Zoom H6 MS Noise Issue
Zoom has been pushing MS or Mid-Side recording technology in their recent products. The ones I know about are the MS decoder in the H4n followed by the rear-facing MS mics in the H2n. Their latest video camera, the Q2HD was the first with the distinctive ball shaped mic array housing. Now the new H6 recorder includes an MS module also featuring that ball shape, and in the “announced but not shipping” category we have the iOS mic, the iQ5 using that styling as well. Doug Young was the first H6 owner I talked with and he immediately identified a self-noise issue with the MS mic module. My initial explorations all focused on the XY mic module and the external connection preamps, but now I’ve had a chance to experiment with the MS module a bit.
What Is MS Recording?
I’ve looked at MS recording in an earlier post but it’s worth going over the basics again. The inventor of stereo was a remarkable English engineer named Alan Blumlein. He was attempting to make the voices follow movie actors as they traveled across the screen and he figured out how to do it with only two microphones for recording and two speakers for playback. He figured out three different mic configurations including one that points one mic directly at the center of the source and another perpendicular to the source. The two mics are called the mid mic and the side mic, hence the name of the technique. The two mics must be combined in a very specific way to turn these two mic signals into a conventional left-right stereo track. The mid mic pattern can vary but the side mic must be bidirectional. Since it’s tricky to make a small bidirectional condenser mic the Zoom engineers use a pair of cardioid mics wired together in opposite polarity and pointing in the opposite direction. These two mics together serve as the side mic and are perpendiular to the mid mic.
Zoom MSH-6 Mid-Side Mic Module
You can visit the Zoom product page for the H6 for more details.
Zoom, We Have a Problem
I was very pleased with my initial tests of the H6 using the XY module and the XLR preamps with external mics. All these features improved on the Zoom recorders I’ve used in the past. When I started evaluating the MSH-6 mic module I was immediately struck by the additional noise that was showing up in my recordings so I set up a comparison that might highlight self-noise from the mic module. I created a test signal with a low level beep followed by silence, then I fed this signal into the Zoom mic modules and at the same time into a Rode NT4 stereo mic attached to channels 1 and 2 of the H6. Here’s a picture of the setup:
Zoom H6 mic module noise test setup
All these samples are WAV files, 44.1 khz and 16 bit, so they won’t stream well. Use Right-Click Save Link As… or Ctrl+Click on the Mac and save the clips to your computer, then pull them into some player that lets you switch between them easily. In the picture you see the XY mic module in use. Here are two clips recorded at the same time.
You can hear people talking in the background. To give you an idea of the amount of gain in these clips, those people are downstairs and across the street speaking in normal tones. My impression from these two clips is that the Zoom XY module delivers very nicely compared to the Rode NT4. Now with the MS mic module attached, we have these two clips.
Clearly the MS mic module is generating a lot of extra noise that is not present in the NT4 or even in the Zoom XY module.
MS and Guitar
Nearly all of my recordings are solo acoustic guitar, not the hardest instrument to record but not the easiest either since the volume from the instrument can be relatively low which requires a nice quiet recording chain. To evaluate the impact of the Zoom MSH-6 module on an acoustic guitar recording, I set up my Lumix GH3, some lights, and the Rode NT4 and H6 combination to do some quick takes with first the Zoom XY then the MS module. I compiled excerpts from these takes into a video:
YouTube is OK for a quick glance, but to make a more careful comparison you can download the audio from those recordings and listen to them side by side.
In Conclusion
I’ve bought a lot of Zoom products and I look forward to their future developments, but I must say I’m not a big fan of their emphasis on Mid-Side recording. There’s really no advantage when it comes to adjusting the signal in post. With a little computer trickery it’s not hard to convert an XY recording into an encoded MS recording, where the mid and side signals can be processed and adjusted independently then converted back to conventional stereo. And when properly adjusted to a default setting MS should sound just like an XY configuration. So the only real point must be adding a marketing point.
A small single diaphragm condenser with a bidirectional pattern is clearly expensive to make, just look at the prices of Schoeps and Sennheiser models and note that there are no low cost knockoffs like we see for cardioid and omni patterns. So Zoom fakes their bidirectional side mic by combining two cardioids back-to-back.
