Zoom h2 recording

[Brad Weiss]

After some futzing, I think I finally figured out how to use my Zoom H2. #This is about as clean as I can get (minus the chair squeak...) I could never figure out how to record 2 tracks, but here I recorded the guitar, then played that over headphones on my Mac, then added the mando track, #Then I synched the 2 tracks up on Audacity. # The volume level is just what I wanted. #Now if I could only PLAY these instruments...
Here's How Long Has This Been Going On? (http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_songInfo.cfm?bandID=434303&songID=6256141)on my soundclick site. All comments welcome

[jim_n_virginia]

Sounds great to me Brad. I am just getting a handle on my H2, took me a while to figure out how to get the best recordings and with the right setting but I think I got it.

Now I just downloaded Audacity a few weeks ago and I am trying to get a better understand of that program but coming from a NON sound engineering background I still have a lot to learn about the program.

So let me understand what you did. You recorded two separate files on the H2 and combined them on Audacity. So you overdubbed them.

How did you do that and is there a tutorial somehwre that shows how to do it?

Good job on the tune, I think it came out great! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mandosmiley.gif

[Brad Weiss]

Thanks Jim. #Here's how I did it

1. Recorded a guitar rhythm track using no equipment but the H2.

2. Uploaded this WAV track onto my MacBook (via USB, "Storage")

3. Played the WAV file on Quicktime (or iTunes, can't remember), while listening through headphones

4. Recorded mando/lead track on H2, while rhythm track played on MacBook.

5. #Uploaded lead track.

6. #Opened Audacity, and put both rhythm and lead tracks on same file, synched them, and exported as an MP3.


I think this worked as well as it did because there was minimum computer noise- on a notebook/laptop, Audacity is always noisy for me, so I didn't open it until I was mixing the two files. #Is this overdubbing. or mixing? http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif # In any event, this is how I did it- and I'm a sucker for compliments, so thanks! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[Bramble]

Very nice job, Brad, sounds great!

I just ordered a Zoom H2 for my husband for his birthday, It caught my eye in Acoustic Guitar magazine in a "new gear" article and looks pretty interesting. I'm sure he'll use it at the Mandolin Symposium this year, plus for recording practice or lessons, whatever...I'm glad to see others are figuring it out - neither of us have any experience with recording, so this will be interesting, I'm sure #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

Barb

[James P]

Might be nice to hear more stereo separation, but that sounds pretty darn good for an H2 Brad. Is that the Mowry?

[mando.player]

For those interested in doing multitrack recording, the Zoom h4 will do this for you. You can lay down up to 4 different tracks with as many takes for each as your card can hold.

You can mix them down within the unit or import them into the a computer based program. No need to sync them up. The h2 does take the cake in terms of size though.

[Steevarino]

Nice tune, Brad! #I'm listening to it as I write this.

I have been considering buying either the H2 or H4. #I see the H2's on eBay for around $200, including shipping and accessories. #The H4's seem to be around twice that amount. #One particular auction lists the difference between the two models. #As I recall, the only difference that might be of concern is the H4's ability to do 4 track recording. #Looks like Brad found a way around that one!

So, any advice? #H2 or H4? #My uses would mostly be for recording at workshops, lessons, and the occasional jam. #Actually, my main purpose for justifying the purchase would be to have the ability to record sound files of my recently built reso. guitars, which I would then put on my website.

Steve Smith
www.CumberlandAcoustic.com
www.RedLineResophonics.com

[mando.player]

Steve,

You've touched on something that I never could figure out. Why don't more builders use something like the H2/H4 to record their instruments? I love the playing on the NewMAD site, but the sound could be a lot better. I still really don't know what a NewMAD mando sounds like http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

From an actual building standpoint, it would most likely be a good way to journal the differences in construction methods and materials. I suppose the builder would have to figure out a way to get accurate recordings each time (amount of gain, distance from the mic, etc would all have to be the same).

If you don't see yourself doing the multi-track thing, then a stereo recorder is the way to go.

[Brad Weiss]

So how does the H4 work with multi-tracks? Specifically, can you play a track, and listen to it while recording a new track to align with it? i.e., how do you put down a rhythm track and play the tune over it (as I've tried to do with the H2)? The cumbersome nature of recording, downloading, synching, etc still bugs me, and there's always the risk of noise from playing while recording- and the imperfection of synching, etc. So the H4 is appealing, but I'm not convinced it can do just what I want (or, of course, if it's worth it...)

