Comparing the Sony PCM-D50, Fostex FR2-LE, Zoom H4 and Sound Devices 702
Posted at Saturday, October 06, 2007
I tested out a couple of different flash audio recorders at AES yesterday. And while recording conditions weren't ideal on the noisy show room floor, here are the results. Ideally I'd love to take each of these recorders into a quiet room and record an interview and some ambiance, because even the Zoom H4 with its noisy preamp sounded halfway decent with all that background noise.
Fostex FR2-LE using an Electrovoice RE-50 microphone:
The FR2-LE is a trimmed down version of the Fostex FR2. It packs combo XLR/quarter inch inputs, track marking, and most of the features I'd want, on paper. But as you can hear when the gain is turned down the preamps are a bit noisier than I'd hoped.
Sound Devices 702 with RE-50 mic:
The Sound Devices 702 is a high end compact flash recorder. It'll set you back about $2000 but honestly, I've never heard a DAT/minidisc/Flash recorder that sounds as good.
Sony PCM-D50 with RE-50 mic:
The Sony PCM-D50 sounds surprisingly good with an external mic. Although it sports 1/8th inputs, meaning no phantom power, you can get an extraordinarily high record level with a dynamic microphone like the RE-50. That, plus the fact that you can mark tracks on the fly, pre-buffer recordings, and change record levels on the fly makes this an excellent recorder or anyone who likes the convenience of a compact minidisc recorder but wants the sound quality of a DAT or high quality flash recorder.
Sony PCM-D50 with the built-in stereo condenser mics:
The PCM-D50 also has stereo condenser mics built in. If no mic is plugged in, the recorder will use these by default. Plug anything into the mic or line input and they'll shut off. While they're not ideal for recording on a noisy show-room floor (they pick up way too much ambiance and not enough of the people they're pointed at), these mics would be excellent for quick interviews in the field or for recording music or outdoor ambiance. There's an optional wind-screen for $50, and there's almost no handling noise when using the built-in mics, which is a huge problem with the cheaper Zoom H-4.
Zoom H4 using an RE-50:
I brought along my Zoom H4 recorder in order to make a comparison recording. The preamps are pretty noisy and in a quiet recording environment a Zoom H4/RE-50 combination is really less than satisfactory. But because of all the background noise, this recording actually came out pretty decent.
In other words, take all of the other recordings with a grain of salt. That said, I think it's still safe to say that in this limited test the Sound Devices 702 an the Sony PCM-D50 both produced cleaner recordings than the Fostex FR2-LE or the Zoom H4. When you add the PCM-D50's extra features like the ability to create new tracks, change record levels, and switch between internal and external mics, I think it's the clear winner.
If you've got high quality mics that require phantom power, the PCM-D50 probably isn't the way to go unless you've got another $500 to drop on Sony's XLR-1 mic adapter. But for radio producers and podcasters looking for a high quality and affordable device for recording interviews, music, and ambiance, the PCM-D50 looks (and sounds) awesome.
Related Posts:
129 Comments:
All the best...
Thanks for the input. Admittedly, the noisy show room floor was an awful place to test these recorders out. But part of the reason I took my trusty RE50 instead of a condenser is because I wanted to see how the recorders would sound with a dynamic mic. My Zoom H4 generally sounds pretty bad with the RE50 test, and the RE50 is a pretty good mic.
I'll definitely have to think about the Fostex some more, because mini jacks like the ones on the Sony recorder are prone to breaking, so it would be nice to have XLR inputs. And phantom power would be nice. But right now I'm leaning toward the PCM-D50.
Nice work, but wondering why you didn't compare the PCM-D50 with the PCM-D1? The PCM-D1 would make a better "high end" reference than the Sound Devices since it is more similar to the other units, and I bet a lot of people are wondering about how much better the PCM-D1 is than the PCM-D50 (like $1500 better)? Obviously, you can't tell a whole lot on the floor of the AES show, but your comparisons were pretty helpful and the Sound Devices certainly did shine over the competition even with a chaotic and undemanding source (not exactly a string quartet in a quiet concert hall...).
FWIW, I have a PCM-D1 and think it's fantastic. Really impressive for such a small little thing. it's stuffed with excellent components that sound way bigger than its size. I use it with music recording, so that's more demanding than interviews. Even at 2k, its quality amazes.
With the Fostex and Sound Devices recorders I was able to pop a CF card in, plug in a mic, make a quick recording and go. Because I don't carry around Sony memory sticks, I had to plug the D50 into my laptop to transfer recordings.
But the D1 does have nicer preamps and better internal mics from what I understand so you're right, it would be nice to hear a comparison, even if the D1 is out of my price range.
