Why is ZOOM so popular when it is such poor quality?

thesoundguy said:
if you use the zoom to record ambient noise, to take notes, or basic interview stuff, That is the intended use of the zoom. It was never initially intended to have the entire audio department revolve around it on a feature film.
Click to expand...

Never intended??? Then why does the manufacturer's website contain the following?

"Representing the next level of professional recording performance, the H4n delivers superior audio quality and dramatically improves the user experience. Zoom’s most sophisticated handheld recorder to date will amaze, no matter the application."

"Or, to get a great recording of a live performance, use the H4n’s onboard mics to get a room mix while simultaneously recording a stereo mix from the mixing board for a live recording that is easily one of the best you’ve ever heard."

"And for media and filmmakers, the H4n makes it easy to record “high definition” audio at 24-bit/48kHz with booms, handhelds or lavaliers while gathering atmospheric audio with the onboard mics. The H4n also supports Broadcast Wave Format (BWF) so your recorded files carry time stamp information. You can even set markers (cue points) during recording or playback."

Sounds like it was 'intended' for a lot more than just taking notes and doing "basic interview stuff".
 
This discussion is literally about why people like the zoom
Click to expand...

True. And none of the units the thread starter was comparing it to have timecode functions.

As to why someone would use a good mic and mixer into an H4N, in the right hands it can record a quality high enough for many situations. It's not unheard of for some "pro" shoots to want a feed into the DSLR as primary audio...bag recorder as backup.

Perhaps long continuous pieces pose a drift problem with H4N. Or maybe there are workflows that negate it: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?197498-footage-drifting-from-Zoom-H4N
 
Sorry, David.

Gweilo, I do agree on long takes the H4n does have drift issues. I am glad you linked that thread.
 
In the case of that thread, turned out the H4N wasn't drifting once the importation route was changed. Might be other situations where it does. Some of the confusion appears to revolve around ambiguous TC with the cameras. But the relevant question is whether other small portable recorders have the same issue vs it being an H4N failing.
 
It's very important to understand that any piece of gear (audio or video) has drawbacks and benefits. It is up to the user to understand the functions to fully get the most out of it. The H4n does has limitations, but when used within those limitations, it can be a valuable tool for sound for video.

Are there recorders with more functions and better pre's? You better believe it. But does that make it a poor quality tool? Nope.
 
Um guys...

Maybe if you stopped thinking that what YOU do is what everyone else needs and that anything you don't use is a "toy" there could be some useful info getting written.

IF the argument is why does the h4n suck compared to the DEVA well we can all chip in.

BUT the vast majority of members of DVX User are not going to get their hands on a DEVA anytime soon. And yet many are professionals.

How could this possibly be true? Well production sound for full budget features are actually a small portion of the sound for film/ video etc. market.

Charles Maynes uses a h4n and I think he might be offended if you told him he wasn't a professional. He also uses a lot of other gear.
Lord of the Rings had some sounds recorded with a h4, as did the Horse Whisperer and quite a few others.

So whether it can be used in a professional environment with professional results is a bit moot. It has, it can, and it does.

But this is DVX User. We have a LOT of people who are professionals who are not doing long form narrative films with good budgets.
Event videographers use the h4n and similar recorders all the time, They are professionals.
Doc filmmakers use the h4n a lot and they are also professionals.
Folks who do ads are professionals.
Some folks doing shorts are professionals.

There are a LOT of professional sound folks and their needs are not exactly the same.

I have recorded for some of the largest budgeted films in history and the only time I used a TC recorder in the field was on a low budget short. Admittedly I was not doing production recording on the big budget films and on some of them they were using TC tracks on the production sound, but I'm a professional and was working in a professional high budget situation. Lack of TC does not delegate something to nonprofessional status. If it did then all films before say 1990 or so were "amateur" productions.

And the use of the term "toy" should probably be banned in general. A toy used by a professional to create a professional product is a tool. There are an awful lot of "toys" used by professionals to create the sound tracks of BIG Hollywood films.

Unfortunately the title of this thread presents a false question. It's like the classic "when did you last beat your wife?". It assumes going in that the h4n is junk. So you can't really answer that question since it would imply that the assumption is correct.

The real answer is that the h4n is so popular because a lot of people DON'T think it's junk.
 
Last edited:
An observation.

There have been folks talking about how unprofessional using a h4n is while shooting on a 7D...

If we move this over to a cinematographer section I think maybe shooting on a highly compressed low pixel count iframe format would also be considered "unprofessional".

So if we really want to put this in perspective your recording image on the video equivalent of a 12 bit 44.1k MP3 format but you shutter at recording audio on a h4n????????

With the picture your willing to concede that it's a tool and in the right hands it's a professional one.
But for sound only the top can be acceptable?

