ZOOM h4n preamps are crap

DrDave said:
Unfortunately I have only worked with the Zoom H2 and a bunch of the high end flash recorders. I would assume the H4n is similar, but I haven' tried it.
I have a modded Dell X1 (memory and flash drive) so when I go mobile I just take that and the FF400. And if that is too heavy I go with the Fostex FR2LE. But the Zoom H2 is great, it's just that if I am going to use the Schoeps or the Sennheisers I reach for the high end gear as well, and one of the reasons is for example the exact repeatability of the digital gain on the FF400, plus the amazing pres drawn from the Micstasy. Plus it is 100 percent hum free, a big deal IMHO. But I have never had a problem with the CMC6 (not the XT) plus the MK41 plugging in to anything. You can get the battery powered body that runs on a watch battery as well and plug it right into the camera, so you just have the mic and a cable, then you can mount the mic right on the cam. Four mics is way better than two, and an RME quadmic and a hotrodded Zoom H2 makes a high end 4 track flash recorder if you don't want to bring the laptop. Or a 4 channel backup using the cloning outputs of totalmix on the RME FF400. Backup is good. For some reason, I like seeing the waveform on the X1. It is so reassuring to know that the sound is actually being recorded, and you can play back the recorded audio whilst recording. NB: if it is just dialog consider the Zoom H2 on a boom. The MK41 is an amazing mic, but you could buy a zoom and a couple of HF10s and still have lunch money. Or for a bit more you could grab a 7D.
Click to expand...
Haha, well I just bought a 7d actually. My plan was to buy the H4n and rent the CMC641, I don't have nearly enough money to buy the mic. In your experience you say you've used high end mics with high end mixers and recorders, which is what everyone seems to do with mics like this one.

What I want to know is do you think it would be a waste of money for me to rent such a top-quality mic when I'm just going to be plugging it directly into a device like the H4n? I figured it would still produce superior sound, but Blackout's story has me worried.
 
The Schoeps MK41 is just a great mic, so it is a good buy, but it is expensive. I bought some of them 15 years ago and they still work great. You can always upgrade the recorder to match the mic later. You have to decide for yourself if it is worth the extra $$$, As always, it would be a huge mistake not to audition this mic or any high end mic before buying.
 
Kent OGP said:
Haha, well I just bought a 7d actually. My plan was to buy the H4n and rent the CMC641, I don't have nearly enough money to buy the mic. In your experience you say you've used high end mics with high end mixers and recorders, which is what everyone seems to do with mics like this one.

What I want to know is do you think it would be a waste of money for me to rent such a top-quality mic when I'm just going to be plugging it directly into a device like the H4n? I figured it would still produce superior sound, but Blackout's story has me worried.
Click to expand...


I don't think renting a great mic is EVER a bad idea. You'll hear the difference on just about any recorder, and definitely on the H4n. Do yourself a favor and get a good preamp too.
 
Tim is right--try them out even if you need to rent, and widen your mic experience. I purchased a matched pair of Neumann KM140 cardioids based on specs, research, recommendations, and after a few weeks I really did not like them. Just a bit too bright, although a good mic. However, you can often sell them for what would be a rental price in terms of difference, I'm sure I could sell my Schoeps for more than I paid for them. Even though you might pay a local dealer more, you can say, hey, I need a pair of killer mics, try three pair and pick the ones you like the best.
 
Sorry for your lost and faulty h4n, but mine has served me well thus far and have gotten alot of good comments on the audion coming from it. Maybe you've gotten a hold of a bad one.
 
Blackout said:
Well there you go. The title of the post says it all.

I had some very major equipment stolen. Sound Devices recorders and mixers amongst other things. The only piece of equipment that managed to remain unscathed was my mic, the Sanken CS-3e.

I had a film coming up and I did not have money or credit to buy new gear to replace my stuff or even to rent (my credit is destroyed) but I took the gig anyway, and in desperation bought a Zoom H4n and hooked it up to my $1450 super cardiod Sanken CS3e.

Well, the results were GOD AWFUL and it now convinces me that the Zoom H4N is a piece of $%!T and anyone singing its praises is deaf.

If you use it's on board microphones to record ambiance and nat sound, it's fine, but GOD forbid you plug a REAL mic into it's XLR inputs and use phantom power. I don't even know how to fully explain how bad the sound quality is because people will probably think these samples I am going to post are GOOD, but make no mistake, they are utter crap.