I have used both the 702 and the FR2 LE. I couldn't afford the 702 so I bought the FR2 LE for my field work this summer. I must say, it's rugged and made fine recordings with my RODE NT4 mic. After getting rained on for hours, it sill functions just fine. I found the preamps to be quiet and efficient but the headphone amp leaves a little to be desired. an excellent buy for the price!
It is a bit of a shame that the divshare players you use on your blog have no way of prebuffering, so I listened the samples in parts of 10 seconds or less.
while comparing the "gain quality" and the preamps of the fostex FR2 LE to the new sony psm d50, i would like to ask you, if noticed that the fostex comes with a threefold device:the auto level control offers
1. off
2. on
3. limiter
so it works likewise as an compressor or like a limiter - the recorded sound quality is, whether you turn the ALC "on", "off" or on "limiter" quite different! so please take care, when testing, which configurations you have chosen, otherwise audio samples can hardly be compared!
so the fostex and the sony/marantz machines are differnt types of recorders - handheld vs. portable. and: i would really miss XLR.
i'am an radio activist for a community based radio in austria and your tests are very helpful - especially for the new sony and marantz, thanks for inputs!
cheers, walt
http://www.avisoft.com/tutorial_field_recording.htm and
http://www.avisoft.com/test/noisefloors.pdf
tascam hd-p2 also features incoming time code/video ref support for camera sync support.
i have this unit and i find it very good for the price.
-andrejs
Thanks for the link, that's a great website!
I did actually stop by the Tascam booth at AES and take a look at the HD-P2. But the sample unit didn't power up. Odds are if I'd asked the Tascam reps I probably could have gotten someone to throw some batteries in there and let me run a test. But honestly, the only reason I even used the Sound Devices 702 is because I wanted a reference recording. Like the 702, the HD-P2 is a bit out of my range. You can pick up the FR2-LE, or the Sony PCM-D50 for under $600, which makes each an affordable step up from my Zoom H4/minidisc recorders. That said, it's quite clear that neither device is top of the line, especially since each is obviously a stripped down version of a more expensive recorder.
for our local community radio,
we search for an easy to use but
stable recorder - you tested three of our favorites:
- zoomH4
- sony pcm d50
- marantz pmd 620
(the sony and marantz look more rugged than the zoom, even the buttons: you may agree?)
if you had the choice, which one would you take - and why...?
thanks for support, walt.
I haven't had a chance to check out the Marantz PMD620 yet, but I've been using the Zoom H4 and plan to buy the Sony PCM-D50 when it becomes available next month.
As for which recorder will suit your needs, it depends on how you rate the following three items:
1. Affordability
2. Durability
3. Sound quality
From what I can tell, the PCM-D50 sounds better, is more durable, and has easier controls. It also costs about twice as much as a Zoom H4.
That said, the Zoom sounds pretty good if you use it right. It's just a bit more finicky than I'd like. You have to handle it carefully if you're using the built-in mics to avoid handling noise. And unless you're in a noisy environment, I'd recommend using the built-in mics rather than an external mic, since the preamps aren't that good.
Also, when running on battery power, the Zoom records a low level electronic pulsing noise. You can get around this by building an external battery pack or running on AC. But overall, it might be worth looking at a pricier recorder if you don't want to have to deal with those issues.
On the other hand, the Zoom H2 recorder is cheaper than the H4, has easier controls to use, and doesn't have the electronic pulsing noise. It also has mediocre preamps for external mics though, so I'd only recommend this recorder if sound quality isn't as important to you, or if you're willing to use it primarily with the built-in mics.
thanks a lot for remarks,
the recorders we would like to buy are for members of our community radio and amateurs, students in recording - the recorder should be easy to handle and should not wreck, when treated not very gentle...hm.
the zooms are "out", because of the "weak hood construction".
more and more i favour the sony and marantz (this looks like an really simplified machine!).
the fostex FR 2LE we will buy, to record festivals and speeches, lectures, when XLR is necessary and a nice analog gain controll. we also checked the tascam, butu its twice the price - and we don't hear the difference! even the controls are very simple to understand...
thanks and cheers, walt.
Internal mic:
1.Sony pcm d50 - absolutley solid performance very little background hiss.
2. Marantz 620 - is also a stunning performer with abit less detail than Sony and slightly more back ground hiss.
3. Zoom H4 - is a fine performer with its built in mic but generates pulse noise when using batteries and abit more handling noise than the last 2.
FR2le - with built in mic very poor performance and too much back ground noise.
External MIC:
1.FR2le - Outstanding quality, even if u boost the recording the hiss is not apparent.
2. Maratnz 620 - This was abit of a suprise the quality was nearly as good as the FR2 le again very little hiss and detail too.
3. Sony pcm d50 - had greater hiss than last 2 recorders, this may be down to poor mic pre-amp but on the whole it was acceptable.
