Recommendation For Mic to Use with Zoom H2

[dcameron]

I'm interested in any recommendations anyone might have based on their own experience with a good external mic to use for recording acoustic guitar at home with a Zoom H2. I know virtually nothing about mics, so ANY advice/types/brand/price ranges/names would be great, thanks.

[ferg]

I have an Audio Technica AT822. This has been discontinued and replaced by a much more expensive AT825. The good news is that you can get these pretty regularly used on eBay (the AT822) for under $150. It uses 1 AA battery and comes with a cable that terminates in a stereo mini plug, which is what the H2 accepts.

I'm not sure what price range you were thinking, or what your intended use is, but I'd assume you're looking for something of better quality than the built-in mics, but the built-in ones seem pretty good to me, so I personally don't think it makes sense to use an mediocre external mic.

The AT822 does a great job of recording live performances, but it also does a very nice job on acoustic guitar.

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by dcameron

I'm interested in any recommendations anyone might have based on their own experience with a good external mic to use for recording acoustic guitar at home with a Zoom H2. I know virtually nothing about mics, so ANY advice/types/brand/price ranges/names would be great, thanks.

Any particular reason you want an external mic?

Fran

[ferg]

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

Any particular reason you want an external mic?

Fran

I can't speak for the OP, but the reason I use an external mic is so I can keep the H2 on stage during gigs and run a cable to the mic from the stage (pointed at one of the PA speakers.

[dcameron]

I was thinking that a good quality external mic might sound better than the built-ins.

[ferg]

Originally Posted by dcameron

I was thinking that a good quality external mic might sound better than the built-ins.

If you choose the right mic, I believe it can, but don't discount the built-ins - they are very good. Lots of people use the H2 *as* the microphone for other things.

[Fran Guidry]

dcameron, I'm away from home for a month so I'm unable to do any testing, and I've never plugged an external mic into the H2 in the past.

The closest I can come to assisting you with samples is this comparison of the H2 and H4n: http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/...t-the-zoom-h4n It includes some other mics, but they're running through other recording chains so they're not directly comparable.

Fran

[dcameron]

All excellent feedback/advice, thanks very much!

[BoB/335]

I was surprised by the question because as I understood, the H2 had great internal mics and was the reason for its popularity. I can understand why ferg would use it live.

[ferg]

Originally Posted by BoB/335

I was surprised by the question because as I understood, the H2 had great internal mics and was the reason for its popularity. I can understand why ferg would use it live.

Just for clarification, I do think the AT822 is an upgrade over the H2 internal mics. Seems like it should be - after the AT822 mic costs used what the whole H2 unit costs new. I know things don't always work out that way, but, in this case, I do prefer the AT822. HOWEVER, that's not really why I use it.

I use it, because I like to have the H2 on stage with me so I can control it. I always forget to turn it on, and I usually remember after we start... It shouldn't be necessary, but, for me, it is.

Now, I probably wouldn't purchase the AT822 for this purpose. I bought it specifically to use directly with my camera (kodak zi8), but I became dissatisfied with the camera's audio for other reasons and started using it with the H2.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by BoB/335

I was surprised by the question because as I understood, the H2 had great internal mics and was the reason for its popularity. I can understand why ferg would use it live.

Hi BoB…
The H2 has great internal mics.

The H4 would be a better choice if one wants to use both internal or/and internal mics on a Zoom.

It has Neutrix connectors which handle both XLR and 1/4'' and furnishes phantom power to condenser mics if needed (yes with AA batteries).

I have one of the original H4 (can't speak for the newest model) and it will supply more than 25 minutes of full 48V phantom to a pair of condenser mics before exhausting the batteries.

[ferg]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

The H4 would be a better choice if one wants to use both internal or/and internal mics on a Zoom.

I don't know that you can say that categorically. It depends on what you have and what you're looking to do. Since the AT822 Mic that I already have for other purposes terminates to a stereo mini plug, it's a perfect match for the H2, which is half the price of the H4n.

Now, if you want to use 2 separate mics, require phantom power, etc, etc, then the H4n probably makes more sense. It also makes more sense if you're interested in using internal mics and external mics at the same time (you cannot do this with the H2).

[BoB/335]

All very interesting! Thanks guys!

[alohachris]

Aloha Bob,

I'd like to share some opinions & a comparison video (Fran's) about the Zoom's with you, even though I am not into creating video's, only audio recordings. I agree wholely with his conclusions. Zoom's are very popular, but....

Although very affordable & a great value for the price, like all the small recording units I've ever used (analog or digital), I've found that the internal mic's on ALL the Zoom's simply have too much self-noise for CD-quality or better recording. They are fine for capturing moments, but not for more than that, IMO. The physics of their compactness works against them.

The H4N is the only one through which you can use better (and quieter) external condenser mic's in combo w/ the on-board mic's But it's so menu- driven with tiny visuals & that's not what I want to do with my 61 y.o. eyes.

Additionally, the preamp's on the Zoom's are very compressed sounding to me - even when used in treated studio's. So about the only thing I could use the Zoom's for would be as interfaces - & I have better for that application (Duet & Ensemble).

However, for capturing musical moments, concerts, musical inspirations, as a practicing tool, or for video's that aren't intended for commercial purposes or great sound, the Zoom's work fine. I sold mine though.

This link may hold some interest for you as well - from Fran Guidry. Check out all the sub-links as well - very revealing about the Zoom's:

http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2008/...er-comparison/

& this one....

http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2007/12/01/zoom-h2/

and this one too....

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

Fran really did the legwork for us on the small recorders. Really helps with the decision of whether to get one or not. Most players really like them, especially the H-2.

All the best to you Braddah Bob & Merry Christmas Friends.

alohachris

[ferg]

Originally Posted by alohachris

However, for capturing musical moments, concerts, musical inspirations, as a practicing tool, or for video's that aren't intended for commercial purposes or great sound, the Zoom's work fine.

I would agree with this. Actually, I'd say they work better than fine, and are actually excellent for these purposes. I think you could probably use it for demo-type stuff, even if you plan to sell it at gigs (which would technically make it commercial, I suppose).

In the grand scheme of things for $150 (talking about the H2), you get a device that, if placed correctly, can get you a pretty nice recording of a gig or a jam session. But here's a question I'd like to ask:

Suppose you want BETTER recordings of your gigs. What's the next step up, how much does it cost and how much trouble is it?

The answer, for me at least, is NOT recording a direct stereo signal from the board. I've done it, and I've always been happier with the H2-in-front-of-a-speaker method. I have actually done both (recorded from the board AND the H2 and blended the 2 tracks after the fact), but found that the improvement wasn't worth the trouble.

Is the answer to bring some sort of multi-track recording apparatus (which could be a stand alone recorder or a computer w/ USB interface) that is capable of simultaneously recording each component of your act, along with using a mixer capable of sending each component to a separate output? What mixer is that? I know that even when I had the A&H Zed 12 FX (which I've since determined to be overkill for my acoustic duo), I couldn't do that.

Just curious...honestly, I don't intend to do this. I feel like, right now, what I'm able to achieve in my "home studio" is so much better than what we do live (both in terms of recording quality and performance) that it wouldn't be worthwhile...but down the road - who knows?