Mic choice is superb - a sanken cs3-e, mic placement is superb, just about one to two feet away. YET, for some reason, on the Zoom H4N the recordings sound stale, distanced, echo filled, bassy, and just plain LAME!

They were so bad, that we coudln't use them on the film and had to go INTO THE CAMERA xlr on a Sony Ex1.

These are samples of during the shooting with the Zoom h4n that had to be discarded because the producers were unhappy:

http://www.blackout.com/blackout/zoom/MONO-000.wav

http://www.blackout.com/blackout/zoom/MONO-004.wav


Mind you, this is the best mic in the world right next to the actors faces and it gets the equivalent of "gh1 MUD" but in the audio.

The same mic to a Sound Devices 702 or even a mixpre was a different beasy entirely.

How people say they are using the Zoom H4n in professional productions blows my mind.. it sounds like crap. No if ands or buts.
Click to expand...

In fairness to Zoom and to those who rely this forum for information about equipment, I'll state that the mic preamps in the Zoom H4N are actually high quality; certainly adequate for professional sync dialog use, a job that requires high quality preamps (high gain, low noise). Oddly enough, the WAV samples in the original post supports this stance, and refutes the complaint about them being low quality. In the sample WAV files, any amplifier noise is well below the ambience of the set. There is nothing in these clips that would be considered "bassy" or "echo filled" (though, during live monitoring, various processing delays in digital devices can create the illusion of echo, but this would also create "thinness" or lack of bass). The low frequency transient response is clean enough to reproduce some subtle low freq rumble that clearly came from some kind of contact with the boom pole. The original poster did not mention how the boom was supported, so I’m curious if it was on a stand or hand-held.

There are a few times when I hear the preamps begin to overload (easily detectable in the female voice in the second sample), which is a legitimate concern and could be caused by an insufficient phantom power supply or input settings being set too sensitive for the CS3e. Assuming that the phantom power was adequate (more on the phantom power supply below), then the occasional overload distortion was probably due to gain and sensitivity settings, which are required by all professional mic preamps.

In addition to the distant voices in the background (presumably from extras), there is a low-level muffled “shhhh” sound that may be a fan(s) or the house AC system. Since it changes occasionally, this should not be confused as being preamp noise.

When the voices were on-axis, they were crisp and clean. The female voice goes off the microphone’s pattern occasionally, which is easy to hear when listening to the file samples with headphones, as the crispness of her voice comes and goes with the axis change. This, of course, is due to mic position (or actor position) and not due to the preamp. The male voice stays on-axis pretty well throughout. Since I can’t see the video, I’ll guess that the axis change in the female was due to her looking down or away (she does seem to be referring to something written).

In further support of the Zoom H4N preamps, I'll also say that a Trew Audio customer recently returned from a feature film production in a location that was so remote, he often opted for the portability of the Zoom H4N, and plugged his Schoeps CMC6/MK-41 boom mic directly into the H4N mic inputs. He was very pleased with the quality of the mic preamps. I'm withholding the name of the sound mixer for now, but everyone on this group has, no doubt, heard his work many times over the years. He is among the top of the top, with multiple Oscar, BAFTA, CAS, and Grammy nominations and awards. He is a critical listener, and not easy to please, but he liked the H4N mic pres very much. Regarding the quality of the Zoom phantom power supply, the Schoeps mics pull nearly the maximum available current from a properly spec'd 48V phantom power supply, and the Zoom still functioned properly with the Schoeps, with seemingly normal headroom and low noise (indications of a sufficient phantom power supply).

About the Sanken CS3e: It can be a very useful tool, and may well be the best choice when the goal is to control low frequency off-axis ambience, particularly for exteriors. But in terms of sound quality, if there is a best mic in the world, it is not the Sanken CS3e, primarily due to higher selfnoise than others by Sennheiser and Schoeps.

The CS3e is known to have compatibility issues with some high-quality portable mic preams such as those found in some Sound Devices mixers. But this problem is limited to a low frequency "motorboating" (rhythmic oscillation), caused by the fact that the phantom power current drawn by the CS3e fluctuates with the mic's output voltage (the Sanken CS-1 also does this), and the small capacitors inside some portable preamps (like the SD MixPre) cannot keep up. I have not listened to the Sanken CS3e through the H4N (except for the WAV files posted above, which do not exhibit this problem), but the possibility exists that it could have the same issues with the Zoom as it does with the Sound Devices MixPre (and others). I'll be happy to discuss the remedie for this issue if anyone is interested. However, since the only problem the CS3e has with these devices is the low frequency motorboating, and since the original poster has used the CS3e with the Sound Devices MixPre, this is probably not part of their complaint, and was not apparent in the WAV files.