If the MS mic configuration worked wonderfully I wouldn’t care about the implementation, but at least in the current version of the H6 the MS mic module adds a lot of noise to the recording. Perhaps this can be addressed in firmware, but I”m not very hopeful. Perhaps Zoom will recall and replace these mic modules, but I have very little hope of that either. So for me at least the MS module is going to sit in its case and annoy me. Every time I look at it I’ll think of Zoom as going for a bit of marketing and adding a bit to the cost without actually adding any value to their otherwise very impressive H6 recorder.
Update – 23 August 2013
I decided to contact tech support to see if my MS mic module is operating normally. I started off by registering my recorder at Samson Technologies because they’ve been the face of Zoom here in the US. Then I sent a message using their contact form. I received a reply promptly but was surprised to be directed to Zoom North America for issues with the H6 recorder. If you visit the site you’ll see that only the H6 is currently addressed there, while the other products are still handled through the Samson Tech site.
I registered my recorder again at the Zoom North America site and submitted my request for information, linking to this blog post for the sample tracks. I again received a very prompt reply, this time with some comments on my issue. The tech suggested that it might be worth testing the MSH-6 module in the “Off” or mono mode, which disables the side mic. I put up the H6 in front of the speaker again, with the NT4 positioned above. This time I arranged things to emphasize a single microphone, since our comparisons would focus on a mono signal.
The NT4 is the constant in these comparisons. I arranged it so the left side mic pointed directly at the speaker. Then I arranged the H6 with its XY module so that its left side mic was directly under and aligned with the Rode mic. It looked like this:
Mics aligned so left mic faces speaker
Then when I arranged the MSH-6 module, I left the NT4 in its previous position and aligned the ball of the MS module facing forward to point the mid mic at the speaker, like this:
The NT4 left mic and the MS mid mic point at the speaker
I did a rough level adjustment then played my test signal – a short low level beep followed by silence – into each combination.
Mid Mic Clips
I pulled the clips into REAPER and converted the stereo files from the H6 mic modules into mono files. Then I used the test tone beeps along with the Sonalksis Free G meters to match the levels of the Zoom clip to its companion Rode NT4 clip. I rendered the files as 44.1/16 CD spec WAV files. Remember, you need to download these files and pull them into a tool that allows you to switch back and forth for best results.
First lets hear how the XYH-6 module compares to the Rode NT4:
Next, here’s the MSH-6 with the side mic set to “Off:”
I was curious how the MS Raw setting compares so this set of clips includes both the mid mic and the side mic in their own mono file. I didn’t match the side test tone level, instead I applied the same gain to the side mic as I used for the mid mic. The beep is much quieter in the side mic, as it should be. How’s the noise?
With the Zoom XY module I hear the noise levels to be pretty close. The Rode is slightly better, but I can live with the results from the Zoom mics. When I switch to the MSH-6 and choose the “Off” setting for the side mic the result is slightly noisier. This might be usable if not ideal, but only if I’m willing to settle for mono. Finally, the mid mic in the MS-Raw file seems pretty similar to the mid mic in mono, just as we should expect.
Since the mid mic alone is only slightly noisier than the XY mic, it appears that the side mic is contributing noticeable noise to the MS array. Sure enough, when I listen to the side mic in the MS-Raw setting it is providing little signal but plenty of noise. I’ll pass these results along to the support team at Zoom North America and see what they make of it. Meanwhile I’ll continue to use the XY module and ignore the MS module on my H6.
Update #2 – 26 August 2013
I heard back from Zoom North America tech support and their opinion is that my MSH-6 module is working normally. In other words, the level of self-noise I’m experiencing is what you should expect if you use the MS feature of your H6. So there’s a simple solution which I plan to adopt – don’t use the MSH-6 mic module. It seems a shame to me that we have to pay for this “feature” that we don’t need and in fact cannot use without sacrificing quality, but that’s the world as defined by marketing, I guess. I’m still happy with my H6 and expect to make it a central part of my video and audio recording, but I predict that this issue will become the new “bad Zoom” meme to join the “plasticky” and “weak preamps” and “distorted line in” memes that have been part of most discussions about Zoom recorders in the past.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 21st, 2013 at 3:16 pm and is filed under Comparisons, Recording. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Tormy said in post # 1,
on August 22nd, 2013 at 1:04 am
I should improve your statement “So Zoom fakes their bidirectional side mic by combining two cardioids back-to-back.”.
that’s precisely what Neumann does and what many other manufacturers do.
