Zoom H2N

[bbrown]

Anyone tried the Zoom H2N yet?

It sounds intriguing with XY and Mid Side recording capabilities.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by bbrown

Anyone tried the Zoom H2N yet?

It sounds intriguing with XY and Mid Side recording capabilities.

Hi bb…
I'm not sure it's out yet. Everywhere I've looked is predicting early Sept shipping.

Mid-side is a binaural recording (like your ears working with your brain) which really sounds nice under headphones, and I'm interested to see if Zoom is trying to do something with it in the surround-sound arena (which is as much about software as hardware).

Standard mid-side recording is about hardware and software manipulation and processing or it doesn't happen, so I'm assuming the Zoom's 4 mics are somehow being configured and manipulated digitally to make it happen.



It is a physical technique which placed mic cartridge to cartridge in studio (I love it for recording bluegrass groups), one mic inverted and hung upside down and rotated 90° off axis with the other mic facing forward toward the musician/group. It can be done with a large diaphragm and small diaphragm mixed, but I prefer the sound using same sized diaphragms.

Then the 'Side' recording is duplicated and inverted and then those two tracks are treated like a single stereo track and the pans are pulled out as far as you need to recreate a stereo field. It's like wizardry meets sound recording, and produces wonderful binaural recordings which can be very realistic in the phones.

If they can duplicate and simplify this for the average person, this is good stuff.

[Fran Guidry]

Mid-Side with a cardioid center mic is mathematically similar to X-Y. With digital processing it's a snap to convert between the two without loss.

Mid-Side was invented by Alan Blumlein, the same genius engineer who invented two channel stereo and the Blumlein array.

There's no similarity between Mid-Side and binaural, sorry. Binaural is about simulating the head-shadowing and filtering that occurs in our ears.

http://www.wikirecording.org/Mid-Sid...hone_Technique

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_recording

Fran

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

...There's no similarity between Mid-Side and binaural, sorry.

Hi Fran…
I'll accept your expertise and technical correction.

To me mid-side recording really only shows it's glory under the phones which is why I have always thought of it as binaural.

I suppose the Jecklin then would be a binaural process? I have a Jecklin disc which I also love, and find that the results of it can certainly sound very natural without being under phones.

I've done quite a bit of mid-side recording, and love it's ability to use only two mics to capture an entire group and then reconstruct a stereo field which ''feels'' very natural.

[Steve Berger]

This thread went way over my head real quick. I'd appreciate if someone would explain to me in practical terms the benefits of 'Mid Side" recording for recording solo acoustic guitar. Thanks!

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by Steve Berger

This thread went way over my head real quick. I'd appreciate if someone would explain to me in practical terms the benefits of 'Mid Side" recording for recording solo acoustic guitar. Thanks!

Hi Steve…
Not sure there is a practical side to recording a solo guitar with mid-side.

For me it's more of a group technique, but perhaps someone here prefers it and can wade in.

That's why I'm curious to see what the H2n brings to the table with it.

[Steve Berger]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi Steve…
Not sure there is a practical side to recording a solo guitar with mid-side.

For me it's more of a group technique, but perhaps someone here prefers it and can wade in.

That's why I'm curious to see what the H2n brings to the table with it.

Hi Larry . . . thanks for the quick reply. I guess the name itself "mid-side" was an obvious clue I missed.

[bbrown]

I meant to include this explanantion of the new product with my initial post............

http://www.samsontech.com/products/p...fm?prodID=2080

Sorry, I just noticed I left it out.

I'll have to read these replies a few times, as I find it all rather confusing at this point.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by bbrown

I meant to include this explanantion of the new product with my initial post............

http://www.samsontech.com/products/p...fm?prodID=2080

Sorry, I just noticed I left it out.

I'll have to read these replies a few times, as I find it all rather confusing at this point.

Hi bb…
Thanks for the link. I have read some 'stuff' but not that extensive.

We need to wait and see. First I heard that it has 5 mic capsules…interesting.

[wgmiller]

I've got mine (H2n) on order and hope to have it sometime early next month. It seems to be a step up from the original H2, which I have and LOVE.

Best,
Will

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by Steve Berger

This thread went way over my head real quick. I'd appreciate if someone would explain to me in practical terms the benefits of 'Mid Side" recording for recording solo acoustic guitar. Thanks!

I could go on for days, I'll try to restrain myself. The basic thing to know is that mid-side is the mathematical (and audible) equivalent of X-Y. So if you use coincident stereo for your acoustic guitar recording, mid-side is directly applicable.

