Zoom H2 internal vs Tascam DR-07+CA Battery Box+CA11-14 cardioids

[kisspep]

Don't know if this is the correct section, but it's about gear, preamps and mics general question.

I use to film rock concerts near my area (in Spain) with this equipment:

2 lumix ZS3 handheld
4 lumix ZR3 fixed cams.
Zoom H2, internal, 120º, 48/24bits

All it's authoriced by groups and clubs, and usually are 200 to 400 people little clubs. I know comments here about Zoom H2, by very experimented guys, is not the best way to go.

But check my samples taped with Zoom H2 on this little clubs:

BARON ROJO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42MQnd3g2K4

THE BREW:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f0jtVzC6HA

THE JACK (ACDC Tribute):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0nKqEyn1Ww

KISSFEVERBAND (KISS Tribute):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOcT_ryCGsk

This is not usual,"Flamenco show", matrix Zoom H2/Lumix audio (need more audience on the mix):

RAUL MICO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXU2VCYXrAE

All Zoom audios are: levelled, volume adjustments, equaliced, balanced.... (use Audacity and Sony Vegas).

I'm more or less happy with Zoom H2 audio,... my only knowledge about are my ears. No more technical knowledge.

Have an alternate Tascam DR-07 to tape the show, but with internal mics I'm not happy with it... maybe only when I matrix with Zoom.

This is a Zoom/Tascam matrix, that maybe make it better than only with Zoom audio (not sure):

Matrix Zoom/Tascam:

/>
same with Zoom H2:

/>
I'm thinking about upgrade Tascam with a CA battery box and a cardioid CA-11 or CA-14 mics.

I like to read threads here, ... and know about Sony PCM M10+CA9100+CA11-14 it's one of the best options (talking about more or less cheap/amateur equipment)

Do you think I'll upgrade sound on this kind of clubs?... usually TEXOLA it's where I use to record with more or less 200 people.

1. Tascam DR-07+CA battery box+CA11 cardioids or omni?
2. better CA 14 mics?
3. Sell my gear (both Zoom and Tascam) and go for Sony PCM M10+CA stuff?
4. Preamp CA-9000-9100? or battery box?
5. Better Zoom H2 with CA stuff than Tascam DR-07?

Do you think I must invest 180 to 300$ to upgrade my audio gear?... I will more better audio on this little clubs?

Please your comments will be very welcome, I'm more or less new on this... don't worry about critic hard them, or be "rude" about your comments, ....maybe is how I can get more knowledge about all this.

Sorry for my english!

[acidjack]

I will grant that your audio with the Zoom is surprisingly better than I thought it'd be. 

That said, I think CA-14>BB>some deck would be a real upgrade in sound.

I do not think that either the Church preamps, or a new deck, makes much sense, unless the DR-07 has issues with too hot of a signal coming in, which I've heard of.

The M10 is superior to the H2 and the DR-07, if for no other reason the battery life, but I don't think you'd see as much improvement from your "back end" as from getting better mics.

Also, are you recording that audio from where the camera is in the video (i.e. apparently up close to the stage, on the side) or was the H2 in a fixed location?  It sounds like the latter, but I didn't listen for that long..

[kisspep]

I will grant that your audio with the Zoom is surprisingly better than I thought it'd be. 

That said, I think CA-14>BB>some deck would be a real upgrade in sound.

I do not think that either the Church preamps, or a new deck, makes much sense, unless the DR-07 has issues with too hot of a signal coming in, which I've heard of.

The M10 is superior to the H2 and the DR-07, if for no other reason the battery life, but I don't think you'd see as much improvement from your "back end" as from getting better mics.

Also, are you recording that audio from where the camera is in the video (i.e. apparently up close to the stage, on the side) or was the H2 in a fixed location?  It sounds like the latter, but I didn't listen for that long..

Many thanks for your answer... yes H2 it's fixed more or less like general central cam.

This was first TIMES recording Zoom H2 on Texola:

SONIC TEMPLE (The Cult Tribute):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaSD5cj3Ft4

KISSFEVERBAND (KISS tritube):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grVKm1cAzFY

Was directly fixed in the soundboard cabin on a table, just in front of stage, same place than central general shot. Sound was more or less than I spected with Zoom H2, IMO worst than samples I put on first post. It got soundboard, audio guys and soundboard just in front of Zoom H2, more or less 1,2 meters higher than floor.

But next concerts (RAUL MICO, THE JACK AND BARON ROJO) I put Zoom H2 fixed out on soundboard cabin, about 1 meter up than audience heads, just in front of stage too... more or less like I put on Sala Ramdall in Madrid (with kissfeverband too, see my first post). Directly 120º to the stage.