They just couple 2 cardiod capsules.
If you take any of the Bidirectional Neuman (U87 U47 etc), you wil notice this. It’s even reported on their electric diagram.
And if you disassemble one of this, you will notice.
Of course they built 2 capsules in one body (with the common back), because it’s much more convenient: technically and economically.
But the way it’s exactly the same and it’s not at all the main issue in Zoom. I mean: this is not the way in which the amount of the noise is added.
I do think that the real reason is somewhere else into the electronic. Even into the software elaboration (if ever and whenever the MS system is created by the microcode) … in this case I’m just thinking about a bug in the dithering function.
However it should be better to send the claim to their Support (if ever humanly accessible) to highlight the issue and to claim a solution. Money are spent to get good quality stuff, not crapy modules 😉
Fran Guidry said in post # 2,
on August 22nd, 2013 at 7:47 am
Thanks for stopping by and commenting. I did indeed send a link to my comparison to Zoom support.
And I’d say there is still a difference between the shared backplate design of the a dual diaphragm large condenser like a U87 compared to a pair of cardioid capsules with their individual baffles being placed back to back.
I agree with you, though, that the mic design is not likely to be the issue causing the noise. Unless they used very small, and therefore higher in self-noise, capsules for the side mics.
Fran
ken said in post # 3,
on August 22nd, 2013 at 12:17 pm
On the bright side, you can’t tell that well on the Youtube video 🙂
They really should fix it though…I’m surprised they missed that…
Kee de Visser said in post # 4,
on August 27th, 2013 at 2:38 am
I got my H6 yesterday so I’m still a newbie, but have you tried the MS in RAW mode ? Many years ago I’ve done quite some MS recordings and I remember having the S-mic level below that of the M. Perhaps mixing M&S in a DAW gives better results.
Since I’ll use the H6 mostly with external mics the quality of the Zoom mics doesn’t worry me too much. The mics I use cost more than the H6, so if sound quality matters to you I strongly advise to buy good mics. My first impressions of the 4 H6 inputs are pretty good.
Kees
Fran Guidry said in post # 5,
on August 27th, 2013 at 7:41 am
Thanks for stopping by and commenting. In my update on the noise issue I included clips in Raw and also Mono with the side mic off. To my ear the excessive noise still exists in those modes.
If you get a chance you might glance through the blog and get an idea of the mics I have in my collection. They include the Rode NT4 I used in this demo, but also things like the AT4050, Shure KSM44, and various Schoeps mic amps and capsules. In my first eval of the H6 I used the XLR preamps with a Rode NT4 in comparison to an RME UFX with Shure KSM141s, so I’ve given the H6 preamps a reasonable trial and found them quite acceptable.
Fran
lou judson said in post # 6,
on September 22nd, 2013 at 8:34 am
I haven’t listened to any of this yet, but your ignorance of MS is affecting your tests and judgements. You need to compare the Zoom MS with another MS mic pair to be fair. You don’t seem to understand the reasons or advantages of MS micing, which Zoom is trying to provide for those who like and want it, not promote. I won’t go into that as there are many pages where it cn be looked up, but the proof is in the listening.
For example, you never specify which capule is making the most noise – it is well known that bidirectional condenser capsules are difficult to make quiet. Cardioid, not so much.
When I was looking for my first stereo mic, I considered the Rode NT4 but found the Shure VP88 MS mic much more pleasing despite the slightly higher noise of the side capsule.
Otherwise I enjoyed and appreciate your time and care to the reviews!
Lou
Fran Guidry said in post # 7,
on September 22nd, 2013 at 8:44 am
Lou, thanks for visiting. Please do take a moment to explain the advantages of MS to me.
Actually, if you read my post you’ll find that I quite plainly state that the side mic is responsible for the noise.
And just to be clear, there is _no_ bidirectional mic in the H6 or the other Zoom MS arrays. Instead there are two cardioids arranged back-to-back. So why should these mics generate so much noise?
Do you understand that any coincident capture can be converted to MS in post, where all the advantages of MS are then available, and that such processing is common in modern audio editing?
