Re: Newbie with new Zoom H4n. Can I sell my PS Firebox now?

CuriosityKTC wrote:

p.s. can anyone recommend a good book, DVD or online tutorial that explains the ins & outs of basic home recording? I keep coming across terminology that I don't understand. That's easy enough to look up but I'd also really like to learn about things like recommended distance between mic & instrument, and room acoustics and all the other secrets that make a difference.

You are definitely opening up a huge can of worms.
I noticed that you have children.
Don't start home recording if you want to be able to send them to college.
:lol:

I would suggest, as far as mic placement, to take any info with a grain of salt. Rooms matter, instruments matter, and mics matter, and they are never the same.

You're so right...rather than biting off more than I can chew, I need to start back at the beginning and find out if this new Zoom can do as much (or close enough) as the Firebox can. Do you know? When I look at the specs I don't understand it all, nor do I understand what I may need and may not need.

The Zoom works as an interface as does the firebox, and has a built in mic.

the Firebox will technically sound better....it should have better preamps, and your Rode mic will definitely sound better. If you're just starting out, though, you won't hear a huge difference.

The H4n has the added benefit of not having to use a computer...so if you just want to record a couple songs, you can multitrack into the zoom, then dump the files into Garageband and mix them.

The two things serve different purposes, but if you don't want to do anything major with your home recordings, they both technically do the same thing as far as interfaces go (2 mic pres, 2 line ins, 4 simultaneous tracks).

Thanks so much Kellenholgate -

I wonder how much better the preamps are on the Firebox. I wonder what "class A" actually means! I know the Zoom's preamps are supposed to be much improved from the Zoom H2 but I'm not sure how... I wish I knew a thing or two!

My guess is that keeping the zoom and selling the Firebox is the way to go, based on just what you wrote alone which was very concise and seems to hit the nail on the head.

"I wonder what "class A" actually means!"

I suspect it means that the marketing department got hold of it.

I believe there is a standard in design that counts for the Class A designation. Really really good preamps aren't class A, but they still are better than no class.

Like that one fella the Cable Guy.

"A Class A preamp is distinguished by its circuit design. In a Class A design current flows all the time, as opposed to Class B or Class AB. A Class A preamp will draw more current and run hotter, hence you'll see the preamp often in big 2 or even 3 rack space enclosures. While not as electrically efficient, they tend to have more detail sonically. "
Courtesy of tweakheads.

How about a class A compressor? Same concept? In logic there are compressor circuits called Class A_R and Class A_U, can someone distinguish these?

I like using Class A_R for mastering because it doesn't seem to affect the tone, and maintains most of the high end. I haven't found a use for the Class A_U because it on the other hand chops most of the highs off and makes it sound dull and crushed.

jg49 wrote: "A Class A preamp is distinguished by its circuit design. In a Class A design current flows all the time, as opposed to Class B or Class AB. A Class A preamp will draw more current and run hotter, hence you'll see the preamp often in big 2 or even 3 rack space enclosures. While not as electrically efficient, they tend to have more detail sonically. "
Courtesy of tweakheads.

Yeah, that.

Gimme a break, I'm supposed to be writing a paper.

:o

You actually should sell both of those recording devices and the laptop, and get yourself a good laptop. Having three turds isn't worth a shit....you picking up what I'm putting down?

Jeremy wrote: You actually should sell both of those recording devices and the laptop, and get yourself a good laptop. Having three turds isn't worth a shit....you picking up what I'm putting down?

Hahahaha wow Jeremy - you are some super hip dude. Yeah, I'm picking up all your nuggets of wisdom, thanks! :?

Anyway, I can't afford a nicer laptop (and I'll only go Mac - so a top of the line Mac would be waaaaaay too expensive) and I wouldn't get enough money for the 3 turds to get anywhere close to paying for a nicer laptop so there ya have it. Remember - I'm doing this as a hobby and never intend on going pro. I want it to sound good or maybe even very good - but not off-the-charts outstanding. That'll never happen - no matter what equipment I have! :wink:

Im a PC

Jeremy wrote: Im a PC

Peculiar creature?
Phenomenal cat?
Pedantic counselor?

:wink:

"A cheaper and more flexible unit with lousy third party stuff giving me a bad name"
A PC.