That's how I get this more or less good audio with Zoom H2. It's about 8 to 9 meters from the stage, and about 2,7 meters high, near the central general cam (see one of the multicam samples), but a little higher, and out of the soundboard cabin. That was the result, much better than with Sonic Temple and Kissfeverband samples taped first times.

ZS3 stereo audio fixed on soundboard, on BARON ROJO concert (this time I used 3 ZS3 and 2 ZR3):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcrkQ2eLASk

I opened this thread, because here ever found very interesting answers... from people who knows what are talking about, and before read many opinions against Zoom H2, ... to my taste, it did a real good job, recording on this little clubs, in the new location.
I questioned myself... if this crapy Zoom can do this?... what about an upgraded gear can do?

When you listen lumix ZS3 audio on last sample....Make sense use Zoom H2 with internals + Tascam with BB and omni CA-14, and get a matrix?

[acidjack]

Well, it sounds like your placement is more or less ideal, and kudos to you for actually taking the time to do your audio right- that's not true of a lot of people who do video, I find. 

I do not see a point in "matrixing" multiple audience sources from internal mics of recorders unless there are two different fixed placements (i.e., one onstage and one back at the board).

I don't know how easy it is for you to get soundboard patches, but what would probably give you the absolute most improvement for the least money would be getting a Tascam DR-2D, which is 4-channel, and taking 2 SBD channels and then plugging in a set of CA-14s and a battery box in as the other channels.

The biggest advantage you'd have with the CA-14s, besides them being much better quality, is that you can control their placement much better.  The Zooms and other internals have a fixed recording angle that is not necessarily ideal for what you're doing, not to mention that you have to physically stick the entire unit somewhere, which is a pain.

You could also just take the SBD feed into one of your existing decks and run the CA-14s>BB>other deck, but I personally find syncing that stuff down in post (because the clocks of the decks aren't exactly the same, you have to speed adjust one source) to be a pain. However, if you are already syncing with video, like in Sony Vegas, I understand some of that software is much better for that.  I'm out of my area of knowledge on that, though.

[tailschao]

There is a lot of hate for the Zoom H2 (all Zoom devices, in fact), and most of it is unfounded gear snobbery. It is nowhere near as bad as many people claim.

The H2 has arguably the best internal mic performance of all the budget handheld recorders you can buy today.

CA-14 external mics would be better, of course, so long as you only use the LINE IN of the Zoom. The external MIC IN port is poor. CA-14 > BB > Zoom H2 LINE IN would sound excellent.

There is very little point to doing a matrix of the Zoom H2 internal + CA-14 > BB > DR-07. If you have a second recorder, use it to record a soundboard feed. You will probably need an attentuator cable, but that is no problem really. SBD + AUD will usually result in a better matrix than 2AUD, unless you're doing significant stuff with the microphone patterns (example, split omnidirectional microphones at the stage lip + a normal AUD from the back).

Ah acidjack basically just posted the same thing.

I will say that once you get used to it, syncing 2 sources recorded on different recorders with different clocks is not really a big issue. Timestretching isn't that hard. Obviously a single 4-channel recorder would be quicker, but a minor timestretch in Adobe Audition is nothing really, IMO.

[acidjack]

There is a lot of hate for the Zoom H2 (all Zoom devices, in fact), and most of it is unfounded gear snobbery. It is nowhere near as bad as many people claim.

The H2 has arguably the best internal mic performance of all the budget handheld recorders you can buy today.

CA-14 external mics would be better, of course, so long as you only use the LINE IN of the Zoom. The external MIC IN port is poor. CA-14 > BB > Zoom H2 LINE IN would sound excellent.

There is very little point to doing a matrix of the Zoom H2 internal + CA-14 > BB > DR-07. If you have a second recorder, use it to record a soundboard feed. You will probably need an attentuator cable, but that is no problem really. SBD + AUD will usually result in a better matrix than 2AUD, unless you're doing significant stuff with the microphone patterns (example, split omnidirectional microphones at the stage lip + a normal AUD from the back).

Ah acidjack basically just posted the same thing.

I will say that once you get used to it, syncing 2 sources recorded on different recorders with different clocks is not really a big issue. Timestretching isn't that hard. Obviously a single 4-channel recorder would be quicker, but a minor timestretch in Adobe Audition is nothing really, IMO.

There are an awful lot of badly distorted recordings out there made with H2s. Maybe it's user error, but nothing about it is ideal for these purposes.  The recordings the OP posted are among the best I've heard, and that's partly because it seems the OP is actually mounting the thing in a fixed position somewhere, which at least helps.  The biggest problem with Zooms is people attempting to use them in a shirt pocket or somewhere that it is impossible to achieve even vaguely decent mic placement.  There's also the build in general; I know people who've had a channel fail after using it once or twice. 

