• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Zoom F6 Portable Field Recorder Review

AnalogSteph

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
3,334
Likes
3,278
Location
.de
Although, in practice, it might be more fair to say that floating point has 144dB of dynamic range and 24 bit fixed has 138dB of dynamic range (23 bit equivalent), due mainly to the fact that the negative swinging side of the audio signal doesn't add to Dynamic Range. Haven't thought too much about that detail though, so I could be wrong.
RMAA gives the following noise floor when analyzing its own (integer) test signals:
16/44: -96.3 dB RMS (unweighted)
24/44: -144.4 dB RMS (unweighted)

Int samples are definitely yielding the expected dynamic range.
 

Dave Tremblay

Member
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 23, 2020
Messages
81
Likes
415
Location
Boulder, CO
RMAA gives the following noise floor when analyzing its own (integer) test signals:
16/44: -96.3 dB RMS (unweighted)
24/44: -144.4 dB RMS (unweighted)

Int samples are definitely yielding the expected dynamic range.

You are correct. I forgot to include the fact that Quantization noise has a level equal to 1/2LSB, which gets you the extra 6dB.

Dave
 

rondo

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
3
Likes
1
mfr is active in addressing the distortion issue... will post updates when i can

I would love an update if you have time!

I'm heavily considering the F6. It sounded perfect for my field-recording purposes by all counts until I found this thread... Hoping your unit was just an anomaly.
 

voltronic

Member
Joined
May 19, 2021
Messages
37
Likes
21
Major F6 news! Zoom has released firmware version 1.70 which addresses the noise issue, which was apparently caused by the DSP filter being used.

From the release notes:
Version 1.70
・ Released as the following bug fixes in May 2021
1. The internal timecode sometimes gains one frame when an external timecode is disconnected while
the timecode is set to “Ext mode” or “Ext Auto Rec mode”.
2. Improved low frequency characteristics of the filter used for internal processing.

I did a quick test in RMAA using a 32-bit FP / 192 kHz test signal out of my MOTU M2 with the output set to max level, sent to the F6 and recorded in the same depth and rate. I did this for firmware 1.50 and also the new 1.70. The resulting files were then analyzed in RMAA.

I did not do any loop-through tests in order to minimize variables. All I really care about is the recording performance of the F6. I did not do these tests in the same sitting, but the conditions were identical.

As you can see in the results, Amir's results were NOT an anomaly specific to one unit. The great news is that this new firmware fixes the low-frequency noise issue, and in my opinion the performance of the F6 can now be considered professional level.

Perhaps Amir might be able to run his tests again using the new firmware sometime in the future.

PDF links:
F6 1.50
F6 1.70
 

AdamG

Proving your point makes it “Science”.
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
4,636
Likes
14,918
Location
Reality
Major F6 news! Zoom has released firmware version 1.70 which addresses the noise issue, which was apparently caused by the DSP filter being used.

From the release notes:


I did a quick test in RMAA using a 32-bit FP / 192 kHz test signal out of my MOTU M2 with the output set to max level, sent to the F6 and recorded in the same depth and rate. I did this for firmware 1.50 and also the new 1.70. The resulting files were then analyzed in RMAA.

I did not do any loop-through tests in order to minimize variables. All I really care about is the recording performance of the F6. I did not do these tests in the same sitting, but the conditions were identical.

As you can see in the results, Amir's results were NOT an anomaly specific to one unit. The great news is that this new firmware fixes the low-frequency noise issue, and in my opinion the performance of the F6 can now be considered professional level.

Perhaps Amir might be able to run his tests again using the new firmware sometime in the future.

PDF links:
F6 1.50
F6 1.70
Welcome Aboard @voltronic.
 

617

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
2,403
Likes
5,296
Location
Somerville, MA
I had a zoom h4n with noise issues. I wanted to get a warranty replacement so I contacted zoom support. They asked for some sound files so I sent some files using various mics, all very noisy and they were just like 'sounds good to us! Cya!' I sold it.

It's a shame really because the Zoom products are really cool and very nicely made for the price. Field recording is dominated by sound devices so it's nice to have an alternative.

Noise is really critical for products like this because they're often used to record dialog and podcasts remotely. The best mics for that use tend to be dynamic which makes things harder.
 

voltronic

Member
Joined
May 19, 2021
Messages
37
Likes
21
I had a zoom h4n with noise issues. I wanted to get a warranty replacement so I contacted zoom support. They asked for some sound files so I sent some files using various mics, all very noisy and they were just like 'sounds good to us! Cya!' I sold it.

It's a shame really because the Zoom products are really cool and very nicely made for the price. Field recording is dominated by sound devices so it's nice to have an alternative.

Noise is really critical for products like this because they're often used to record dialog and podcasts remotely. The best mics for that use tend to be dynamic which makes things harder.

I don't know if you have had a chance to try any of the Zoom F series recorders, but they are in a different league than the H series. A choir director I work with asked me to record and edit some of his concerts using his AKG C214s into a Zoom H6. I also ran my own parallel recording with my own equipment. Even though his mics had much lower self-noise than my SDCs, the significantly higher noise floor of the H6 made his capture far noisier than mine.

