Topic: ZOOM H4 TESTS

[Church-Audio]

I did some tests on the ZOOM H4 and wanted to share my findings.

There was some tests done by other people here one of the things I found is there is a sampling error this unit is not 96k its more like 95.4 I had to synchronize the sampling rates to get an accurate frequency response. I would say its pretty flat. I also did a noise test and found the noise floor on the low setting unbalanced input- to be -104.5 A weighted. Both tests were done at 24bit 96k the specs are not that bad. I would not call this junk in the next few days I am going to do more tests. I will do harmonic distortion tests and frequency sweeps in the next couple of days.

[Will_S]

Interesting.  I saw better frequency response than Guy reported, but not quite flat either (-2.5 dB at 10kHz).  That was at 16 bit / 44.1 khz though.  I'd be interested to hear if your unit still measures pretty flat at 44.1 or 48 kHz.

[guysonic]

Chris, please include specifics on electrical test conditions being applied. 

Mic or Line (balanced/unbalanced?) analog input, which one(s) for frequency/noise, and input ohms load for noise tests? 

Results of 24bit/44.1K-48K is also of interest as this is most used mode.  My H4 non-review with test conditions is at: www.sonicstudios.com/zoomh4rv.htm

It is interesting how different your 24/96 tests are in making this deck look acceptably good.  Since sending back to Cascade Medial for refund, I no longer have the H4 for more testing and knowing serial number.  It did have next to latest firmware.

Maybe just 44.1/48K rate/unbalanced input modes are lacking bandwidth performance?  Or did I test a 'special' H4 with substandard components/design version?

[Roving Sign]

Also - note the noise issues seemed to involve using batteries to power the unit...(if I read correctly)

[Church-Audio]

Interesting.  I saw better frequency response than Guy reported, but not quite flat either (-2.5 dB at 10kHz).  That was at 16 bit / 44.1 khz though.  I'd be interested to hear if your unit still measures pretty flat at 44.1 or 48 kHz.

I hear what your saying but, I would consider 10hz to 40k +- 2.5 db to be pretty good. I know that you can get better but I think for a cheap recorder its not that bad.

[Will_S]

Interesting.  I saw better frequency response than Guy reported, but not quite flat either (-2.5 dB at 10kHz).  That was at 16 bit / 44.1 khz though.  I'd be interested to hear if your unit still measures pretty flat at 44.1 or 48 kHz.

I hear what your saying but, I would consider 10hz to 40k +- 2.5 db to be pretty good. I know that you can get better but I think for a cheap recorder its not that bad.

Yeah, but it was also down 6 dB at 20 kHz.  I didn't measure any higher, or anything between 10 and 20K.

[Church-Audio]

Interesting.  I saw better frequency response than Guy reported, but not quite flat either (-2.5 dB at 10kHz).  That was at 16 bit / 44.1 khz though.  I'd be interested to hear if your unit still measures pretty flat at 44.1 or 48 kHz.

I hear what your saying but, I would consider 10hz to 40k +- 2.5 db to be pretty good. I know that you can get better but I think for a cheap recorder its not that bad.

Here is my test results at 96k again corrected for sample shift and I updated the firmware it seems to have smoothed out the frequency response somewhat. Its now with in .5db from 20hz to 37k that's pretty dam good.
here is the Graph. The blue line is the wav file output via the downloaded file into my computer from the zoom. The red line is the zoom's line out into my computer fed by my computers output for the test signal.



Yeah, but it was also down 6 dB at 20 kHz.  I didn't measure any higher, or anything between 10 and 20K.

[Roving Sign]

Sooooo...where do we stand on this unit? - seems like Guy S. came up with one conclusion - but then Chris says..."not so bad"...

Wazzup!!!

[Church-Audio]

Sooooo...where do we stand on this unit? - seems like Guy S. came up with one conclusion - but then Chris says..."not so bad"...

Wazzup!!!

I did some test then some more test then I sold the unit. I think that this unit has issues. I think some of them are to do with the sampling rate being off. I think some of the issues are to do with the phantom power supply. But I think that it has its uses. I am not sure if I would want to use one in the field for recording live shows. I would much rather spend my money on a edirol or microtracker before I looked at a zoom. I cant 100% agree with Guys tests, I am not saying he got bad results I am saying that they were different from mine and that in and of it self is scary

I say I would give this unit a 5/10

Chris

[flintstone]

Over on the Nature Recordists list on Yahoo, Klas Strandberg, reports that he modified a Zoom H4 with good results. Klas is the maker of the Telinga microphone systems.  He removed the two mic capsules built into the H4, substituting a pair of his EM23 mics. 

Klas reports that the mod H4 works well.  Like others here have reported, Klas found the H4 needs an external power supply to avoid extraneous noises caused by the internal power unit.

Flintstone

[Church-Audio]

Over on the Nature Recordists list on Yahoo, Klas Strandberg, reports that he modified a Zoom H4 with good results. Klas is the maker of the Telinga microphone systems.  He removed the two mic capsules built into the H4, substituting a pair of his EM23 mics. 

Klas reports that the mod H4 works well.  Like others here have reported, Klas found the H4 needs an external power supply to avoid extraneous noises caused by the internal power unit.

Flintstone

I tried to take the mics out lol but I could not see doing it with out damaging the unit so I gave up. I am sure the em23 mics would sound better then what they are using. I think your always going to have issues when you try and ask a pair of AA to provide 1- Phantom power 2- power to the preamp 3- power to the A/D converter 4- power to the backlight/lcd electronics. Its really hard to design something that can do all that on a few batteries... REALLY HARD. Many have tried many have failed. I think for what its worth Zoom put in a very good effort.