What's the Best Sounding Field Recorder? Five Recorder Comparison
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 июл 2024
- Today we'll listen and compare samples from the Zoom H4N, Zoom F6, Sound Devices 633, Sound Devices MixPre-3 II, and Sound Devices 788. The microphone we'll be using is the Sennheiser MKH 416.
Whether your a hobbyist or a full time sound mixer in TV this comparison will help you pick a pro audio recorder for your needs. I have used all of these in field recording and on set. Let me know what you think in the comments.
Skip to the Tests
Noise Floor Test 1:10
Indoor Talking Test 2:04
Outdoor Ambiance Test 3:04
Outdoor Talking Test 4:09
Limiter Test 5:47
Distance Talking Test 7:33
Buys Street Talking Test 9:12
Recording Specs
Uncompressed WAV, 24 bit, 96kHz*.
All recorders leveled at -20db using a 1kHz tone generator.
No EQ applied.
633 Meter Display Note
All the recorder's meters display levels in "dbfs" except the 633 which displays "dbu", this is about a +20db difference in how the levels are displayed. I accounted for this difference when setting the levels.
*Notes on Limiter Test
Pre-testing was done to ensure my voice was hitting the limiters on each recorder.
The 788 can only record at 96kHz when limiters are off. 788 limiters were off for all tests except the Limiter Test where the recording specs were on 48kHz and limiters were on.
Post Specs
All audio was down sampled to 48kHz per the limits of RUclips.
Volume was raised for hearing of tests, no other EQ applied.
For numerical gain adjustments made in post, see this document.
docs.google.com/document/d/1M...
Gear Used in Tests
Sennheiser MKH 416
Whirlwind SPLIT6-1x6 (passive splitter)
Hosa XLR Cables
Zoom H4N Pro
Zoom F6
Sound Devices 633
Sound Devices MixPre-3 II
Sound Devices 744
The Thai Fried Recipe I read
cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1...
The segment of The Constitution I read
www.archives.gov/founding-doc...
Music Attribution
Fareoffice The Tribute by Mikael Hellman
Link: filmmusic.io/song/6095-fareof...
License: creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
#fieldrecorders #audiorecorders #proaudio #sounddevices #zoomrecorder 
Наука
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.
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.
Great test. Thank you.
Very cool, thanks for making this!
Thanks! It was a lot of work but a lot of fun.
Saved me some cash! Great test.
Good test man!
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!
This was a great video. Really informative. I'd love to hear your own thoughts on these recorders.
Dope Test!
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.
Consensus : The MKH 416 is an amazing microphone ;)
It really is. I've done stereo recordings with two 416's and it sounds amazing.
The MKH60 is BETTER, way smoother and less harsh, quiet too with a great bottom and good side rejection and smooth sounding off axis pickup. Way better, just cost $600 more.
@@FilmmakerTimAlexanderLA Yeah, why buy a Honda when you could buy a Porsche? It's only 600,000 dollars more
Excellent review.......!!!
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.
Excellent Video, Thx
Probably best review about anything ever made
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.
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!!
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.
What was the gain level of each recorders to reach the same meter level?
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.
Yes you can (but why would you?:) There is an 3.5mm to XLR adapter made by Rode (you would need it for the F6) and the mixpre3 has a mic jack input. The VideoMic Pro is made for cameras, it is self powered, so it does not need any additional plugin or phantom power. The compromises here are mainly size, weight and price, because you do not just pay for a lightweight mic with internal battery preamp, but also for the shockmount, cable etc. so even a self powered shotgun mic (xlr) in the similar price range (Rode NTG2, NTG4+, Sennheiser MKE600, ME66, AudioTechnica AT897...) cost more, if you count in the necessary shockmount, windjammer and cable. Naturally (by competition), this is why you get more for more money. VideoMic Pro was made for prosumers, or just as a on camera mic, because its placement does not really work well for sound gathering, only for environmental sounds and closeup talking head documentary style. VideoMic Pro can be put onto a boompole, but it a) looks ridiculous b) still does not sound as good as a full fat shotgun mic. There are some _very_ affordable options, like the Deity Smic2 or Synco mic-D2. Of course to get the most of MixPre and F6 32-bit float recording, you should connect a microphone with an XLR cable and feed it phantom power directly from the devices.
interesting test
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
price vs quality. I would say hands down mix pre 3
You might want to clarify that you're referring to the Zoom H4n Pro :-) Which I had a pre amp upgrade over the fairly poor ones in the original H4n
I verbally referred to it when listing the equipment and in the description, but your right, in the text of the tests I did not put it. I agree, there is a big difference from the non-pro. Thanks for the note, I'll remember it for next time.
Thanks! Very informative.
One question - how is phantom power handled using this splitter?
Was it "ON" at every recorder?
Thanks! Phantom power was only sent from the 788. All the recorders could send phantom power but I didn't want them all sending powering to same mic. I did send phantom from a couple different recorders before testing and there was no difference. Once the mic was powered it was good to go.
@@quietonset344 Out of curiosity, if phantom power was "on" on multiple recorders, would that affect the mic or recording? If it affected anything negatively, would it temporarily affect just that recording, or might it actually damage the mic itself? Thanks!
No great difference among them. Good test!
I worked in the field for years on Docs. I found what made the big difference was the timbre of people's voices. You can't make a mini sound like a Ferrari whatever you use.
@@operator6471 I still am working in the field. You are right the about voices, this is also mostly true about microphones once you reach a certain level.
... and here in late 2022 it's preamps are still among the best there is 👍
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.
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 :)
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....
788 sounds best with my Kennerton GH50 JM Edition and Ray Samuels Apache Amp- great test
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
The H4N Pro is a great microphone/recorder combo but if you want to record dialogue you'll want a shotgun mic or lav that will plug into the H4N. It all depends what you're trying to record.
@@quietonset344 Zoom H5 is an even better option with EM-272 Plug-in-power capability.
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.
what unit cost little more?
@@montazownianr1 Amongst the units reviewed, the F6 only costs a little more and is a pretty big jump up in quality.
@@loudandclearmedia well, you can buy 6-8 pieces of H1n from the price of one barefoot F6. Not sure if it is a small jump in price :)
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?
everyday use H4n is more than enough!
Did you know QOS was a common abbreviation for _quality of service_ before you named your channel?
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...
833?
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
Zoom F6 was clearly better to the H4N Pro with regard to noise floor. The F6 was also generally in the same ballpark as the Sound Devices recorders. I think the Sound Devices were a hair better, but not so much as to justify their price difference on the sound quality of the recording alone. If Zoom would just put a backup SD slot into the F6 and fix the 3.5mm line out noise issue, I'd buy that thing in a heartbeat.
I agree
Check Gerald Undone for the output noise issue. He found a workaround
Yogi Bear, I think Curtis Judd has a work around too.
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!
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.
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.
Now the 744 is only 700 lol and the sound devices 633 is like 2500
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.
I agree. I've got the MixPre-6 ii and it is amazing. The best analog limiters I've heard too.
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.
788 sounded the best. You can get an old 744t for cheap
Where?
Sony pcm d100 or Sony pcm d50
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.
To me the SD clearly has a fuller sound than the zoom…. 😊
Other than H4N having a bit more noise, they all sounded the same.
Save my money for a good mic.
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.
Nah. You're wrong.
I really enjoyed hearing you struggle to pronounce “insure domestic tranquility” 10 times in a row
JUST TELL ME WHICH ONE IS BEST!!! lol
Sound Devices lol
788/633 sounds better