Fran
Bala Ravi said in post # 8,
on September 24th, 2013 at 1:40 pm
Hi
I really wanted to know, in a scenario where i need to record a concert in a large auditorium, what will be the prospects of XY to MS Mics? Which one would capture the sound faithfully?
Bala
Fran Guidry said in post # 9,
on September 24th, 2013 at 3:25 pm
One must understand that to “capture sound faithfully” is a matter of degree and judgment and preference. But my choice would definitely be the XY simply because the MS adds noticeable noise to the recording.
Thanks for visiting,
Fran
T.W. Day said in post # 10,
on September 26th, 2013 at 9:46 am
The noise issue aside, which I believe is a built-in characteristic of using two active microphones for the mid signal, I believe blowing off M-S with the claim that “any coincident capture can be converted to MS in post” ignores a lot of microphone polar characteristics that can not be recreated with eq or phase games. I have yet to hear an XY-conversion that even comes close to M-S in the same acoustic space. I’m not saying that the XY recordings are worse, but they are different: spatially.
I just received my H6 yesterday and have been experimenting with the M-S recording system and find that my unit’s side mic configuration delivers pretty close to the expected 3dB increase in noise between the mid and side microphone signals, for the same applied gain. Anytime you add a pair of similar amplifiers to the same signal, that’s about what you should expect to sacrifice and it is pretty much what I measure from Neuman, AKG, and everybody else’s dual-element microphones when the two capsules are in play. Small element condensers are more noisy/less sensitive than large capsules, too.
For ambient recording, I find M-S often more interesting than X/Y although I like both and am happy to see that you’ve thought a lot about the two configurations as opposed to the usual recording “engineer” maximum phase-distortion AB mic techniques. This webpage has a lot of the basic theory of differences in techniques that might be helpful in considering the advantages of M-S: http://www9.dw-world.de/rtc/infotheque/stereo/stereo_rec7.html. The attached Stereo Recording PDF is even more detailed.
Fran Guidry said in post # 11,
on September 26th, 2013 at 10:33 am
Thanks very much for joining in the discussion.
I’m pretty weak in the area of measurement so I attempt to create clips that show performance under matched conditions. The excess noise of the MS module is sufficient that I can hear the difference in my simple acoustic guitar recordings. Since that’s my nearly exclusive recording situation (and the particular niche I explore in this blog) that disqualifies the MS module from my use.
When I started looking for specs on multi-element mics I began with the Neumann TLM170 but Sennheiser doesn’t show separate noise measurements for different polar patterns. Shure however does provide that info for its KSM44a and as you say the bidirectional pattern is specified to have 3.5 dB more noise than the cardioid. The omni (also a two element pattern) shows 2 dB higher noise.
Thanks very much for the link to the discussion of coincident miking. I really enjoy digging into the details of recording tech. Are you familiar with this paper: http://www.midside.com/pdf/nyu/masters_thesis.pdf
Fran
Zoom H6 , iemand? - homerecording.be forum said in post # 12,
on October 6th, 2013 at 5:48 am
[…] doen. Echter, dat alles was voor de preamps, wat betreft de inbouwmics heb ik hier wat gevonden: Zoom H6 MS Noise Issue | Homebrewed Music Ontevreden over de MS-module maar blijkbaar toch gematigd positief over de XY-module. […]
Peter Shaw said in post # 13,
on October 9th, 2013 at 12:03 am
I have a Zoom H2N that exhibits exactly the same behaviour to the extent that I do not like using MS due to the noise issue. One solution that I have been meaning to try is to utilise the XY mics in the back of the H2N to record the side component and the M mic (from the MS) to provide the M. To do this I will need to reduce the XY to side components only and set the H2N to 4 channel. (it has 5 mics – apparently).
Fran Guidry said in post # 14,
on October 9th, 2013 at 7:54 am
Fascinating idea, Peter. Please let us know how it turns out.
By the way, the XY mics are the “front” mics, the ones that are facing you when you’re looking at the meter display.
Fran
YpsilonSound said in post # 15,
on November 8th, 2013 at 10:34 pm
Hello there ;
First of all excuse my english. From the start i liked this discuss and i write because i have paid for a H6 2 days ago.
