Zoom H2 Review ( will be updated as time progresses)

[ZosoIV]

If we want to be objective about comparing the H2 and the RH1, it seems to me that somebody needs to record something with the same mics on both units in 44.1/16 mode. Comparing 320kbps MP3 to 44.1/16 or ATRAC or 96/24PCM just adds another nuisance variable into the equation - something has to be held constant for a valid comparison. After quantitatively comparing and/or listening to the two 44.1kHz recordings side by side, we should then qualitatively compare both units at their best - LPCM mode for the RH1 and 96/24 LPCM for the H2. If the mic noise is a problem on the H2, it will be heard, just as if the 96/24 mode results in higher subjective sound quality compared to 44.1/16.

Uploads, anyone?

[uglybassplayer]

This guy Guitarfx stated that his intial recording is "the best you would ever get from the H2.." this simply isn't true. He didn't record a 96/24bit and still refuses to for some reason.

Skiphunt, I suggest you re-read the Guitarfx's review as well as the first 30 posts in this thread. It looked to me to be pretty fair and balanced until you came in (Post #34 IIR) and started flaming him. I think what you continue to miss here is that the bottleneck with the H2 lies with the mic preamps. Understandably Zoom (as well as any other manufacturer) has to make some trade-offs when designing a piece of equipment to fall within a certain price range. I'm sure they are attempting to undercut the offerings of Edirol and M-Audio, and it looks like they've done that being able to offer a competitive product at half the price.

I purchased an Edirol R-09 about a year ago to record practices & jams. It was not perfect by any means, but it did meet my needs... That was until I misplaced it. Now I am considering whether the H2 will suffice as a replacement. If I should find my lost R-09 sometime in the future, all the better. Reading Guitarfx's review pretty much confirmed what I already suspected based on prior reviews I have read about the H4 as well as my own experience with other Zoom products. That doesn't necessarily mean that I've been dissuaded against buying an H2. Most likely, I will still purchase one as it looks like it will still meet my requirements at half the price of another R-09. That being said I can't find fault in anything that Guitarfx said either in his review or within the first two pages of this thread... Sorry if you don't see it that way.

- Frank.

Edited September 5, 2007 by UglyBassPlayer

[jack636]

http://mefeedia.com/entry/3423836/

http://www.bradlinder.net/2007/09/more-zoo...n-way-that.html

Cheers

Edited September 5, 2007 by jack636

[Strungup]

Edited September 5, 2007 by Guitarfxr

[skiphunt]

If we want to be objective about comparing the H2 and the RH1, it seems to me that somebody needs to record something with the same mics on both units in 44.1/16 mode. Comparing 320kbps MP3 to 44.1/16 or ATRAC or 96/24PCM just adds another nuisance variable into the equation - something has to be held constant for a valid comparison. After quantitatively comparing and/or listening to the two 44.1kHz recordings side by side, we should then qualitatively compare both units at their best - LPCM mode for the RH1 and 96/24 LPCM for the H2. If the mic noise is a problem on the H2, it will be heard, just as if the 96/24 mode results in higher subjective sound quality compared to 44.1/16.

Uploads, anyone?

Take anothe look. It was all pretty civil until I had the nerve to question is samples from the RH1 and H2. And I asked him why he still didn't try the 96/24. He then started with the arogance and chest beating about how much experience he has... yada, yada. Seems to me he's a perfectly fine individual.. as long as you agree with him and never question him. Yes, his initial responses seemed fair and well thought out. Then, he starts going ballistic when questioned and starts making blanket statements like

"Hey oz , I am an Audio engineer ok , Full Scale ,Schooled In it Live it Eat It Breathe it ........ you not taking my points seriously enough ,

The preamp for the EXT Mic input ,, how can I say this nicely ...... SUCKS !!!!!!!!!! I know how to test any given piece of equipment on any given Day .

YOU WILL BE DISSAPPOINTED BIG TIME , if you use external mics of ANY kind ."

I was actually interested in what this guy had to say after he did more legitimate testing without all the uppercase insults etc. and after he finally experimented with other mics, the limiter, and 96/24. Too bad he can't take honest questioning without getting all worked up about it.

Hey Guitarfxr, I thought you already said you were outta here two times already. Why are you getting so freakin' bent out of shape and tossing insults left and right? This is a thread about the H2. Someone referenced my sample clips and I offered personal observations of the H2 since I own one. How is that inappropriate for this thread?

Seriously, you really need to learn how to control your temper. You don't really fly off the handle like that with your students do you?

Look, I get it. The H2 doesn't suit your needs and you find the pre-amps sub-par for your needs. I just don't see how you can start flinging insults when someone merely questions you. AND has even shown the capacity to admit when he's wrong or has misinterpretted something as I have shown. Why don't you just take a few deep breaths, admit you got a bit too sensitive about all this... and then move past it? I don't care if you apologize for all the insults to me or not, but for your own health.. you might want to chill a bit. Seriously dude, none of this is really all that important to start insulting your fellow human beings and getting yourself in a tizzy over it. These are all just nifty gizmos for recording. Some are better than others. And some are better at specific things. Not really worth getting into a heated argument about.

So, I'm virtually reaching my hand out to shake hands in a virtual truce.

Edited September 5, 2007 by skiphunt

[ozpeter]

I think you guys are now over this - good. I'm sure the rest of us are!

Meanwhile, do listen to http://mefeedia.com/entry/3423836/ as mentioned above. Very good. By far the best review so far.

[fanimej]

http://mefeedia.com/entry/3423836/

http://www.bradlinder.net/2007/09/more-zoo...n-way-that.html

Cheers

Thank you for that! Very helpful

[ozpeter]

At about 15'30" of the podcast he starts using external mics - first with a $20 Radio Shack headset one - and for the life of me, I can't hear any gross problem at all. Whether better or worse than the RH-1 it's impossible to tell, but for me what I hear seems to contrast with some of the reports above. He then plugs in AT942's and perhaps there's a trace more noise, but if you listen carefully you can hear a distant bird in the background, above the noise level. (But I'm 58 so maybe I just don't hear hiss any more - but I could hear the bird). Put it this way - when recording classical music with an appropriate distance between the mic and the performer, I don't think there would be a practical problem. The built in mics sound very quiet to me, and with a respectable frequency response.

He even tests 90 degree and 120 degree imaging using background sounds at night - and there's a clear difference.

"This is not a professional piece of equipment but it comes very close to being in a lot of areas" he concludes.

Early on he switches from the H4 to the H2, and if you boost the high frequencies you hear a noticable jump in background hiss at the point that the H2 is used. But if you normalise the audio either side of the transition from one to the other (I mean, in the talking either side, so that the reproduced level of the voice will be the same from the H4 and the H2), the noise floor actually drops noticably as you get to the H2. You have to be so careful to compare like with like.

I'm not going to get involved in the "MD killer" stuff - I've already commented that it very much depends on the features you want - but this device, on the basis of this podcast, does seem to merit very serious consideration by anyone to whom the feature set appeals.