[George Graves]

In article ,
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote:

George Graves wrote:


These devices can make amazing quality recordings, despite all of the
drawbacks that you, correctly, point out. I recently recorded a
classical string trio using a zoom H2 and it's built-in microphones.
I recorded it at 24-bit/96KHz stereo and then used Audacity to boost
the bass a bit (luckily I found a frequency response graph of the
H2's microphones on-line and was able to flatten the bass-out nicely
(the mikes' low-end response is not terrible to begin with). The
results are amazing. The recording COULD be released commercially and
nobody would complain about the recordings audio quality at all. In
fact several people to whom I have sent the file say that not only is
it "audiophile quality" sound wise, but that the imaging is
absolutely holographic!

Usually I use an Avantone CK-40 with a mixer and a Korg MR1 for most
of my location work. I bought the Zoom H2 about 6 years ago as a
backup or safety recorder. I just paralleled it with my mixer, hit
"record" and let it go. Until August of this year, I had never used
it's internal mikes before. I took it to a concert on a whim because,
being self contained, I could just stick it in my pocket.

Yes, as you know I have had a similar experience with my Zoom H2n. But
George - where did you find response graphs of these little recorders? I
have been searching for such a thing. I wrote to the Zoom US Office to ask
what the response of the H6 might be. In the owners manual that you can
download it seems to have a 120 dB signal to noise ratio.

Gary Eickmeier

http://www.kenrockwell.com/audio/zoom/h4n.htm#meas