Ill try to give my point here :
I will do test when i have my unit and ill comment when i have prove my theory that is that this is a simple polar pattern issue :
The XY´s zoom mics are unidirectional as in the website said, but i havent found the complete data sheet so we should imagine that are 2 cardioid mics. The Mid mic its a directional mic too, we suppose that it is a cardioid too. So we can imagine that this might be a huge difference between those two.
My second thought was that an MS techniche opens the captation´s angle to the font so its normal that with more captation more noise you got.
Maybe the M mic has lower quality than the xy´s mics; and maybe the S mic its even worse cause that could be a marketing strategy as you mentioned up , it has happened with multiple technology products trying to sell at high price showing you 2 capsules included i dont know…
I will test this and i will investigating this , thanks for reading and fell free to correcting me.
Yago.
Geoff said in post # 16,
on November 24th, 2013 at 4:36 pm
Hi,
I recently got hold of one of these Zoom H6 portable recorders for field recording and had the opportunity to give it a test at a wind symphony concert. I used the MS attached microphone and was just slightly left of the conductor. Recording was made at 44.1/24 in raw MS mode, later mixed in Cubase to stereo. Levels were set to peak at -12dB (my usual setting for concert recordings). Previous recordings were made using an Edirol R09HR, which has two closely spaced omni mics, which gave good results but lacked the spatial image for ensembles such as this.
Overall I found the unit to be satisfactory, with no audible evidence of noise, even in the quiet passages. The image is very good, as expected from MS in this situation.
A few of the recordings can be found here:
https://soundcloud.com/dr-geoff/danzas-cubanas
https://soundcloud.com/dr-geoff/el-camino-real
https://soundcloud.com/dr-geoff/huapango
– Geoff
Fran Guidry said in post # 17,
on November 24th, 2013 at 6:52 pm
Geoff, thanks a lot for adding your experience to the discussion.
Noise in the recording chain will always be a matter of context and judgment, and a wind symphony in a large hall is definitely a different context from my recording focus. I’m glad to hear the H6 is delivering the results you sought.
Fran
paddyB said in post # 18,
on December 9th, 2013 at 12:22 pm
I bought the H6n having tried the H2 and H4. I have used all 3 at various times to record a 70 strong symphony orchestra. The first thing I noticed with the H6 is its self noise – even with its cross pair pod. The recording shows hiss in the quiet passages, more so than my H4. As for the MS pod – useless! Is this because the Zoom mic pres are better and reflect a higher frequency which means I can hear the hiss clearer(!!) I know I have relied on my hearing for the past 30 years or so, and made a reasonable living from audio recording. I must admit to using the Zoom recorders in preference to carting around my AMS Soundfield and 8 track digital recorder and all the ancillary gear – for my own recodings of the orchestra, as l also play trumpet in it, so I have to leave it unattended and just hope!! But the H6, for me, is a disappointment. I have put some examples on the web using just the H4n http://www.huddersfield-phil.org.uk. please remember this is an amateur orchestra WE pay to play so forgive any musical mistakes! I will post a sample of our November concert using the H6n at a later date. Sorry I can’t be more “technical” about all this.
Fran Guidry said in post # 19,
on December 9th, 2013 at 2:05 pm
I would think that if you’re experiencing more self-noise with your H6 than with your H4 you either have a bad unit or a poor setting. Do you still have the H4 to try them side by side with matched levels?
Fran
paddyB said in post # 20,
on December 11th, 2013 at 3:06 pm
Hi Fran. Yes I did just that when I tested the H6n with its omni mod. I then tried the crossed pair and although it was an improvement it was still noisy. I noticed the the orchestral recording with the crossed pair was a little noisier than with the H4n.
You may be correct – it may be a rogue machine. I’ll have to look into it.
I’ve always tinkered with M/S since I bought the senheisser MKH series. Think that spoiled me. But really thought the Zoom M/S would be better than it is. There are enough low noise/powered chips/mic capsules available – CHEAP! Wonder if anyone else has had same experience?
Fran Guidry said in post # 21,
on December 11th, 2013 at 4:53 pm
I sent my MS noise samples to Zoom USA and they indicated that the noise I experienced was normal.
Comparing noise levels across time is not an excellent way to judge performance in my experience. If you don’t have your H4n or H4 available to make “same source” level matched recordings I’m not sure how you’re basing your judgment.
