Review: Zoom F4

COMPARED TO THE F8

Considering that the F4 was conceived as a scaled-down version of the F8 for those who didn’t need eight inputs and wanted to pay less, it’s worth looking at what’s been taken out to bring the F4’s price down. It’s also worth looking at what’s been added, either as new ideas from Zoom’s engineers or in response to user feedback on the F8.

First of all, and most obviously, the F4 has four less mic/line inputs. This has saved considerable space on the front panel, allowing for larger gain knobs and a row of four keys across the top — three of which save significant time in the menu system. The ‘Option’ key offers access to built-in shortcuts such as TC Jam, Trim Link and Clear Clip. The ‘Output’ key offers quick adjustment of the Main and Sub output levels. The ‘Input 5/6’ key provides access to the menu settings for inputs five and six — essentially determining if they will be recording from one of Zoom’s modular mic capsules attached to the rear panel, or monitoring from the Camera Return socket on the right side panel. The fourth key replaces the F8’s Slate Tone toggle switch, moving it to the right side of the front panel and leaving more finger room around the Menu key and navigation dial. Note that, unlike the F8, the F4 does not include a built-in slate microphone.

Four less mic/line inputs also means four less female XLR sockets, saving considerable space on the right side panel. This allows the F4’s Main Outs to use a pair of industry-standard male XLRs, rather than the F8’s TA3 connectors and their required adaptor cables. I think this is a good thing, but other location professionals might disagree. The USB socket and Hirose power connector have also been moved to the right side panel.

Surprisingly, the F4 includes the same timecode capabilities and BNC connectors as the F8. Competing brands often make timecode an optional extra, or make a more expensive ‘timecode version’ of their field recorders. I had assumed timecode would’ve been one of the first things to go to bring the price down, but that’s not the case.

Similarly, it’s worth pointing out that the F4 retains the two SD card slots found in the F8. In an interesting departure, however, the F4’s SD card slots are on the rear, immediately above the battery compartment and behind the hinged metal door that secures the battery pack in place. This is another clever move that simplifies the F4’s machining and therefore brings the cost down. The F8’s side-mounted SD card slots –—with their oh-so-cool magnetic-latching covers — were certainly more convenient to access, but added complexity to the machining and therefore to the overall cost. They are also possibly the F8’s only weak points, and look as though they could be easily broken off. I would not be surprised to see the F4’s simplified rear-mounted SD card slots appear in the F8’s successor.

A welcome addition to the F4 is the Camera Return socket, sorely missing on the F8 and a source of regular criticism. On a shoot it is common for the sound engineer to send a mix to the camera, freeing the camera operator from audio duties and saving a lot of synchronising work later. To ensure the mix is not overloading the camera inputs or having other problems (e.g. faulty or disconnected cable), the sound engineer takes a signal back from the camera’s audio output to monitor what is being recorded on the camera. Having a dedicated stereo input to accept this signal back from the camera frees up valuable inputs, while the Input 5/6 key makes it fast and easy to monitor when required.

Unlike the F8, the F4 does not include a separate input socket for the AC adaptor. Instead, the supplied AD-19 AC adaptor (the same one used by the F8) is provided with a clip-on Hirose connector. This is an ingenious move that simplifies the machining and cost of the F4, and frees up panel space. Zoom’s promotional material mentions three powering methods, but there are really only two: internal batteries, or external DC via the Hirose socket. Whether that external DC comes from an AC adaptor or an external battery pack is irrelevant because both come in through the same connection point.

The F4 is the same form factor and dimensions as the F8, give or take a millimetre here and there. It’s about 70 grams heavier though — despite losing two XLR sockets, four input circuits, four data encoders, two TA3 sockets, and the input socket for the AC adaptor. I doubt that the Camera Return circuitry and extra three switches on the front panel count for much in the weight department. It feels just as rugged as the F8, perhaps more, so I’m guessing the excess weight is due to using lower-cost construction materials that offer the same strength as those in the F8 but at greater weight. I have a hunch that these alternative materials might also explain the F4’s bulkier retro styling. I prefer the cleaner contemporary look of the F8, but that’s a minor niggle.

