Home > Consumer Reviews > Zoom H2 Handy Portable Stereo Recorder

A year ago, I wrote a lengthy comparison of the Edirol R-09 WAVE/MP3 Recorder, Black and the Zoom H4 Handy Recorder + 2GB Accessory Kit (pre-accessory kit). I wanted a high quality, easy to use recorder, so even though the H4 had all of the features of the Edirol and sold for considerably less, I kept the Edirol because it was so much easier to use.

Zoom has responded with the H2, a scaled down version of the H4 with all of the features of the R-09 and all of the controls right where you need them. The H2 even has additional features over the R-09, but they don't get in the way. For example, there's a choice of a 90 degree recording pattern, a 120 degree recording pattern, and even a surround sound option. Samsontech has some nice video demonstrations on its website.

One big complaint I've had with the Edirol is the cost of its add-on stand. Unlike the Edirol, the H2 comes with a simple stand. In addition, the H2 has a threaded hole so that it can be mounted on a standard digital camera tripod! On a separate note, it's much easier to replace batteries with the H2 than the Edirol.

Recently, I got together with friends and recorded the same live acoustic music on both the Edirol R-09 and the Zoom H2. I used Adobe Audition only to normalize both tracks (that is, equalize their loudness). The first time we played them back, I thought I detected a VERY slight preference for the Edirol, with the overall opinion of the group split between the two units. The second time we played them back, my preference was for the H2, with overall opinion continuing to be split. We all agreed that the differences were so small as to be negligible if there were any at all. The sound files can be found at [...] for those who'd like to hear for themselves. We were sitting in a circle with the recorders located next to each other on a mantle above and outside the group.

I do prefer the Edirol's control buttons to the H2's membrane and I'm not about to sell the Edirol, perhaps because I am more familiar with the Edirol and don't want to give it up just yet. Also, the Edirol R-09 is the darling of the moment. However, if I owned neither, I couldn't justify the huge bump in price of the Edirol over the H2 and would opt for the H2. When I went to a music party last weekend and knew I'd need only one recorder, I grabbed the H2.

I borrowed a Zoom H4 from a friend and found it extremely frustrating to use. The owners manual was just gibberish to me. I could not make heads or tails of the instructions. It was a totally frustrating experience and I was ready to give up on making a CD, and ready to go back to making old fashioned cassette tape recordings.

I took a chance on the Zoom H2 and am not sorry. All the head aches of the H4 have been addressed with the H2. This machine is much easier to use. I'm using it to record live string music and it does a wonderful job. Sounds great! I'm not an egg head geek or a computer expert nor am I a professional sound recording engineer, and I am very comfortable using this machine.

Zoom must have listened to everything people were complaining about the H4 when they designed the H2.

I've had my H2 since September, and used it in a variety of professional broadcast situations, with mixed success. The recorder worked well when recording from a line level or mult box feed at mic level. I loved flipping out the card and putting it into my laptop's SD slot to get the files in quickly for edits.

Hoever, given that the recorder's construction precludes using it handheld (too much noise transmitted from handling) it is a definite negative that a standard broadcast field mic like an EV 635A does not deliver enough signal to overcome the poor mic preamp built in.

The built-in mic does work quite well (in the right setting) and is excellent for simple voice track tasks recording in a very quiet place. Be sure to use the included pop filter to prevent "P-popping."

I haven't tried it for face-to-face interview yet, using two of the built in mics, but I'm guessing it would be OK.

The Marantz 620 is being evaluated here and seems to be able to overcome a few of the H2's handicaps at a not-too-much-higher price.

Certainly for low-cost voice recording for amateurs or even limited professional use like mine, this is a very cost-effective tool.

Like another reviewer, I found the earlier H4 buggy and difficult to use because of the poor interface. I also went through three of them and they all had defects. The H2 has a much improved interface and it's a great little recorder at its price point. The built-in mics are surprisingly good and the bottom line is--the H2 recordings sound very good. At the low and mid-gain levels, the noise floor is acceptable for voice and music recordings. At high gain, background noise starts to become intrusive. I used several external self-powered mics with no problem and got a good signal with a simple XLR>1/8" stereo cable.

The built-in functions like the limiter, compressor, MP3 converter, normalizer, etc-- are fairly primitive and you're much better off doing any post work in your audio software. The ability to choose from two different configurations of stereo mics and a surround configuration of all 4 mics is more useful than I would have thought and gives some nice options for tailoring the sound of your recordings. There are already some audio plugins that people have written to allow the conversion of 4 channels into the files required for making 5.1 surround recordings.

The build quality is fine, and although the construction is mostly plastic, the unit wasn't creaky or flimsy. There is a metal inset tripod socket for mounting the H2 to a stand instead of the crappy add-on mount for the H4. Also unlike the H4, the H2 uses BWF (broadcast wave format) for it's WAV files and the recordings are stamped with the date and time--which is a major improvement for file management.

Pros: Very good quality recordings, good interface, low cost, versatility

Cons: Noise floor may be a problem for very quiet recordings at high gain, primitive on-board processing

Important Note: the H2 recording level should never be set below 100 because it will clip the signal after it's converted from analog to digital (potentially causing distortion). It's best to just use the gain switch to set your levels. Raising the levels above 100 is fine, but is the same as adding gain in audio software after recording. I recommend recording at 24 bits at either the low or mid gain levels for the best recordings. Avoid clipping during recording and raise the gain or normalize as necessary in your audio software.

This is a stereo digital recorder that in hands more capable than mine could produce quite-nearly professional level recordings.

I bought this a few weeks ago for interview and to create rich media projects for my work as a reporter. I found that when you take the time to be careful with it, and can do some clean up in post-production, this mic/recorder combo will rival systems costing thousands more. Yes, it's built in mics are *that* good. And it's an all-in-one solution to field recording. The basic design premise is quite clever, actually.

Choices for recording are broad, ranging from 44.1, 48 and 96khz/ 16/24 bit WAV files to various quality Mp3s. 5.1 Surround sound, if you want. Some built in limiters and three gain settings. And you can adjust the recording level in all modes. You can split tracks anywhere you want, normalize and more. Menu navigation is passable. Screen is adequate.

I recorded a live show with it, using a preset limiter for concert to keep the top end from clipping (I had to set and forget, couldn't adjust for how loud the show was) and the end product after tweaking it a bit in Audcacity was STUNNING.

No place for XLR mic inputs, so no phantom power whatsoever. It will accept and power 1/8" mini jack external mics. Handles my 4Gig SD card well, and I hear rumors that it'll handle 8gig cards as well. USB transfer is SLOW, so invest in a card reader.

Overall, I'm a bit concerned that I'll break it, it's made so poorly. The switches are flimsy plastic and seem as though they'll break if you look at them wrong. The plastic body seems like it'll shatter. 1/4" 20 tripod socket is more than just handy, but it's plastic too, instead of threaded metal. I would definitely prefer for a more robust body and would pay for it too.

The first thing to break on this thing will be the ultra-cheap battery door latch hooks which are .5mm thick, just waiting to be broken. I'll have use gaff tape to deal with that inevitability.

Note to Samson/Zoom: if the build quality were better all round, I'd bay $300 for it. Overall, this is a technical gem, fabulous value, but made of egg shells. Too bad such a machine will be broken due to a six-and-a-half-cent switch giving out. Samson could have done better.