Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
133 of 140 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
I suspect I should have bought the Edirol, November 22, 2006
I am new to digital recording; I bought the Zoom to make podcasts, and I wanted both portability and good sound quality. I settled on the Zoom because the phantom power feature meant that I could use the best possible external microphone, should that be necessary. In fact the internal microphones seem to me very good, and they actually produce better sound quality than the external one I have tried (a leftover from my cassette deck days, so perhaps that doesn't mean much).
The Zoom seems to do its job very well, but I have two big reservations. The first is--and I never thought I would care about such a thing--the ergonomics. The display reminds me of my first PC; the feel of the buttons like my first plastic Walkman, and often there is no sense that one has successfully pushed a button, or made one stop and start (ending a recording is curiously delayed), though you get used to it.
The second, far more important, problem is the complexity of the interface, combined with documentation that is no doubt very full, but hardly user friendly, especially for novices (who might well be an important target market, so this is odd). The combination of jod dial and (tacky) menu button is not intuitive; there seems no obvious logic to when to use the button and when to use the dial. And the manual has all the clarity of an old printer manual. Even the "Simple Recording Guide" has at a crucial stage "Adjust senstivity with [mic gain]switch," which is probably fine for an experience user but to a novice was slightly opaque. Similarly, the triumphant conclusion "Play the recorded file" is unfortunate; not just because of course there's no speaker, but because headphones gave a misleading impression of the recording levels.
I'm sure I can use this thing to do the job. But the whole experience has been a steady stream of irritations. Experienced users will perhaps be impressed; novices should simply be prepared to do a bit of homework.
|
|
|
170 of 182 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Zoom H4 vs Edirol R-09, October 26, 2006
I got both the Zoom H4 and the Edirol R-09. The Zoom goes back, the Edirol stays, even though the Edirol cost $100 more.
Why, then, 4 stars for the Zoom? I'd really like to give it 3-1/2 stars, so it was a tossup between 3 and 4. However, if you know what you are getting into, the 4 stars are well-deserved.
The Zoom has a huge variety of features that the Edirol lacks. The Zoom may even sound the slightest bit better (more open, slightly better high end) when both are used to record with their built in mics. However, this functionality comes with a price--a much more complicated interface.
The Zoom does everything. It records directly to wav and mp3. It's a 4 track recording studio. It serves as computer interface for your guitar. It serves as an effects box. It can emulate four different types of microphones, such as the Shure SM57 and the AKG C414. It's even got a built-in metronome and tuner! If you go to the Samsontech website, you can download the manual in PDF format and be truly amazed.
In order to do all this, the Zoom H4's buttons and controls must necessarily be multi-function. On top of that, it adds a jog dial (like the wheel on a mouse: slide in either direction to change menu choices, push to select the current choice). It is necessary to go two levels deep in the menus to set recording levels manually. The Edirol R-09's interface is so simple and intuitive that many could use it without even looking at the manual. Since all I was looking for was a recorder, the Edirol was the easy choice for me.
The Edirol is quite rightly criticized for how awkward it is to insert and remove batteries. In theory, it's a lot easier to do with the Zoom H4. In practice, I found it just as awkward. I found the SD card much harder to swap out of the Zoom H4 than out of the Edirol R-09.
The Edirol R-09 has four very small rubber buttons on the back. They're too small to notice until someone bumps the surface the recorder is sitting on and the unit doesn't move! The Zoom unit has one rubber button on the back but it didn't seem to grip much.
As the side-by-side photo I uploaded shows, the Zoom H4 is a bit larger than the Edirol R-09. I did not find the H4 so much larger as to be a burden. I did find the Edirol's screen easier to read, however!
One other thing worth noting in the picture is the microphones. A quick glance gives the impression that the way the Zoom's microphones extend from the body makes them particularly vulnerable to damage. However, a closer inspection shows that there is a very stiff thick wire surrounding them, like a sports car's roll bar. They may even be better protected than the Edirol's microphones. I could imagine a problem if the Edirol were grabbed from the sides at the top in a forceful way to remove it from a carrying case.
