Zoom F4 with six inputs and eight tracks (is like a new low priced F8!)

[Marcos Montenegro]

Wow. Looks great and features/price are ridiculously out of this world cheap, but just be aware of ZOOM's internal components.

Last year I ended up forking the $ for the Sound Devices 633 because of a Zoom product nightmare where a strange electronic interference hum/noise ruined an entire day of shooting as it couldn't be removed in post (unless all budget was used only for that purpose)!

The SD633 had no issues in same location with the same mic and cables. It was crystal clear, and the audio difference was night and day.

I find it funny that people in this forum, with RED cameras, find the price of pro audio gear out of their reach; this tells us the importance some people put on audio in their productions. Obviously, the F4 will be fine for most applications out there, but in certain situations just hire a pro or buy what pros use once and be done with it. In the end it'll be cheaper.

 

[Marc Wielage]

But does that mean that nothing is ever overpriced? And I think the point that many here are making - myself included - is that we're never going to pay $4k for a SD device, but we're pretty excited about timecode and dual slots and other features in a $650 recorder.

What's sad to me is that there are a lot of people in this thread who paid upwards of $30,000 or $40,000 for cameras plus another $20,000+ for lenses and mounts... and they're arguing whether they should spend $600 or $2000 for a sound recorder/mixer. To me, putting only 10% of the production budget into sound, after spending $60,000+ on camera gear, is too low. You can't get 4 wireless systems and a boom and a multitrack sound recorder and batteries and a timecode slate for $6000... and on a big show, you'd need three times this much gear (or more). It's ludicrous to me that people have such a skewed sense of what sound gear is really worth.

Hell, it's hard to buy 4 decent microphones period for $600. There's a whole sub-category of cheap audio gear that's sprung up over the last couple of years, and I shake my head at the downward spiral of quality that's going on. I really only work in post these days, but I feel very sad for my old friends in the sound business who have to contend with clients who cling to the erroneous belief that a $600 will get them through a complex, arduous shoot.

I don't have a problem with students using gear like this. But then, I wouldn't expect them to own Red cameras or Alexas or anything nearly in that category. Again: go out and rent real gear for a weekend, and you'll quickly see why professional sound gear costs what it does. [Note that good pro gear can be found affordably if you shop around and buy it used, on eBay or from the various pro sound dealers out there.]

 

[Marc Wielage]

Last year I ended up forking the $ for the Sound Devices 633 because of a Zoom product nightmare where a strange electronic interference hum/noise ruined an entire day of shooting as it couldn't be removed in post (unless all budget was used only for that purpose)!

The SD633 had no issues in same location with the same mic and cables. It was crystal clear, and the audio difference was night and day.

​THANK YOU.

 

[Mike Nagel]

Has anybody by chance used the Zoom F4 with SD pre-amps and can give feedback on the sound quality of the recorded footage ?

I'm not interested in using the Zoom pre-amps, I've tried in the past using SD pre-amps on the Zoom H4 and the sound quality was way below Tascam (as merely an external recorder)... Has this improved with the F series ?

 

[David Peterson]

If a soundie rocked up to my shoot with the F4, I wouldn't be impressed. But it's still a tool I thinkn is worthwhile for me.

Wellll.... if he is only being paid US$200 for a whole full day then I think you might be impressed if he shows up with a Zoom F4 / F8 + other appropriate gear.

What's sad to me is that there are a lot of people in this thread who paid upwards of $30,000 or $40,000 for cameras plus another $20,000+ for lenses and mounts... and they're arguing whether they should spend $600 or $2000 for a sound recorder/mixer. To me, putting only 10% of the production budget into sound, after spending $60,000+ on camera gear, is too low. You can't get 4 wireless systems and a boom and a multitrack sound recorder and batteries and a timecode slate for $6000... and on a big show, you'd need three times this much gear (or more). It's ludicrous to me that people have such a skewed sense of what sound gear is really worth.

Welllllll again.... not everyone here is a RED owner. (I shoot with one occasionally however)

I see three good uses for this:
a) newbie/aspiring soundie pros (me! My current set up is Sound Devices 522 + Tascam DR680: http://ironfilm.co.nz/sound/)
b) indy filmmakers who are looking for something better than a Zoom H5 / Tascam DR60D / etc
c) camera operators who occasionally do low budget shoots where they need to do sound themselves, so have a full camera kit but also need a very basic sound kit for occasional usage

A lot of redusers would fit into category c), and getting a Zoom F4 would be excellent! A step up from normal for that category.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Wellll.... if he is only being paid US$200 for a whole full day then I think you might be impressed if he shows up with a Zoom F4 / F8 + other appropriate gear.

I'd argue that's not enough money for somebody competent. Minimum wage in the U.S. is about $10/hour, and assuming a 12-hour day, then $120 for labor and then $80 for kit rental isn't much, particularly when you factor in travel, batteries, and expendables. Even double this rate is fairly minimal, assuming the person has a couple of years experience and is providing (say) 3 wireless and a boom, plus some backup. A kit like that by itself could easily be $80-$100/day for a rental. A Zoom and a boom is basically the sound equivalent of a Canon 7D (or worse): sure, it's good enough for very low-ball projects, but I don't think it's something to aspire to, and I don't think it's good enough for a broad spectrum of projects. (And I again, I understand if it's a student project done by amateurs. But if it's being done for profit, then a rate like this is insulting.)

