Zoom vs edirol hand held recorder

[Mental Floss]

I am looking for a field recorder for mostly spoken word to record podcasts, my speeches and radio shows. Also want to record my mandolin lessons.
I am looking at the edirol and zoom brands.
I saw the zoom thread but wanted to get some feedback on a edirol.
Thanks in advance!
Andy

[Big Joe]

I think the Zoom H2 is easier to work and is a bit technologically ahead...a little. It is also cheaper. It records voice or music very well and very easy to operate.

[OldMan1]

IMHO,unless you want to be able to record multi tracks, I would with the Zoom H2. Idon't know how the mics are the same, but the ones on my H4 work really well for the things you describe. Art

[mcgroup53]

I've used the new Zoom H2 digital recorder a couple of weeks now ad have a few initial impressions.

First off, it's reasonably simple and intuitive to use. The menus are small, but legible under every condition I've tried so far, and easy to navigate. About the only issue I had was making sure I was recording a new track into a new folder so I didn't record over something I'd already created.

In general, I think the sound quality is excellent. It will record at a sample rate twice that of CDs, but that uses a ton of SD card space. Buy a 4 gig SDHC card if you want to record a full concert at the best possible rate. In my experience, standard sampling was just fine.

Like all recording, mic placement and orientation to the source is crucial. I recorded a live gig this week with it sitting on a mini-tripod on the floor just a few feet in front of us and it didn't capture the entire band well because it was too close and the recording pattern was a 90 degree angle. Turning it backwards and using the 120 degree setting would have been better. And getting it up off the floor using a mic stand would have made a big difference. These are decent condenser mics, and they need to be directed at the sound source for best results. I recorded a live gypsy jazz concert from the audience with the unit on a mini-tripod in my lap, and it sounded good. But if I had elevated it so the mics were above the crowd and pointed more directly at the PA mains, it would have been excellent.

A few quibbles so far. First, I wish it had a dedicated button to turn on the backlight for the menu. There's probably a way to do that, but I didn't want to mess up the recording by pressing the record button in mid-concert.

Zoom is very well-known for its guitar effects pedal, so I would have thought this might have come with at least a built-in digital reverb, maybe some compression. But the only add-ons, as it were, are a tuner and a metronome. Useful, but having some way to EQ the recording and/or the playback would be nice.

But for a street price of $199.95, I think this is a great unit for those of us who want to record jams at Winfield and other festivals, live concerts, workshops, practice sessions, etc. I have easily downloaded the WAV files onto my laptop and played them in iTunes, and I see no reason it wouldn't work just as well on a PC. I'm sure the Edirol and similar units work well, too, but this unit definitely deserves a good look before buying a personal digital recorder, IMO.

Dave McCarty

[Pete Martin]

Edirol R9 http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Larry S Sherman]

I would have thought this might have come with at least a built-in digital reverb, maybe some compression. But the only add-ons, as it were, are a tuner and a metronome.
The H2 does have compression (and a limiter). Go to the AGC/Comp menu to see the options, or page 37 of the user manual to read about them.

Larry

[mcgroup53]

Manual? We donn neeed no steekin' manual ... !!! <g>

Thanks for the tip.

Dave

[Adam Tracksler]

I had the H4, and sold it to buy the R-09. I like it way more, and it is much smaller. (which can be good or bad) The H2 looks to be alot like the R-09, if it had been out when I bought, I would have probably gotten the H2. I am very happy though with my R-09. I wouldnt hesitate to buy it again.

[jim_n_virginia]

Never used the R-9 but have been using the heck out of my H2 since I bought it a few weeks ago. Small, easy to use and good sound quality.

What I really like about it is that everytime you turn the recorder off and on it automatically starts a new file in a folder (and time stamps it) so I can have individual tunes as individual files instead of one big long recording from just recording a whole concert.

[M. Hollen]

I dig my H4. Recorded a buddy's bluegrass band practice session. Dropped it onto a CD for them and it sounded good. I haven't played with the H2 or the R-9. I believe the H4 has more funtions than the others. I started out just wanting a field recorder but quickly discovered having multitrack recording capability is pretty cool. YMMV.

[steve V. johnson]

I have had an R-09 since they came out, and I've recently had a chance to play with a friend's new H2.

The H2 has more features and costs less. #The H2 has more mics, more ways to configure the mics, and will accept an XLR input with phantom power for using serious external mics. #It has, as has been noted, some effects like compression and limiting, etc.