It's not really "snobbery" to suggest that using a less-than-adequate tool is not what we'd recommend.  For example, I could go on a photography or video forum and talk about how my iPhone is such an amazing camera and show a couple of reasonably decent pictures with it. But the iPhone is not a good camera; it's a shit camera that occasionally can take a decent photo.  There's nothing wrong with taking photos with an iPhone, if that's what you like doing. But you probably aren't in the right place to try and talk about photography with people who are serious about photography.  I tend to feel the same way about the "Zoom/internal mics is good enough" crowd - especially since a very decent recording rig is much cheaper than, say, a really good camera.  Not referring to the OP here, just addressing your comment above.

With that said, the OP has done about the absolute best he can possibly do with what he has and is asking good questions. It appears you and I both came to the same conclusion on what he should try next. 

[daspyknows]

There is a lot of hate for the Zoom H2 (all Zoom devices, in fact), and most of it is unfounded gear snobbery. It is nowhere near as bad as many people claim.

The H2 has arguably the best internal mic performance of all the budget handheld recorders you can buy today.

CA-14 external mics would be better, of course, so long as you only use the LINE IN of the Zoom. The external MIC IN port is poor. CA-14 > BB > Zoom H2 LINE IN would sound excellent.

There is very little point to doing a matrix of the Zoom H2 internal + CA-14 > BB > DR-07. If you have a second recorder, use it to record a soundboard feed. You will probably need an attentuator cable, but that is no problem really. SBD + AUD will usually result in a better matrix than 2AUD, unless you're doing significant stuff with the microphone patterns (example, split omnidirectional microphones at the stage lip + a normal AUD from the back).

Ah acidjack basically just posted the same thing.

I will say that once you get used to it, syncing 2 sources recorded on different recorders with different clocks is not really a big issue. Timestretching isn't that hard. Obviously a single 4-channel recorder would be quicker, but a minor timestretch in Adobe Audition is nothing really, IMO.

There are an awful lot of badly distorted recordings out there made with H2s. Maybe it's user error, but nothing about it is ideal for these purposes.  The recordings the OP posted are among the best I've heard, and that's partly because it seems the OP is actually mounting the thing in a fixed position somewhere, which at least helps.  The biggest problem with Zooms is people attempting to use them in a shirt pocket or somewhere that it is impossible to achieve even vaguely decent mic placement.  There's also the build in general; I know people who've had a channel fail after using it once or twice. 

It's not really "snobbery" to suggest that using a less-than-adequate tool is not what we'd recommend.  For example, I could go on a photography or video forum and talk about how my iPhone is such an amazing camera and show a couple of reasonably decent pictures with it. But the iPhone is not a good camera; it's a shit camera that occasionally can take a decent photo.  There's nothing wrong with taking photos with an iPhone, if that's what you like doing. But you probably aren't in the right place to try and talk about photography with people who are serious about photography.  I tend to feel the same way about the "Zoom/internal mics is good enough" crowd - especially since a very decent recording rig is much cheaper than, say, a really good camera.  Not referring to the OP here, just addressing your comment above.

With that said, the OP has done about the absolute best he can possibly do with what he has and is asking good questions. It appears you and I both came to the same conclusion on what he should try next.

speaking of iphones, that seems to be the new hacker taper devide.  first 2 Roger Waters recorded with iphone followed by an andriod phone recording.         .  these are not tapers imho

[kisspep]

Many thanks for all those interesting answers.

Talking about SBD audio, audio guy from Texola provided me of a saturated, overloaded SBD audio. He capture it with his laptop with an audio card... I have no more info at this momment.

You can check SBD on this video, before a little "remastering" (if I can use this word for volume adjustment, levelling, balance....):

BARON ROJO:

/>
(just for curiosity... this song was wrote by BARON ROJO years before ACDC - "Thunderstruck")

You can listen totally not ballanced guitars ("red guitar" sound higher than "lead black guitar").. but it's a clean SBD.

When I matrix this SBD, with an AUD, I must correct speed to sync... not to much, sounds like this:

BARON ROJO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45TF-88Uyf4

(this video it's too compresed,  from Canon.. not filmed by me, but synced with my audio)

Next sample was taped with Zoom H2 fixed on SBD, 1 meter higher than audience, more or less in fron of stage about 20meters long, in an open air auditorium with 3.000 people atendance:

DISCORDIA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H178Ax-AD8s

And this is my first time using Zoom H2, in my shirt pocket, last rows, second floor on an 800 people atendance club... error, but not as bad:

DORO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=now9i2gzd3A

I was reading this excellent forum to know how to get the best from my Zoom H2.

With all this samples, maybe my last 7 months short taper life is covered,  (when I started with this Zoom H2). I must admit that for an used gear ... my Zoom H2 did a real good job.