Please note that this is not to bash Sanken or to promote Zoom. I am a fan of both for what they offer; I've used Sanken mics for years, and Trew Audio sells more Sanken than any other dealership in North America. I’m just trying to lay out some details so the readers of this thread can develop an informed opinion.

Best,

Glen Trew
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the detailed and informed post Glen! I think if my setup is good enough for an Oscar caliber pro, it should be good enough for me.

I'm just trying to be especially careful about audio from now on. On my last major project I had to audio dub 85% of all the dialogue because of cheap equipment and bad mic placement. I never want to go through that experience again.
 
My Rode NTG-3 arrived yesterday, which gave me a chance to test the H4n preamps, as I needed to do some quick VO recordings for a sports team's banquet video. This was recorded in a VERY live room, battery power for the H4n, and two computers and two external hard drives in the room.

H4nVOTest

The NTG-3 was about 8-10" away from my face, above my head, pointing down toward my chin/chest. It was on a standard, fixed mic boom, and not shock mounted. This may not be a worst-case scenario for doing VO work, but it was close.

All things considered, I was very pleasantly surprised. Eyeballing the waveform in Audition (and after adjusting out the DC bias), I'm seeing about 62-65 dB of unweighted S/N. I made no attempt to shield the NTG-3 from audio in order to get a true reading of its self-noise (or the noise of the H4n preamps), but was more concerned with what I might typically see from this combo in a non-unexpected setting.

If I'm misreading this, please feel free to help me better understand what I'm seeing. - Tim
 
Glen Trew said:
In fairness to Zoom and to those who rely this forum for information about equipment, I'll state that the mic preamps in the Zoom H4N are actually high quality; certainly adequate for professional sync dialog use, a job that requires high quality preamps (high gain, low noise). Oddly enough, the WAV samples in the original post supports this stance, and refutes the complaint about them being low quality. In the sample WAV files, any amplifier noise is well below the ambience of the set. There is nothing in these clips that would be considered "bassy" or "echo filled" (though, during live monitoring, various processing delays in digital devices can create the illusion of echo, but this would also create "thinness" or lack of bass). The low frequency transient response is clean enough to reproduce some subtle low freq rumble that clearly came from some kind of contact with the boom pole. The original poster did not mention how the boom was supported, so I’m curious if it was on a stand or hand-held.

There are a few times when I hear the preamps begin to overload (easily detectable in the female voice in the second sample), which is a legitimate concern and could be caused by an insufficient phantom power supply or input settings being set too sensitive for the CS3e. Assuming that the phantom power was adequate (more on the phantom power supply below), then the occasional overload distortion was probably due to gain and sensitivity settings, which are required by all professional mic preamps.

In addition to the distant voices in the background (presumably from extras), there is a low-level muffled “shhhh” sound that may be a fan(s) or the house AC system. Since it changes occasionally, this should not be confused as being preamp noise.

When the voices were on-axis, they were crisp and clean. The female voice goes off the microphone’s pattern occasionally, which is easy to hear when listening to the file samples with headphones, as the crispness of her voice comes and goes with the axis change. This, of course, is due to mic position (or actor position) and not due to the preamp. The male voice stays on-axis pretty well throughout. Since I can’t see the video, I’ll guess that the axis change in the female was due to her looking down or away (she does seem to be referring to something written).

In further support of the Zoom H4N preamps, I'll also say that a Trew Audio customer recently returned from a feature film production in a location that was so remote, he often opted for the portability of the Zoom H4N, and plugged his Schoeps CMC6/MK-41 boom mic directly into the H4N mic inputs. He was very pleased with the quality of the mic preamps. I'm withholding the name of the sound mixer for now, but everyone on this group has, no doubt, heard his work many times over the years. He is among the top of the top, with multiple Oscar, BAFTA, CAS, and Grammy nominations and awards. He is a critical listener, and not easy to please, but he liked the H4N mic pres very much. Regarding the quality of the Zoom phantom power supply, the Schoeps mics pull nearly the maximum available current from a properly spec'd 48V phantom power supply, and the Zoom still functioned properly with the Schoeps, with seemingly normal headroom and low noise (indications of a sufficient phantom power supply).

About the Sanken CS3e: It can be a very useful tool, and may well be the best choice when the goal is to control low frequency off-axis ambience, particularly for exteriors. But in terms of sound quality, if there is a best mic in the world, it is not the Sanken CS3e, primarily due to higher selfnoise than others by Sennheiser and Schoeps.

