indeed. Again, what you get with a zoom is more, technically speaking, than=
us older chaps had for anything near the same price when we started so the=
zooms serve a purpose for lots of folks & probably the fact that after a w=
hile they begin to hear the problems is actually a good lesson anyway - but=
spending cash on a device when you could get better for a bit more, or rou=
ghly the same, is not the best idea. Interestingly on a couple of occasions=
the zoom H1 has been part of tests & the internal mics on that are better =
than those in the H2 & H4 ! & the pre-amp noise seems to be a bit less also=
. Very odd !
--- In "Robin" <> wrote:
>
> Jez wrote:
>
> > I know some folks will be ok with it but, as with zoom in general, the =
construction is a bit iffy - very plastic indeed - + the pre-amps are noisy=
& the mics themselves aren't that good. Whenever we do group mic tests on =
workshops - all set up in a semi-circle recording at the same time etc. the=
zoom's can always be spotted when we playback the recordings without telli=
ng folks which is which. They're thin & brittle sounding.
> >
>
> Agreed. I have been in situations where person A is showing off a Zoom to=
person B and B is loving it, ready to run out and buy one.
>
> There's no convincing people there are better options. Being popular help=
s make a device even more popular. Same as with many things.
>
> -- Robin Parmar
>
|