It bothers me that Zoom does not give complete specs for all of their recorders, especially the F series where people are likely to care the most. For example, the F8 page lists EIN, A/D Dynamic Range and Crosstalk. Same goes for the F4. The F6 only lists EIN. None of the Zoom recorders list THD+Noise.

In any case, I am glad to see Zoom kept working on the F6 to fix the serious noise issue it had.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,385
Location
Seattle Area

Rja4000

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 31, 2019
Messages
2,682
Likes
4,220
Location
Liège, Belgium
Bumping once more. Sound Devices markets (and prices) themselves at the top. I would love to see how they measure up.
Why not to use a battery powered RME UCX II ?

OK, that's limited to 2 mic inputs, but you may stack a RME Quadmic, which uses the same voltage, to get 6 excellent, phantom powered mic inputs. Add a USB memory stick and you have a real pro level autonomous recorder.
 

jerryfreak

Active Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
125
Likes
131
Location
Reno, NV
Why not to use a battery powered RME UCX II ?

OK, that's limited to 2 mic inputs, but you may stack a RME Quadmic, which uses the same voltage, to get 6 excellent, phantom powered mic inputs. Add a USB memory stick and you have a real pro level autonomous recorder.
i have this combo on order. like @voltronic i love my zoom F6, but it think this can do better. plus for my purposes it is up to 12 channels (two onboard phantom-powered mics+4 more phantom powered mics+ 2ch line in + 4 ch spdif in)
 

jerryfreak

Active Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
125
Likes
131
Location
Reno, NV
Bumping once more. Sound Devices markets (and prices) themselves at the top. I would love to see how they measure up.
i had a mixpre before the zoom. functionally the zoom was superior in the following areas:

-battery life destroys the mixpre. like less than half the power, i can run 6ch phantom for 10 hours on a 6600 mah NPF battery, with 3 more hours of backup on the nimh inside

-mixpre is super picky on SD cards - not sure if they fixed it in firmware (doubt it), but in extensive testing with many cards almost all SDXC would crap out before filling up: https://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=191314.0

-F6 has easier interface and not microscopic touchscreen straining my old eyes to disable endless list of features i dont need

-F6, mixpre and 32-bit mixpre II all measure about the same- and similar to the 20 year old 'state of the art' portable gear like Lunatec V3>Benchmark AD2K (aka AD2402-96), as well as basic budget modern gear like the motu M4. At high gain levels both zoom and mixpre are edged out by the older components and the motu. see attached tests with a topping D90 feeding the gear.

id have to dig them up, but in any test ive done, the modern ADCs like RMA ADI2PROFS and benchmark ADC1 beat all of the devices above on distortion. im hoping the fireface UCXII is in the same class as the latter.

Also was able to replicate all of @voltronic 's tests on my own F6 to similar results with the different firmwares. the zoom tests in my links were FW1.61, they are on 1.70 now, i havent rerun tests with this FW though. Samuel at Zoom was super helpful and forthcoming with info and FW patches
 

Attachments

  • mixpre ii test.zip
    4.6 KB · Views: 83

voltronic

Member
Joined
May 19, 2021
Messages
37
Likes
21
Those functional advantages of the F6 @jerryfreak mentioned some of what pushed me to get the F6 over the MixPre-II 6. The other things that made the decision for me were six mic inputs instead of four, and the fact that I could hear zero sonic advantage to the Sound Devices.

//

Regarding the F3 @cheapsoundguy mentioned:

A friend of mine who is just getting into live concert recording bought one, and I've helped him use it at a few concerts so far. The combo sliding switch used for power, hold, and record is quite fiddly and a poor choice on Zoom's part, IMO. Otherwise, the unit works solidly as a 32-bit float recorder and sound quality of recorded files seems to be on par with my F6.
 

AnalogSteph

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
3,334
Likes
3,278
Location
.de
-F6, mixpre and 32-bit mixpre II all measure about the same- and similar to the 20 year old 'state of the art' portable gear like Lunatec V3>Benchmark AD2K (aka AD2402-96), as well as basic budget modern gear like the motu M4. At high gain levels both zoom and mixpre are edged out by the older components and the motu. see attached tests with a topping D90 feeding the gear.
Looking at these, I would say:
1. The F6 consistently brings up the rear in the distortion department.
2. EIN ranking: MixPre > M4 >= DR100mk3 > V3 + AD2K > F6. So ditto here. Was -44 dBu taken with an external attenuator? (And which gain was used on the V3? I don't think it should be trounced by an M4, which is perfectly decent but no more than good midrange level for input noise.)
3. There's hardly any difference in input noise level between -44 und -14 dBu, save for the DR100mk3 which had extra input attenuation dialed in.
4. Dynamic range differs surprisingly little between -14 dBu and -2 dBu. Makes me wonder whether a majority of devices are "switching gears" in terms of analog input gain somewhere in between.
5. Neither of the portable recorders are all that great distortion-wise once you get to +13 dBu (hardly surprising given that they're more geared towards mics which rarely generate such levels and would be quite stressed themselves then), but the F6 still has substantially worse IMD than the MixPre. At least it can claim the greatest dynamic range here by a small margin.
6. The claims of extra headroom in float32 have not been put to the test.
 
Top Bottom