Topic: New Zoom HxEssential recorders

[rastasean]

Some new 32 bit recorders from Zoom that take the form factor of their existing Hx series recorders:

https://zoomcorp.com/en/us/handheld-recorders/handheld-recorders/h1essential/
https://zoomcorp.com/en/us/handheld-recorders/handheld-recorders/h4essential/
https://zoomcorp.com/en/us/handheld-recorders/handheld-recorders/h6essential/

As usual, the product video may or may not use the product Samuel is talking about - it's not obvious in his videos.

[drgary]

These look interesting so I'll be curious to see some reviews.  I'm tempted to buy the H1 variant sight unseen but I'll be patient and wait to hear about user experiences.

[kindms]

its too bad only the h6 has detachable mics

[DavidPuddy]

Four 32 bit XLR inputs is crazy for $299. Not a lot of reason to buy Sound Devices anymore for the hobbyist if these sound halfway decent.

[detroit lightning]

Oooh...I see one of those H1's in my future...

[breakonthru]

Four 32 bit XLR inputs is crazy for $299. Not a lot of reason to buy Sound Devices anymore for the hobbyist if these sound halfway decent.

or add two more channels on the mic module for under $100

these will prob be downspec'd from F series but the budget allows you to spring for a good preamp

[carpa]

Sadly, from the specs it seems this new H serie is still featuring the same preamps as the old one…which was the weakest point of the thing. I upgraded from an H6 to an F6 and never looked back.
Should I go for the convenience of onboard mics I’d probably go Tascam …

[wordgroove]

yes ordered the h1 essential
perfect for babybox schoep rig

excited
lets go

[breakonthru]

yes ordered the h1 essential
perfect for babybox schoep rig

excited
lets go

considering youre using the preamp in the recorder with a baby rig, it may or may not be ideal depending on how it compares to other handhelds. this is kinda uncharted territory as they dont spec a max input like the +4dB on the xlr units. it could possibly be that the 32-bit ADC range is well matched to the input, it would be interesting to compare it with a m10, dr2d, etc. i'd bet the pres are similar (in each case a slight step down from gear like F series, and other mfrs gear with xlr inputs designed for mics), but time wuill tell. price point is attractive and for $100 i wouldnt mind cannibalizing the mics. def a better form factor than say the F3 for those who dont need xlr in

as an aside, i think its great that they are finally embracing the market of the average taper who is often visually impaired at a show 

[wordgroove]

i just assumed input is considered
and def uncharted territory

but considering $108 including shipping it’s worth
it i have zoom f3 and i been using
a lot - i’ve really gotten use to no level settings
and post is a great experience

well i’ll know in a couple weeks
let’s think positive
it works just like other hand held
with the 32 bit float tech

Taz




[/quote]considering youre using the preamp in the recorder with a baby rig, it may or may not be ideal depending on how it compares to other handhelds. this is kinda uncharted territory as they dont spec a max input like the +4dB on the xlr units. it could possibly be that the 32-bit ADC range is well matched to the input, it would be interesting to compare it with a m10, dr2d, etc. i'd bet the pres are similar (in each case a slight step down from gear like F series, and other mfrs gear with xlr inputs designed for mics), but time wuill tell. price point is attractive and for $100 i wouldnt mind cannibalizing the mics. def a better form factor than say the F3 for those who dont need xlr in

as an aside, i think its great that they are finally embracing the market of the average taper who is often visually impaired at a show 
[/quote]

[breakonthru]

i would expect  it to sound more like the H1N than the F3 but you never know what improvements they made under the hood.

you can record to F3 and run line out of the F3 to the H1 and get an idea of the difference

i just assumed input is considered
and def uncharted territory

but considering $108 including shipping it’s worth
it i have zoom f3 and i been using
a lot - i’ve really gotten use to no level settings
and post is a great experience

well i’ll know in a couple weeks
let’s think positive
it works just like other hand held
with the 32 bit float tech

[Ozpeter]

At a glance the "H1essential" looks like my M2 MicTrak but with an added audio input.  But the M2 has maximum sound pressure input of 135 dB SPL, which might be advantageous at rock shows.  And it can internally process the audio to a copy on the memory card, including export to 24 bit or 16 bit and normalisation.  It can apply normalisation during playback.  I'm not sure the H1 has those features.  Hmmm.

