Topic: Has anyone tested the Edirol R4 yet?

[John Kelly]

I'm sure Doug would know.   That would be pretty cool, but I'm guessing pretty expensive.

[Genghis Cougar Mellen Khan]

Yeah, resampling only occurs over a digital signal.  So if you were to just use the R4 with no external A/D you wouldn't have to worry about it.  Of course then you'd have to worry about how the preamp sounded.

And it's only $2000.00 less than the SD recorder. Everyone in here makes resampling sound like some horrible thing, I can't see spending $2000 more on a recording device ($3500 vs. $1500?) if I'm throwing a digital signal to it. It resamples to utilize it's own internal clock, I'd like to see anyone listen to recording with both the 744 and R4 digi in and tell me which is which. If you're paying $2000 more for the SD pre, I'm sure you can score something better for that price. 

[nickgregory]

Everyone in here makes resampling sound like some horrible thing

It is a bad thing...we all want to maintain the lineage of the original recording...hence why we use lossless compression programs, dont like MP3s, etc.  Resampling has an effect on the signal that is not necessary, which is why it is avoided.

If you're paying $2000 more for the SD pre, I'm sure you can score something better for that price. 

First, dont be so sure...there is a reason why everyone owns different rigs, because not everyone hears things the same.  As for the $2000 more for the pre...no, I am paying the price for the 722 because (1) I want to get to a one box setup that is competitive with multi box setups and sounds fantastic to me, (2) sound devices has always been absolutely fantastic at product support and customer service to me...only Grace Designs and Oade are in that same league, (3) the box is in the field...the glitches are being fixed as identified and you can hear what it sounds like...unlike the R4, and (4) the SD box is well made, it is a metal enclosure, made for durability...though I have not seen the R4, I have heard it is plastic and as a result I have concerns over field durability.

Now this is not to say that the R4 will not be a solid box...it very well might be...or maybe another competitor will step in with a good box...oh yeah, the price for the 722 is sub $2500....and only speaking for myself, it replaced multiple boxes in my chain, and thus the cost was a wash in terms of $$ investment and the ability to get to a much smaller profile rig...but that is just me....ymmv

[wbrisette]

Everyone in here makes resampling sound like some horrible thing

It is a bad thing...we all want to maintain the lineage of the original recording...hence why we use lossless compression programs, dont like MP3s, etc.  Resampling has an effect on the signal that is not necessary, which is why it is avoided.

I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that my guess is most people won't see the resampling as an issue if it exists. Since nobody has seen one or tested one, everybody is talking out their ass. Wait until the unit proves to either resample or not, but everybody is jumping the gun.

So why don't I think most people will see it? Because I'm going to guess that most people running 4 channels are going to be using the internal A/D converters and using either multiple microphone setups, or trying to run matrix recordings in which case they are going to be using the analog, not digital inputs.

Personally, I really get tired of people bitching about preserving lineage, when the lineage includes $99.00 Chinese microphones that sound like crap, or run into some cheesy A/D that sounds like a wet blanket was tossed over the microphones.  I understand the arguments for and against resampling, so I don't need the lecture. But, let's see what the unit does or doesn't do before we go around giving the lecture.

Wayne

[nickgregory]

Personally, I really get tired of people bitching about preserving lineage, when the lineage includes $99.00 Chinese microphones that sound like crap, or run into some cheesy A/D that sounds like a wet blanket was tossed over the microphones. I understand the arguments for and against resampling, so I don't need the lecture. But, let's see what the unit does or doesn't do before we go around giving the lecture.

as I dont run "$99.00 Chinese microphones" or "some cheesy A/D that sounds like a wet blanket was tossed over the microphones" I will assume that this was not directed at me.

I was merely making the comment as to my opinion that resampling is a bad thing...no where did I imply that the R4 does resample...just responding to the thread.

As for the 4 channel argument, I agree with you..for those that are going to run matrix recordings in the field...that being said, I would venture to say that is the case for the minority of the potential R4 consumers on this forum, who for the most part, I would guess, want a 2 channel Hard Drive 24bit capable recording..which is why the conversation is relevant.

as with everything else, this is my opinion...and ymmv

[wbrisette]

as I dont run "$99.00 Chinese microphones" or "some cheesy A/D that sounds like a wet blanket was tossed over the microphones" I will assume that this was not directed at me.

Nope, not at you, just how I see a lot of these threads going... didn't mean to point the finger at you directly.

However, since this thread is talking about the R4, and everybody is jumping on the resampling aready without seeing it, then I think we're all guilty.

Wayne

[nickgregory]

However, since this thread is talking about the R4, and everybody is jumping on the resampling aready without seeing it, then I think we're all guilty.

dont disagree....though I do think that the fact that Edirol has a track record of making products that do resample opens up the discussion, but your right, until it is proven to actually do so...it is a pretty pointless discussion

[John Kelly]

However, since this thread is talking about the R4, and everybody is jumping on the resampling aready without seeing it, then I think we're all guilty.

dont disagree....though I do think that the fact that Edirol has a track record of making products that do resample opens up the discussion, but your right, until it is proven to actually do so...it is a pretty pointless discussion

Edirol has never made a bit perfect digital input on any of their products, and someone already looked at the path the digital signal has to take in the R4 and said there was no way it didn't resample.  I'd be willing to bet money that it does.

