Видео

Nice review. Not long ago, I upgraded from a Roland R-26 to the Mix-Pre 6. I’m still an audio novice, so it was nice to hear it compared to the other field recorders. I especially appreciated that you tested the field audio recorders at different distances from the microphone, and that you started by recording the noice levels for each recorder. Keep up the great work!

Impressive set up

To me the SD clearly has a fuller sound than the zoom…. 😊

Wow - it is an old text, all recorders are quite close to my ears, but if being picky, I prefer probably the MixPre 3 - to me, it has the most subtle dynamic rendition of lower and louder....

I'll add a couple cents: I own a Zoom F8 (bought it in 2016 and have worked EXTENSIVELY with it) and a fresh SD MP10 II. I've spent a maybe a week doing these tests with both units and overall they perform quite closely. Limiters on the SD are much much better, when pushed hard, it is REALLY noticeable and this might save you a couple shots while on the field. Also noise floor on the SD is far lower which allows to record very subtle and natural foley tracks. Now preamps is where things turn spicy. I split a signal from a Neve Portico Preamp and fed it into both units via Line Inputs. Same audio source at the same time. Results were surprising. Both did basically the same. BUT when the units HAVE TO AMPLIFY themselves the mics via Mic input results differ. The Zoom will leak internal noise into the recording while the SD stays pretty clean. With this being said, both would do the job and I guess no client would notice any difference at all.

Hehe. No headphones at hand now. But on the speakers of my phone, there is a significant jump in quality after the H4n Pro, the rest of the recorders sound equally good. I will listen again on a pair of headphones. But most people will watch videos on smartphone speakers anyway, so good to know :)

Excellent Video, Thx

... and here in late 2022 it's preamps are still among the best there is 👍

What was the gain level of each recorders to reach the same meter level?

This is the first comparison video I've ever seen done correctly in regards to any sound comparison of any sound gear period. I appreciate that.

So I downloaded an mp3 of the video and tried some editing. I first tried the part with active limiters outside because that's where I heard the biggest differences. So, I tried to match the F6 with 788 and really after just some saturation and minimal eq they where extremely close. I did the same for the previous part on the outside talking only this time I tried to match the F4n with the 788. I wouldn't say they matched exactly but I am not sure I could tell which I liked better.

To test quality, you should, to be able to notice any difference: 1- use a quality **omnidirectional** wideband and low-noise mic, e.g. Neumann KM-183. Otherwise with (hyper-) cardoïds you get rolloff (Hi-pass filtering) effect and amplitude ripple (due to comb filtering) which both impairs response specs, 2- use complex source i.e. music with many instruments and wide spectrum, and certainlay not voice, to test intermod distortion

788/633 sounds better

I could live happily with either the MixPre3 or F6. The other SD units are a bit excessively priced even though they do sound great, and the H4N is just crap.

As someone not invested (yet)... MixPre sounded almost as if it boosts highs to fool me it's "better" which sometimes really worked but mostly not. F6 was mostly the best and most natural. Surprised to see praise for 633/788, especially the 788 was underwhelming. Amazing that H4N could somewhat keep up but costs a fraction.

For me the 633 sounded best in all tests (incl. limiter and noise floor). The 788 sounds very pleasant for dialog but I'd say due to coloration of the preamp. The limiter it's the most noticeable. The MixPre-3 did very very well although I hear a slight lack in low freq area. Limiter sounded as good as 633. Then F6 which sounds very good. Then H4N which sounds good. Interesting test, thank you. I'd preffer to use another kind of microphone, the 416 doesn't have a very "full" sound and it has a heap in high freqs. Also shotguns are not very good with low freqs.

I think it is not about the best but best for the buck. All the sound devices sounded better and SO CLOSE in quality. I think the Mixpre 3 II wins here. Thanks.

If you can't figure out that Sound devices Mix pre 3 is better, then good audio is not for you. He won in all scenarios, the F6 in second place for my liking, I prefer to spend the extra money for the SD. Thank you very much for the test!

Good test man!

I have a zoom H1n and the noise floor seems pretty difficult to work around. I was stupid not to invest a little more and go for a better unit. I agreed with the other poster that said that the zoom sounded harsher than the others. The quiet room picked up on this especially. If you jump to different parts of the video, you here the comparison really easily. Thanks for making the video.

