Just Bought H4n, Please Help! Will be shooting on Monday.

L

larrys

Well-known member
Well, I just bought the H4n and a Panasonic GH1 and they are in transit right now.

I all ready have a Sennheiser ME66 shotgun with XLR and a Sennheiser wireless Lav, also XLR. Can anyone tell me the best settings to get quality audio on the H4n with these two mics for interviews? By settings I mean, any gain, limiter, etc... settings which will get the best results for voice.

I will also be using Plural Eyes on Final Cut Pro for syncing, so I was considering using the Lav for the interviews and the shotgun on the GH1 for the camera audio to use later in post. Does this seem wise?

Thanks!
 
I have an H4n and a Rode NTG-2 mic which can be powered with both a AA battery or 48V phantom power. When doing tests with the H4n, I noticed using a AA battery gave a noticeably cleaner signal with less noise compared to running the H4n's phantom. I don't know if the other people are getting similar results.

Mark
 
Thanks Mark,

That's good to know, I will use the battery power rather than phantom. Anything wlse you have discovered for settings on the H4n. Also, are you recording in 48khz/24bit?

Best,

Larry
 
Once you get the gear spend as much time as possible using the gear before you start shooting. The more comfortable you are with it before you start putting it to real work, the better.

The only simple answer with regard to what settings you should use is 'It Depends'. Audio is never something you can just set once and expect great results. Every situation is different.

In general, don't use any kind of automatic gain control, and the limiters found in inexpensive gear are typically not great, but I haven't played with an h4n yet, so I can say for sure.

As for the battery vs phantom, be aware that mics with the battery-power option may also have reduced performance when on battery-power, so again, test it out, see what sounds better to you in your location.
 
The one thing I know for sure about this device is that it's onboard mics are it's most effective input. So if there's any way to use the onboard mics (even and including maybe doing some ADR stuff for wides?) I'd say keep that option open.
 
larrys said:
I will also be using Plural Eyes on Final Cut Pro for syncing, so I was considering using the Lav for the interviews and the shotgun on the GH1 for the camera audio to use later in post. Does this seem wise?
Click to expand...
When I shoot with the GH1+H4n I just use the built-in mic on the GH1. It's good enough for PluralEyes and is simpler than dealing with an external mic.

Bruce
 
Chamber005 said:
The one thing I know for sure about this device is that it's onboard mics are it's most effective input. So if there's any way to use the onboard mics (even and including maybe doing some ADR stuff for wides?) I'd say keep that option open.
Click to expand...


WHAT? NO. Wrong.
A properly placed mic plugged into the input, with its gain set correctly will give you the best results.

PLANNING on ADR? NO. You want to plan on getting proper sound if you can. Using the built-in mics in a wide shot will definitely NOT sound good and will necessitate ADR. Not a good thing.

There are only a few certain situations where you would record using the built-in mics, and they would usually accompany other inputs as well.

Sorry to bust your chops Chamber, but that was bad advice.
 
Tim Joy said:
WHAT? NO. Wrong.
A properly placed mic plugged into the input, with its gain set correctly will give you the best results.

PLANNING on ADR? NO. You want to plan on getting proper sound if you can. Using the built-in mics in a wide shot will definitely NOT sound good and will necessitate ADR. Not a good thing.

There are only a few certain situations where you would record using the built-in mics, and they would usually accompany other inputs as well.

Sorry to bust your chops Chamber, but that was bad advice.
Click to expand...

Hmm. We had two long threads about this device and it seemed like the consensus was, because of the H4N's less-than-stellar preamps, it's onboard mics resulted in the best sound with the least noise. Of course this would also entail getting the device in the same proximity that you would a shotgun mic or lav hidden on set close to the talent.

And my point regarding planning ADR for wides would obviously not include actually using the onboard mics to record your dialog track in camera while shooting wides. My point was that if the OP opted for what seems to have been the better option (re: the onboard mics) he could ADR the wides. Just an idea if he chose to go that route.

Maybe I interpreted the other two threads we have going on this incorrectly. The concensus, though, seemed to be that the order of quality was as follows:

#1 H4* via 1/4" plug in from high end mixer via high end mic with good placement.

#2 H4N onboard mics with good placement of device.

#3 H4N via XLR inputs from high end mixer via high end mic with good placement.

*The zoom's preamps don't extend to the H4's 1/4" plug in (the way they do to the entirety of the H4N).

I'd like more people to chime in on this as there still seems to be a debate on this.
 