4.Zoom H4 - Although this unit has pro XLR inputs but the unit has a lousy mic pre-amps and the recording can be unpredictable - certainly not recommended for external mics.
Would you mind if I wrote a new post quoting your results so that more people will see it. I'm a bit worried that your observations are buried in the comments here. If you'd like I could also provide a link to your web site if you have one.
Regards
Graham Riches
Recorder Internal External
Fostex FR2le 3.5/10 10/10
Marantz 620 8/10 8.5/10
Sony pcm d50 8.5/10 4.5/10
H4 Zoom 7.5/10 4/10
Conclusion.
Fostex FR2 le - for professional high grade recordings; using external mics only. Tamiya battery pack (7.2v 4300) can also be used for longer recording times.
Sony pcm d50 - provides longer recording times and for use with internal mics only.
Marantz 620 - A true all-rounder for both internal and external mics.
Zoom H4 - mainly for gadget lovers. internal mics only.
Final verdict:
The Marantz 620 is a truly outstanding recorder to provide a balanced performance whether your using internal or external mics. It's portable, solidly built and sexy too. Display is bright and clear and it's very easy to operate. A fantastic piece of kit!!
Test(Mics)Results:
Fostex FR2le - internal 3.5/10 and external 10/10
Marantz 620 - internal 8/10 and external 8.5/10
Sony pcm d50 - internal 8.5/10 and external 4.5/10
H4 Zoom - internal 7.5/10 and external 4/10.
Sony pcm d50
Marantz 620
After reading the last 2 comments with interest, I have enough confidence to purchase Marantz 620.
I also visited Transom sight and this little puppy does set standards.
opted for Marantz 620.
which one?
1)Nelson never bothered to test external mics!
2)Brad has only used dynamic mics and infact condensor mics are very sensitive. With these types of mics usually you can understand how good are mic pre-amps are on a portable device as they pickup a lot of ambience noise.
3)Graham's test may be right as Transom sight tested a lot of external mics on Marantz 620 and in each case the results were good. Sony lacks balance control on record mode and does not even record in mono to save space, finally on mp3; it's playback only. In my opinion Marantz 620 does put the edge on Sony pcm d50 -its also $100 cheaper.
There are some of us who use phantom powered mics and/or external preamps. I'd like to know what the ADC sounds like. Its the only test left. Thanks. :)
I use condensers w/ phantom, not dynamic mics. LINE-IN is important for musicians too.
From the above samples, FR2LE and 702 sound nice and warm. Like that. The D50 has that classic ENG thinness, but not fatiguing. Dead quiet though.
FR2LE has a small buzz sound if you listen closely to "room portion" with the RE50. Doesn't sound like its coming from the room either.
My 2 cents on the above.
http://www.transom.org/tools/recording_interviewing/200712_marantz_620/
remember that 620 will not provide 48V (phantom) power. Condensor mics requires external power to work with this portable recorder.
http://www.transom.org/tools/
According to the Transom review, the PMD620 sounds decent with internal mics but even better with external mics. In fact, they say it's the best they've heard in the price range, which is how I feel about the D50, so I'd really like to hear how they stack up against one another.
That said, they point out two issues with the PMD620 that I feel are quite problematic:
1. There's a latency issue if you're monitoring your recordings with headphones. Considering I primarily use these recorders to conduct interviews, I'm ALWAYS wearing headphones and I think the lag issue would drive me batty.
2. The headphone jack is placed right between the two internal mics, which means that if you're using the built-in mics and monitoring your recording, there's a good chance you'll hear the sound of your headphone cable flapping.
If Graham's evaluation is accurate, it seems like the PMD620 might sound better with a condenser mic than the D50, but with a dynamic mic, the D50 sounds pretty darn good, so I'm happy with my choice. Maybe one of these years I'll spring for a Sound Devices recorder and get the best of the breed, but for $500 the D50 is a pretty solid recorder.
Not only do I think the sound is pretty good but the build quality is excellent. The record and playback volume knobs are hard to hit by accident, the headphone and mic jacks are metal not the cheap plastic you see on most mini jacks, and the buttons are generally pretty easy to use (once you figure out a few quirks in the menu system).
I think you're missing my point. I have no need to use the 620 with a battery powered microphone, whether it be dynamic or condenser. I would like to hear samples where a Mic Preamp is out in front. That way I can listen to the ADC (Analog Digital Converter) of each unit.
example:
LINE-IN test
P48 condensor mic > P48 mic preamp > Sony D50, Marantz 620, Edirol R09, ...........
1. Tascam HD-P2
2. Korg MR-1000
3. Fostex FR2
All of the above devices have good (A/D converter) plus clean mic-preamps.
Brads, information about recorders lacks confidence and resources.
Graham, has gone straight to the point and provided all useful information but there is no sample to prove this.