The R-09 has a playback-only reverb (that is, it won't print to the file as it records), no compression and an "AGC," automatic gain control limiter. # It will accept an external mic, but only on a 1/8" mini-jack (mono or stereo). #They'll both record in lots of formats from little tiny mp3s to big ol' 24-bit files, so you can get -days- worth of stuff on an SD chio or get as serious as you need to about the quality. # The recording quality of them both is very good, as I've heard and tested. #As mcgroup sez, where you put it is important (or... 'critical,' even) to the sound you'll get, but this isn't hard to learn with some experimentation. #The R-09's mp3s sound just fine when opened in a full-pro ProTools recording system. #But I've only used it for 128k resolution, not lower. #R-09 24-bit files are great.

Comparing features can go further, but it's better done by looking at the manufacturers' web pages than for me to list 'em.

I find the R-09 very, very easy to use, and with fewer options, simpler than the H2. #

The designs of most of these miniature location recorders straddle a line between just being a location recorder and being a songwriters' tool, so a lot of them have effects and tracking tricks (layering, virtual tracks, etc.) and, in the case of the H2, external mic provisions and some effects, so that folks who are writing can use it creatively.

I got the R-09 solely to be a location recorder, and I do all that other processing stuff after I've off-loaded the files. #In this use, the R-09 is wonderfully simple and easy to use. #I like it a lot and I have no regrets about having bought it.

Mcgroup mentions the backlight, and I've put a piece of tape over the bright red record light on the R-09 so that it doesn't scream "We're RECORDING" all the time, which can be disconcerting to some, and inappropriate sometimes. # The H2 is a great looking little device, but I think the R-09 is a bit more 'stealthy' looking.

So, Andy, either of these will do what you want very handsomely. #If cost and the additional features look good, get an H2. If the extra features aren't necessary, the R-09 will do fine. # At the price difference, the R-09 has no real justification for the extra $, but I got mine -long- before the H2 came out, and it's earned it's keep a few times over, and tracks from it have been used on a couple of my clients' CDs.

These little devices will get smaller, cheaper and better. #They're pretty exciting.

I hope this helps. I've use my R-09 for a lot of hours, and in a lot of ways, so if you have any particular questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

stv

[R. Kane]

I was an outspoken fan of my R09 until the mic jack bit the dust: turns out that anyone who uses an external mic becomes unhappy with this at some point. The metal "walls" of the jack are too weak and easily bent. Apparently Edirol is reinforcing the new ones with epoxy. Mine is back at Edirol for repair, and I'm waiting to see if they charge me to replace/repair/improve the setup.

I would also be much happier if they reduced some features and improved battery life.

[Flowerpot]

stv,

you sure about the H2 having XLR inputs with phantom power?

I looked at a lot of reviews, pics, specs, and i can't find any reference to XLR inputs. The case doesn't even look big enough for that. But it looks like a nice unit.

[250sc]

The H4 has XLR not the H2.

Cost of R09 = $400
Cost of H2 #= $200

Do the R09s features (Optical Digital Output)justify double the cost?

[dasspunk]

If pictures are worth 1k in words... audio must be at least 2k... let's hear these little recorders and hear for ourselves which we like best. I'll be happy to host the files if you would like. Just contact me...

[steve V. johnson]

Yep, I was wrong about the XLRs, sorry! #And thanks for the correction. #I had it confused with the H4.

I've only used the external mic input on the R-09 a few times, with an AudioTechnica AT822 that I like a lot (I used to use it with a Sony D7 DAT recorder), and the recorder and cable were always well-supported and stable (I'm paranoid about that anyway), so I haven't had any wiggles in the receptacle. #Thanks for the warning!

Arcane, what features would you like to have left out of the R-09?

250sc asked, "Do the R09s features (Optical Digital Output)justify double the cost? "

No, not really. #The opt/dig output means nothing to -me-, because it's so easy to transfer files via USB. #I suppose it would be nice to be able to use the opt/dig line out to record to two devices at once. #I've used the headphone out to do that on a couple occaisions, but the real purpose of the opt/dig port eludes me... http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Maybe there are other Edirol/Roland devices that it will talk to...

The Edirol was $400 when it came out, which was maybe over a year before the H2, and even well before the H4. #$400 was a nice price point, but as with all microprocessor devices, one expects that the prices will drop and drop over time. The R-09 was discounted a bit after it came out, but I haven't looked for prices in a long time. I was eager to have one, so I paid full boat, and it's more than paid for itself.

It's a bit odd that they haven't run out a new model or serious feature upgrades, -or- dropped the price in the face of such competition... #Who knows how these companies think...?

stv

[Flowerpot]

Yep, I use the R09 with the AT822 as well. It's a good combo.