For sure talking here about Zoom H2 it's a very good gear it's like talk about iphone is a very good photocam... but my experience is that is a good point to start taping with a very low cost.

So I'll go for sure to a CA BateryBox+CA14 cardioids, to try to upgrade all these, maybe new upgraded CA-11 cardioids will be welcome too (I think Chris Church tal about this somehre here in the forum).

As Acidjack pointed, with external mics, stereo must be more better than a fixed internal mics.... and this is an important thing I want to get on my next recordings.

I'll ask Chris Church... but if someone want to sell his used gear for a major upgrade, please PM me (I will write a post on yard sale too)

[F.O.Bean]

Well, it sounds like your placement is more or less ideal, and kudos to you for actually taking the time to do your audio right- that's not true of a lot of people who do video, I find. 

I do not see a point in "matrixing" multiple audience sources from internal mics of recorders unless there are two different fixed placements (i.e., one onstage and one back at the board).

I don't know how easy it is for you to get soundboard patches, but what would probably give you the absolute most improvement for the least money would be getting a Tascam DR-2D, which is 4-channel, and taking 2 SBD channels and then plugging in a set of CA-14s and a battery box in as the other channels.

The biggest advantage you'd have with the CA-14s, besides them being much better quality, is that you can control their placement much better.  The Zooms and other internals have a fixed recording angle that is not necessarily ideal for what you're doing, not to mention that you have to physically stick the entire unit somewhere, which is a pain.

You could also just take the SBD feed into one of your existing decks and run the CA-14s>BB>other deck, but I personally find syncing that stuff down in post (because the clocks of the decks aren't exactly the same, you have to speed adjust one source) to be a pain. However, if you are already syncing with video, like in Sony Vegas, I understand some of that software is much better for that.  I'm out of my area of knowledge on that, though.

I agree 100%. I would sell the Zoom and get the CA14>BB/Preamp>M10 route. Youre guaranteed to get better recordings

[fmaderjr]

There are an awful lot of badly distorted recordings out there made with H2s. Maybe it's user error, but nothing about it is ideal for these purposes. 

This is probably because all the Zoom recorders that I know of (except maybe the H4n), including the H2, have their record level control operating after the ADC which means it is useless to prevent clipping. When recording a loud source, all you can do is set the recorder's sensitivity switch to low, set the level control to 100 (so the meters will tell you if you are clipping) and, if necessary, move away from the source until the meters are peaking under 0 dB. Getting the meters to peak below 0 dB by lowering the level control will not prevent clipping.

This is obviously not ideal for the purposes of most of us, and the Zoom hate around here is not snobbery (as jack also points out in his post). I HATE Zoom recorders even though the internal mics are pretty good.

However, for someone who wants to mainly use internal mics and is not going to record super loud stuff, the H2 would probably be a fine choice. I know an etymologist who loves it for recording insect sounds, which frankly surprised the hell out of me. I thought there would be too much self noise for that application.

[pehjott]

Soooo...I can get a CA11 and a BB plugged into the line in of my H2 and everything is fine???Or do I really need a preamp?I ask because that would be more expensive...

[adrianf74]

Soooo...I can get a CA11 and a BB plugged into the line in of my H2 and everything is fine???Or do I really need a preamp?I ask because that would be more expensive...

This has been answered a few hundred times around here. 

FYI, a battery box is fine for most 9V powered mics (CA-11, CA-14, DPA 406x, Sound Pros, etc.).  Preamp is only necessary if your mics need more juice or if you're that far back that you can't get good levels.   Some people will say run battery box only as it gives power and is the "most true" without any colouration of sound.  Preamps can (and will) alter the sound -- some for the better and others for the worse.

[daspyknows]

My 12 year old son used a pair of CA-14 cardiods into the CA9200 preamp and line in a Tascam DR-2D.  H2 for DR-07 should work the same way.

http://www.planetrocklosslessbootlegs.com/showthread.php?116265-Roger-Waters-ATT-Park-SF-Ca-May-11-2012-CA-14-Kidtaper-Master&p=206631

[kisspep]

Last week I was filming and taping this EXCELLENT USA band: HOGJAW

This is with Zoom H2 internal mics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBu4pPNlwAg

And this is with Tascam DR-07 interanl mics:

http://youtu.be/r_Q_lNmmA94

Just got CA9000 preamp and CA-11 cardioids... so next time I'll use them with Tascam. I know maybe CA-14 it's better, but I'll go for them after.

[kisspep]

This audio is using my Tascam DR07 / CA-9000 / CA-11, filmed with Lumix ZS3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVGN0skrNUc

What do you think?... I can put tomorrow Zoom H2 internal mics too, exatly from same position on near soundboard.