The difference between preamp X and preamp Y is not going to be as large as the difference between engineer X and engineer Y where X is a clueless hack and Y is someone who knows some stuff.

Pedopheliac Contortionist....

Apple - User friendly, software unfriendly, VST incompatible.

You are only as strong as your weakest link. Sounds like the comp gives you problems outside of recording. Its best to start off with a strong computer and build from there.
Just saying you could get more enjoyment out of a good computer than one on the fritz, and two pieces of recording equipment. The computer applies to many facets of life, as where recording is more limited.

Agree with almost everything said here.

Both interfaces will give similar results. A pro probably wouldn't use either, but if your goal is to learn about digital recording and make decent sounding stuff, they'll both work...

Your computer doesn't affect your sound quality at all. If you can record into your laptop and mix the way you want, there is no need to upgrade just to have something flashy and new.

What you are able to record is directly related to the CPU. What you can do to the recordings after recorded is directly related to CPU. So in that sense audio quality is being compromised.

Jeremy wrote: What you are able to record is directly related to the CPU. What you can do to the recordings after recorded is directly related to CPU. So in that sense audio quality is being compromised.

This^ But if you have a decent outboard interface, doesn't it take some weight off your CPU?

You know what? Making a chart to show the transfer rates of recording interfaces might help these newbie's out. Making it a sticky and leaving it around as long as Kurt Foster's.

Jeremy wrote: What you are able to record is directly related to the CPU. What you can do to the recordings after recorded is directly related to CPU. So in that sense audio quality is being compromised.

Well, yes, if I were to use the Zoom H4n as an audio interface that needs to be connected to the laptop - but that's why I got it: cause it doesn't have to be hooked up to a computer and can do everything independently (albeit not quite at a professional level). That said, the reviews that are coming out claim the quality is surprisingly good and much better than even the H2 which was very good. Did you read the specs I included at the beginning of this thread (in the link)? There are other - possibly better - handheld recording devices/audio interfaces that cost TWICE - at least - what the Zoom H4n costs...so that's another huge factor for me (the bang for the buck).

In the first link, you'll see two videos. The second is a live recording/sound sample using the built-in stereo condenser mics:

http://

http://ces.cnet.com/zoom-h4n-handheld-audio-recorder-hands-on/?tag=mncol

Scroll down to compare sound samples between H2 & H4n:
http://surround2011.blogspot.com/search?q=Zoom+H4n

Some reviews at this music store:
http://www.americanmusical.com/Item--i-ZOO-H4N?src=Y0802G00SRCHCAPN&gclid=CNv-yJ6PopkCFQwxawodORKWog#FeaturedReview

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/H4N/reviews/#anchor

No the Zoom is a fantastic field recorder I totally agree. Very mobile, and versatile. I like the fact you can use a SD card.
If I ever needed a field recorder mine would have a fro, and a Jimi Hendrix Headband.

http://cgi.ebay.com…

You should really slap those ebay links into either http://www.tinyurl.com or something similiar (bit.ly and su.pr I think do this as well).
Then you get something that doesn't run across 4 lines.

Stickies, bah. If anything, the search link should be made 48pt and bright coloured.

You are right I will make the links smaller. I like stickies though. It could be a quick reference guide.

I think of the two devices as designed for two different purposes - even though it is technically possible to use them in the same ways. The Zoom is designed to be used as a standalone mobile unit. Yes you can use it as a computer interface, but I think it will be more awkward than the PreSonus when used in that way. Similarly, while the PreSonus is small enough to be moved around, it is not as elegant and easy to use as the zoom in a mobile situation.

The fact that you have had the PreSonus for a while and have not used it yet makes me think that the "point and shoot" aspect of the Zoom may be a good way to get you started.

For what its worth, I have a Edirol unit similar to the Zoom. It gets a lot of use in my family (which is pretty involved in music) even though I have a reasonably well equipped project studio. I think you'd find the unit useful even if you got more involved in recording and ended up buying a more elaborate interface some day.

BobRogers wrote: I think of the two devices as designed for two different purposes - even though it is technically possible to use them in the same ways. The Zoom is designed to be used as a standalone mobile unit. Yes you can use it as a computer interface, but I think it will be more awkward than the PreSonus when used in that way. Similarly, while the PreSonus is small enough to be moved around, it is not as elegant and easy to use as the zoom in a mobile situation.