[voltronic]

Sadly, from the specs it seems this new H serie is still featuring the same preamps as the old one…which was the weakest point of the thing. I upgraded from an H6 to an F6 and never looked back.
Should I go for the convenience of onboard mics I’d probably go Tascam …

Boosting this for emphasis. I was just comparing specs of the old H6 with the new one. They gave it a new interface and ADC, but it appears they did not upgrade the preamps. Disappointing, because those H series preamps are noisy compared to similarly priced competition.

This new series might be good if you are using the built-in mics, but if you are using external condensers I would strongly suggest going for the F series instead.

[Rairun]

With the rumours that the pre-amp on the H1E won't be upgraded from the H1N, I've just realised that my understanding of these devices might be lacking. I know the F3's pre-amps are said to be really quiet and transparent, so I kind of skipped the role of pre-amps when I tried understanding them.

My question is: what is the point of having a pre-amp at all when you have two (or more) ADCs? I think of noise like this:

1. The sound you're trying to capture must be considerably higher than ambient noise, or else no amount of gear is going to help you.
2. Your microphone must be sensitive enough, or else its own noise floor will start drowning out the sound you're capturing.
3. Next in the chain, you have a pre-amp, which boosts the strength of the signal (and adds colouring, which is sometimes desirable, but let's ignore this for a moment).
4. Next, we have an AD converter, which receives the analogue signal and converts it to digital -- the strength of the signal determines where the converter will store it in the dBFS range. In traditional devices, I totally understand why the pre-amp is necessary before this stage. You need the signal to be healthy, or else the ADC will draw it above 0 dBFS if it's too loud (clipping the signal) or, if it is way too quiet, it will render it closer to the noise floor of the digital format (which is a problem when you then have to boost the entire thing in post).

But with dual ADCs, as I understand it, one of the them is always rendering very quiet noises to a healthy digital range, while the other ADC is less sensitive and won't clip even with very strong signals. Then the software will blend both together to a 32 bit float format, which in practice doesn't have its own noise floor, so you can boost or bring down the volume however much you want. So my question is: what is the benefit of having a pre-amp before this stage, if you can just boost a quiet sound in post without raising the noise floor? Yes, it WILL still boost whatever ambient noise you capture and the microphone's self-noise, but those are also boosted by whatever pre-amp you use, so this is irrelevant here.

What am I missing or misunderstanding? Why does it matter that the F3's pre-amp is really good, or that the H1E's is rumoured not to be so good, if there are no downsides to skipping that stage altogether? I must be overlooking something, or else they wouldn't even have pre-amps.

[voltronic]

This was discussed in another thread which I can't remember right now...

Auto-ranging multi-ADC recorders like these do not bypass the preamp stage. There is still analog gain which the preamp is applying before the multiple ADCs. The difference in this setup is that the gain is fixed. All level adjustment is in the digital domain.

You were on a roll with mentioning noise sources in items 1 and 2 in your post, but when you got to 3, you forgot to mention the noise added by the preamp. In my experience, that can be one of the worst offenders for noise in the chain if the preamps are lower quality.

So if you have two recorders where everything is equal except one has noisy and the other quiet preamps, and you feed them identical signals, one recording is obviously going to be noisier than the other. Now, a multi-ADC 32FP setup will definitely lessen the impact of that noisier preamp because you're keeping analog gain fixed at a low level. But the higher quality pre is still getting you a lower noise floor and higher dynamic range. The spec sheets prove this.

Case in point: I have a Zoom F6 and a SD 788. Even though the F6 is 32FP, the 788 has significantly better dynamic range.

[Rairun]

Right! But then I don't fully understand how they can be so confident a strong signal won't distort.

For example, at the loudest show I've ever recorded, I had my CA-11 cards running through a battery box into a Roland R-05 (line in, level 40). The music got really loud AND really quiet. I got peaks of -3 dBFS, with an average of -15 dBFS, and the quietest parts were around -37 dBFS -- really too quiet for home listening, demanding some compression (which then made the noise floor audible for the quietest parts). I imagine the Zoom H1E's pre-amp would still sound noisy during the quiet parts, then?

