Topic: Zoom F3

[voltronic]

Recording will be at a fixed level.  Monitoring and playback will follow whatever amplification you apply to the waveform display.  "• Changing the amplification will change the volume and be applied to the recording data." means that the metadata for the recording will include the current amplification so it will play back (in the device at least) at that volume if you close the file and reopen it.  I don't know whether DAWs will also pick up that volume data.  I suspect there's a difference in meaning between recordED data - meaning the sound recording - and recordING data - meaning the metadata.

I don'r actually know any more than anyone else whether my interpretation of the manual is correct but if you bear in mind that "level" means input and "volume" means playback, then I'm pretty sure I'm right.

That's an interesting theory, but the WAV file header does not have a place to store playback volume info. The F3 would have to create separate metadata files to do what you describe.
https://docs.fileformat.com/audio/wav/

The block diagram on pg. 102 of the manual gives a little more clarity, IMO. Notice that Waveform Amplification (shown as a level trim) is directly in the path of everything that comes after it; not just Waveform Display which is simply a tap off of the main path. To me, this makes it clear that adjusting that setting does in fact affect the recorded level, in the same way you can with the F6 in 32FP when setting the trim pot controls to REC LEVEL. See the attached screenshots of the F3 and F6 block diagrams. F3 Waveform Display and F6 REC Level are in the same place in their respective signal chains. While this isn't hard proof, I think it makes sense that Zoom would carry over this implementation from the F6 to the F3.

[Ozpeter]

Well - it looks like I'll just have to buy one to find out - seems as good an excuse as any to me...    I note that the recorder uses iXML files which, having read about them for 30 seconds, seem potentially to cater for storing the waveform amplificaton data.  And it seems counterproductive that if you wanted a closer look at the waveform during recording, it would affect the recording level and thus screw up the recording.  And the manual says it doesn't.  So - colour me confused....  However, given that you have an F6 and I only have an F1, you know more about 32 bit recording than I do!

[cd2go]

And it seems counterproductive that if you wanted a closer look at the waveform during recording, it would affect the recording level and thus screw up the recording.

Totally. And if that is the case hopefully it will save last magnification settings used so you don’t have to fiddle too much with re-setting each channel if you repeatedly record the same general volume of material, as the benefit of this deck for me would be to ‘set on the high side and forget it’ unless I was recording much softer material. I have an email into them about that.

[dallman]

Gain is fixed, so it will not matter if you oversize of undersize the wave file during recording. That is only showing you the output file. You just adjust in post and all will be fine.

[voltronic]

Well - it looks like I'll just have to buy one to find out - seems as good an excuse as any to me...    I note that the recorder uses iXML files which, having read about them for 30 seconds, seem potentially to cater for storing the waveform amplificaton data.  And it seems counterproductive that if you wanted a closer look at the waveform during recording, it would affect the recording level and thus screw up the recording.  And the manual says it doesn't.  So - colour me confused....  However, given that you have an F6 and I only have an F1, you know more about 32 bit recording than I do!

Not to belabor the point, but as cd2go pointed out Zoom actually say that it does and also that it does not affect the recorded level, depending on if you look in the Quick Start or the full manual. It's possible we're all wrong!

[Ozpeter]

Without reading again what the manual(s) said, I think it's less confusing if you treat "recording" and "recorded" as different things, and "level" and "volume" as different things also - but indeed, the verdict will have to wait until a competent reviewer gets their hands on one.

[cd2go]

Let’s really beat this thing to death, this is a quote from an official Zoom video about the magnifier:

“…but it will also raise the volume of the recorded file that you’ll import into the computer.”

https://youtu.be/MsDIGWj4tYo

I have one on preorder from Zoom, looks like B&H is saying March 22…

[gaijin]

I'm assuming that with amplified PA music low levels won't be an issue, but in the case of recording softer material is it better to try to get the volume from the machine while recording (via magnification), or boost in post in terms of noise/artifacts? I'm guessing since it's digital amplification there wouldn't be much difference?

I'm continually curious about this - and have never understood a clear answer.  Specifically, if you have good / great preamps is there an expressed benefited to running "hot" (i.e. in 32-bit even if you're clipping here and there just let it go and bring it down in post) or better / just as good to run conservatively and apply a volume boost in a modern DAW in post?  I have seen several posts over the years of people positing that their recordings sound better when they are run "hot", sometimes potentially even briefly bouncing off the limiter vs. raising in post - is there any merit to this observation thought / claim? For my part I cannot clearly identify a preference or even a clear difference in cursory A/B testing.

[Ozpeter]

Let’s really beat this thing to death, this is a quote from an official Zoom video about the magnifier:

“…but it will also raise the volume of the recorded file that you’ll import into the computer.”

https://youtu.be/MsDIGWj4tYo

I have one on preorder from Zoom, looks like B&H is saying March 22…

Well, that statement is still consistent with my earlier speculation that the last waveform magnification set is stored in the extended metadata file - it would only need to store one number in respect of each channel - and your DAW would use that as if the DAW itself had raised the digital gain.  They are talking about volume (playback) not level (recording).  We'll see...

[Ozpeter]

In other words, it's like "ReplayGain" in mp3 files.  "ReplayGain software stores information in the audio file's metadata header rather than directly affecting the original audio information. This metadata allows audio players and sound systems that support ReplayGain to adjust the volume to the desired level automatically."

[Gutbucket]

"• Changing the amplification will change the volume and be applied to the recording data." means that the metadata for the recording will include the current amplification so it will play back (in the device at least) at that volume if you close the file and reopen it.  I don't know whether DAWs will also pick up that volume data.

I presume this will emulate the behavior of the F8, in which case the recorder remembers internal mixer levels for subsequent playback on the device, but a DAW reading the exported files won't know what the internal mixer levels on the recorder were (the case in my experience)

[cd2go]

I presume this will emulate the behavior of the F8, in which case the recorder remembers internal mixer levels for subsequent playback on the device, but a DAW reading the exported files won't know what the internal mixer levels on the recorder were (the case in my experience)

And if this is how it ends up operating, hitting record is literally the only thing to do? So aside from wanting to see larger waveforms in real time, there would be no reason to use the magnifier/amplifier for the end result?

[Gutbucket]

That's essentially how I run the F8 now, with input gain settings on the F8 preset. 

Even if not visually monitoring peak levels I'd want to see the meters movement to confirm everything is setup and working correctly. 

You'll want to set reasonable mixer levels if you monitor with headphones while recording and/or for trouble shooting.  I don't do that while recording, relying on visual confirmation by the meters.  But it's also nice to have something reasonably close to a good mix dialed in during recording for playing back from the recorder later (because the recorder remembers), even if doing so simply to audibly identify filesets.

[gaijin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQgO_FZuya8

Lots of good info here - one key takeaway for our purposes: Looks like about 3hrs @ 32 / 192 w/ P48 on 2 Eneloop Pros.  Presumably that will get a bit better with a reduced (i.e normal) sampling rate. 

Seems plenty good for our purposes, and you can certainly swap in a couple of spares during a set / artist break.

[gaijin]

By the way, his suggestion here is that the magnification setting does affect levels - he says if you don't set them at the same level when recording, it is a pain to correct in post (rough translation).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5afJBTb8eI&t=50s