Assuming you’re happy with only four XLR mic/line inputs, all the differences above can be appreciated for their cleverness and, in many cases, are advantages over the F8. There are only two negatives that I can think of. Firstly, unlike the F8, the F4 does not have Bluetooth functionality so cannot be controlled remotely via an iOS device — a wonderful feature on the F8. Zoom is encouraging users to buy the FRC-8 control surface for this purpose, of course. Secondly, after a year or so of using the F8’s full colour 320 x 240 LCD, the F4’s monochrome 128 x 64 LCD looks absolutely primitive. No doubt this is one of the major cost savings in the F4, and helps to price it appropriately between the F8 and the H6. At least it suits the retro aesthetic…

IN THE FIELD

Field recorders should be tested in the field, of course, to ensure they can withstand all the constant travelling, rough handling, temperature extremes, wind, dust and humidity that field gear is exposed to. The review unit arrived just before I was due to embark on a three-week expedition through Myanmar. Australia’s Zoom importer suggested I take the F4 with me and give it a proper field test, something I was more than happy to do.

Pelican cases and their attention-grabbing ilk are not allowed on my expeditions, so the F4 travelled in a fabric shoulder bag purchased from a street vendor in Kathmandu many years ago — the same bag that my Nagra 7 and Zoom F8 have travelled in before. It flew in the cargo hold from Sydney to Bangkok, Bangkok to Mandalay, and Yangon back to Bangkok. It travelled overland from Mandalay to Yangon on a combination of trucks, motorbikes, boats and trains, all the time tucked into that shoulder bag and stuffed inside my backpack or daypack. It powered up correctly every time, and there were no dislodged battery packs, no missing knobs or buttons buried somewhere in the baggage, no damaged sockets, no flattened batteries from accidental power-ups, no ‘unseen’ SD cards and no mysteriously corrupted files. Very reassuring.

My expedition team made a number of recordings with the F4, including some outdoors in very hot, dusty and sun-drenched environments, and all under tight time constraints. The F4 consistently operated as it should, with no head-scratching moments or causes for alarm. One of my expedition team members assumed the role of official F4 operator and had no problems operating the machine through that low-resolution monochrome display, indoors and out, despite being legally blind. And there I was complaining about it…

SOUND QUALITY

The F4 uses the same audio circuitry as the F8, so for comments on sound quality I’ll refer back to my earlier review where I compared the F8 as a field recorder against the Sound Devices 702t and the Nagra 7, and as a USB interface against Apogee’s Quartet. I have reproduced the most important part of the sound judgement here, which I still agree with:

“Subjectively, it sounds marginally brighter than the more expensive Nagra 7 and Sound Devices 702t, but that brightness manifests as a subtle sheen that provides an enhanced sense of clarity without any suggestion of harshness or brittleness. I did not find it tiring or fatiguing. At the same time, the F8 does not have quite the same fullness in the lower midrange as either of the other machines. The end result is an ever-so-slightly ‘lighter’ sonic presentation. I must stress that these differences are very subtle and should be considered more as a characteristic tonality of the F8 rather than a criticism.”

It’s worth bearing in mind that the Sound Devices 702t and the Nagra 7 both cost considerably more than the F8 and F4, and both offer only two tracks of recording capability.

You can read the F8 review on AudioTechnology’s website here. The review includes links to the magazine’s Soundcloud page, where comparison recordings can be heard between the F8, the Sound Devices 702t, the Nagra 7 and the Apogee Quartet.

CONCLUSION

So where does the F4 sit in Zoom’s product range? With its superior preamps, numerous professional in/outs, timecode functionality and over-the-shoulder form factor, it clearly differentiates itself from the handheld H6; I doubt anyone would be stuck choosing between those two based on the application.

Things are not so clear when it comes to the F8. The F4 is a later generation machine offering the same sound quality and timecode functionality, but with more useful and/or helpful features. It only has four preamps, but adding Zoom’s EXH-6 to the rear panel connector would provide another two, albeit at the lower quality of the H series. It’s an interesting conundrum. I’m a big fan of the F8 so it pains me to say this, but unless you absolutely need seven or eight preamps the F4 might be a better option — provided you don’t mind the retro styling and the low-res monochrome display.

In my review of the F8 I called it a game changer, and stated that anything costing more than twice its price was going to be a hard sell. The same logic applies even more to the F4. The F8 was the game changer, but the F4 is the one that will go gangbusters.