But if I had run a pre-amp between the recorder and the mic, or used a more sensitive mic that could still take high SPL, then the Roland R-05 would definitely have clipped during the loudest passages. What do you think would happen with the Zoom H1E (or even the F3!) if I just added, say, +20 dB gain with a pre-amp? Surely the recorder's analogue circuitry would overload at some point? And if so, when?

I guess what I'm saying is that if the H1E pre-amp is shit, that wouldn't make much of a difference IF the signal was hot enough. The issue is how hot is too hot.

[goodcooker]

Right! But then I don't fully understand how they can be so confident a strong signal won't distort.

For example, at the loudest show I've ever recorded, I had my CA-11 cards running through a battery box into a Roland R-05 (line in, level 40). The music got really loud AND really quiet. I got peaks of -3 dBFS, with an average of -15 dBFS, and the quietest parts were around -37 dBFS -- really too quiet for home listening, demanding some compression (which then made the noise floor audible for the quietest parts). I imagine the Zoom H1E's pre-amp would still sound noisy during the quiet parts, then?

But if I had run a pre-amp between the recorder and the mic, or used a more sensitive mic that could still take high SPL, then the Roland R-05 would definitely have clipped during the loudest passages. What do you think would happen with the Zoom H1E (or even the F3!) if I just added, say, +20 dB gain with a pre-amp? Surely the recorder's analogue circuitry would overload at some point? And if so, when?

I guess what I'm saying is that if the H1E pre-amp is shit, that wouldn't make much of a difference IF the signal was hot enough. The issue is how hot is too hot.

32 bit is not a cure all for the limits of analog circuitry. If you are gain staging in such a way that the analog circuit is within safe limits to avoid clipping and distortion then the benefit is after the fact you can increase or decrease the gain without any loss in quality.

In the modern age the preamp self noise is not what is the hurdle in recording a live concert event. It's the ambient noise floor - the sound of the room aside from the sound of the musical performance - that is what is distracting when raising levels of quiet passages compared to loud ones. You can't get away from it. It just is what it is.

[voltronic]

Right! But then I don't fully understand how they can be so confident a strong signal won't distort.

For example, at the loudest show I've ever recorded, I had my CA-11 cards running through a battery box into a Roland R-05 (line in, level 40). The music got really loud AND really quiet. I got peaks of -3 dBFS, with an average of -15 dBFS, and the quietest parts were around -37 dBFS -- really too quiet for home listening, demanding some compression (which then made the noise floor audible for the quietest parts). I imagine the Zoom H1E's pre-amp would still sound noisy during the quiet parts, then?

But if I had run a pre-amp between the recorder and the mic, or used a more sensitive mic that could still take high SPL, then the Roland R-05 would definitely have clipped during the loudest passages. What do you think would happen with the Zoom H1E (or even the F3!) if I just added, say, +20 dB gain with a pre-amp? Surely the recorder's analogue circuitry would overload at some point? And if so, when?

I guess what I'm saying is that if the H1E pre-amp is shit, that wouldn't make much of a difference IF the signal was hot enough. The issue is how hot is too hot.

32 bit is not a cure all for the limits of analog circuitry. If you are gain staging in such a way that the analog circuit is within safe limits to avoid clipping and distortion then the benefit is after the fact you can increase or decrease the gain without any loss in quality.

In the modern age the preamp self noise is not what is the hurdle in recording a live concert event. It's the ambient noise floor - the sound of the room aside from the sound of the musical performance - that is what is distracting when raising levels of quiet passages compared to loud ones. You can't get away from it. It just is what it is.

Generally I agree, but the primary noise culprits may depend on what you are recording. Regarding the bold sentence above: For me, the preamp self-noise was very much my biggest problem before I upgraded. (I do acoustic, mostly classical, quiet audiences.) Once I started using Sound Devices gear, I realized how very noisy the preamps of my DR-70D and my friend's H6 were in comparison. When you needed more gain for quiet material, you really had to be careful because turning it up any significant amount would make the noisefloor pretty offensive. For me, this problem was worse than the ambient noise (although that was and still is an issue, which is why I need to use RX Spectral Denoise on most of my captures to reduce HVAC rumble).