The CS3e is known to have compatibility issues with some high-quality portable mic preams such as those found in some Sound Devices mixers. But this problem is limited to a low frequency "motorboating" (rhythmic oscillation), caused by the fact that the phantom power current drawn by the CS3e fluctuates with the mic's output voltage (the Sanken CS-1 also does this), and the small capacitors inside some portable preamps (like the SD MixPre) cannot keep up. I have not listened to the Sanken CS3e through the H4N (except for the WAV files posted above, which do not exhibit this problem), but the possibility exists that it could have the same issues with the Zoom as it does with the Sound Devices MixPre (and others). I'll be happy to discuss the remedie for this issue if anyone is interested. However, since the only problem the CS3e has with these devices is the low frequency motorboating, and since the original poster has used the CS3e with the Sound Devices MixPre, this is probably not part of their complaint, and was not apparent in the WAV files.

Please note that this is not to bash Sanken or to promote Zoom. I am a fan of both for what they offer; I've used Sanken mics for years, and Trew Audio sells more Sanken than any other dealership in North America. I’m just trying to lay out some details so the readers of this thread can develop an informed opinion.

Best,

Glen Trew
Click to expand...

Glen, thanks for the detailed response, but I do not consider the above recording to be crisp and clean even when the actors are perfectly on axis it has a cardboard sound to me, and I know my mic.
A sound devices 702 was brought on set later and the same scene recorded again in the exact same position and it was as if god himself had breathed life into the sanken cs3e.

I unfortunately do not have those files.. I am trying to get a hold of them, but you would think I was using a different mic in listening to them, and I was not. The change was that dramatic.

I know the sanken cs3e has a bit of self noise but it is my go to mic for nearly everything and to me the sonic characteristics are so superior that the slight slight bit of self noise is worth it.

I did end up returning the zoom and getting a new one to see if it was defective, and indeed the sound was better on the 2nd one, but still a bit dull and cardboardy weak (I know that's my own term for the sound quality). I also tried a friend's h4n and I now believe the preamp build quality may be very inconsistent as his sounded like the first one I had. Also, mine sounds very different if I plug into input 2 than 1. I don't quite get what's going on but there is a change in sound quality.

I am on set now working on a film but I will try and post some raw high quality files later, In my opinion the files I have posted above sound bad and do not at all represent what the mic really sounds like. I now see the zoom h4n just as useful for capturing some stereo ambience, and that's about it.

I also think you are talking about Frank Serafine perhaps? There was an article that I had read that caused me to believe the zoom h4n could be used on a feature film and it was this http://news.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/10381/559340.html

I now consider it a fluff piece of zoom marketing. Not that I hate zoom or anything..... I just had a bad experience.
 
Last edited:
If you are picky about sound, get a set of class A preamps. You can get four channels of hum free class A from an RME quadmic for $450. If you want to go super portable, use mics that tolerate slightly weak P48 current of the small devices, or use a battery powered P48 inline. I think you can get terrific results with tiny flash recorders and a pair of CMC variable voltage Schoeps mics, but if I'm being really picky I reach for the Grace Audio or my Audio Upgrades. But realistically it makes only a small difference. The differences you describe seem large enough to be due to some other problem. There exists a certain synergy between preamps and mics, some work well together, others not so good. I have a bunch of ribbon mics that absolutely sing on the digital preamps of my RME FF400; I didn't buy it for that, I just discovered it by accident since I always used a custom preamp with transformers for the ribbons. Could be your Sound Devices really works well with the Sanken, and, if so, just get another one. When I tested the SD, I found them a little artificial sounding on the Schoeps, so I went with the Fostex FR2LE. But the SDs were admirably quiet. My mics aren't noisy, and for video a tiny difference in noise isn't really audible. One of the factors for me is always whether I can swap out the opamps or modify the signal path. And the FR2LE is very moddable, as is, oddly enough, the Zoom H2.
Another way to look at it is that the Sanken was never designed to work with a consumer flash recorder, but the CMC 6 was designed with these devices, as well as watch battery operation, in mind. So give the Sanken a true Class A preamp, with true P48, and it will be happy.
 
You're probably right. It probably is something to do with the power. I did another set of recordings with the Zoom H4n plugged in the whole time, and I thought I was using a different recorder, it sounded pretty good and didn't have the issue I had earlier. Again, this is confusing to me and I will post some files later so you can hear for yourself.