If you really want to evaluate the difference I would suggest using intermittent test tones at rather low levels, captured simulateneously on both recorders. Use the tones to match levels in post then listen to the ambience between the tones to judge noise performance of the recorder.
Fran
paddyB said in post # 22,
on December 12th, 2013 at 2:17 am
Cheers Fran. I have both machines so I will do just that and let you know.
I must say I saved up to buy an AEA stereo ribbon mic and its TRP preamp from the States thinking this would be the mic of mics!! I couldn’t use it as the self noise was terrible. When I contacted the manufacturer they said basically – what did I expect and suggested it was great for drum overhead!!! I haven’t recorded a kit in 12 years. I really do believe many of these test figures are hyped to get sales.
Will let you know – I also have the H2 so will do all 3.
Pierre Shapiro said in post # 23,
on January 19th, 2014 at 6:31 pm
Hi Fran,
I just purchased the H6 and wanted to confirm the hiss sound from the M/S microphone.
On the other hand the sound from the X/Y blew my mind!
Anyone looking for a brand new H6 M/S microphone? 🙂
Andrew Wells said in post # 24,
on January 22nd, 2014 at 9:22 am
Hi Fran, great review thank you! I purchased an H6 with the thought that with 6 XLR inputs it would be a great backup to my Tascam DP24 and even though it gets the transformer side of the splitter it has worked out fine and saved me twice. I finally got around to use it standalone to record a rehearsal and I decided to play with the MSH-6 as I do a lot of mid side with my C414s and love the results and my H4 always yielded respectable results so I figured this would be great for playing around. Boy was I disappointed, maybe I have a bad unit but there is almost no bottom end on it. I’m going to try some experiments but my results where no where as full as yours. Cheers…
Fran Guidry said in post # 25,
on January 22nd, 2014 at 11:26 am
Andrew, it’s good to hear that the unit has given you good service.
As far as the lack of bass in MS I didn’t hear anything similar, but I didn’t spend much time with that mic module once I heard the noise level. I’m nearly always recording acoustic guitar so I need a good signal to noise ratio.
The first thing I think of when there’s a bass difference is proximity. I’m usually well inside the range where proximity is adding a bit of a boost.
Fran
Vincent Oliver said in post # 26,
on January 26th, 2014 at 10:15 am
I have also been experimenting with the MS mikes and noticed the increase in Hiss during the recording session. This can easily be removed with a small amount of reduction in the high frequencies using your EQ. The H6 is a superb recording instrument which will produce great recordings, just don’t expect everything to be right without and further adjustments. I have expensive mikes where I have to reduce the bass or increase the treble to get the right sound. These are b y no means poor quality, they just need tweaking to taste.Of course I would rather not have the hiss on the MS capsule, but given the price of the kit, I think it is acceptable.
Fran Guidry said in post # 27,
on January 26th, 2014 at 11:59 am
Vincent, I hope you can see from my other posts about the H6 that I really like it. It’s my main recording tool these days and I’ve created a number of videos with it.
But I’m not letting Zoom off the hook on this one. They have gone to MS in many of their products but they have not gone the extra step to make it high in quality. With digital processing, the adjustment of stereo width in post is a matter of pushing a few virtual buttons. To me the MS features seem more a marketing gimmick than a useful feature and I’d rather have a less costly recorder or one with even better EIN and skip the MS module.
Of course, if you’re happy with the results you get using MS I’m pleased for you.
And thanks for stopping by and commenting.
Fran
Battus nicolas said in post # 28,
on February 17th, 2014 at 3:28 pm
Bonjour Fran
i’m a french singer/songwriter, play my J45 (fingerpicking)
i got a mic shure beta 58
and i would like to buy the H6 (and put away my old edirol R9)
should i prefer the shure 58 on the guitar and the XY module on the voice (or the contrary)
or take the voice & guitar with the XY only??
what ‘s your opinion (i record my song in one take)
thank you
Nicolas
Fran Guidry said in post # 29,
on February 17th, 2014 at 4:25 pm
Nicolas, bonjour. My first attempt would be with the SM58 on the vocal and the XY mics on the guitar. The SM58 has good pop protection and works well as a very close mic, while the XY mics have the wider and flatter frequency response that seems better to me for the guitar.