Rairun - As Goodcooker says, 32-bit float does not cure all the limits of analog circuits. Even though these newer recorders give you a lot more digital dynamic range and take level setting out of the equation, the analog input stage still ultimately determines the quality of what you're capturing. Garbage in = garbage out still applies. As I mentioned before, my long-discontinued SD 788T-SSD has 10 dB better dynamic range at both the input and output stages compared to Zoom's current flagship F8N PRO (by no means a garbage recorder). Keep in mind the 788 is using digital converters from 15 years ago, and no 32-bit float format recording to give your files more dynamic range. The 788 is so much better in this area because it has much more robust analog circuitry than the F8. And that's to be expected, considering that the 788's price adjusted for inflation would be more than 9 times that of the F8, about what they charge now for its replacement, the 888. Again to paraphrase Goodcooker - there's just no way around it.

You're correct that too hot a signal will still overload the analog input stage of these modern auto ranging multi-ADC 32FP recorders. The spec you want to look at is "Max Input Level". If using an external pre, you would want to set the recorder input to Line level, which will accept a much higher level. Since you're not connecting do a different input, this setting inserts a pad into the signal path. I would say that the only reason to use an external pre in front of these recorders is if it gives you noticeably better sound quality. For example, if you have very transparent, and put something like a Sonosax M2D2 in front of an H4E, you will probably hear a benefit. In front of an F series, I doubt you'd notice unless you are working with the most high-end mics in a controlled, pro environment.

So getting back to these new "Essential" Zoom recorders: If you are recording loud material where the music is way above ambient noise, will the lower-quality preamps of these units be a problem? Maybe not so much. The analog gain will be fixed at a low level so you won't be cranking gain and the preamp's self-noise along with it. But I think that once you start to record music with greater dynamic range, the noisy preamps will hold you back, as they did for me. Bottom line: No matter what you are recording I really do not recommend buying any of these HxE units unless you want to use the built-in mics. Otherwise, buy one of the F series. Their quality is proven.

[Rairun]

Thanks for the info!

Voltronic, my experience matches everything you've said. I'm pretty sure that what is holding me back at the moment is my recorder's self-noise (pre-amp and/or ADC), and sometimes the CA-11s self-noise. Now, for 90% of the shows I record (ranging from amplified acoustic music to very loud shoegaze bands), I have zero complaints. My best sounding recordings are probably reasonably quiet acoustic (but still amplified) ones without a lot of dynamic range. I use an old CA STC-9000 pre-amp into either a Roland R-05 or an old Zoom H1, and even the Zoom H1 has rarely been a problem, as long as I don't have to increase the volume by more than 10-15 dB in post. I know 10-15 dB sounds like a lot, but even an old recorder with a poor pre-amp like the Zoom H1 sounds more than adequate enough for this.

Where I run into problems is when (1) for some reason the performance is not amplified or just barely amplified, or (2) I have to deal with a lot of dynamic range. When dealing with (1), I can tell the noise is a mix of ambient noise, pre-amp/ADC noise, and perhaps microphone self-noise (I'm not sure I can tell the last one apart from pre-amp noise). I'm pretty sure I would get cleaner recordings with more sensitive microphones and better pre-amps, but the recordings don't actually sound too bad. They are listenable. The biggest issue isn't even the gear's self-noise, but that you can sometimes hear people around you breathing.

It's with (2) that I really struggle. When a 2h show has a few very loud peaks totalling less than 5 minutes, and I don't know when they're coming, I tend to keep the other reasonably loud parts between -15 and -20 dBFS (in my experience, the peaks will reach -3 dBFS or so). In a situation like this, if the quietest parts don't get quieter than -30 dBFS, I can boost them by up to 15 dB in post, and the end result will still sound pretty transparent. The noise won't be distracting. It's when the quiet parts approach -40 dBFS that the pre-amp noise really becomes an issue, even if the music is a bit louder in the room than in (1). You're right that this isn't the room's ambient noise, they sound distinctly different.

It's for (2) that I'm interested in a 32-bit float recorder. If I could get 10 or even 15 dB less self-noise for those quiet parts, it would make an enormous difference.