The fact that you have had the PreSonus for a while and have not used it yet makes me think that the "point and shoot" aspect of the Zoom may be a good way to get you started.

For what its worth, I have a Edirol unit similar to the Zoom. It gets a lot of use in my family (which is pretty involved in music) even though I have a reasonably well equipped project studio. I think you'd find the unit useful even if you got more involved in recording and ended up buying a more elaborate interface some day.

Quite right Bob (I'm guessing you're right about your assessment of my situation). Just last night a couple of friends called me up sort of late at night and were obviously tipsy and asked if they could come over. I kept saying "are you kidding me - it's late at night, I've got kids now - what are you thinking, bla bla" but the fools insisted on coming by (they'd heard I've been stressed out lately and were concerned, but I digress). They love picking up a guitar and jamming and also love composing their own songs. Next thing i knew I was down in the living room while the 3 of us took turn playing the guitar like the good old days and singing and recording and laughing and it was spontaneous and silly and fun and the recordings got us inspired enough that next time they come over we're going to have a second guitar and get out the external mic and do layers of tracks, etc. We also liked the built-in speaker and hearing ourselves and commenting on that.

So while it has its uses for professionals (also in the film industry) - as far as amateurs go - this little device is great for motivating and inspiring those who otherwise might not ever get around to recording anything; it takes us to the next level (the first level?) and also inspires us to practice our playing more...all of which will eventually lead to better equipment once we've gotten good enough to actually appreciate and deserve it! I think there's a lot to be said about it allowing spontaneity and not having to worry about where you are and making the situation feel tense/formal. And I still think not having to rely on a computer is a HUGE bonus. One can use the computer later for editing without it getting in the way of "the moment" - the creativity. I guess my long-winded point is that last night nothing may have gotten recorded at all if my friends & I had had too much equipment to contend with (although i could be wrong). Also, we have experienced more than our share of deaths-of-friends over the last few years and especially last few months (variety of reasons/coincidence - not lifestyle) and none of us had to say last night that in the back of our minds we were thinking about the value of recording spontaneously because someday hearing it and our talking and laughing etc. will be really precious when the next one of us is gone (I know, morbid and getting off point from specifically music-making but it's still the truth and practical for this sentimental reason).

The only thing I disagree w/ you about is that you can use them in the same ways. You can't use a Firebox without a computer (as far as I know?). And could you explain (I'm sincerely asking) how the Zoom would be more awkward if used as an audio interface, compared to using the Firebox? Since I never got around to using the Firebox - and since I haven't used the Zoom this way yet - how would the Firebox be less awkward (if I were to record only one or two sources simultaneously I mean)? I really do want to understand that cause it will make the whole picture make more sense.

Lastly, I think I've read the Edirol is a really high-quality recorder, is it not? The only problem I have w/ the higher-end ones are that they don't have as many functions/options YET (compared to the Zoom) - and then there's the price. But I've been thinking about the fact that the very nice ones are about to come out w/ their latest versions which should have a lot more options...so I probably could have gotten something much better if I'd waited. That said - those things will probably be crazy expensive...so someday much later for me! :roll:

Ugh - sorry this was so long!

Jeremy, I agree. I love stickies. And it'd be nice to provide the information for the select few that bother to read them.
If I thought it would help reduce the amount of repeatedly asked questions (or at least inform them better so it doesn't become a generic Q/A) then I'd happily go dig up some classic threads and knowledge on various topics, and condense them to something which would hopefully be stickied.

I love your point here. While whenever I play an instrument I try and make it sound the best I can not every time I turn on a recording device am I trying to capture a grammy award winning recording. I have been making field recordings for thirty years plus and sometimes by happenstance even ones I would say are great. There are just times, very much like this one you are talking about, when I just want a snapshot of what was going down musically. These recordings are very dear to me and contain some truly awesome music sometimes, other times not LOL! Some are even painful to listen to especially the early years. There are all levels of recording and a good deal of it should just be plain fun, and easy, and a rememberance of good times.

+1 to that.

People moan about soundblasters but I can record 2 tracks of anything going on in the Church with it.
Yeah it's noisy and has problems and sometimes unreliable, but without it, I'd never have captured 95% of what I've recorded so far.