I think there are opinions, but I don't think there was any consensus about the H4n preamps being as lousy as some have said. In fact, I thinik Glen Trew's comment about an H4n being used in a remote location by a widely respected filmmaker suggested that the preamps are, in fact, pretty decent.

I also think there was quite a wide disparity between people suggesting an outboard mixer SHOULD be used, and those suggesting that one SHOULD NOT be used. I'm looking to do some testing in the next couple of days on this very issue, mostly to figure out what combinations work best using the gear that I have on hand, and not the theoretical situation of a $2000 mixer feeding into the XLR inputs of a $299 audio recorder or a $1500 DV camera. If I come up with anything that adds to the discussion, I'll post it.

I use the H4n all the time for a variety of things, and feel that it does amazing stuff at this price point. It's obviously not the be-all/end-all audio recording device, but it is, as the name implies, "handy." - Tim
 
Hey Tim, looking forward to your test results.

You've posted some really useful info on the GH1 and it's very much appreciated.

I think it's strange how most people have completely overlooked Glen Trew's comments about the preamps. Maybe it would add too much finality to the debate if taken seriously. :)
 
Yeah, I think Glen's comments were awesome about the H4N. I'm actually an advocate and plan to pick one up myself.

My only question is, if placed at the same distance from the talent, is it better to use the onboard mics or a mic plugged into its XLR connectors?

There was also a discussion on whether or a not a mixer should be used with the H4N, but I think there was at least some kind of a consensus that an expensive mixer probably would not be very effective on the H4N because you could not bypass its preamps (even when utilizing the 1/4" line-in) whereas on the H4, using it's 1/4" line-in, a mixer would prove invaluable and would produce professional-level audio.

It sounds overall like if you have an expensive mixer, use the H4's line-in. If you do not have a mixer, use an H4N.

If we could just get a final answer on the onboard mics vs XLR inputs I think the debate can probably come to a conclusion and we can give a definitive answer on the Zoom's overall usefulness for low budget recording.
 
Chamber005 said:
My only question is, if placed at the same distance from the talent, is it better to use the onboard mics or a mic plugged into its XLR connectors?
Click to expand...
Here's a partial answer:

H4n_Mic.wav
H4n_Inp.wav

This is the built-in mics (the "_Mic" file) vs a Rode NTG-3 (the "_Inp" file), adjusted on the H4n to produce similar meter indication, from the same distance. (Neither the H4n or the NTG-3 are shock mounted, but the H4n was mounted to a table that has a Mac Mini running on it, so some of the noise could be attributable to that. I'll put it on a tripod later tonight and see if that changes anything.)

The mono file from the Rode is duped to both channels for comparison with the stereo file from the built-in mics. Granted, this is a HIGHLY unfair test, but my point is that the built-in mics, while good, aren't going to compete with a serious mic coming in through the XLR input. Even if you discount the noise, the wide-patterns from those mics picks up too much room ambience, creating a somewhat hollow sound.

Would the built-ins beat a ATR-55? Probably, but that has as much to do with the weird frequency response of the AT mic as anything.

There was also a discussion on whether or a not a mixer should be used with the H4N, but I think there was at least some kind of a consensus that an expensive mixer probably would not be very effective on the H4N because you could not bypass its preamps (even when utilizing the 1/4" line-in) whereas on the H4, using it's 1/4" line-in, a mixer would prove invaluable and would produce professional-level audio.
Click to expand...
You've stated my feeling about it pretty accurately.

If we could just get a final answer on the onboard mics vs XLR inputs I think the debate can probably come to a conclusion and we can give a definitive answer on the Zoom's overall usefulness for low budget recording.
Click to expand...
Do the clips I've posted hit the "acceptable for low budget recording" mark? I don't know about anyone else, but it sounds pretty decent to me. (The clip I posted to the "H4n Preamps are Crap" thread is about 10 dB quieter than these.)

For the work I do, I'm going to have to have a really quiet set, and dramatically improve my boom technique before the H4n's input circuitry is going to become a limiting factor. However, I have no doubt that there are people here who can easily exceed this device's capability, so it's going to come down to figuring out what works for you. - Tim
 
TimTheFoolMan said:
This is the built-in mics (the "_Mic" file) vs a Rode NTG-3 (the "_Inp" file), adjusted on the H4n to produce similar meter indication, from the same distance. (Neither the H4n or the NTG-3 are shock mounted, but the H4n was mounted to a table that has a Mac Mini running on it, so some of the noise could be attributable to that. I'll put it on a tripod later tonight and see if that changes anything.)
Click to expand...