Fran
Battus nicolas said in post # 30,
on February 18th, 2014 at 12:48 am
thank you Fran for your quick answer
i gonna try it very soon !
all the best
Nicolas
bra22 said in post # 31,
on February 28th, 2014 at 10:48 am
what is the best settings if we want to use the MS-module? what volume should we use?
is the X-Y module ok in the H6? what volumes do you use with it?
thanks 🙂
Fran Guidry said in post # 32,
on February 28th, 2014 at 12:49 pm
I’m sorry, but it’s absolutely impossible for me to advise on a mic level setting. It depends on the volume of sound at the mic. If you’re recording a race car from 1 foot away you use a low setting, if you are recording an acoustic guitar you use a much higher setting.
As far as the MS module, I simply don’t use it.
The XY module however works very nicely and I’ve shot several videos using only the XY module for the audio. You can find these at my YouTube page http://www.youtube.com/user/franguidry or at my music blog http://www.kaleponi.com
Fran
Matt said in post # 33,
on June 19th, 2014 at 9:57 pm
Sorry in advance for my lack of understanding. But I recently did a recording using the mid side mic in “raw” mode. I would like to transfer these files to my daw to adjust the side mic level. But when I try and transfer the recording to my computer all I see if a single stereo file. Are you forced to mix the levels on the h6 itself only? I expected to see 3 mono wav files for a ms mic recording but perhaps I am wrong? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
Fran Guidry said in post # 34,
on June 19th, 2014 at 11:07 pm
Mid-Side should be a two channel file with the center mic in the “left” or first channel and the side mic in the second. Then you either arrange the tracks in your DAW or use a plugin to decode the two files into conventional stereo.
This is the decoder plugin I use in REAPER: http://www.voxengo.com/product/msed/
Here’s a tutorial on decoding with your DAW: http://www.uaudio.com/blog/mid-side-mic-recording/
A “Sound on Sound” magazine article describing some MS tricks: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar11/articles/live-tech-0311.htm
Hope this helps.
Fran
Mark said in post # 35,
on October 2nd, 2014 at 2:01 pm
I appreciate the time you have put into your site relating to recording.
I to have the Zoom H6 and have begun recording acoustic guitar. Thanks for pointing out the issue with noise from the ms mic. After reading your article I discovered mine has the same issue rendering the ms mic almost useless.
Another item that troubles me is the inability to delete takes/overdubs and files from the recording menu. As is its very hard to clean up file with the delete option, you have to leave the folder and find del thru the menu and it does not even have the file info confirmed that your deleting …..
Again thank you for sharing your knowledge.
Mark
wallace said in post # 36,
on February 21st, 2015 at 10:47 pm
Hi Fran,
I got H6 lately, and made some recordings specially for piano by MS. I found the left track is always louder than the right one. In the other words, it’s out of balance though I tried different positions. Any thoughts?
Thank you.
Henrique said in post # 37,
on March 22nd, 2015 at 5:30 am
How do I turn the H6 MS “off” or mono? Thanks for your post, I just bought H6 and never used a recorder like this before
Fran Guidry said in post # 38,
on March 22nd, 2015 at 9:12 am
wallace, I’m really sorry I didn’t respond to your question. Perhaps you did not include an email address with your comment. If so, I don’t get notified of your comment.
In any case, the situation you describe is usually due to not “decoding” the MS signal. This can be done with a plugin or by duplicating and inverting the side track.
You can download a VST plugin here: http://www.zoom.co.jp/products/h6/software/
Fran
Fran Guidry said in post # 39,
on March 22nd, 2015 at 9:13 am
Henrique, when you have the MS mic module attached, use the scroll button, the paddle on the right side of the unit next to the menu button, to adjust the side mic level. See page 33 of the manual.
Fran
Harry Norris said in post # 40,
on April 29th, 2015 at 9:24 am
Just a few thoughts here. First the back-to-back cardioid’s will typically be 5 dB down at 90deg (i.e the effective on axis orientation). Secondly, the self-noise of the two mic’s will add to increase the effective noise floor of the pair. I don’t know if the H6 internal circuit has boosted the gain to compensate for the off-axis loss but an interesting experiment would be to record into the S capsule at 90deg and see if it is louder than the M capsule on axis – indicating that an electrical gain boost has been applied to the s capsule. If that is the case a real apples-to-apples comparison would be to mix the S in at, say, 6dB less than M and compare that to XY. Note that XY has almost no loss at 45deg. All of that said these all must be relatively inexpensive capsules and noise resulting from the off-axis losses from the S capsules (if that’s what it is) may just be the “price” one pays to make this affordable.