[wbrisette]

Edirol has never made a bit perfect digital input on any of their products, and someone already looked at the path the digital signal has to take in the R4 and said there was no way it didn't resample.  I'd be willing to bet money that it does.

Has Edirol already made the schematics available? I haven't seen them... Has our Southern friend taken one apart yet? (that's really how we find out what's what)...  There's always a first, but again we're all speculating. I'm trying to keep an open mind about the product. Heck I want to see this unit have the great stuff at a price point that is affordable. That's the way we get better gear and better tapes out for folks to listen to...

Wayne

[nickgregory]

That's the way we get better gear and better tapes out for folks to listen to...

this would absolutely be a good thing...

[John Kelly]

Edirol has never made a bit perfect digital input on any of their products, and someone already looked at the path the digital signal has to take in the R4 and said there was no way it didn't resample.  I'd be willing to bet money that it does.

Has Edirol already made the schematics available? I haven't seen them... Has our Southern friend taken one apart yet? (that's really how we find out what's what)...  There's always a first, but again we're all speculating. I'm trying to keep an open mind about the product. Heck I want to see this unit have the great stuff at a price point that is affordable. That's the way we get better gear and better tapes out for folks to listen to...

Wayne

Yep.  There was a thread about it earlier, but I have no idea where it is now.  

[Genghis Cougar Mellen Khan]

As for the 4 channel argument, I agree with you..for those that are going to run matrix recordings in the field...that being said, I would venture to say that is the case for the minority of the potential R4 consumers on this forum, who for the most part, I would guess, want a 2 channel Hard Drive 24bit capable recording..which is why the conversation is relevant.

as with everything else, this is my opinion...and ymmv

I thought the entire point of the thread was the R4, which is a 4 channel recorder. I must be in the minority then, if I was looking at 2 channel recorders, I'd be comparing th R1 and the 722, I really don't see the point in comparing the R4 and the 722, apples and oranges. I do have to say I'm impressed at the durability/construction of the SD products, but I don't plan on taping with a stand in a mosh pit any time soon.

As for resampling, I'd still say (IN MY OPINION) people tend to give it too much weight, simply write something off due to th fact that some resampling may be involved and not looking into the quality or methods of the resampling. If thy jammed an old soundblaster card in the unit to perform resampling, I could see it being a large hang-up, I'm doubting that will be the case.

I might be happier owning a nifty 744 as opposed to the R4, but for my hobby budget, I can't see me spending an extra $2000 more for what I'd gain. I could buy 2 R4's for the price of one 744, and have $500 left in my pocket.

[nickgregory]

I thought the entire point of the thread was the R4, which is a 4 channel recorder.

fair enough..I would venture to say that the majority of those discussing this on this thread however will not use it for 4 channel, which was the point I was driving to...but assuming you are going to use it for 4 channel, your cost comparison is dead on.

I will leave the resampling alone...we can agree to disagree on that one...

as for taping in a mosh pit....I try not to...though I have at times....but taking gear in the field just comes with a risk associated, regardless of type of show (well except for maybe Moke's symphonies and choirs)....as a result, the build is important to me...

[Genghis Cougar Mellen Khan]

I thought the entire point of the thread was the R4, which is a 4 channel recorder.

fair enough..I would venture to say that the majority of those discussing this on this thread however will not use it for 4 channel, which was the point I was driving to...but assuming you are going to use it for 4 channel, your cost comparison is dead on.

I will leave the resampling alone...we can agree to disagree on that one...

as for taping in a mosh pit....I try not to...though I have at times....but taking gear in the field just comes with a risk associated, regardless of type of show (well except for maybe Moke's symphonies and choirs)....as a result, the build is important to me...

I don't disagree that I'd rather have something that doesn't resample, where I think we may disagree is the significance or severity of degredation of the signal... lineage. Some units do a very good job resampling with a very negligable change to the original sound, without comparing the 1's and 0's I doubt even the most discerning ear could tell the difference, I'm sure some are a bit more crude. Unless someone crushed my pelican case, I'll be ok in heavy traffic with something like the R4, I'd think the vibration would be a negitive for either unit anyway.

If I see someone running a 744, I'll most likely ask them if I can take a closer look at it, perhaps even touch it... 

I'd give you a +T for caring enough to front the cash for better gear, but I can't do that yet I guess...

I'd like to take this nifty looking gadget into the field:

[nickgregory]

on the vibration issue, I actually ran a friends 722 in the field at a big head todd show and everyone around us was dancing, with the unit in a bag on the floor...floor was deifnitely shaking and the unit didnt skip a beat...I was pretty happy to see that...