Since I'll presume you don't have access to a calibrated sound source, nor an anechoic chamber, what is your setup for determining the 'self noise' in a mic+amp+mxer (or ampmixer if combined)?

And how do you determine the noise contribution of just the amp/mixer alone?
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Since I'll presume you don't have access to a calibrated sound source, nor an anechoic chamber, what is your setup for determining the 'self noise' in a mic+amp+mxer (or ampmixer if combined)?

And how do you determine the noise contribution of just the amp/mixer alone?
Click to expand...
All I was doing was relative testing, and not testing for absolutes. The results aren't stellar, nor are they highly scientific, but they do give an indication of the relative quality of the built-in mics + H4n preamp, compared to a decent mic + H4n preamp. As I said at the top, the comparison is ONE answer. It's clearly not a definitive, lab-quality test. - Tim
 
Last edited:
See, I feel like there should be some answer to the "good enough" inquery. Like, I feel sound, like developing film, has a science behind it. I'd think there would be someone here that can definitvely state if plugging a mic directly into an H4N (and with correct mic placement of course) will provide the indie filmmaker with a "good enough" soundtrack for their film.

I think the most important thing to all indie filmmakers in regards to the preamps is the noise floor, right? Like if I'm pointing a mic at something, I don't want to hear anything except what I'm pointing it at. (e.g. if I cut the sound in the timeline at a moment when there is "no" ambient sound, there shouldn't be a noticable absence of hiss which then returns when I reactivate the sound file)
 
It's hard to come up with a definitive answer that will apply to all cases. Conditions change and sometime you might need to use the device differently.

I used the H4n as the main recorder for an entire feature-length documentary. I had the Sound Devices 302 going into the XLR's, (before I knew the 1/4" inputs are line in, doh!) and the mixer output was attenuated so that a 0db tone from the mixer's meter read at about -12 on the h4n. If I remember correctly, the H4n gain was at about 50-60.

Aside from some quirky-ness inherent to the recorder, it worked just fine. I had all sorts of mics into the mixer and even did a bunch of 4-ch recording using the built-in mics to capture a stereo track (only for music playing, NEVER for dialog {except by accident once and it is unusable}).

The noise floor is very low, and perfectly passable for any dialog recording. For me, the sound quality is great. Clean, quiet and detailed like it sounded from the mic. This is of course going through a great preamp first. I can't vouch for going directly in, but my initial tests proved to ME that they are fine.

For an example of how it sounds with the setup I mentioned go here. Those are the raw tracks, as I didn't have time to do any mixing. Used an Oktava hyper as the mic.
 
Short answer: They're fine, go shoot something.

Long, slightly more diplomatic answer: You seem to be asking for an answer that only you can provide.
Does a mic plugged right into the H4n sound good enough for your film? We don't know. By all acounts the preamps in the new model are improved, but only you can decide if they're good enough for your purposes. Go rent the gear and try it out.
 
Last edited:
Chamber005 said:
See, I feel like there should be some answer to the "good enough" inquery. Like, I feel sound, like developing film, has a science behind it. I'd think there would be someone here that can definitvely state if plugging a mic directly into an H4N (and with correct mic placement of course) will provide the indie filmmaker with a "good enough" soundtrack for their film.

I think the most important thing to all indie filmmakers in regards to the preamps is the noise floor, right? Like if I'm pointing a mic at something, I don't want to hear anything except what I'm pointing it at. (e.g. if I cut the sound in the timeline at a moment when there is "no" ambient sound, there shouldn't be a noticable absence of hiss which then returns when I reactivate the sound file)
Click to expand...

IMHO, there is no such thing as a different standard for indies versus the mainstream studios and networks. There is no such things as a "good enough" soundtrack. The only "good enough" for anyone is simply the best that they can possibly make it. True, the established players have more assets to devote to the project but in the end, the audience's reaction is the only thing that matters. They have been schooled to expect major studio sound as representing the norm and they simply don't care if the indy producer has to stretch the budget to the breaking point to deliver it. If you go to MacDonalds and have a burger that makes you sick, do you care if the unit is a company-owned store or a franchisee? Their business arrangment is completely irrelevant to you, all you're concerned with is the end result. Likewise the audience doesn't care if you have Spielberg's super deep pockets or are struggling just to pay the rent - all they care about it what it sounds like and, at least subconsciously, they're comparing the sound of every moment of your film to the sound of the very best films they have ever seen. There may be practical limitations on how far you can go, but you always have to push the envelop as far as you can to deliver the best, state-of-the-art quality possible. You can never say "this is good enough" because good enough, never is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top