Fran Guidry said in post # 41,
on April 29th, 2015 at 11:38 am
Thanks for your interesting analysis, Harry. I’ll see if your theory on the boosted side mics is confirmed when I’m back home, I left the MS capsule behind when I traveled because I never use it.
In thinking about the issues you raise I would think of the function of side mics in an MS array. They should not be boosted to compensate for off-axis sensitivity, since their purpose is to capture the 90 degree off-axis information. And I would think that there should be some degree of cancellation rather than addition when the two mics are summed, since they are inverted in polarity before summing. But noise cancellation is tricky business from what little I know of it.
Thanks again for your comment,
Fran
David said in post # 42,
on May 9th, 2015 at 7:34 am
Hi there, thanks for the article. I’m wondering if the MS module would be suitable for voice interviews? There are some settings where avoiding all the cables to an external mic would help me by using the on-unit module, and I’d like to know how it would perform holding the MS module at close range. Would the shotgun module be better instead?
Fran Guidry said in post # 43,
on May 9th, 2015 at 8:57 am
I’ve never used the shotgun module so I have no idea how that one performs. These recorders are not great for handheld use in my experience because of handling noise. Perhaps with some practice you can minimize this problem.
If you use the MS module in mono mode, that is, with the side mics turned off, the noise issue goes away, but I’m not sure that it offers any benefit over simply using the XY module. You’ll know a lot more if you experiment with these options.
If you haven’t bought a recorder yet and handheld use will be your primary mode of operation, I would try to find reviews that address handling noise of various recorders.
Fran
John said in post # 44,
on August 31st, 2015 at 10:36 am
Hi Fran,
I noticed you said, “Mid-Side should be a two channel file with the center mic in the “left” or first channel and the side mic in the second.”
I have a H6 and was wondering about this so I called ZOOM in the U.S. They had me speak to a technical person and I asked this same question. At first he didn’t directly answer my question so I asked if he could look it up to make sure which track was which. He told me to wait a second and came back and said that the center channel came in on the “right” track and the side mic came in on the “left” track. I decoded a sample of just spoken dialogue and the sound came out as it should with good stereo, i.e., sound from the left side through the left speaker and vise versa. That is why your comment somewhat mystified me. Where might I be going wrong? Which is correct?
Thanks…
John
Fran Guidry said in post # 45,
on September 10th, 2015 at 3:08 pm
Sorry for my error. There is no standard for which channel should be mid and which should be side, so the decoding strategy that works is the right one.
Thanks,
Fran
Garry Huang said in post # 46,
on April 29th, 2016 at 8:29 am
I use the MS mic for stereo hifi system recording. The MS mic sounds way better than the XY in this case. MS mic provides much better imaging. Also, the gain is higher with MS mic. MS mic 7 is equal to XY at 6.
Luis said in post # 47,
on July 15th, 2017 at 10:04 am
I have the same problem like Wallace with both capsules using the 2.10 software (left channel is louder than right). I think is maybe a problem with the software.
Luis said in post # 48,
on July 15th, 2017 at 10:48 am
Same thing with the vst ms encoder.
Luis said in post # 49,
on July 15th, 2017 at 10:51 am
If you have the same trouble and you are going to record a guitar, maybe the best solution = record in mono with the ms capsule turning off the side capsule.
Eric said in post # 50,
on July 22nd, 2018 at 7:48 am
If it’s the side mic capsule that’s noisy, then you should be able to cancel the noise by adding L+R to just hear mono. Same as with a weak VHF/FM stereo radio signal, that used a low-bandwidth ‘side’ channel.
If mono monitoring is still noisy, then the M+S ‘matrix’ circuit is noisy. But I bet it’s done digitally so the processing should be effectively noiseless.
You may be able to reduce the noise acceptably by reducing the stereo width: like the 90/120 degree angle switch on some Sony ‘ECM-MSxxx’ microphones.