Zoom H4N problem

I really don't get why there aren't more people considering what I am looking at.

Have the Boom OP use an MM-1 and send that to the 7D, presto. Is it because you need to shoot now? I imagine the Magic Lantern fix will come soon. It was just confirmed that the HDMI won't provide a way to monitor the recorded audio, but with bars and care you should be safe enough for projects that don't require a bigger audio setup anyway.

An MM-1 sets you back $350, and it will hold it's value like gold. It can power any mic to their full potential, and they are super safe and simple to operate. You could kill someone with one and the thing would still work perfectly.

I don't know... I just don't get it. I feel like I might be missing something because there aren't more people planning to do this.

If you wanted an H4n because you thought you had TC and you could have the audio guy be separate from the camera, then a wireless transmitter would give you that. Sure, that is a whole lot more money, but the H4n can't do that either.

The other option would be to do what Phillip Bloom posted a video about with that plug in for FCP that automatically matches your off camera recording to your on-camera's tracks and syncs it up to your shots automatically. But then you also need to spend the $150 for the plug it and you added post work. So the difference would be $340 which is the additional money necessary for a new G2, but you eliminate post work.

Or use an XLR with the MM-1 and save $150, and get the best sound you can possibly get at 16/48... (so long as the camera's recording isn't noisy)

Speaking of which, has anyone heard the quality of the recording of a 5D while pre-amplified externally?
 
I learned the battery eating lesson too. Had to change batteries twice during a wedding ceremony.

There's a switch by the batteries for Stamina Mode. I have it on all the time now and batteries last a lot longer.

For the SD302 mixer, you can attenuate the output by going into the menu. (hold the brightness button on startup, I think) I would rather do that and use the solid xlr jacks rather than the little tape out jack.
 
Problem with the stamina mode is it limits you to recording 44.1 which is a problem if you want 48 - tried it using that mode on a shoot the other day and it seemed to suck up just as much power when providing phantom.
 
Really? I didn't notice that it changed to 44.1. Have to check that out. It lasted much longer for me, and i was using phantom power.
 
Maybe a power grip is your solution. Coupled with a couple of sets of two batteries and two chargers you'd be solid. I've noticed on my HVX that phantom did have an effect on battery life, and a small but noticeable increase while providing phantom from the MixPre.
 
Has anyone put a really high end shotgun mic into the Zoom H4N to see how that will hold up as a budget budget recorder for dialog? I have a Sanken CS3e $1600.00 it's one of the top film dialog mics that exist... I wonder how the Zoom would handle it.

My industry sense that knows sound devices mixers and recorders costing thousands and thousands of dollars is laughing and saying "yeah right" but my sneaky side that knows 90% of people can not tell the difference of better converters and preamps says (hell yeah do it!)
 
I have an H4, and I powered a large diaphragm condenser (AT4033a) with the phantom supplied. It sounded OK on the channel it recorded, but in the unused channel (it only records stereo files in 24bit) had an annoying buzz that I have only heard when powering good mics. I can't say the H4n is the same, but chances are they only added some functionality to the H4 with the"n" rather than revamping the whole powering scheme. I don't know. I have had the best results with mics that supply their own power. Still there is lot's of room for error with clippiing, and the limiter doesn't sound so hot. In the heat of a shoot where you can't really hear too well due to the weak headphone level, do you really want to risk blowing it on consumer gear?

HOWEVER: If you have a 1,600.00 mic maybe you would want to give it a good, strong Phantom. The Sound Devices MixPre is only 665.00 for 2 channels of awesomeness, with 2 levels of virtually clip proof, adjustable, limiting, 2 levels of bass rolloff, XLR/Mini plug outputs etc. I even paid 150.00 to have Greg Winter modify mine so I could put it between a camera and a tripod.

OR - For about 1,045.00 you can get a Oade Brothers R44. They mod the preamps to make them dead quiet (not that they are too bad pre-mod) and you get 4 channels of 24 bit recording simultaneously, with a solid phantom. That would be about the same cost as an H4n + a MixPre - only you'd have 4 recordable channels.

I also found this 150.00 auto-sync software to line up all your audio with video automatically with no timecode: http://www.singularsoftware.com/autosync/ but I digress.

