Topic: Zoom F8 Recorder Part 3

[goodcooker]

FWIW, Sweetwater is matching Amazon on the F8n Pro sale.

On a related note, what carry case or bag or whatever are folks using for the F8n Pro's?  I tried out the PCF8n, and don't really like it, so I'm open to all suggestions.

I don't have one but a taper I see at shows does and he loves his Orca bag for it. I'm almost positive it's this one - https://www.orcabags.com/product/or-28-mini-sound-bag-for/

[Gutbucket]

Because of the inputs being located on opposite sides, fit in a small bag will depend somewhat on if you are running more than 4 channels into it or not, and if you are using straight, chopped, or right angle XLRs.  Accommodating the cables exiting out to either side is the main thing in my experience.

[pohaku]

F8n Pro on sale for Prime Days at Amazon for 744.00!
350.00 off!

Thanks for the heads up.  So how many took the opportunity to upgrade?  That’s a price not seen since the original introductory price I think.

[unclehoolio]

I don't have one but a taper I see at shows does and he loves his Orca bag for it. I'm almost positive it's this one - https://www.orcabags.com/product/or-28-mini-sound-bag-for/

Thanks!

[unclehoolio]

I posted this link in another thread that was focused specifically on running outboard preamps instead of onboard, but thought I'd cross post here for folks who aren't paying attention to that other one, since the Zoom F8n Pro was involved in the comparison.

The comp is Oade m148 vs. Zoom F8n Pro onboard preamps.  Recording is of JRAD at the Frost last Friday.  Mics were 2 pair of 481(NOS), on the same stand, FOB, 7' up.  24/96, limiters off.  I matched levels in real time at the show, but also normalized (each track/channel separately), which may have added ~1db of gain--I like to run fairly hot/full levels, a holdover from the days of needing to utlize all available bit depth on DAT.

https://we.tl/t-H2jwZZyNAG

I also have a comp of SDmp6ii vs F8n Pro, if anyone wants to hear that, lemme know.

[Gutbucket]

Thanks, that was an interesting listen. Significant differences top and bottom.
I'd like to hear that comp with the MP6 if not a hassle.

[unclehoolio]

Indeed.  Care to be more specific?

Here's the F8n Pro vs MP6ii:  https://we.tl/t-XnOFuZdScQ?utm_campaign=TRN_TDL_09&utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email&trk=TRN_TDL_09

Again, mics configured identically, on same stand, 24/96, etc.

[Gutbucket]

I hear increased distortion at the bottom and less energy up top in the first one.  Not sure if there is actually less top extension or if response is shelved down.  Just going by ear here on a relatively short listen, I didn't use any other tools to analyze the differences.

I also didn't take the time to EQ each to its best representation in order to make a second comparison, which to me is where "the rubber meets the road" so to say, and in the end the more relevant test for anyone who applies EQs to their recordings, as initial preference can flip upon doing that.  Absent that, the softer top of the first might be preferable in some cases.  The bottom is kind of funky on both so maybe not the best on which to judge, but the distortion in the first is the bigger concern to me since that can't be corrected in the same way as frequency response, which is relatively easy to push around with EQ.

My guess is that the m148 is the first, and the second is straight in to F8nPro

[unclehoolio]

If by 'distortion' you mean warmth, then yes the first sample (148) definitely has that.  Which I like.  (Distortion that I dislike, on the other hand, can be found in the SD sample of the Zoom vs SD comp, it sounds exceedingly electrified and jagged to my ears.)  However, it's that warmth particularly through the midrange that is, to my ears, the biggest difference between the 2 samples.  I also think that warmth benefits the 480's--while they are very detailed, and I love their silky high end and full, extended low end, they are characteristically 'darker' or 'flatter' or less present through the midrange, as compared to say Schoeps.

By comparison, the Zoom preamps sound more dry or clinical, almost a V2 kind of sound (although I don't recall the Lunatecs having quite as much by way of silky, extended high end?  Which is to say I'd definitely like to run the same comp with V2 in place of 148, to test that theory.)  And while I'd agree that the high end comes across as silkier and more present or extended on the second sample, I also feel like that could be chalked up largely if not entirely to relative perception, i.e. the high end on the Zoom recording seems more extended or silkier relative to the high end on the 148 recording, due to the latter's increased warmth and presence through the midrange?

I really like the 481>Zoom pairing, I just happen to have a slight pref for the 148.  But I'd be more than happy to listen to either one any day of the week.  And I have a sneaking suspicion that Schoeps>Zoom would be an excellent pairing, and could easily be more pleasing to listen to than 480>Zoom.  (Another theory that I'd like to test at some point in time.)

FWIW:

• the low end was funky like that live at the show, I'd describe it as 'not very cohesive', at least where I was situated.
• I never apply EQ or compression, etc. to my recordings, so a post-EQ comparison is n/a for me.

[marcb]

Another comparison, not perfect as I only have so much gear, so different songs on different nights, but same location and mic set up in room. From Billy and the Kids at the Capitol Theatre this past weekend (10/20 and 10/21). Both with Schoeps CCM41 with 50 degrees PAS at 57cm spacing about 7 feet up and 35 feet from stage, front right of SBD (the usual taping spot). One of these songs has Schopes > Zoom F6 and one has Schoeps > Oade 248 > F6 (line in). No effects, just normalized. Can you tell the difference, and which one do you like more? I've confirmed with Zoom the F8, F6 and F3 all have the same preamps.

Scarlet: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KkVxdepdd8IDApf8Lg1eZHNCGO_Qsf4J/view?usp=sharing

Help > Slip: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YJDrH9rjrKDhEZPERcvlHk_dc5WyuUg6/view?usp=sharing

[unclehoolio]

Thanks for submitting the comparison!  Always tough when all variables aren't controlled except for the one under examination (mics, config, preamp, whatever...).

In the interest of not influencing anyone else's opinion/conclusions, I sent you a PM with my guesses.

[marcb]

You are correct, nice job! Thanks for playing “name that preamp”

[unclehoolio]

I ran a 248 for the vast majority of shows that I taped way back when, during my first go-round as a taper.  So I'd like to think/hope that I'd be able to recognize it's presence in the chain!

[EmRR]

Can’t remember if I mentioned doing this previously- anyone else occasionally record the built in slate mic when there’s a spare track?  I can’t even recall if I’ve ever used it in a mix.

[jefflester]

I use my F8 primarily for recording my own bands. I somehow got into a mode where the max file size of 2GB applies to all the tracks combined, not any individual track Looking back a few months I have a set where I used 5 tracks that are 1:26 long and 712MB each, total of ~3.5GB. But last couple of gigs each set gets broken up into new folders/files when the sum of the tracks hits 2GB. For instance 1st set uses 5 tracks and is broken up into 49:42 (419MB) and 33:47 (285MB), new folders/new files. 2nd set again 1st part is 49:42 (419MB). The 5 tracks X 419MB = 1.99 GB. Then last week did a 7 tracker and the sets split at 35:29 (292 MB) 7x292 = 1.99 GB again. Not sure what I changed to cause this, the "File Max Size" is still 2GB and it's not polywav or something, all mono tracks. Annoying additional effort to stitch the sets back together.