I record concerts. I used to own a Tascam HD-P2 and absolutely loved it. Unfortunately, my gear is mobile, so the P2 was too big. I like components too. I prefer a small preamp and small recorder. Easier to lug around and still get quality recordings too.
I have 2 recorders:
The Edirol R09. 620 is much quieter and sounds like warm butter when compared to it. Based opinion on the Transom upload of Rode NTG2 shotgun samples.
The Sony PCM-D50. Much thinner sounding than the R09 and 620. Transom has yet to review. In my opinion, D50 more geared toward ENG, based on how its sounds. Not much warmth.
My mic preamp is incredibly small, transformer based, and sounds great: AERCO MP-2 Did i say it was tiny?
I want to record structure-borne sound from industrial sources using a transducer or acoustic guitar type pickup instead of a mic. I'd run that into a pre-amp (affordable suggestions?) and download the recording to my computer for editing. So for a lot of my use I would only be recording mono.
I want to slow the sound down for an audio art project. I'm worried that stretching the audio file digitally will leave obvious aliasing artifacts. Would I be better off buying a used Nagra-IV and record to tape at higher speed and playback at slower speed into the computer to digitize the signal?
Sorry if this all is a little muddled. I'm a bit new to the field.
Great work Brad!
Marantz 620. But Edirol is very poor recorder for both external/inetrnal mic and is ok for general use - probably as a speech recorder.
Marantz 620 is the winner!!!
I have tried shure 57 mic (Dynamic) and Marantz 620 still outperforms Sony pcm d50.
Results:
Sony pcm d50:
Hiss: 6/10 (hiss is apparent)
performance: 6/10
Level: 8/10 (mic pre-amp does take it loud - but adds too much hiss)
Overall: 7/10 using Dynamic Mic
Marantz 620
Hiss: 9/10 (very little hiss)
performance: 9/10
Loud: 6/10 (may need to boost the signals, using software; but still very little hiss added.)
Overall: 8/10
For both types of MIC the Marantz 620 dominates Sony pcm d50. Sony only produces good results with its own mic.
Sony pcm d50 (6/10) sounds very thin (lacks weight) and metallic (Artificial) and Marantz 620 (9/10) sounds very natural and weighty like a professional recorder should do.
Thanks
for your information the results for d50 are:
Dynamic mic 7/10
Condenser mic 4.5/10
So it does vary but as far as I can see this device might be mic fussy or its just has poor external mic pre-amps.
Good luck to all.
If you look at my previous post, I clearly stated that I do not own Marantz 620.. But however I did all the test fair as possible. Each of the recorders have advantages and disadvantages. There is no way a manufacturer will produce a complete system for anyones needs. These tests can provide readers with a good guidance in what to look for. need i say more....
The results:
Internal mics 10/10
Dynamic mics shure 57 9/10
Condenser
AT882: 10/10
Rode NTG2: 10/10
AKG CD1000: 8/10 (this could be down to being a budget MIC)
Rode T4: 10/10
The simple answer to this is what you pay is what u get. If you can afford it buy it!! personally I think this is the the RR of portable recorders.
tried the mic preamps using the built-in mics and was not very happy. I will never use the built-in mics to record music. The hiss is very audible when the mic vol is set above 4.5. Never done a mic-in recording with external mics.
Regarding digital in...you have to be careful where the digital signal is coming from. There is a problem with this machine accepting 24 bit digital signals from a lot of AD converters. Many AD converters are not compatible with the D50. Grace Design is working on a V3 AD chip up-date so the D50 can be used with it (I will be helping them test the chip this week).
I'm planning to do a comp of the internal AD converter with the 722 and V3 later this month in a concert. If someone else does it before me, it will be great.
Metering is really good!
Are you planning to get it? If I were you I will wait for the fixes and the comp before getting it because it is sort of pricey if you consider the problem with the digital in. You might want to consider the MTII, too.
Has anyone here actually used the D50 in a live music event yet and was happy? I'm sure someone here must have recorded a concert rather than just recording room/street noise or people chatting. My problem is if I set the REC vol at level 3 the music turns out to be very soft during playback. Even if I turn up the phone vol to "10" (max).
I don't want to turn up the mixpre too high just in case I get brickwalling. BTW, how do I know what is the max I can go with the mixpre before I reach brickwalling?
If I end up recording at setting "3" and increase the vol at home I'm sure the background noise will increase, too. So what is the best thing to do? Use the D50 as a bit bucket with my V3 or just try out the Mixpre>D50 setup or forget about all this and take the trusty 722?
has Fostex fr2 le, that was a great move!!
No, the under the skin engineering is of poor quality!!
Based on my experiences I eventually decided to purchase a PCM-D50 recorder, which I've been happy with as it meets my needs. It's a great portable audio recorder for recording interviews. It's got a solid build quality, hardware volume controls, an excellent limiter feature, and a few other goodies that make it great for reporters.
