[RWP] Zoom H6

Tue Aug 13 11:37:34 EDT 2013

I'm not really trying to go totally professional, although I don't want to sound like I am recording from the bottom of the can either.
I've heard recordings from Olympus as well as zoom products, and I kind of like both. I'm going to have to maybe get my hands on either the LS 100, or the zoom H6 to see which one I like
On Aug 13, 2013, at 3:25 AM, Stephan Merk <dl7fos at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I started recording with the H4, then LS-11 and now LS-100. What I dislike
> on Zoom is the many many features and the bad usability. This might be
> better in current versions, but on older ones I got much features, but not
> quite good at all. It's a really all-in-one but with no clear focus on one
> situation. The Olympus devices have speech output, that's an unique feature.
> TheLS-10 gives in my opinion a clear, different sound and a good depth of
> the recording. However, it is right that they are not really wind resistant
> but Olympus gives a shield as an accessory which makes a very great job. The
> 140 DB in loud situations is much better than the mics in the LS-11. But the
> device uses a special battery, is larger, nothing for the pocket. The only
> things I don't like is that you can only make stereo recordings or
> multitrack recordings in stereo using either the internal mic, the 3,5 jack
> or the XLR/6,33mm jacks. So you can't get 4 simultanious parts in one file.
> The usability of the 4-track is not good without sight, but all other
> features are nice to use. Olympus presents regulary firmware updates so they
> listen for their customers which is not usual for each brand.
> 
> However, we say that the musicians will find in Zoom devices more features
> for their needs as well as good sound. The H6 I think will be a good device,
> but it costs much lower as really good mics. So if you want to have
> professional recordings, you should spend more money in good microphones.
> However, expensive devices will surely not as sounding better as the price
> difference is. Good DACs and ADCs take much place so that they never get as
> portable as the recorders are. In a test of a company for example the more
> expensive SONY D50 is not much better than the LS-100. Or think about
> Marantz PRD-620 which is a nice device, but with usual and not really good
> microphones.
> 
> So if you decide in purchasing an audio recorder you should at first think
> about what you will do with it. If you want to take recordings in a
> professional way, spend more money in microphones. If you need a small
> all-in-one solution, I think that Olympus and Zoom can fit your needs.
> 
> 
> Viele Grüße
> 
> --
> Stephan Merk, www.merkst.de
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RWP [mailto:rwp-bounces at reaaccess.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Perdue
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:29 AM
> To: Reapers Without Peepers
> Subject: Re: [RWP] Zoom H6
> 
> The LS100 is a very clean machine. The internal mics, when taken
> individually, are pretty nice, but I don't particularly like the image they
> give, and they are in bad need of a windscreen, purchased separately, of
> course.
> They are, however, rated at 140DB SPL, and I can very well believe that. 
> It's got plenty of headroom. It's probably the best portable recorder you
> can find in terms of self-noise until you get to the multi-thousand dollar
> Sound Devices recorders.
> It's XLR inputs are quite nice as well, which I can't say for the H4N.
> It's a little on the power hungry side when compared to some of the smaller
> recorders, and it runs on a LI50B battery, 5 volts, I think.
> It, like everything else, has it's quirks as well.
> 
> On 8/12/2013 11:22 PM, Goldfinga Productions wrote:
>> Okay.
>> I guess I could work with that… I learn more about the stuff every day.
>> Is the LS 100 any good?
>> 
>> On Aug 12, 2013, at 11:17 PM, Patrick Perdue <patrick at pdaudio.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> They're a little noisy, but it's the general sound of them that gets me
> more than the noise. And mic noise won't be so much of a problem in those
> types of environments anyway.
>>> 
>>> Also, I've never seen a point in recording any higher than 48 khz with
> any of these recorders. Bit depth matters more than sampling rate for
> dynamics, which is why I was particularly annoyed to find that I couldn't
> record at 48 khz in 24-bit land with the LS14. So, my LS14 pretty much stays
> at 88.2 khz, 24-bit stereo most of the time, because that is the most
> conservative version of 24-bit it offers. Sure, I could record at 24/96 all
> the time and get away with it, I have the card space, but that's even more
> processing to deal with for frequencies it probably doesn't pick up anyway.
>>> 
>>> Everything does HCSD these days, even the H1. I have 32GB cards in both
> my LS14 and LS100, and they can both take up to 64GB, possibly even 128GB.
> There are 128GB SD cards around, not sure about MicroSD in that size.
>>> I don't need a card that big though.
>>> 
>>> On 8/12/2013 11:09 PM, Goldfinga Productions wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> The bit rate and all of that doesn't really matter, as long as I can get
> 44.116 I'm good.
>>>> I will more than likely use 2496 though.
>>>> Are the Mike's very noisy on it?
>>>> I will most likely be recording rehearsals and/or gigs with it anyway,
> so I really just need something that can handle a lot of bass.
>>>> And I usually recording wave and then bring it home and process it as
> needed, so something that can hold I high-capacity ST card would be pretty
> cool.
>>>> 
>>>> On Aug 12, 2013, at 10:37 PM, Patrick Perdue <patrick at pdaudio.net>
> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> If the Olympus LS14 had better internal mics than it does, I might
> recommend that. I don't particularly like them, but maybe they would work
> for you. These things are all so subjective.
>>>>> It runs forever on a pair of AA's, much longer record time than the H4N
> or H1. My biggest complaints about the LS14 are the following:
>>>>> No 24-bit recording under 88.2 khz. In otherwords, you have five
