No doubt.

Looks like a friggin taser, not a digital recorder. haha

I think I'm gonna pick one up. Too many cool features and upgrades.

Nice, but with the low prices of the H2 lately .. I wonder if a new version of that will soon show up.

The New Zoom H4n has the ability to record to Broadcast Wave with timestamp

Does that mean I can tell it to record at 29.97 or 23.976 so it will stay in sync with the video I'm shooting?

Nice that they had an industrial designer for a nicer looking package and that the files have a real time and date stamp among other things. Noticed that the files are now BWF.

I'll keep my H4 for now though.

http://www.zoom.co.jp/english/products/h4n/index.php


Larry

I have absolutely no use for one of these but for some reason I feel compelled to BUY IT!!

But what's the difference tween the H4n and the plain H4 besides the neat rubber body? (and price)

I'm only interested in it if it keeps sync.

"Does that mean I can tell it to record at 29.97 or 23.976 so it will stay in sync with the video I'm shooting?"

Audio recorders don't record at a specific frame rate, they record at a specific sample rate. In the case of both 29.97 or 23.976, it is generally 48,000 samples per second. The only way to absolutely guarantee that the audio recorder and the video recorder stay in sync is to run both of them off the same crystal clock.

At first glance, it doesn't look like it slaves to SMPTE TC, yet.

The simultaneous 4-track recording looks to be the best new feature, but hardly a compelling reason to ditch my H4.

The screen looks a little bigger and better than the H4 which I love fondly.

If you set it to 48khz sample rate it will be close to, if not absolutely identical to, the length of video using this type of audio, and being a Vegas user, even if it doesn't match exactly, I don't mind spending the extra few seconds to make it fit exactly.

John...thanks for the explanation but I should have been more specific...

I was wondering if the meta data recorded in a broadcast wave could tell Vegas (or any other NLE) to drop some samples in the recorded audio, in order to match drop frame time code, ultimately keeping the recorded audio in sync with video.

I guess that's just wishful thinking. Not sure if it's even possible.

I didn't really start the topic to persuade people to ditch their already purchased PDR's, but to just give everyone a heads up who is thinking of purchasing one. I went ahead and bought one because I wanted a good PDR in my arsenal and it seemed that the H4n was the best compromise between price, build quality, and features.

-usb 2.0
-up to 32gb of storage
-long battery life
-larger screen
-better build quality
-90*/120*
-4 track recording
-reference speaker for checking on the fly
-24-bit/96kHz Linear PCM
-MP3's
-rubberized case
-XLR inputs
-etc....

Good enough reasons for me.

Vegas can sync the TC at the start of a BWF file. Vegas cannot chase TC. So if the two clocks are off you need to manually fix it anyway.
This is quite an area of confusion. Some audio recorders will record TC from a TC input but not slave to it. By that I mean they will not adjust their clock to match the incoming timecode. If you're a Vegas user spending more to get this feature gains you nothing from what I can see.
From what I can gather only the most expensive audio field recorders can slave to TC, a common technique is to have a rather expensive master clock that generates TC for the cameras and work clock for the audio recorders. Price for all that is over the top.

If anyone would like to correct any of the above, please speak up. It took a fair amount of careful delving into spec sheets to find this out. The marketing hype does not make any of this clear at all.

Then again much to my pleasant surprise my Edirol R-4 holds sync to my EX1 within 1 frame over 1 hour. This could well just be my good luck as the error was much larger between the R-4 and the V1 I used to use.

Bob.

Brad C: Have you seen the Tascam DR-100 yet?

I'm in between the DR-100 & The H4n but am leaning twords the DR-100.

http://www.tascam.com/products/dr-100.html

Not all the specs are released yet though...

> "my Edirol R-4 holds sync to my EX1 within 1 frame over 1 hour. This could well just be my good luck as the error was much larger between the R-4 and the V1 I used to use."

Bob, not sure but that may be because the EX1 uses uncompressed PCM whilst HDV had its own compressed audio format.

@jimingo- Brad C: Have you seen the Tascam DR-100 yet?

I'm far from having any sort of "experienced" opinion in this field, but just by looking at what's offered and the price difference......I don't see anything that the Tascam is offering that is any better than the Zoom.
4 microphones maybe? 360* sound? And it's $80 more. I don't know.

I think that comparison might just be down to personal taste.

The fact that any two non-genlocked digital devices hold sync over any extended length of time is 100% pure luck. Just because a digital device has a crystal clock doesn't mean that it is recording at exactly 48,000.0000000000000 samples per second, nor does it mean that a camcorder is recording at exactly 29.97002997002997002997002997 fps.

PCM audio vs HDV MPEG layer 2 compressed audio has nothing to do with it.

One idea that might solve this under some circumstances would be to put an inexpensive GPS chip into audio recorders and camcorders and use the GPS signal's ultra stable and precise timebase to derive the clock. This would guarantee that two (or more ) devices would run at the same speed without having to actually hook them together. Of course, GPS signals aren't always available depending on terrain or building shielding, but I'm convinced it would work well. GPS signals are also time stamped, which could also be useful.

I think it's more than luck. Recordings now run much more accurately than in the past. I am constantly doing multicamera concerts where I line up all the audio from 3 to 7 cameras at the start and if no one stopped recording they all stay in sync for the duration of the tape. It's been like that at least for the last 4 years I've been doing them. And most of the cameras are consumer cameras, to boot. A far cry from the analog days when every tape machine (like Nagra's) had to be resolved.

One of the differences between the Tascam Dr-100 and the Zoom H4n is that the Tascam has a analog limiter and the Zoom has a digital limiter.
Can someone please fill me in on the difference between an analog and digital limiter? From what I've heard, an analog limiter would be best.

Well, whatever iRiver did to those simple MP3 recorders, it seems like more than luck that all of them maintain perfect sync, even when pushing 2 hours.

I know all the reasons why they shouldn't, but they do anyway.

I'm not much of an expert on limiters however to say A is better than B because A is digital is never the right way to look at things. I'd say the best digital limiters would be way, way better than the lesser analogue limiters and the other way around

Of more importance is how "hard" the limiter is. In this application you'd want a soft limiter rather than a "brick wall" limiter. Of course in an ideal world you shouldn't be using a limiter but they can save your butt by stopping the occasional loud sound going over and making a bigger mess than need be.

Bob.

The limiter on the H4 works beautifully!
Even better than the ones on professional camcorders. Lots of live concert experience with this.

I have a nearly new, in the original box H4 that I love. I like it so much that I am ready to buy the new H4n within the next few days.

Now, if anybody wants to pick up a very good, low hours H4 for around $200, I am game!

Anybody seen the new Panasonic HPX300. While I am a devoted sony camera fan, I am seriously thinking about picking up one of those cameras.

David