Hey- thanks for listening!! If anyone's game, you can hear Mood Indigo (http://soundclick.com/share?songid=6267568) which I recorded same as the Gershwin tune.

[Dan Eaton]

Is Audacity better for multi-track recording and mixing than GarageBand?

[steve V. johnson]

Steve Smith asks, "So, any advice? H2 or H4?"

First, I'd suggest that you look at Samson's Zoom pages for the whole story on the H2/H4. Vendors on eBay can be selective about the information they include in the auction text. Here's the H2 page:


Scroll down the column on the right to find the button for the H4 page.


H2 (http://www.samsontech.com/products/productpage.cfm?prodID=1916)



I have the H2 and an Edirol R-09 which I got earlier. I really love these little recorders. With good attention to the placement of them (placement of the mics) and some basic in-computer editing, they can provide really good recordings
for all manner of uses.

BBQ King: In my experience, the available processes and controls are pretty comparable, so one's comfort with the interface can be telling. Audacity is really a dry, boring screen compared to Gband... I have Gband, but I don't use
it on my own. I've had two clients who built songs in Gband and brought them to me, so I've had a couple of short
tutorials...

I've been told by some audio pro's who pay attention to software version updates and codec features, that the .WAV-to-mp3 converter that Audicity uses, which is called "LAME" is about the best out, well written and often updated. I don't really know if this extends to the other features of Audacity. As a consequence, I use Auda'/LAME for all the files I need to convert to mp3, and I've noticed that Auda'/LAME is noticably better than iTunes.

I often take mp3 files that I've recorded on the Edirol or H2 and do rough edits in Audacity and then later open those files in ProTools where they're converted to full-bandwidth, uncompressed .WAV files. Sometimes I open H2/Edirol mp3s right into ProTools. I haven't found any inherent glitches, boogers, dropouts or kinks in those files, so I'm presuaded that the recorders and Audacity are pretty good quality.


stv

[mando.player]

The H4 can function as a stereo recorder like the H2. It also has a 4-track mode, where you have 4 individual tracks. You pick which track you want to record (1-4) on. If there is audio on the other tracks, it plays back.

If I were to record a fiddle tune this would be my work flow.
- Determine the tempo I want and record the rhythm on track one (guitar or mando)
- Once that is done, I would record the mando on track two while listening to track one
- If I'm feeling good about those, I'd play some bass on track three while listening to tracks one and two.

At this point you've got three tracks on the recorder. You can mix these down on the recorder to a stereo track. You also have the option to move these tracks over to your computer to mix them there. On the recorder each track is a separate WAV file. Since they are all in time with each other, there is no aligning on the computer. You just import them into your program.

As for Garage Band vs. Audacity....if you have a recent version of Garage Band, it's dead easy to use.

[Steevarino]

Thanks for the above link, stv. #Now I REALLY want one! #Looks like the H2 will be fine for my needs, so I will most likely go that way. #Besides, I think it looks cooler, with that vintage microphone look on the top!!! #A bit smaller, too, which is a plus for me.

Charlie, I'm with you. #Since this kind of technology is now so readily available and affordable, maybe we will be hearing more sound files on builders websites. #Your suggestion to catalog these sound files is a good one too. #I plan on doing that, as I am currently goofing with a whole bunch of different building techniques, and it will be helpful to look (listen?) back, and compare each build to its resulting sound.

Steve
www.CumberlandAcoustic.com
www.RedLineResophonics.com

[steve V. johnson]

Just as an aside, I've found that I like the two 'spaced omni' mics of the Edirol R-09 better than the two cardioid mics of the H2, but this is for one specific use...

I 've been takeing the Edirol recorder to Irish sessions, and I usually put it on a table in the center of the players, on its back.

This is really unobtrusive and doesn't really bother anyone, and the mics capture the room really well. # Used this way, the H2's cardioids have a bit of "off-axis coloration," that is, the sounds out at the edge of where the cardioid pattern ends are a little less natural sounding than with the Edirol.

Alternatively, I put the recorder on a shelf outside the 'circle' of players, and aimed toward the players. #In this position the H2 does better, esp from its 120º side, but the room ambience still sounds a little affected to me compared to the R-09.

This is just an observation, and even tho I like the Edirol mic configuration better, it doesn't go very far to address the difference in cost between the two...