[Rairun]

Here are a couple of examples:

https://archive.org/details/adriannelenker2022-03-06 - quiet (but amplified) recording of a solo singer-songwriter, which means I could be less conservative with gain. You can hear noise in the recording, but this is pretty much 100% ambient noise. I like how it sounds. I'm not sure I love the acoustics of the room, but there was nothing I could have done about that. All I adjusted here was levels and EQ, no noise reduction.

 https://archive.org/details/florist2023-03-18 - reasonably quiet (but amplified) recording of a band playing mostly acoustic instruments in the same room. The louder, full-band songs required me to set gain more conservatively, and I didn't know which songs they would join in for, so when the singer played solo songs, I couldn't adjust the gain on the fly. Track 11 sounds good to me (full band), but track 12 (solo) has more pre-amp noise than I'd have liked (I tried cleaning it up a little in post, but you can still hear it).

It's for situations like track 12 from the second show that I'm hoping to find a solution for. I can't tell whether the Zoom H1E could be it.

[voltronic]

I can't listen right now, but from what you describe, by all means get a 32-bit float recorder. Get an F3, or an F6/8 if you need more mic inputs. Both are excellent.

[Ozpeter]

On this YouTube channel there are three reviews of each of the Essential models.  I have only watched the first one, with which I would take issue in some respects, but anyway, the reviews are at least some kind of critical introduction to these recorders.

https://www.youtube.com/@DarkCornerStudios

[Todd]

Great information in this thread.   After years of setting levels of taping concerts, I have gotten used to and spoiled by 32 bit set it and enjoy the show.   Metal detectors keep me from bringing a Zoom F3 or prior H4N into some venues.  I prefer taping in stereo but when the instances arise I've been using a Zoom F2, which records in mono 32 bit.    I'm not the tech spec geek so is the thought that the Zoom F2 in mono recording would be better than the new H1essential that can record in stereo?  Note:  I don't use the onboard mics on the H4N and wouldn't with the H1essential either so not as curious on the on board mics.   Appreciate any thoughts.

[breakonthru]

Great information in this thread.   After years of setting levels of taping concerts, I have gotten used to and spoiled by 32 bit set it and enjoy the show.   Metal detectors keep me from bringing a Zoom F3 or prior H4N into some venues.  I prefer taping in stereo but when the instances arise I've been using a Zoom F2, which records in mono 32 bit.    I'm not the tech spec geek so is the thought that the Zoom F2 in mono recording would be better than the new H1essential that can record in stereo?  Note:  I don't use the onboard mics on the H4N and wouldn't with the H1essential either so not as curious on the on board mics.   Appreciate any thoughts.

im not really a fan of mono audience recordings (better than nothing when thats the case), id personally rather have a 24 or 16-bit stereo recording, of which there are plenty of recorders that are small and can pass metal detectors. in a concert crowd, even a 16-bit recorder will sound fine if the levels are peaking anything above -20dB

[Ozpeter]

Todd - The chief criticism of the H1Essential is that its self-noise level is higher than people expected from a 32 bit float device.  But for recording live rock (etc) concerts, I'm not sure how crucial this aspect is.  It would be much more important in the context of acoustic events. 

32 bit float seems to me to have two functions - one, it simply means you don't have to bother with level setting.  Maybe in ten years' time, people will ask "what's level setting?"  And secondly, it brings the dynamic range of the digitalisation of the analog signal onto the same level as the best mics and preamps (possibly beyond).  You can have the first on its own quite cheaply now, or you can have the first and second together if you spend enough money.

[voltronic]

...And secondly, it brings the dynamic range of the digitalisation of the analog signal onto the same level as the best mics and preamps (possibly beyond).

You could have the most phenomenal digital converters in the world, but if the analog input stage in front of it is still inferior, you will never realize the benefits of that enormous dynamic range in the digital domain. You are still limited by the noise floor and headroom in the analog domain, same as it ever was. (Cue Talking Heads)

As I said earlier in this thread, my old SD 788 without 32FP has much greater dynamic range than any of the Zoom F-series, even though the F preamps are very good. Since the preamp being used in the HxE series appears to be an old, noisy design, the dynamic range is going to be even more limited. That means the only benefit 32FP gives you with the new HxE units is removing the need to set levels.