I got the R09 before the H2 had hit the market. No regrets, but it looks like the H2 has got it beat for price with the same functionality.

Sound files, dasspunk? The two units are going to be pretty much identical in audio performance. Signal to noise performance in real life will be limited by the mic self-noise, not by the internal mic preamps or A/D quantization noise or linearity; mp3 compression algorithms are standard; once it's digital, it's digital and won't be degraded. They're all going to sound as good as the source you plug into it, so get the one that has the features you want (don't overlook size, control accessibility, user interface, battery life) at the price you want to pay.

[250sc]

sliabhstv,

I just did a search and they still sell for about $400. It's a great tool and does exactly what you wanted it to do at the time you bought it.

I use, and really like the H4. It will record at 24/96kHz in stereo mode which I use for remote recording but when I use it as an audio interface into my PC the highest sampling rate is only CD quality. No big deal for me. I just use it to record bed tracks to practice over. Even though I could plug my better, studio mic into the XLR jack I normally just use the built in mics 'cause I'm lazy.

[steve V. johnson]

250',

Yep, thanks.

I don't use high sample rates most of the time, just because I'm a troglodyte and I like using the space on my hard drives the way I have for so long. 24bit resolution is my norm. But when the R-09 is replaced, I do think that I'd like higher sample rates, just because I use it as a location recorder.

I first learned about these when a friend in St.Louis got the Edirol R-1, which is more similar in features/functions to the H4 (tho the H4 has more of it all), so now I get 'em all confused from time to time.

I still haven't had a chance to do a side-by-side comparison of the R-09 and H2, but this Friday may be the chance. And on that note, good description of the process, Flowerpot! The internal mics are probably the largest difference between 'em, and that may be negligible. The A/D converters might be, too, but it may be tough to tell in everyday use. Maybe in the studio, but I haven't really used the R-09 in the studio much...

Thanks, all,

stv

[foldedpath]

I still haven't had a chance to do a side-by-side comparison of the R-09 and H2, but this Friday may be the chance. And on that note, good description of the process, Flowerpot! The internal mics are probably the largest difference between 'em, and that may be negligible. The A/D converters might be, too, but it may be tough to tell in everyday use. Maybe in the studio, but I haven't really used the R-09 in the studio much...

I think that's a key point here: the conditions where most of us will be using these things will not be ideal, either in mic placement, room acoustics, or ambient noise floor. So while I think the Edirol R-9 might have better quality mics, mic pre's and converters than the Zoom H2 (it's a $400 recorder vs. $200, and that $200 has to pay for four separate mics, mic pre's and A/D channels compared to just two in the R4), in practice it may not matter for most of us.

I'd rather save money for higher-end home studio gear where I can control the acoustics (somewhat), and pay as little as possible for a compact field recorder like this. That's why I got the Zoom H2 instead of the Edirol R-9, or the similar M-Audio 24/96 recorder. This is basically entry-level digital recording, even with the R-9, and the price/performance level is rapidly evolving. No sense in over-paying at this level, unless you're sure you'll be needing higher quality. And if you do, get a Nagra. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[cwtwang]

Has anyone here tryed a digi voice recorder for jam sessions, practice tunes, etc? I see Olympus now has a 2 gig with a stereo mic that can be used separately. Any comparisions between these and the Edirol or H2's ??

[Walter Newton]

I have a $30 Olympus digital voice recorder...I think of it as today's version of an inexpensive handheld cassette tape recorder. #I wouldn't expect great results recording a concert with it, but for something like recording a lesson it works just fine.

[midmando]

Per the request for audio - here's an H2 recording done last night at a small show. #I've had mine for about a month, but this was the first chance I've had to try it in this sort of setting. #The H2 was on a chair maybe 15 feet from the stage - no real care was taken in the placement. #No comments on the musicians! (it's me and my 12 year old daughter on guitar and mando + a pretty good fiddle player who probably doesn't want his name on this post...)

Here's the song (http://cid-9e5d985aa9d07ad8.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/Public/Kneel%20Before%20Him%20ABJ.mp3)

[ApK]

unless you're sure you'll be needing higher quality. And if you do, get a Nagra. #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Funny you mention the Nagras. I spoke to a dealer in NYC who deals with the indie film crowd, and digital field recorders like the Zooms and Edirols are apparently starting to replace Nagra decks as the standard for field production. Quality is apparently on par (or at least, more than enough) and price and convienience just blows it away.