Yes, it records uncompressed PCM audio. The list price seems to be $299.

They missed the market entirely with their first model.
Glad they kept trying. Looks a little bulky, but worth a look.

Nice! I love my H2!

$299 is what I paid for my first gen H4. Wonder how much I'll get on a trade.

"They missed the market entirely with their first model."

They might have missed you in their marketing of the first model, but it was very popular with video bloggers and video for YouTube. A lot of people used it just to have a reference video to go along with their high-quality audio recordings.

That said, the Q3HD is as much of an improvement over the original Q3 is the H4n was over the original H4.

A lot of people used it just to have a reference video to go along with their high-quality audio recordings.

That's about how I saw it.

I'm not the only one for whom the Q3 missed the mark;
it was a VGA camcorder (with a mediocre lens) released a month after the Kodak zi8 1080, which still enjoys steady sales,
it was marketed to the audiophile market, not the masses,
as a camcorder it was overpriced (still is), and sales have been abysmal by all accounts.

A total miscalculation by Samson/Zoom, yet I bet they recover their losses with this one if it performs. Can't wait to test drive it!

I saw the first incarnation of this unit as a prototype at a trade show over a year ago and I gave the guys from Zoom a bollocking over it. It's only attraction and the angle they were pushing, was getting better sound than its competition. Great idea lost in the design of the unit.
No matter how good the mics on it are they have to be in roughly the right place to have a chance at capturing good sound. Instead they're going to be moving all around the place as the user tries to capture the action on the stage with the camera part of the gizmo.

Adding the option to detach the mics from the camera and run a lead from them couldn't add that much to the cost and would add a huge boost to the recorded sound.

Bob.

"No matter how good the mics on it are they have to be in roughly the right place to have a chance at capturing good sound. Instead they're going to be moving all around the place as the user tries to capture the action on the stage with the camera part of the gizmo."

Your eyes will be following the action, so shouldn't your ears as well? How directional are these microphones anyway?

"Your eyes will be following the action, so shouldn't your ears as well"

Generally no. Watch a video of say a rock concert, you hear the stereo mix even if the vision is a closeup of the drum sticks hitting the drums. It gets way worse in surround which is why I've always thought the idea of a surround mic on a camera to be an abomination.
Sorry but I don't have the knowledge to explain the 'why' of how all this works. I can only offer this. We can move our eye whilst keeping our head / ears still. Sound localization is a pretty complex topic, us humans are very good at it, befuddle the brain by moving the stereo field and I believe you get a very unsettled listener. For example you're at an orchestral performance, someone taps you on the shoulder and you turn around. The orchestra is still in the same place in your brain. Now record the sound and vision to match that rotation of the head and you create a conunundrum for the viewer's brain. The exception to this might be if using ambisonic recording and playback but that's very rarely done where vision is involved.

Bob.

The Zoom is a way cool device, but I'll stick with my Zi8 for now. The mic input on the Zi8 is stereo, Sony compatible DC bias powered, and has a manual level set with VU meter. Combined with microphones from microphonemadness.com it is quite amazing. The advantage is that you can move the detachable microphones in close to the recording for things like recording a guitar and vocal for instance.

While we can move our eyes and keep our head (and ears) still, generally we don't. The eyes may turn first but then the head turns soon after.

I know that when I pan around a scene with say a fountain playing, I often have to turn down the sound of the fountain when it is out of view for a more natural effect, even though the camera mics are (somewhat) directional. That's why I asked before how directional are the Zoom mics anyway.

Also, I get annoyed at stage shows when the actors wear head mics and move around, but the sound field from the loudspeakers is fixed. There might be many actors on stage, and when one starts to speak it is difficult at first to pick up which one it is.

You are right that the subject is complex and therefore people can have different likes and dislikes.

> Also, I get annoyed at stage shows when the actors wear head mics and move around, but the sound field from the loudspeakers is fixed. There might be many actors on stage, and when one starts to speak it is difficult at first to pick up which one it is.