[Ozpeter]

"Garbage in, garbage out" was never more appropriate! 

[carpa]

Owning a Zoom F6 and coming from an H6 I can confirm the totally different level of quality, so I'd also suggest to look elsewhere.
Talking about dynamic range, which should be on the lower side determined by the noise floor, there is something Id' like to understand...
Looking at the avisoft's page https://www.avisoft.com/recorder-tests/  in the column related to dynamic range I can read some results :
Zoom F6 , 70db. 
Zoom H5, 68db
Sound devices 722, 84 db
Tascam Dr70, 90 db
Olympus LS 10, 92 db
Edirol R09HR, 81 db

It seems weird to me that Zoom F6 and H5 seem to feature almost the same range, and it seems even more strange that cheap and old design recorders like the Edirol ( which I still own), the Olympus  and the Tascam fare so much better, even better than Sound Devices.

I'm probably missing something and I'd appreciate if  someone could explain me.

[detroit lightning]

Disappointing, but for the market these things are aimed at…I suppose it does what they need.

[Gutbucket]

It seems weird to me that Zoom F6 and H5 seem to feature almost the same range, and it seems even more strange that cheap and old design recorders like the Edirol ( which I still own), the Olympus  and the Tascam fare so much better, even better than Sound Devices.

I'm probably missing something and I'd appreciate if  someone could explain me.

Because that dynamic range measurement is calculated at the maximum input gain setting of each recorder, it's entirely dependent on how much input gain the recorder provides.  The greater the gain, the lower the dynamic range will tend to be.  It would only be a relevant comparative measure if made at some equivalent input gain for all recorders.  As it is, it doesn't make sense as a basis of comparison.  See note 3-

"The dynamic range figure at the maximum available gain setting alone should not be interpreted as an indicator for the performance of a recorder because these numbers will of course depend on the individual maximum gain of the various recorders (a higher maximum gain tend to result in a lower dynamic range figure)."

[Gutbucket]

Because dynamic range is the difference between EIN and input clipping level, maximum dynamic range into a recorder will be achieved when using minimal input gain, essentially line-in at "unity gain", although the concept of unity gain doesn't apply directly to a device where the output is a recorded file.  Unity gain means the level of the output signal is equal to the level of the input signal. 

The test above is the opposite of that.  Essentially indicating the worst possible dynamic range achievable through each recorder, very much dependent on how much gain is available.

[Rairun]

Because that dynamic range measurement is calculated at the maximum input gain setting of each recorder, it's entirely dependent on how much input gain the recorder provides.  The greater the gain, the lower the dynamic range will tend to be.  It would only be a relevant comparative measure if made at some equivalent input gain for all recorders.  As it is, it doesn't make sense as a basis of comparison.  See note 3-

"The dynamic range figure at the maximum available gain setting alone should not be interpreted as an indicator for the performance of a recorder because these numbers will of course depend on the individual maximum gain of the various recorders (a higher maximum gain tend to result in a lower dynamic range figure)."

And because the EIN is calculated at the highest gain setting as well, this chart isn't very useful for tapers who record louder shows (or use external preamps) either. Even recorders generally considered "bad" (like the Zoom H1) are sometimes better than "better" recorders (like the Roland R-05, which on that chart is ranked higher than the SONY PCM-M10, for example) at different settings. I recall the Zoom H1 has an EIN of -99dBu at unity gain, while the Roland R-05 sits at around -96dBu also at unity. The R-05 beats the H1 at the +3dB to +13B gain range, then the H1 beats the Roland at +13dB, and then the Roland beats the H1 for anything above +14dB. You wouldn't be able to tell any of this from this chart.

[carpa]

Thank you very much @Gutbucket for your explanation! Now I get it...in fact the Zoom H5 has a 55 db gain while F6 has 75. Don't know if it makes for a 20 bd greater dynamic range at te same - let's say - 55 dbs of gain, but anyway a significantly better value...

[Ozpeter]

To me, the "Essentials" model name conveys "basics" rather than "it's essential to own one."  Which of these Zoom wished to convey I don't know.