> options -- 44,100 hz, 16-bit stereo, 48000 hz, 16-bit stereo, 88,200 hz,
> 24-bit stereo, 96000 hz, 24-bit stereo, or 44,100 hz, 16-bit mono. I would
> rather record at 48000 hz, 24-bit stereo, but this particular unit doesn't
> have the option. Also, the headphone output is pretty weak, so in my case, I
> have over-compensated with input gain a few times thinking it should be
> louder than it needed to be. It does have a pretty good mic preamp though.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tascam and Roland's recorders all seem to feature omni-directional
> capsules, yielding very little image. However, the Tascam DR100 has both
> omni and cardioid microphones, as well as XLR. I've not used this recorder,
> and haven't heard anything from it, but it looks interesting.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I guess it depends on which set of issues you're willing to deal with.
> Nothing is perfect.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 8/12/2013 10:16 PM, Goldfinga Productions wrote:
>>>>>> So Patrick, what do you suggest I look into? I want something with
> internal mics. I don't really feel like carrying a whole lot of extra gear
> with me. I just want to grab my recorder, point, and shoot.
>>>>>> I had an H2, and didn't really care for its interface.
>>>>>> The h1 seems a little cheap and plasticky to me.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I would like something kind of small and pocket-sized, but if I have
> to go with something a little, bigger, it's all good.
>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2013, at 8:07 PM, Patrick Perdue <patrick at pdaudio.net>
> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I had a Zoom H4N for about six months. Made it go away because I was
> so disappointed about how noisy the XLR mic inputs on it are. Having come
> from the original Zoom H4, that part of it really was quite a downgrade. I
> eventually replaced the H4N with an Olympus LS100, which, granted, costs
> about as much as the H6. I didn't buy the H4N to use it's internal
> microphones. Same for the LS100. Most people I know who are happy with their
> H4N's just use the internal mics, and nothing else. Those mics sound pretty
> good, but they're a little noisy, more of an issue if you want to capture
> quiet/detailed stuff. You won't notice or care if you're, say, recording bar
> gigs.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The 3.5mm input on it is OK if you want to use plugin powered mics or
> whatever, but honestly, that part of the recorder is almost identical to the
> much cheaper and floppier Zoom H1.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I've heard the H6, and I'm not a fan of it's included mics, either. I
> can't call them internal, because they're technically not. The fact that it
> has four xlr/phone jacks, and you can use it as a multi-channel or stereo
> USB audio interface with the ability to mix levels and pan on the unit
> itself would be kind of nice in certain situations, but I don't think I
> would personally need something like that enough to justify buying one, at
> least not at the moment.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Also, one really bad thing about the Zoom H4N, which could have been
> fixed with a firmware upgrade but wasn't, is that the bigger your SD card,
> and the more stuff you have on it, the longer it takes to boot. Then, on top
> of that, the longer it takes to actually start recording when you press the
> record button. Sometimes it could take nearly a minute from cold boot to
> recording if you had, say, a nearly full 32GB SD card. A great way to
> potentially miss things.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I really wanted to like the H4N, but I just couldn't.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 8/12/2013 6:55 PM, Kevin Brown wrote:
>>>>>>>> OK,...The "Zoom H4N" is going for $270...At "American Musical 
>>>>>>>> Supply", you can setup a "3" payment plan for $90 per month...
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The "Zoom H6" is going for $399,...You can setup a "3" payment 
>>>>>>>> plan at "American Musical Supply" for $133.33 per month...
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I usually get all of my gear from "American Musical Supply", 
>>>>>>>> because they have an extensive payment plan that won't break the
> bank...
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> RWP mailing list
>>>>>>>> RWP at reaaccess.com
>>>>>>>> http://reaaccess.com/mailman/listinfo/rwp_reaaccess.com
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> RWP mailing list
>>>>>>> RWP at reaaccess.com
>>>>>>> http://reaaccess.com/mailman/listinfo/rwp_reaaccess.com
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> GF
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Check me out on twitter
>>>>>> http://www.twitter.com/goldfingas
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> RWP mailing list
>>>>>> RWP at reaaccess.com
>>>>>> http://reaaccess.com/mailman/listinfo/rwp_reaaccess.com
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> RWP mailing list
>>>>> RWP at reaaccess.com
>>>>> http://reaaccess.com/mailman/listinfo/rwp_reaaccess.com
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> GF
>>>> 
>>>> Check me out on twitter
>>>> http://www.twitter.com/goldfingas
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RWP mailing list
>>>> RWP at reaaccess.com
>>>> http://reaaccess.com/mailman/listinfo/rwp_reaaccess.com
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RWP mailing list
>>> RWP at reaaccess.com
>>> http://reaaccess.com/mailman/listinfo/rwp_reaaccess.com
>> 
>> 
>> GF
>> 
>> Check me out on twitter
>> http://www.twitter.com/goldfingas
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> RWP mailing list
>> RWP at reaaccess.com
>> http://reaaccess.com/mailman/listinfo/rwp_reaaccess.com
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RWP mailing list
> RWP at reaaccess.com
> http://reaaccess.com/mailman/listinfo/rwp_reaaccess.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RWP mailing list
> RWP at reaaccess.com
> http://reaaccess.com/mailman/listinfo/rwp_reaaccess.com

GF

Check me out on twitter
http://www.twitter.com/goldfingas