See my other post on my review of the major recorders.
 
Well I just finished filming a short using the amazing Schoepp's CMC641 mic plugged directly into my Zoom H4n. The results were fantastic, the noise floor is very low, I can raise the gain on most of the clips in my Premiere timeline to +15 or 20 dB and still not have noise interfere with the dialogue. I've never used other pre-amps or mixers before, but from what I shot the last few days I think the pre-amps on the Zoom H4n must be pretty darn good.
 
I have successfully recorded for some time in the 1st generation's H4 with a 302 mixer in front of it. I have to say that H4 built-in preamps are a bit weak tough.

I've upgraded to Tascam's HD-P2 and even an everyday person can hear the difference between those 2 recorders, and I can say that the price difference is worth every penny.

You can also hear the difference between the 2 with the mixer in front. This is probably due to the IN-Line circuitry on both.

Nonetheless, I think the 1st gen H4's are a much better recorder than the N version to record with a mixer, since the last one hasn't Line-INs!
 
Last edited:
I have run a few tests with the preamps of the H4 and the H4n recently.
Details are here: http://www.martin-doppelbauer.de/fieldrecorder
I think for a low budget recorder they sound quite ok.

Regarding line-ins: Actually the manual claims the H4n does have line-ins. You're supposed to use the unbalanced 1/4" TSR inputs for line signals.
But they do have severe problems with hot signals.
If you can crank down the record level far enough (in many cases the signal may just be too hot for the Zoom at all) the preamps still produce a lot of distortion. Tests of this are also found after the link.
Hope this helps
Martin
 
Blackout said:
You're probably right. It probably is something to do with the power. I did another set of recordings with the Zoom H4n plugged in the whole time, and I thought I was using a different recorder, it sounded pretty good and didn't have the issue I had earlier. Again, this is confusing to me and I will post some files later so you can hear for yourself.

See my other post on my review of the major recorders.
Click to expand...
I worry when members become emphatic to the point of hysteria. Thousands of visitors to this thread might have avoided this fine product, having read your rant... so should we always wait a week before acting on rants... for fear they may turn to raves in short order?:kali:
 
mdopp said:
I have run a few tests with the preamps of the H4 and the H4n recently.
Details are here: http://www.martin-doppelbauer.de/fieldrecorder
I think for a low budget recorder they sound quite ok.

Regarding line-ins: Actually the manual claims the H4n does have line-ins. You're supposed to use the unbalanced 1/4" TSR inputs for line signals.
But they do have severe problems with hot signals.
If you can crank down the record level far enough (in many cases the signal may just be too hot for the Zoom at all) the preamps still produce a lot of distortion. Tests of this are also found after the link.
Hope this helps
Martin
Click to expand...

Wow! Detailed and enlightening.

I've always heard that the phantom power is a real bugger in the H4Ns. When using a mic that needs phantom power should I get some separate device that supplies the phantom, or do I risk adding noise by doing so?

I'm pretty well set on the H4N going straight in through its XLRs (though I'm going to look into the other recorder you mentioned, the one that uses 1/8")

Also you mentioned that the SD mechanism in the H4N added noise. Would you advise then some other mode of recording, like to a separate HD (is that possible)?
 
You can not prevent the SD-card access noise from entering the signal in neither the H4 nor the H4n. Some said (on other forums) the amount of these disturbances was depending on the type of card (read: the power consumption of the card). Anyway, this is very, very low frequency. If you apply a low-cut filter in post-production (around 40...50 Hz will be fine) you'll get rid of this.
What you can not remove, unfortunately, are the harmonic distortions when recording unbalanced signals...
 
After MUCH use now, I have figured it out...

The Zoom H4ns simply have a massive variable from unit to unit... I have had THREE of them so far, and the first two sounded terrible, with the 1st one sounding really terrible and the second one slightly less terrible (this is for going in the xlr input with a48k phantom powered sanken cs-3e) or directly with a dynamic shure beta 58 news mic.

On the third one, I sent it away to amagical [place to have the preamps changed, and now my zoom h4n sings very happily with my sanken cs-3e and almost all directors I have handed sound off to have made the comment that the editors were blown away at the quality of the sound in post.

On higher end productions I prefer to use a Sound Devices 702, but for sure, the Zoom H4n can be used if you A - get lucky and get one where it has quality preamps, or B, have an audio guy CHANGE the premaps.

Apparently zoom is changing preamps all the time and wont publish exact specs...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top