Again, there's a lot of "you get what you pay for" here. The argument against better sound gear basically boils down to, "but we have no money!" And the only response I have is get more money. There are more opportunities now than ever to crowdfund small projects, using Kickstarter, Slated, IndieGoGo, Fundable, GoFundMe, and many others. As always, the hardest part about show business is not the show.

 

[Jack Hents]

It's interesting to note how similar this is to the Sound Devices 633.

My observation is: drop them both on concrete from 3 feet, and let me know which one is still working. (My money is on SD.)

Sadly, the reality is that you get what you pay for. I have seen many, many sad examples of this in my life.

So don't drop your audio recorder on concrete. Are professional sound mixers notoriously clumsy, or am I missing something?

Some people don't have $6000 to spend on marginally superior build quality and indistinguishable audio differences (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM6VOEYpm4g).

 

[Nathan DuMoulin]

Some people don't have $6000 to spend on marginally superior build quality and indistinguishable audio differences (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM6VOEYpm4g).

The SD is clearly superior in this test, without question. However is it superior by a margin that justifies a price point that's thousands of dollars more? That depends on the job in question.

For 95% of applications, the F4 is plenty sufficient.

 

[Adolfo CV]

If the F4 is on par with the F8, it's definitely not a toy and you'll get good audio if used properly.

I'm attaching a couple bts shots from a project where we used the F8 extensively and the little car company we had as clients was pretty happy with the results and our model (the car!) could really sing...

And just FYI, we're not fanboys, we use the tools that will work. My brother is the audio expert, but I can tell you we have used SD, Roland, TASCAM, Zoom, etc, etc. It's really more about what our needs are.

I'd say that it is way more important to learn your audio gear or to give your audio gear to a Pro. Then you'll get Pro quality.

 

[Jamon Lewis]

I can't even go into how nutty I am about getting super clear, pristine high quality sound, & I whole heartedly believe that you shouldn't EVER compromise things at the level of production that most of us on this forum "play at". I also agree that at least in theory "you get what you pay for" but it's kinda ironic that on a forum who's company completely shattered the perception of that & at the same time turned a whole industry on it's head (what did the Red One cost compared to a camera that was comparable at that time?) Someone's saying "you get what you pay for" as if that's an absolute in how technology has changed & made things faster and cheaper for almost everything in our lives... I've owned 2 Sound Devices products (& still own one) and just about every Zoom H series recorder that they've made. I shot a feature where the sound guy EXCLUSIVELY used the first H4 zoom ever made. We shot in upstate NY, NYC, Philly... No problems at all & the audio came out great.

Come on..

 

[Marc Wielage]

I shot a feature where the sound guy EXCLUSIVELY used the first H4 zoom ever made. We shot in upstate NY, NYC, Philly... No problems at all & the audio came out great.

My issue is people who have unrealistic expectations on how cheap things can be done for. I would also argue that for a feature, far more depends on where you put the microphones and what kind of microphones are used, above and beyond the recorder. The location may trump everything, if it's bad enough. Note there are Sound Devices mixers recorders that are not "thousands of dollars" more costly than Zoom equipment. Hundreds of dollars, sure, particularly on the used market.

To me, you could draw parallels to people trying to use Rokinon lenses vs. Zeiss lenses or anything else: it's a lack of perception of why great gear costs more money. Again, what I object to is the notion that it's OK to spend $60,000-$70,000-$80,000 on camera gear, then balk at spending $3,000 on a mixer/recorder. I also point out that renting may make far more sense than owning for a lot of specialized gear like this. In that respect, it's similar to owning vs. renting a grip truck: unless you're shooting a few days every week of the year, it may not be worth the investment. Grip gear and lighting gear are often many times more costly than sound gear.

In truth, when I have done sound projects in the past, the recorder was (by far) the single least expense I had. I might have had $50,000' worth of sound gear, but the recorder was only about $5000 of that. The rest was in microphones and wireless and power, and that's an expense you can't avoid, particularly if it's done well. Would I have trusted it to a $1000 Zoom recorder? Not if the alternative cost me $75 more a day (which would be the difference in rental from any pro dealer). Turn the knobs on a Sound Devices recorder, then turn the knobs on a Zoom recorder and tell me you think they're the same. To me, this is like comparing a Red Epic to a Canon C100: not even in the same class.

 

[Jarek Zabczynski]

If I need bullet proof sound, I hire a sound guy. For the little jobs that I tackle with small crews and run sound ourselves, the F8 has been fantastic. I'm not knocking "pro" gear, but these Zoom recorders are pretty damn good for the price and certainly have their place.

 

[Hugh Scully]

What Jarek said... If there's a budget, hire a soundy. But, for my small projects the F8 has been fantastic. The recording is way better than running sound into my SD 442 stereo into the mic inputs on the Dragon which I'd been doing until getting the f8. I get timecode, isos and the recording sounds damn good.