As I mentioned in the article, I think I had the Fostex FR2-LE settings wrong so I was less than impressed with the results. From other reviews I've read I'm convinced that it can easily sound as good if not better than the PCM-D50. But it has an awkward battery compartment and doesn't take AA batteries, making it tougher to replace the batteries if you run out while in the field.
If you'd like to hear a comparison of the Sony PCM-D50 and the Zoom H4 in a quiet environment, check out my D50 review:
http://www.bradlinder.net/2007/12/sony-pcm-d50-review.html
NIMH 2700 should last up to 6hours.
Tamiya 4300 should last up to 12hours.
I'm not saying that the Fostex FR2-LE is a bad machine. Not by a longshot. But different people are going to find each of these machines attractive for different reasons. The only device of these four that I would not recommend would be the Zoom H4. While it looks attractive on paper, and is the cheapest of the bunch, the preamps are really subpar.
The PCM-D50 has been serving me well. I have no doubt I would have been happy with the Fostex recorder as well, but I like having a smaller handheld recorder with the option of using internal or external mics. The prerecord buffer and limiter feature are extraordinarily useful and not only have I never lost a recording, but I recently decided to see what would happen if I turn off the recorder while making a recording (without hitting stop first) and it saved the file, which was a pleasant surprise.
While the Fostex has XLR inputs and is similar in size and shape to the Tascam and Sound Devices recorders, I don't think it's really fair to say that it's in the same league. I have never seen a device that combines high quality parts and user friendly controls as well as the Sound Devices 722. But there's a reason it costs $2000+
costing $599(Basic)
costing $700(Transparent)
Both above sound better than Sound device.
The busman's mod is outstanding - if u listen to that version; you will agree there is not a single machine out there which can match it - it only lacks TC.
like I said u do not have to spend 1000's of dollars to get results. In my opinion Fostex fr2 le is just as good as Tascam HDP2, Fostex FR2, Korg MR1000 or even Sound devices. They have just simply trimmed down some features but under the skin its military grade. check this link.
www.avisoft.com/recordertests.htm
Just be careful in what u say, but yes the pcm d50 is very poor quality.
so these are the top5 recorders (under $1200) in my opinion:
5. Marantz 620
4. Fostex FR2 le
3. Korg MR1000
2. Fostex FR2
1. Tascam HDP2
So I decided to order another one on trial basis only. This new one looked and felt identical to mine but the sound quality was totally different. With internal mics its the same as before. But with external mics (mics used: Rode NTG2, NT4, NT1A, Shure SM58/SM57, AKG CS1000s, and AT882) it is actually the same quality as Fostex fr2 le but louder and also glad to announce that it is equal to pcm d1. So why does this one sound different to mine? I believe they had been a few faulty batches which were been shipped out ( this was not deliberate but was a mistake. As they gone into production various phase checks were done and few batches missed couple of phases which led to this). Anyhow I have sent mine for replacement and once again I am deeply sorry about this Brad and the readers within this Blog.
Any how the new results are as follows:
Internal Mics:
8.5/10
External MICs:
Shure sm58/sm57 10/10
Rode NTG2 9/10
Rode NT4 10/10
AkG CS1000 9/10
AT882 10/10
Rode NT1A 10/10
The quality is very very good with external mics!!, it is infact unbelievable. The sound quality can be described as very detailed and attacking. The noise levels are equal to fostex fr2 le but better than marantz 620 which is also good. The real beauty about this product is its mic pre-amps - it can be taken very loud so it works very well with dynamic mics too!. Both Marantz 620 and Sony d50 are good but Sony this time is a clear winner!!
The moral of this story: If you're not happy with your PCM-D50, take it back to the dealer and see if you can get another one. It might just be a faulty model.
www.wingfieldaudio.com/portable-recorder-noise.html
Noise floor test on 7 portable recorders.
But it's great to hear all 7 devices with the same set of mics.
External mics only:
Sony pcm d50:
Dynamic range: 79 db
Pre-amp Power: 10/10
Bandwidth: 8/10
Recording Quality: 9/10
THD (Mic): 0.13%
Signal boosted (20%): 3.5% hiss added
Fostex Fr2le:
Dynamic Range: 84 db
Pre-amp Power: 8/10
Bandwidth: 10/10
Recording Quality: 10/10
THD (Mic): 0.03%
Signal boosted (20%): 0.6% hiss added
Over all Fostex FR2 le is the winner the mic-pre amps are very clean.
This is definitely down to the input type 3.5mm vs Balanced XLR.
But as far as I am concerned this 3.5mm input is superb in every respect because the mic pre-amp is very high standard. Remember the Fostex fr2 le is only marginally better.
Thanks for your update. I respect you for making the correction. Your current results are pretty consistent with my experience.