The H2n mid-side is in there, I think, for two reasons. It's an excellent marketing differentiator. Mid-side is a great buzz word that sets the H2n apart from all the other small recorders. On the practical side, for folks who want to go straight from the recorder to their target medium, mid-side allows the recordist to adjust the stereo width at the point of capture.

Otherwise, we can achieve the same adjustment in post, regardless of the original stereo capture. That is, with digital tech it's very easy to turn a stereo signal into a mid-side pair (encoded), process the two sides to taste, then recombine them (decode) into a stereo pair while making width adjustments.

Historically, mid-side had a cost, because the passive transformers or active analog components changed the signal with noise and/or distortion and/or frequency response shifts. This is not the case once we're in the digital domain, so mid-side processing in post is free.

There are those who contend that mid-side is the optimum coincident stereo configuration, because the mid mic is used on-axis, where it is presumably delivering its best performance. And the figure 8 side mic should enjoy the benefits of that pattern, which is usually characterized by smooth off-axis response in well engineered mics.

By contrast, in X-Y the mics are pointed at an angle to the centered source and that off-axis pickup is often the less flattering part of the mics polar pattern.

I did a demo of mid side, comparing it to Blumlein (X-Y with fig 8s) but it's not very well done. I used bubble wrap popping for a sound source, and it was so loud it clipped my mic preamps and ruined the stereo image. But you might find something useful at http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/...h-the-zoom-h4n

Fran

[bbrown]

I gather that the H2N might not be much improvement over the H2 for solo guitarists such as Steve and me. However, the H4N seems like it would be a signficant step up for solo players, because we can use external better quality mics with the XLR connectors of the H4N, whereas the H2 and H2N does not have that capability.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by bbrown

...However, the H4N seems like it would be a signficant step up for solo players, because we can use external better quality mics with the XLR connectors of the H4N, whereas the H2 and H2N does not have that capability.

Hi bb…
That is what is compelling to me about the H4 series - the XLRs and phantom power supplies built in (operable on AA batteries).

The H2n does have a wired remote available, and some other goodies which makes it interesting to my ''gadget'' senses. I may have to sell my H2 and get an H2n if they prove to be as good in real-world as they look on paper.

[wgmiller]

I haven't been attracted to the H4n and its XLR capabilities simply because I have no need to add phantom powered mics for my "portable" recording. When I feel the need for condensor mics, I just use a dedicated USB interface with great mic preamps directly into my DAW.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the H4n. In fact, I think it's a terrific piece of equipment. It's just an answer to a question that I didn't ask. The biggest improvement I anticipate with the H2n is the bigger, more legible display. Us old farts can't see as well as you young'uns do.

Best,
Will

[Steve Berger]

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

I could go on for days, I'll try to restrain myself. The basic thing to know is that mid-side is the mathematical (and audible) equivalent of X-Y. So if you use coincident stereo for your acoustic guitar recording, mid-side is directly applicable.

The H2n mid-side is in there, I think, for two reasons. It's an excellent marketing differentiator. Mid-side is a great buzz word that sets the H2n apart from all the other small recorders. On the practical side, for folks who want to go straight from the recorder to their target medium, mid-side allows the recordist to adjust the stereo width at the point of capture.

Otherwise, we can achieve the same adjustment in post, regardless of the original stereo capture. That is, with digital tech it's very easy to turn a stereo signal into a mid-side pair (encoded), process the two sides to taste, then recombine them (decode) into a stereo pair while making width adjustments.

Historically, mid-side had a cost, because the passive transformers or active analog components changed the signal with noise and/or distortion and/or frequency response shifts. This is not the case once we're in the digital domain, so mid-side processing in post is free.

There are those who contend that mid-side is the optimum coincident stereo configuration, because the mid mic is used on-axis, where it is presumably delivering its best performance. And the figure 8 side mic should enjoy the benefits of that pattern, which is usually characterized by smooth off-axis response in well engineered mics.

By contrast, in X-Y the mics are pointed at an angle to the centered source and that off-axis pickup is often the less flattering part of the mics polar pattern.

I did a demo of mid side, comparing it to Blumlein (X-Y with fig 8s) but it's not very well done. I used bubble wrap popping for a sound source, and it was so loud it clipped my mic preamps and ruined the stereo image. But you might find something useful at

http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/...h-the-zoom-h4n


Fran

Thanks Fran, that was an excellent explanation.