 

[David Peterson]

IPS IBC 2016 Episode 20 Zoom:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv4r4MMF0EE

 

[Sabyasachi Patra]

So don't drop your audio recorder on concrete. Are professional sound mixers notoriously clumsy, or am I missing something?

Some people don't have $6000 to spend on marginally superior build quality and indistinguishable audio differences (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM6VOEYpm4g).

I have had faced much worse situation. No one is careless or intentionally drops things. However during shoots things happen. I shoot and produce documentaries, corporates and commercials. Trying to punch above my weight I bring in tons of equipment sometimes to inhospitable places. My SD 702T doesn't even have a scratch. It is a built like a beast. Many other equipment have got knocked down but not that. That damn thing will last a life time.

When I buy a camera it is upgraded atleast every three years. But your sound equipment remains for a long long time. At least 10-15 years or more till a new recorder or mixer comes in which is light weight or something. Else the recorder/mixer will continue working. Microphones last for some 25-30 yrs or more. So cost of ownership per year is way too less. And for me buying in equipment is a legitimate business expense. It is a captial investment and I can knock it off from my tax liability.

If the F8 is better then people would have sold off their SD 633 and bought the F8. Why that is not happening?

I am not going to produce as per the ear of a client. There are clients who will also be ok if you record the sound to a phone and give it to them. Just keep it loud so that when they see in their iphones it comes out ok. As professionals we need to do something which pleases us, for which we are proud of. And even if someday an iphone gets the ability to record at 24bits 48Hz or 96Hz and is very quiet and even better than the SD, I will never use it. The client will then think that if that is what I am using then why will he need me?

 

[David Peterson]

If the F8 is better then people would have sold off their SD 633 and bought the F8. Why that is not happening?

Three key reasons:
a) if the 633 is already working fine for them then why change? Changing means re-configuring your setup you're currently perfectly happy with
b) researching/selling/buying takes valuable time (and you often take a hit on the item when you sell it)
c) the 633 is genuinely better than the F8 in several ways (but this is a small % gain, at a cost of thousands of dollars)

 

[Jamon Lewis]

Three key reasons:
a) if the 633 is already working fine for them then why change? Changing means re-configuring your setup you're currently perfectly happy with
b) researching/selling/buying takes valuable time (and you often take a hit on the item when you sell it)
c) the 633 is genuinely better than the F8 in several ways (but this is a small % gain, at a cost of thousands of dollars)

Exactly...

With that said a few weeks ago, still warm off of the discussion on this thread ,I had a talking heads shoot where I knew sound was going to be recorded to a H6, so I pulled out my Sound Devices MP1 (the little single channel mic-pre with the hard stops) & brought along to do my little test of sorts. So I ran it from the line out to the H6, hit the -20 pad, turned the gain on the H6 to a little under 2 & adjusted the level from the hard stops on the MP-1. The guy who I had running into the MP-1 talked loud naturally, so even though I had him dialed in nice I turned on the limiter on the MP-1. I can't lie, that Sound Devices preamp sounded real sweet after not hearing it for a while, soooo smooth... Those preamps are the "Leicas" of sound.

I missed them so much I started thinking of a reason to get a a MixPre-D & I got to thinking for those 2 extra ISO tracks (5&6) using the EXH-6 but bypassing the mic pre on it, the fact that they're not as good as or the same as the mains on the F4 gave me the excuse I was looking for to throw some Sound Devices back into the mix. With that set up your at about $1,800, for 6 ISOs, -2 Sound Devices mic preamps, limiters, phantom power- & TC... Sounds like compromise I can live with.

*That said, if somebody has a MixPre-D in great condition for sale ping me..*

 

[David Peterson]

Bit of a slow reply, but I just had a thought that a person could use one of these with the EXH-6 instead to supply phantom power at a much much lower price than buying a Sound Devices:

Rolls PB224
ART Phantom II Pro
Audix APS911
Denecke PS2
PSC 48 PHantom
Ambient UMP II Universal Mic Power Supply
Audio Wireless AW-P48
(last two are a bit too pricey though... but the last one looks like it might be just perfect! Very compact)

Anyone used any of them, or have any comments on which to get?

 

[Mike Finegan]

any actual use with DSMC2 and time code? What was the time code source and were there any gotchas?

 

[Michael Hastings]

snip:

And even if someday an iphone gets the ability to record at 24bits 48Hz or 96Hz and is very quiet and even better than the SD, I will never use it. The client will then think that if that is what I am using then why will he need me?

This philosophy has been around our industry for a long time - and probably served us well up until the last few years, but these days everyone is walking around with massive technological capability in their pockets, cars, etc. and are quite aware of how fast things get faster, smaller, cheaper so I don't think many (even the least technically savvy) are confused or persuaded by it anymore. Or maybe one would use something like the zoom so as not to look directly like a phone, but I don't think it would take much convincing based on looks to persuade someone that a dedicated inexpensive device like a zoom is capable of extremely high quality results.