Very helpful video, thanks! How did you first notice your Tentacle box battery was working less than optimal? One of mine seems to not reach full charge & continues blinking on the charger. Perhaps a sign I need a new battery soon?

Zoom H4N Pro £235.00 Zoom F6 £585.64 Sound Devices 633 $ 5,755.00 Sound Devices MixPre-3 II £750.00 Sound Devices 744 $4,199.00 Now given the lack of difference based on your most excellent test the H4N Pro wins for me, assuming it is the right model or the ZoomF6 as they are so much more economical purchase. However, it would depend on what they are being used for and what they would be played back on. RUclips video is your example and the difference is minimal for me as a nontechnical sound listener who does not get the benefit of side-by-side comparison normally. The average PC sound set up be it speakers or headphones is not that good so results playback will vary greatly from system to system. All I want now is to check if the Zoom H4N Pro has a secondary backup recording channel just in case things go wrong with the primary recording channel. A really great video test was organized and presented - thank you.

Dope Test!

JUST TELL ME WHICH ONE IS BEST!!! lol

Thanks for sharing this experience. For the 788, I don't know ! Sometimes I rank it first, sometimes it's too different. After a few quick listens, I admit I like the "reassuring" sound of the 633, then the mixpre, then the F6, then the H4.

love the noise floor for mixpre 3. Thinking of upgrading my zoom h4n that has been failing my shoots by auto shut down while using batteries

Sony pcm d100 or Sony pcm d50

Thanks for this video! Differences are subtle but after watching a number of videos on comparing recorders I have to say that the ZOOM's do sound a bit harsh compared to the SD's which sound smoother and more well rounded with voices. Definitely will spend extra to get a Mix Pre 3 II instead of the Zoom FD6 (which I first wanted to buy) as it will be a better long term investment.

Other than H4N having a bit more noise, they all sounded the same.

So "noise floor" means pointing a shotgun mic at the floor in your apartment and recording whatever the community had to offer at the moment?

788 sounds best with my Kennerton GH50 JM Edition and Ray Samuels Apache Amp- great test

This was a great video. Really informative. I'd love to hear your own thoughts on these recorders.

Probably best review about anything ever made

Im listening on hd600 headphones at the highest resolution, trying to decide between the zoom f series and the mixpres. I expected a little more from what sound devices is calling "Kashmir" preamps, I was also thinking the converters on the mixpre might be superior but yeah, idk about that... The difference is so small on the whole that I'd have to call it about even. Then the screen, meters, accessories and the looks of the zoom all nudge it that much more ahead of the mixpre for me. Good video, very helpful, thanks!!

I really enjoyed hearing you struggle to pronounce “insure domestic tranquility” 10 times in a row

I can hear a slight metallic quality from the Zooms. I think it's the AD conversion. I've been using a Sonosax SX-M2 with a Zoom F8, and it also has that metallic quality.

The 633 and the 788 definitely have that sound that just sounds right. I think they have a bit more detail going on in the midrange. Mixpre sounds pretty darn good too. Can’t stand the zoom sound. It just sounds average. Obviously great for the price point though.

interesting test

788 sounded the best. You can get an old 744t for cheap

thanks for this. can i use the zoom f6 or the mixpre-3 ii with the rode video mic pro + via the 3.5 jack? are there limitations to this quality wise compared to using a xlr shotgun mic? thanks so much for your thoughts.

Save my money for a good mic.

everyday use H4n is more than enough!

I was hoping not to hear any differences from the 633 to the mix pre 3. the sound of the 633 is much more relaxed and natural (warm low-end?). I‘m looking for the best possible sound in field recordings, but I don‘t need all the pro‘s mixing and timecode features...

Did you know QOS was a common abbreviation for _quality of service_ before you named your channel?

Great video, and I hope you continue producing content. If you have a moment, what are your thoughts on redundancy when recording audio? I'm finding information on this subject to be very sparse. Do you record a backup track when on-set? Is that standard practice? Are there field recorders that offer dual card slots that you recommend? Or would you recommend using a splitter with separate recorders? Thanks!

Excellent review.......!!!

Honestly, there needs to be a test with extremely loud sources su h as gunshots. This is where you'll certainly hear the difference these recorders have.

833?

hello, i'm on a budget, should i get the h4n pro? i'm getting into independent film making, i would like mainly record dialog on insides and outsides, idk i just would to know if there's something better on the same price range, Cool experiment btw hahaha

Hi ! Is it the Tentacle sync E replacement on original one ?