I purchased the above unit with confidence and I must say in any acoustic environment this recorder has not produced recordings to my standards. The recordings produced were of very poor quality (Too much hiss). I have returned this product several times for investigation and each case the company reported its fine. So I decided to hunt for another portable recorder. I finally purchased Sony pcm D50. This recorder is well built like a battle tank. The recording quality is outstanding whether your using internal or external mic. Now the
Nagra Ares-M MII is just collecting dust (Just dead money). I will never buy their product again.
http://www.corporatetalkradio.com/download/olympus_ls-10.mp3
Olympus LS10
_ls-10.mp3
Update
I actually wrote a separate entry about Philip and Henry's LS-10 review.
http://www.bradlinder.net/2008/03/want-to-know-what-olympus-ls-10-sounds.html
Overall it sounds like a great little recorder. It offers most of the features you can find in the PCM-D50, but for about $50-$100 less. And it comes in a smaller package. There's no track mark button though, the internal mics are not repositionable, and you don't get the Sony's innovative limiter feature. But the LS-10 does look and sound like it could be useful for many folks looking for a budget recorder or a backup for a bulkier, pricier unit.
http://www.zaxcom.com/zfr_recorders.htm
http://www.felmicamps.co.uk/products
/fel3.5series.html
and
http://www.felmicamps.co.uk/products
/felbattpreamp.html
Edirol ro9HR
One can also use a Rolls PB224 or Art Phantom II portable phantom power unit which cost $50-70USD.
I suspect the PMD-D50 has the same or very similar A-D mic pre chip as the Sony Hi-MD recorders. This is consistent with the very high available gain and very low noise.
Rob Danielson
- No more pulse noise using batteries.
- pre-amp is much cleaner and has better gain.
-even internal mics sounds better but there is still some problem with handling noise.
Over all a good machine.
Zoom and they modified (free of charge) mine to recent
standards. I have done few basic tests and I am pleased to say that there is no more buzzing noise. Also the pre-amp is lot cleaner and more powerful after comparing with the older recordings. Well done Zoom and
thanks to Riches. Yet to try external mics.
First of all, sorry for my bad english.
After reading a lot of comments and reviews about the Sony D50, the marantz 620 and the fostex FR2 LE, I was going to buy the marantz, because it is smaller (for field recording). But now I read that the sony is even better, (I followed the topic month after month) just you have to be carreful since it seems there are few bad items on the market.
The transom review is also luckwarm regarding the sony, when the marantz always seems to get good reviews.
So, I m a bit confused...
What is your final word on the Sony?
Is there anyone here to tell me whether I should buy the sony or the marantz?
Also: I m currently in north america and I m willing to buy the items here, since it is less expensive than in France.
Who s got the best prices for recorders such as the FR2, the marantz or the sony?
Thanks for your help!!
Honestly, both appear to be good recorders and have received positive reviews. Neither accepts XLR inputs or provides phantom power without an adapter, so they're not exactly perfect. But you get what you pay for.
I personally have been using a Sony PCM-D50 for over a year and I'm happy with it. But I don't own a Marantz PMD620, so I've never been able to do a real side by side comparison.
I went to a store today to check the fostex LE, see how it feels and I was surprise by its lightness. Although it is not exactly a small unit like the marantz or the sony, it is still managable. So, now I m just indecise between the Sony D50 and the Fostex. Like you said, it really depends on what I want and how I will use it (it is for journalism, soundscapes ...)
I own a Shure 58 and a sony 907, both dynamics mics (I suppose).
So I m thinking:
Fotex + : phantom power, XLR inputs
Sony + : smaller
Mmmmh...
With dynamic mics, can you really tell the difference between the sony and the fostex?
Since the price is almost the same and that I m not the one paying :), I really don t know what is worth.
Please someone help me...
PS: I was thinking buying through B&H, is it a reputable store?
Thanks again...
I have been wondering if Zoom would be coming out with an updated model (H3??) but sounds like a new version of the H4 is in the works, which sounds very promising! Where has this rumour come from?
As a musician, the track on track recording is appealing, but I also want to do many other types of recording (live music in stereo, interviews, nature sounds) so would look forward to the H4 with necessary improvements.
Any idea when we may see the new H4 hit the shelves?
check this link
http://www.soundonsound.com/news?NewsID=10885
As for zoom h4 (II), its ?.
If you have this unit, are you satisfied, would you buy another?
I produce a podcast and I'm in the field a lot. I just hope it can hold up the way my much larger Marantz 670 did. I know it doesn't have all the features but the small size is particularly alluring.
Thanks!
http://ces.cnet.com/8301-19167_1-10131461-100.html
check this link:
http://www.wingfieldaudio.com/marantz-pmd661-review.html
Now for the new H4n - this was reported by UK engineer (at Zoom). he did some test with the following recorders Sony pcm d50, Marantz 661 and Olympus LS-10.
