Topic: New Zoom HxEssential recorders

[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)."