Thanks for digging up that old thread, Flintstone. I'm staggered how long ago it was posted! The samples still play. Listening again just now I think the chief difference between the H2 recording and the "real" recording is a sense of "smoothness" in the latter, but considering the price and size difference between the two rigs, I would still describe the H2 recording as "remarkable".
I hate ZOOM recorders and am puzzled by Ozpeter's love for them, given how knowledgeable he is. I'm guessing he likes the built in mics for less than critical applications because the only plus I can see on previous ZOOM models is that the built in mics are pretty good.
Indeed it's a matter of "fitness for purpose" and therefore one can't generalise about what is the "best" recorder.
I guess one could say that hand-holdable recorders have up to four overall uses -
- recording from built in mics (using the device as a 'mic that records')
- recording using external mics connected to the mic input
- recording from a line-level source (mixing board or mic preamp usually)
- recording from a digital source (such as a mic preamp having a digital output)
Of course not all devices are capable of accepting all these input types.
Perhaps the greatest differences between the various models are found in the built in mics. Then comes the differences in mic inputs (chiefly in the matter of connector types and noise performance), then in line inputs (where IMHO the differences are pretty small compared to the mic and mic input differences) and lastly the digital inputs, where in theory there should be no differences between models.
In theory one could identify a recorder which has overall the best of all these four worlds, but many users are more interested in one aspect than another.
In my case, I don't have much of a use for non-phantom-powered mic inputs (I have an R-44 and other devices for use with high quality mics), so if the mic input of the H2n turns out to be as noisy as that on the H2, I'm not that fussed. It would be handy if it turned out to be ok, but for me no more than that.
I would hope that the H2n line input is acceptable because I usually run a backup stereo mix to a second device when using the R-44 or other main recorder, and if the H2n can replace my Sony M-10 in that role, it would be one less device to keep in the cupboard between gigs.
Neither the H2n nor the M-10 have a digital input, so there's no discussion there.
So, for me and for my purposes, the critical thing I'm looking for in a new small recorder is mic quality - in terms of frequency response, noise, and stereo image. No point for me if the noise level is low and the frequency response is flat and wide if the stereo image is poor.
The stereo image - and variety thereof - obtainable from the H2n should be second to none (but we'll have to wait and see if it lives up to expectations). Given that it's a surprising number of years since the H2 was released, the frequency response and noise levels should be better in the new model, and in that case I know I'll be pleased. As I've often said, for me the stereo image obtained from the M10 is very poor, as I should have expected given the choice of mic type and mic placement within the case, which means that I can only use it (personally) as a line input device chiefly as a backup to the R-44. It's a superb little recorder with a very nice mic input for those who want that, but for me it doesn't cover enough roles to justify its keep (though I might keep it just because it's such a well engineered device!).
I've been professionally recording live acoustic music since 1969 and I hate to think of the amount of gear I've heaved over all those years, not to mention the setting up and the laying of cables in trip-free locations, etc etc. Often all that effort has been applied to the simple matter of deploying a single stereo pair, which is often all that's required for acoustic performances if correctly located. The concept of being able to use a 'mic that records' with no need for all the rest of the stuff appeals to me no end, and I'd be delighted if that turns out to be possible before I finally hang up my headphones. Will the H2n provide that possibility for appropriate occasions? We'll see...
Which brings us to level setting. On the H2 there were, really, only two levels although high, medium and low were available. The setting for low-level audio was demonstrably no better in terms of overall signal to noise ratio than the middle level - using the middle level and applying digital gain in post production gave the same result as using the low level setting without digital gain. The switch position for high level audio was on the whole appropriate for amplified music which I'm not normally involved with. So for my purposes the middle setting was "set and forget".
That corresponds to my experience with using a high quality mic pair with a matching preamp. Over many years of recording I came to realise that there was, for almost all acoustic music recordings, a single correct level which I marked with a red line next to the gain knob, and it was rarely necessary to adjust from there during a soundcheck. Mic placement tends to look after level differences. If recording, say, an acoustic guitar recital, the mic is usually placed pretty close. For a (louder) string quartet the mics are further away, so the level at the mic is not that much different than for the guitar recording. For a symphony orchestra, you're further away again, so even though it's radically louder than the guitar, the mic placement deals with that, and the preamp setting remains the same. Obviously there's some exceptions but for the recording I do, gain setting is not much of a big deal, and so the crude gain setting of the H2 (using always the neutral setting of "100" for its digital gain setting) was actually no problem.
I am however slightly suspicious about the gain knob of the new H2n - it's carefully described as "analog-style" which could mean that it's an analog knob controlling digital gain. Or it could be a conventional analog gain control, or it could be an implementation of digitally-controlled analog gain. We may be arguing about which it is for months to come - the gain arrangements of the R-44 were similarly puzzling and hard to be sure about.
Obviously when this new recorder arrives I'll report back, though where I stand in the queue I have no idea - it could be in many reviewers' hands long before mine makes it across from the USA to Australia.
Sorry for length...