"H4n has very good gain control and works fine with good dynamic mics, (SM58)in fact the results were in par with Sony pcm-d50 with lots of head room (very low floor noise). The results were quite clear that it out performed both Marantz 661 and Olympus LS-10 with Dynamic mics".
Using condenser NT1a. The results were very close between Marantz 661, Sony pcmd50 and H4n (all recorders produced ultra low back ground noise). Olympus sounded very tiny and thin.
With built in mic Sony and Marantz 661 produced good results. The H4n was in a different class; it was as good as using Rode NT1A. Olympus was just average.
*NB Sony and Olympus were routed via Rolls Phantom Power unit.
So in theory with these results H4n could be a real winner offering lots of features, Excellent qualtiy recordings with all external mics, Pro XLR inputs and a brilliant built in mic. Nice interface too!
The mic pre-amp (burr brown) is decent quality.
-Zoom H4n
-Tascam DR-100
So which one?
This is going to be a close one but i am leaning towards Zoom with its 24/96 and the fact that the company was the first to employ XLR on a unit of this size.
Who's next(to provide XLR)?
probably - Sony and Edirol.
"The DR-07 is roughly the size of the Olympus LS-10, but a little thicker/chunkier. The DR-100 is pretty much analogous to the Zoom
H4n, but with better build quality and slightly more handsome design.
Weirdly though, I don't think it sounds as good as the H4n and it will be about $100 more...The H4n is ugly and I've been tempted to snap its mics off with my bare hands b/c the build quality is iffy. However, both the
interface and its sound quality are indeed MUCH clearer than it's
predecessor".
So riches could be right here! because Zoom Technology is more dedicated to portable recorders than Tascam. So overall sound quality will be edged by Zoom.
The PMD661 recorder is a big improvement over the original PMD660 The PMD661 recorder is a big improvement over the original PMD660
model. Using Rode NT1A mics, the recorder's self-noise is inaudible Using NT1A Rode mics, the recorder's self-noise is inaudible
in most circumstances I tried. in most circumstances I tried. I found results to be better/quieter I found results to be better / quieter
than my Olympus LS-10 with NT1A and battery box. than my Olympus LS-10 with NT1A and battery box.
The PMD661 is very well constructed. The PMD661 is very well constructed. The top plate is metal, making a The top plate is metal, making a
very solid mounting for the pushbutton controls. very solid mounting for the pushbutton controls. The controls operate The controls operate
smoothly, giving the impression of a high quality device. smoothly, giving the impression of a high quality device.
It's nice to have so many options for input. It's nice to have so many options for input. The PMD661 has XLR and The PMD661 has XLR and
1/4 inch jacks for mic and line level input, 1/8-inch mini jack for 1 / 4 inch jacks for mic and line level input, 1/8-inch mini jack for
line level, and an RCA jack for digital input. line level, and an RCA jack for digital input.
The PMD661's built-in mics are good. The PMD661's built-in mics are good. They're quite adequate to record They're quite adequate to record
a conversation around a table, for example. a conversation around a table, for example.
A pair of speakers are mounted in the sides of the case. A pair of speakers are mounted in the sides of the case. These
speakers are powered by an amp capable of 450 mW output. speakers are powered by an amp capable of 450 mW output. That's 3 or That's 3 or
4 times louder than most small recorders, quite loud enough to fill a 4 times louder than most small recorders, quite loud enough to fill a
room with sound. room with sound. The speakers sound pretty good if not driven to maximum. The speakers sound pretty good if not driven to maximum.
The bad: The bad:
Battery life is a lot less than I hoped. Battery life is a lot less than I hoped. Four fresh alkaline AA cells Four fresh AA alkaline cells
lasted just 3 hours when recording WAV files and providing phantom lasted just 3 hours when recording WAV files and providing phantom
power to mics. power to mics.
The PMD661 makes heavy use of software menus to configure parameters The PMD661 makes heavy use of software menus to configure parameters
of recording. of recording. I found this to be a hindrance. I found this to be a hindrance. For example, I counted For example, I counted
19 clicks of the controls to change mic attenuation from 0dB to -12dB. 19 clicks of the controls to change mic attenuation from 0dB to-12dB.
An external switch would be most welcome to control this function, An external switch would be most welcome to control this function,
which often can't be set in advance of the recording session. which often can not be set in advance of the recording session.
The LED panel showing input level is not angled enough to let you see LED panel showing the input level is not angled enough to let you see
them easily when carrying the recorder on your shoulder. them easily when carrying the recorder on your shoulder. I found I I found I
had to lift the recorder up to see the LEDs clearly. had to lift up the recorder to see the LEDs clearly.