Maybe go to a tapers forum for the H4N. Search "H4n forum" and see what people who have them say. There is always some nerd with lots of time on his hands who has done extensive testing.
 
USLatin said:
I just listened to my MK-012 on one of them. Good Oktavas from Sound Room are great mics, but they have a very weak signal. With the H4n I had to crank up the gain to 100%, and while it only sets you back $300.- I would say that the quality of the preamps make it a no-go without a mixer. it all depends on your needs. Just wanted to mention that about the MK-012 and the H4n together.
Click to expand...

What were you recording?
 
I have a 4 channel JuicedLink. They are switchable between line/mic level. But they have no limiters. Mine has no phantom either. I got it as a secondary unit to my MixPre. Spend the exter 200-300 and get a MixPre. That is something you will not have to replace. It's always worth the money for a lack of headaches. Nothing against the JuicedLinks. Just read each model description carefully to make sure you have phantom if that's what you need.
 
Well, I started out looking at the Zoom H4n to solve my sound situation (so you know I'm not trying to thread jack here) and the most notable issues that I came across in all the reviews and comments I read was that the preamps were good for certain applications but not the greatest; turning up the gain to get the quieter sounds gets things a bit noisy. It's possible to keep the low end cleaner by recording in 24-bit vs 16-bit, but that takes more power; and then running a phantom power mic reduces battery life even more, even if I happened to be ok with losing the low end. And the failing battery degrades your sound.

So I definitely need phantom, that's why I was looking at the 2-channel phantom power model for $300. That would take care of the phantom issue and the preamp issue, the preamps seem comparable to the MixPre in the context he presented them in. Then for $570 (about $100 less than the MixPre) you get 4 channels, phantom power, low-cut filters and displays. I'm not a sound guy, but the gist of limiters and low-cut filters as I understand it is that the limiters take care of the high end and the low-cut takes care of the low end. So what that means to me is that you can deal with of issues like wind or planes, things that are out of your control, with the low-cuts and manage the high end by physically mixing. Then for the peaks you get anyway--I've dealt with plenty of peaking/spiking audio in post, I'm not a stranger to that, but it's trickier to deal with windy sound.

Anyway that model has been discontinued for the moment (he says its not hitting the market right) and is out of stock at his shop, so it doesn't seem likely B&H will be getting any despite what they say on the site. The other four channel model with phantom power doesn't have the filters, which I'm more concerned about than the displays. Plus it's out of stock as well, don't know how long that'll last.

I guess what I'm wondering is, what concessions can I afford to make? What can I do to compensate for those concessions?

So far I can only conclude that some kind of zepplin/muff combo is a must to have available, regardless of how good the mixer is.
 
Justin Kuhn said:
I understand it is that the limiters take care of the high end...
Click to expand...

Incorrect! Limiters have nothing to do with audio frequency control. A limiter is - in essence - an automatic volume control. The volume ceiling set by the limiter if, properly set, prevents volume spikes from distorting the audio.

Your comparison of the juicedLink to the MixPre is not just a question of channel quantity. A few things to consider...

Why do you need four channels? How often are you going to have four discrete audio sources?

The MixPre has more flexibility, much better limiters than you will find in your camera, better metering, quieter preamps and larger knobs for easier control on-the-fly. The person overseeing the sound will not interfere with the camera operator. Sound Devices has a strong reputation for quality products, and it will retain better resale value. When you decide to get a separate audio recorder you will be able to use the MixPre.

The juicedLink (yes, that's all they make are budget-priced mixers) or the BeachTek (similar to juicedLink) are specifically designed for connecting XLR microphones to consumer cameras. As they are niche products you probably want to upgrade your mixer when you upgrade to a better camera which would be additional expense. They are mounted on the camera tripod so would not be easily accessible by the person monitoring the sound.

The juicedLink and BeachTek are very nice products at their price point, you just have to keep in mind that they are not doing exactly the same job as the MixPre and are aimed at a slightly different market.
 
Just save up 665.00 and get a MixPre.

