-considered input.
 
why would anyone care about post count? Do you get a cookie for making a high number of postings in these forums?

I found the info he posted quite valuable since I use both devices and was unaware of the sync issues with longer run times if the audio settings differ on both devices. Alot of newer videographers (like me) have found valuable info like this... pls dont be rude and discourage others from making such postings - even on old original posts.
 
TheDingo said:
...But all of the low cost ( less than $1000 ) field recorders have noisy mic pre-amps, so what's the point of having XLR inputs if the sound is not very good.

To get great sound from a field recorder with good XLR mic pre-amps then you have to step up to something like the Edirol R-44 ( about $1000 ) or any of the Sound Devices recorders. ( starting at $1900+ )
Click to expand...

The Fostex FR-2 LE is $650 and has EXCELLENT pre-amps.
 
Phil1076 said:
I realize you're new and trying to increase your post count as soon as possible, but may I suggest you check the date on the posts you reply to...replying to threads that are almost 2 years old is kind of pointless.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Even if the OP is long gone it's still good info for anyone stumbling across the thread and adding something (or learning something) useful. BTW, how do you know that he's trying to increase his post count as soon as possible. Are you psychic?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top