I was disappointed that the Record Timer function only worked if the I was disappointed that the Timer Record function only worked if the
PMD661 was left on. PMD661 was left on. I had hoped that the timer function would turn I had hoped that the timer function would turn
the recorder on at the scheduled time, like the Yamaha Pocketrak CX the recorder on at the scheduled time, like the Yamaha Pocketrak CX
does. With limited battery life, leaving the recorder running is not With limited battery life, leaving the recorder is not running
a good idea. a good idea. I guess I will have to get out of bed to record the dawn I guess I will have to get out of bed to record the dawn
chorus after all! chorus after all!
Competitors:
At this price point, the primary competitor with similar features is At this price point, the primary competitor with similar features is
the Fostex FR-2LE. the Fostex FR-2LE. I think the FR-2LE has slightly better preamp I think the FR-2LE has slightly better preamp
self-noise, but the Marantz seems to me to offer more gain. self-noise, but the Marantz seems to me to offer more gain. Both
recorders have menu-driven configurations. recorders have menu-driven configurations. The Marantz has a louder The Marantz has a louder
speaker and digital input. speaker and digital input. The Marantz is 45% lighter (500 g vs 900 g). The Marantz is 45% lighter (500 g vs. 900 g).
To me, the FR-2LE's most important advantage is in battery life. To me, the FR-2LE's most important advantage is in battery life. Its
larger case can hold a rechargeable battery good for 8 hours of larger box can hold a rechargeable battery good for 8 hours of
recording, even while providing phantom power. recording, even while providing phantom power. A small battery is an A small battery is an
unwelcome distraction while recording in the field. unwelcome distraction while recording in the field. You have to worry You have to worry
about the battery level constantly, and the battery seems to run out about the battery level constantly, and the battery seems to run out
at the most inopportune moment! at the most inopportune moment!
At about $850, the Marantz PMD671, and the Tascam HD-P2 should be At about $ 850, the Marantz PMD671, and the Tascam HD-P2 should be
considered. Both are heavy, full-size recorders, but include better Both are heavy, full-size recorders, but include better
battery life, more configuration by switches, and a design that works battery life, more configuration by switches, and a design that works
better when carried on the shoulder. better when carried on the shoulder.
Conclusion:
The Marantz PMD661 is a well built, flexible device that would be a The Marantz PMD661 is a well built, flexible device that would be a
good choice as a general purpose recorder in the $600 price range. good choice as a general purpose recorder in the $ 600 price range.
Audio preamp performance is very good. Preamp audio performance is very good. The ability to provide mics The ability to provide mics
with 48V phantom power is most welcome. with 48V phantom power is most welcome. If you can live with a If you can live with a
battery life of 3 hours, then the PMD661 would be a great choice. battery life of 3 hours, then the PMD661 would be a great choice.
Fostex is pleased to announce that the FR-2LE Field Recorder has been selected by NASA to travel on the Space Shuttle (STS) and International Space Station (ISS) in the autumn of 2008 as the primary audio capturing device.
Greg Smith, who for over 20 years has been working with IMAX Space Systems developing sound recording systems to fly aboard the Space Shuttle and International Space Station, notes that his role was "to choose a workable recorder and train the astronauts who would be doing the actual recording in space." Having graduated from analog cassette to a DAT recorder, NASA deemed that IMAX was ready to fly again after a long hiatus, and needed to update the recorder.
The factors considered were: small (hand-held best), weight; ease of operation; Alkaline battery powered and easy to swap out batteries; rugged recorder shell; XLR mic inputs with good mic preamps; flexibility in recording formats; ease and clarity of monitoring; CF-card based; responsiveness from manufacturer to solve problems; and getting questions answered quickly. Smith says, "The FR-2LE was, as Goldilocks says, 'just right'." After extensive testing by NASA, it passed with flying colors and IMAX approved it for the project.
The maiden flight of the Fostex FR-2LE in currently scheduled for sometime in the Fall of 2008. Smith says, "IMAX is extremely excited to see how the unit performs in the challenging and forbidding environment of space travel. We have high hopes...as high as the stars and wherever our travels take us."
The pictures below were taken at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland in March 2008. It is called a "clean room" environment. It cuts down on dust particles that might make their way onto hardware which is bound for space. Every particle of dust can be dangerous.
I have H4n recording made using NT1A mic - this recording was done by zoom technical/research. I would like to upload this; can you please allow me to do so.
You can also contact me directly by clicking the contact button at the top of this web site if you want to email me the audio sample.
http://www.bradlinder.net/2009/01/zoom-h4n-audio-sample.html
Sorry it took a few days, but I was having a fight with eSnips.
how has it generated that noise?
A built in speaker is also useful.
can anybody help me.
I want to record church organ in wave, to make audio cds as presents
for friends and family.
I want a good audio quality, and
easy handling of the recorder.
Thank You so much