Although I appreciate what you are saying, to have voices in a theatre panning around generally will only work for audience members seated in middle - the people sitting at far right will miss dialog from actors far left - same goes for most 5.1 movies; there dialogue is mainly focussed in centre speaker, quite deliberately.

"Also, I get annoyed at stage shows when the actors wear head mics and move around, but the sound field from the loudspeakers is fixed. "

You would get even more annoyed if the sound panned with the actors' stage movements, to the point of utter distraction. Been there, done that, when I was younger.

For instance, in contemporary productions of traditional opera, the actors are not miked individually, but by overheads and boundary mics. Only an amateur board op would pan them more than a few degrees L/R, and that person would possibly never work the venue again.

No matter which way our heads are turned, our brain "expects" sound close to X ~= 0. That is precisely the opposite of positioning one's head at horizontal center and "expecting" radial displacement equal to audio source motion.

The independence between visual and apparent aural placement may be more profound than you seem to expect. As with most things audio, less is more.

"You would get even more annoyed if the sound panned with the actors' stage movements, to the point of utter distraction"

Doesn't the sound "pan" with the actors' movements when no sound reinforcement is used at all? I don't find it distracting - it is perfectly natural.

"Doesn't the sound "pan" with the actors' movements when no sound reinforcement is used at all? I don't find it distracting - it is perfectly natural."

Yes!

And if you analyze the perceived aural displacement, it is only a few degrees rather than the visual X-axis range. Acoustic propagation theory supports this; because there is little defined focus, one is more likely to experience an amplitude rather than a positional effect as a result of lateral source displacement (unless you are sitting in the front row, where you deserve what you get). That is precisely why vocals are panned center. Like I said, been there, done that (the hard way). But feel free to go ahead and experiment, just not on one of my shows . . .

;?)

@ Laurence
Combined with microphones from microphonemadness.com it is quite amazing

I have been looking at their site, at their mics sure look good and quite reasonable in price. What can you say about them - is it good value for money?

Thanks.

/Ulf

ha! fldave. I actually like my H2 more than when I first bought it. I have got over the plasticy feel and morris code gui. When locked down It captures good audio and it can be used as a USB mic (thanks for the tip blink)

Ulf,

As I mentioned in another thread, I am also a customer of microphonemadness.
If you do not need high SPL handling (for closeup instruments and vocals), their products are an excellent value. Warm and natural, reminiscent of an sm58. However, a belter can easily overpower their stock elements, causing a sound not unlike "it" hitting the fan.

I see now that they have wisely added a couple of Sennheiser elements (at higher price) to their line. For professional applications where >125<140 SPL is the norm, that would still represent a fairly good value in an otherwise excellent design.

Their headworn elements are quite a bit more durable and shatterproof than their delicate Countryman ($300+) counterparts.

Hope this helps.

One thing to keep in mind is that live theatre sound reinforcement systems are generally mono. Last biggish theatre I was in the sound guy was very proud of his new line array system. It was dead centre and the only other smallish speakers were to fill holes in the coverage.
Reason its all mono as explained to me is to avoid issues with phase cancellation.The only time I've had a stereo feed from a theatre system was when the sound guy had enough busses and time to create one for me. The house remained mono.

Bob.

Thanks Musicvid - I'll try one out :)

/Ulf

"One thing to keep in mind is that live theatre sound reinforcement systems are generally mono."

Yes, and also for the reason ChristoC mentioned.

One thing I've done recently, which actually seems to add clarity and intelligibility to the vocals, is to widen the orchestra audio just a bit to the sides, but not enough to be a distraction to the audience, and keeping the vocals centered. The resident sound designer liked this idea the one time we tried it in a mainstage show.

You may be surprised to find out some huge stadium events (e.g. Games Opening/Closing ceremonies) do use stereo for music (though Vocals and dialog are normally mono, just like most CDs) - the PAs often are a hung ring array, set L, R, L, R, etc etc around the stadium (with subs on the ground); the results can be stunningly real, but the systems engineering is extremely complex. I've worked on quite a few, and, if it's done right, the perception from most seats is like a humungous stereo speaker at the centre of the stadium, but there's no speakers there!