What you are doing is building a signal chain. You have the nice mic. Why mess that up with a sub-standard mixer? I can't remember what camera you have, but if it has line level inputs you're set. Even the 16bit audio is fine if you have not molested the signal with a distorted, or unclean signal. The MixPre will get you enough clean signal to fill those 16bits to the point that 24bit won't make a difference (this is a long story, but 16bit recorded correctly sounds the same as 24bit, unless the 16bit is on HDV, which is basically a 320kbpsMP3 file)).

The H4N can record very cleanly. It's preamps are what need help. So the MixPre is a device, a...SOUND DEVICE if you will......bad pun... that will help any recording situation. Tapers use the MixPre to take over preamp duty for their recorders because most recorders have lame to medium preamps when it comes to quiet sources, quality phantom power, open sounding signal etc. If you want both the H4 and the MixPre, but can only afford one now to shoot with that mic, I suggest the MixPre to ensure the signal chain is preserved. After the MixPre, about any recorder will do because you already have the preamps.

Whatever you choose, you need to remember you get what you pay for. And you pay more when you cheap out initially because eventually you will want to buy what you really want, and that will be added to what you already spent on what you don't really want. If you have a MIxPre you can borrow any portable recorder to get you through the shoot.
 
I think that's what I meant, I just misused the term "high-end" as such. My bad. As far as channels go, I don't in fact need four at the moment, I just want them. So, not required. The point about the MixPre's resale value is valid, once I can afford to upgrade to a 4-channel mixer of that caliber. I would really prefer to have a quality piece of equipment.

Have you checked out the comparison video up on the juicedlink site? Listening through studio monitors, it sounded like the noise floor on the juicedlink was worse--it had kind of a skipping quality. I wasn't entirely sure what I was supposed to be listening for though.

I'm really interested in the Zoom because of its versatility. I have a project coming up that I anticipate needing to do a lot of Foley for, and I do music videos (who doesn't) so being able to record music relatively cleanly could be profitable. So many musicians want to do videos but don't have any of their songs recorded. I also had a crazy idea about feeding the Zoom's own mics through a mixer to take advantage of better preamps, I like their design but I don't know what they're worth. A lot of forum members seem satisfied with the sound coming directly out of the Zoom. Sounds like something that would induce feedback but maybe there's a workaround? I dunno.

Edit: thanks for the phantom power link, I might end up doing that as a stopgap.
 
Last edited:
Hi all. Not sure if this has been mentioned but...

A limiter is completely useless for preventing digital clipping if it occurs in the signal path AFTER the analog to digital converters. This is the case with the H4N, the Edirol R-44 and many lower end recorders. IMHO, this makes them quite worthless in general and rather a kind of false advertising because preventing digital clipping on input is, arguably, there only worthwhile use. It's best to shut the limiter OFF on these recorders as they will only limit your ability to get the most out of your recording later on by reducing the dynamic range and coloring the frequency of your recordings and - I repeat again - will NOT prevent clipping of the recording in any way shape or form.

I would suggest that you write the companies and let them know how you feel about this kind of misleading and deceptive practice.

Cheers.
 
Also, I don't think it is so accurate to think of limiters as automatic volume controls - a compressor\expander with auto gain adjustment (a.k.a. autoleveler) would perhaps be closer to that mark. The primary function of a limiter is to somewhat decisively prevent a signal's amplitude from rising above a predefined threshold. It is basically a compressor with a very high compression ratio and a quick attack \ quick release. Furthermore, it very likely will have an effect on the perceived frequency due to how it will squeeze the signal based upon the loudest overtone in the frequency envelope. Compressors in general are often selected\revered based not only on the dynamics of their "breathe" but also on the colouration of the "breath" as well. A multiband compressor is often used and thought of as a kind of "Dynamic EQ".

Cheers,
jink
 
Jink said:
Also, I don't think it is so accurate to think of limiters as automatic volume controls - a compressor\expander with auto gain adjustment (a.k.a. autoleveler) would perhaps be closer to that mark.
Click to expand...
Agreed; however, it is the simplest way to explain what a limiter does when communicating with someone who has almost zero knowledge of audio.
 
unclebob6958 said:
Agreed; however, it is the simplest way to explain what a limiter does when communicating with someone who has almost zero knowledge of audio.
Click to expand...

True. I do remember that it took some time for me to feel like my understanding of amplitude control wasn't being run through a "limiter" set at a very low threshold!:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top