But for recording spontaneous events 'on location,' I find that I take the Edirol along a lot more often. #For more 'set' situations like rehearsals or a stage performance where the ambient environment is more to be excluded than an important part of the recording, putting the H2 in -front- of the players, (either the 90º or the 120º side) works just great. #In that sort of situation the Edirol 'hear's more stuff, but I've also gotten good recordings with it, it just has to be placed a little more carefully, and usually closer to the players.

For one or two people playing in a home, working out tunes or such, I find that they work equally well.

The difference in the mics has been bugging me, so I just wanted to get all that off my chest... http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I'm glad that I have them both!

Thanks,

stv

[foldedpath]

I've been told by some audio pro's who pay attention to software version updates and codec features, that the .WAV-to-mp3 converter that Audicity uses, which is called "LAME" is about the best out, well written and often updated.

LAME is a great MP3 converter, and since it's open source and multi-platform, it can be used as an external converter in any audio software (like Audacity) that lets you plug in an external converter. For anyone not familiar with the LAME settings for MP3 output (and there are a LOT of them), this is a good resource:

hydrogenaudio LAME Wiki (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME)


I don't really know if this extends to the other features of Audacity.

Audacity is great for a free program, but the one glaring omission (unless it's there and I couldn't find it) is being able to throw markers on the audio file while you're listening to it, and then go back to the markers for editing. My S.O. uses our Zoom H2 to record fiddle jams she attends, and it's usually "set and forget"... which results in one huge file. Then she has to load that on the PC, and then find and cut out the songs into individual files.

You can do this in Audacity, but it's a pain compared to a program that supports on-the-fly markers like higher-end audio software. I finally ended up buying her the "lite" version of the higher-end software I use (Samplitude Pro) called Samplitude SE, because it supports markers and more advanced editing features. It's $49 USD as an online download. With this software, she can hit a simple key press while listening to the playback, and that inserts a marker that can be named, or moved, later on, before deciding on the final split points for cutting out song files. It's a great way to organize your "cuts" on a big file before breaking it out into songs.

Samplitude SE is PC only, unfortunately, but other software has this feature, and it's worth seeking out, to minimize the hassles in editing long files.

[steve V. johnson]

Folded path described, "My S.O. uses our Zoom H2 to record fiddle jams she attends, and it's usually "set and forget"... which results in one huge file. Then she has to load that on the PC, and then find and cut out the songs into individual files.

You can do this in Audacity, but it's a pain compared to a program that supports on-the-fly markers..."

This is very similar to the way I work with Auda'. It is clunky (my other platform is ProTools, and I'm much better at that), but what I've come to do with Auda' and the long files is, say from the beginning, to look/listen thru the tunes, pick an endpoint for the first segment and set the cursor there, then use the Edit pulldown to choose "cursor to end" which will highlight the file except for the first selection, then use the Edit pulldown again to choose "Split".

This puts the remaining file in the next stereo track below the first one, with the start point of the second file in line with the end of the first one.

If it's going to take me more than one edit session to do the whole file, I name the tracks as I go, and just keep moving fwd in time and splitting the tracks out to new ones.

Another unfortunate feature of Audacity is that the saved sessions are large, so for an hour or two-hour session file, I'll split out eight or ten tunes or sets, and then save the session and go back to the top and do the other edits on those ten from the top, do "Save As..." either mp3s or .WAVs as appropriate, and then go on and do some more splitting...

I try never to keep Audacity edit sessions, even tho I save them often while I'm working (save early and often!!!), because they're sooooo big. As soon as I've got good usable edits, I toss the Audacity stuff. I keep the original file and the edited files, and if I need to do any further editing I do it in PT, with the previous edits as guides, or edit the files I cut up in Audacity.

The tough part is when there are conversational sections with tune information that I want to keep. Finding and editing out the tunes/sets is easy because I can pretty well see where the tunes are. But when there are conversations between sets, and there -might- be good information in there, it's much harder to see, so it takes longer to edit... I hate to "normalize" the levels of the conversational stuff just to be able to see where things are, but one -can- do that...

stv

[rainy512day]

On my Macbook I am using Transcribe! to split large files. It works with both .wav and mp3 files but will only create .aiff or .wav files. You use section and measure markers to set the boundaries of each piece. I then use Audacity w/ the LAME library to export to mp3. If i have a 4channel file I first use Audacity to merge the F/R files and then go on from there. The merge feature on the H2 (Stereo Encode) is painfully slow.