I'm all about getting the best you can but the question of the thread is why the h4n is popular. The reason is the same as why the DSLRs have become so popular. Far better bang for the buck than what came before.

If you start comparing 35mm or 70mm film with DSLR footage it doesn't hold up that well. Compare it to miniDV and 16mm and...

Compare the h4n to cassette, or MiniDisk or DAT and you will know why h4n and the ilk made a big splash.
 
I used to record on a Nagra, then DAT, then MD and everyone seems to have forgotten that speed stability is HUGELY better than it ever was. If the audio track skips the odd frame and needs re-syncing after 20 minutes or so - is this the end of the world. It's like everyone has become so convinced that ultimate quality is absolutely essential, and cannot be lived without - yet television manages to still show material from decades ago without people complaining about the sound quality. Since they invented FM audio recording back in the Sony F1 days we've had sound quality streets ahead. The small portable offerings from Tascam and Zoom, plus the piles of similar kit show that quality audio is available at really low price points. Most of the complaints are factual - but compared to wow, flutter and hiss that used to plague us, it's a bit embarrassing to be slagging kit off for such small deficiencies. £50 SD recorders offer better quality than thousands of pounds worth of kit only a few years ago.

Just because ultra-quality equipment is available, it doesn't mean that low noise floor, 20-20KHz recorders are rubbish.

Frankly, I now count anyone who insists that these products are just not up to it in the same way I do the snake-oil pedlars so beloved of the audiophile industry.
 
Last edited:
There is a saying from one of my favorite business writers that applies here: "To optimize the whole, you need to sub-optimize the parts." The meaning is that making a movie requires juggling the components of a big system -- script, schedule, talent, crew, camera, lights, tripod, microphones and all the rest. Buying or renting top-end equipment in one area may mean that you have to scrimp on something else that will have a bigger impact on the overall quality of the finished work. With a given project and budget, the producer's job is to find tools that will allow everything to be done at an appropriate level of quality without spending too much overall. This requires compromises -- "sub-optimizations" -- in pretty much each and every area, as long as you're working with finite resources of money, people and time.

I've put together a pretty good kit over the years and it addresses all the major areas of equipment I need to make video, but not one item I own is top-shelf. Nevertheless, they all work together well as a system, and it was done in a way I could afford and made sense for the types of projects I shoot. Each item is chosen to complement the other equipment I already own. From time to time, I am able to spend a little more money to address what I think is the most pressing deficiency in my setup at that time and move the whole system forward a bit in quality or ease of use. (Recently I upgraded from a cheap Rolls field mixer to a SD302, and got a Vinten tripod to replace an old Manfrotto, for example.)

At the moment, I probably wouldn't find the H4N to offer anything compelling for my needs (the closest equivalent piece of equipment I own is a Tascam HD-P2), but the best way to evaluate a rig is not by the price or capabilities of the individual components but rather by how they work together to achieve a compatible level of quality across all aspects of the production, while fitting within a given budget and complementing the talents, needs and interests of the filmmaker.

I've used what was in retrospect some pretty dreadful stuff in the past (Sony DXC-1610, anybody?) and managed to get praise and awards for it; working with the junk was both a learning experience for me, and a way to get some things out to the public that just wouldn't have been made otherwise. That's what counts in the end, isn't it?

(If I'd had something with the specs of the H4N back in 1980 I would have thought I'd gone to audio heaven -- compared to the top-of-the-line Nagra IV I often used back then, it's better in every respect except maybe for the noise level of the preamps, which can largely be worked around.)

- Greg
 
Last edited:
paulears said:
£50 SD recorders offer better quality than thousands of pounds worth of kit only a few years ago.

Just because ultra-quality equipment is available, it doesn't mean that low noise floor, 20-20KHz recorders are rubbish.

Frankly, I now count anyone who insists that these products are just not up to it in the same way I do the snake-oil pedlars so beloved of the audiophile industry.
Click to expand...

+1

I just recorded some 4 track surround ambiance on the new version, the ZOOM H2N - no XLR inputs, but 5 surprisingly good build in capsules and way better preamps than the H2.
The sound designer was absolute delighted and he picked up his jaw from the floor, when I told him how much that thing costs. He just could not believe, that a 180 Euro consumer device is able to do that.

LOL - Listening is believing ;-)

Reminds me to that blind test, where audiophile "GoldEar Guys" try to hear the differences between high end speakers, connected to a high end amp via $1200 cables vs coat hangers - they all failed.
There is a lot of Voodoo-Shmoodoo out there.

For me, what works, works.

IMHO the H2N is absolute fine for ambiance recording, the H2 for dialog if you use a mixer to feed it.
Even most recording circuits in cameras are as good as most pro recorders if you have a mixer and skip the preamps of the camera..

my ct2, Frank
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top