One other Zoom plus: The Zoom has a true automatic gain control, where the Edirol's is a compressor circuit. The Zoom prevents clipping at high volume where the Edirol boosts low volumes without guarding against clipping.
A Zoom minus: Both devices have level meters. The Zoom has no peak indicator that I could find. The Edirol, in addition to its meters, has an impossible-to-miss LED that blinks when the unit peaks. This makes it very easy to adjust levels properly by using Up and Down buttons on the side of the unit, which can be done even while recording.
One final comment that won't mean much except to other die-hard MiniDisc users who stuck with the MiniDisc despite its shortcomings because its fidelity is so good. The Edirol R-09 is the unit that got me to finally abandon the MiniDisc. If you're a MiniDisc user looking for the features in the Zoom H4, I suspect you'll be very happy to abandon the MiniDisc in favor of the Zoom H4.
|
|
|
114 of 122 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Zoom H4 vs Edirol R-09, October 26, 2006
I got both the Zoom H4 and the Edirol R-09. The Zoom goes back, the Edirol stays, even though the Edirol cost $100 more.
Why, then, 4 stars for the Zoom? I'd really like to give it 3-1/2 stars, so it was a tossup between 3 and 4. However, if you know what you are getting into, the 4 stars are well-deserved.
The Zoom has a huge variety of features that the Edirol lacks. The Zoom may even sound the slightest bit better (more open, slightly better high end) when both are used to record with their built in mics. However, this functionality comes with a price--a much more complicated interface.
The Zoom does everything. It records directly to wav and mp3. It's a 4 track recording studio. It serves as computer interface for your guitar. It serves as an effects box. It can emulate four different types of microphones, such as the Shure SM57 and the AKG C414. It's even got a built-in metronome and tuner! If you go to the Samsontech website, you can download the manual in PDF format and be truly amazed.
In order to do all this, the Zoom H4's buttons and controls must necessarily be multi-function. On top of that, it adds a jog dial (like the wheel on a mouse: slide in either direction to change menu choices, push to select the current choice). It is necessary to go two levels deep in the menus to set recording levels manually. The Edirol R-09's interface is so simple and intuitive that many could use it without even looking at the manual. Since all I was looking for was a recorder, the Edirol was the easy choice for me.
The Edirol is quite rightly criticized for how awkward it is to insert and remove batteries. In theory, it's a lot easier to do with the Zoom H4. In practice, I found it just as awkward. I found the SD card much harder to swap out of the Zoom H4 than out of the Edirol R-09.
The Edirol R-09 has four very small rubber buttons on the back. They're too small to notice until someone bumps the surface the recorder is sitting on and the unit doesn't move! The Zoom unit has one rubber button on the back but it didn't seem to grip much.
As the side-by-side photo I uploaded shows, the Zoom H4 is a bit larger than the Edirol R-09. I did not find the H4 so much larger as to be a burden. I did find the Edirol's screen easier to read, however!
One other thing worth noting in the picture is the microphones. A quick glance gives the impression that the way the Zoom's microphones extend from the body makes them particularly vulnerable to damage. However, a closer inspection shows that there is a very stiff thick wire surrounding them, like a sports car's roll bar. They may even be better protected than the Edirol's microphones. I could imagine a problem if the Edirol were grabbed from the sides at the top in a forceful way to remove it from a carrying case.
One other Zoom plus: The Zoom has a true automatic gain control, where the Edirol's is a compressor circuit. The Zoom prevents clipping at high volume where the Edirol boosts low volumes without guarding against clipping.
A Zoom minus: Both devices have level meters. The Zoom has no peak indicator that I could find. The Edirol, in addition to its meters, has an impossible-to-miss LED that blinks when the unit peaks. This makes it very easy to adjust levels properly by using Up and Down buttons on the side of the unit, which can be done even while recording.
One final comment that won't mean much except to other die-hard MiniDisc users who stuck with the MiniDisc despite its shortcomings because its fidelity is so good. The Edirol R-09 is the unit that got me to finally abandon the MiniDisc. If you're a MiniDisc user looking for the features in the Zoom H4, I suspect you'll be very happy to abandon the MiniDisc in favor of the Zoom H4.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
