Zoom H2n vs Zoom H6

[ChamomileShark]

Another vs question. I currently have a Zoom H2n. I use it mainly to record ambiences in the wild.

Are the recording via the built in mics better with the H6?

There is a video that compares recordings but frankly I can hear very little difference in terms of background noise.

[CrystalWizard]

Yes, the H6 is slightly better. I thought they both had crap preamps. Too noisy for field recording of quiet sources. I got a Zoom F4, major upgrade but spendy.
There is a chart here that i think is helpful:
http://www.avisoft.com/recorder-tests/
but there is no listing for the H6.

[whyterabbyt]

The H5 improved the preamp stage a fair bit from that in the original H4 (and 14dB better for noise than the improved H4N according to avisoft table) and the H4(N) was better than the H2(N). The H6 uses the same preamps as the H5, which are about 6dB worse for noise than the F4, according to this:

https://www.zachpoff.com/resources/zach ... endations/

[ChamomileShark]

thank you both for your replies.

I found a 3rd chart
https://practicalmechanic.com/2021/01/2 ... l-verdict/

It shows H2n at -114, H6 at -120.5.

Interestingly the Roland R-05 is shown at -122 but unfortunately is no longer available. The R-07 is shown at -117 and is much cheaper than the H6. Never seen that mentioned on wildlife recording sites.

I'll need to do some further research, these charts are really helpful, thanks again!

[whyterabbyt]

Interestingly the Roland R-05 is shown at -122 but unfortunately is no longer available. The R-07 is shown at -117 and is much cheaper than the H6. Never seen that mentioned on wildlife recording sites.

R-07 and previous Roland/Edirol models in that range only have their internal microphones and one of those prosumer-y 3.5mm mic sockets. No XLR or jack inputs, no phantom power.

We find our students quite like the form factor though; for some reason they always start off wanting the most expensive kit, but end up taking the smallest.

(Though now our smallest, technically, are Zoom F1 Lavalier sets.)

[ChamomileShark]

Thanks for that.

I'd probably be using the internal mics but hadn't really looked at the Roland ones.

I'm thinking that perhaps the H5 is what I might want but I need to do more research, having the charts to look at makes it easier to get a feel for the basic quality of the recording which is the main thing I wanted to improve.

I also need to consider how much RX helps to make up for the H2n's noise issues. I tried it on one of my field recordings and it was quite remarkable.

[whyterabbyt]

I also need to consider how much RX helps to make up for the H2n's noise issues. I tried it on one of my field recordings and it was quite remarkable.

amen to that.

[ChamomileShark]

I also need to consider how much RX helps to make up for the H2n's noise issues. I tried it on one of my field recordings and it was quite remarkable.

amen to that.

So are you of the opinion that H2n+RX is as good as the H5? Because if so I'd probably stick with what I have.

[whyterabbyt]

So are you of the opinion that H2n+RX is as good as the H5? Because if so I'd probably stick with what I have.

Well, really I was only agreeing that the difference RX makes is remarkable. But yeah, if you dont need the features of the H5 (ie the mic modules and having up to 4 proper inputs) and RX improves SNR enough on your recordings for you to be happy with them, then stick with what you've got. There'll always be an H5 or somesuch out there if you change your mind, or your requirements shift.

[vurt]

i still use the original h4. not good for windy days but for field stuff and close micing, it's suitable enough with clean up.

obviously as whyterabbyt says, if you need the inputs then it's worth spending, but if you're happy with the audio after cleanup and don't need the inputs id stick with where you are

[ChamomileShark]

Problem with RX is that it tends to also take a bit of the original sound away (you can listen to just what it removes). So far playing around with the sensitivity and amount doesn't really fix it although I probably need to spend more time with it.

[vurt]

yes, audio cleanup is far from hifi quality in most cases, depends what you personally need, im usually destroying the sounds anyway, so ultra clean perfect recordings aren't necessary so much.

[whyterabbyt]

Ive always found it better to do RX denoising it in several lighter passes. So instead of, say, a 20dB reduction, reduce 4 or 5 db 3 or 4 times....

[elxsound]

Problem with RX is that it tends to also take a bit of the original sound away (you can listen to just what it removes). So far playing around with the sensitivity and amount doesn't really fix it although I probably need to spend more time with it.

Someone on these forums mentioned many years ago this and it helped tremendously... Apply RX lightly and repeatedly as if you were applying layers of paint to a car. This will reduce the presence of artifacts and get you what you want after maybe 2-3 passes.

I'm still keeping my old noisy H4 because I can't help but think they're due for a refresh with USB C connections.

[elxsound]

Ive always found it better to do RX denoising it in several lighter passes. So instead of, say, a 20dB reduction, reduce 4 or 5 db 3 or 4 times....

Yeah, this... Missed that you wrote it and maybe you're the one who mentioned this all those years ago?