Topic: Has anyone tested the Edirol R4 yet?

[Genghis Cougar Mellen Khan]

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...

That is good to see... Did you have anything under it to help absorb some of the vibration (t-shirt etc.)?

[nickgregory]

That is good to see... Did you have anything under it to help absorb some of the vibration (t-shirt etc.)?

it was in its portabrace bag, in my moutainsmith bag...I think that the portabrace may have helped to absorb some of the vibration due to the fact that in that bag, the unit didint actually touch the ground...

[wbrisette]

I'd like to take this nifty looking gadget into the field: <insert picture of Cantar here...>

I keep trying to figure out what everybody's fascination is with the Cantar. It's a wonderful looking piece of gear, but have you seen the interface? bleech! Way too complicated. I talking with some engineers who have used it, they all say the same thing. It's a great piece of gear, but it takes a while to get use to the way it works. That's not how it's suppose to be. A piece of gear should be intuitive and it should work for you, not the other way around.

Wayne

[Genghis Cougar Mellen Khan]

I'd like to take this nifty looking gadget into the field: <insert picture of Cantar here...>

I keep trying to figure out what everybody's fascination is with the Cantar. It's a wonderful looking piece of gear, but have you seen the interface? bleech! Way too complicated. I talking with some engineers who have used it, they all say the same thing. It's a great piece of gear, but it takes a while to get use to the way it works. That's not how it's suppose to be. A piece of gear should be intuitive and it should work for you, not the other way around.

Wayne

It's far too complicated for anything I'd need, just look at it. I'd look at it like a trophy wife, not a useful piece of gear.

I'd probably be a happier man if I woke up in the morning to that thing looking right back at me.

[wbrisette]

you figured it out, it looks cool.  amazingly cool.  so what if it's brutal to learn how to run, 99.9 of us won't ever get one. i think it's hypothetical... i'm sure the deva is a nice high end portable, but this thing is way sexier...

Ah yes, we're always back to the sex factor aren't we? Well, I won't give up my color touch screen for 'nuthin' ...

While Cantar has it in the "Way Cool" Sexy on the outside, I think the Deva has it in the Sexy Color Touch Screen 'eye candy'... And as anybody on this list who has seen it can tell you, you certainly can't miss it at a show. Looks like a friggin' Christmas tree. 

Wayne

[wbrisette]

don't get me wrong, that deva looks great, and i'm sure it sounds better, but the cantar looks like it belongs in star trek. 

Soundwise they both are awesome (you reach the point to diminishing returns at a certain point and both of these units are at that point). But I don't think the Star Trek look is worth an additional $5K.

Wayne

[fozzy]

It's funny when wayne sets up the DEVA even the FOH engineers have to come and check it out. 

[Rick]

It's funny when wayne sets up the DEVA even the FOH engineers have to come and check it out. 

After they will come over to me and check out my 722  .. well maybe not 

[Todd R]

I guess I'll speak up as one more voice in the wilderness to say that resampling isn't all that bad.  Not ideal, but not as evil as it is made out to be.  It seems everytime re-sampling is brought up, it is compared to ATRAC (MD) or MP3 compression.  It is not nearly that bad IME.  Just like when the JB3 came out and there was some discussion about whether it was bit perfect and lots of folks said you might as well get a MD if it wasn't bit perfect.  Screwing up 10 or 12 samples out of a billion is really not that big of a deal -- probably never audible to anyone and certainly not in the same ballpark as ATRAC compression.  Again, not ideal, but as atrocious as it was made out to be.

It's odd to me that so many people will absolutely go nuts if something re-samples, but then will swear up and down that you are better off running a computer-based high-pass filter in post-production rather than using the bass rolloff options on your V3 while recording.  The computer high-pass filter is re-doing every sample.  Why is that perfectly ok (and strongly advocated for), while resampling is cursed as the bane of taping?  Personally, I really shy away from doing any post processing other than adding fades at the beginning and end, including avoiding normalization (which changes every sample, so it is not very different from re-sampling).  But sometimes if my levels are really quite a bit lower than I want, I will normalize.  I don't even find this that important to list in my text files, yet I really don't find it any less destructive than resampling.

It is also worth noting that all the high end digital upsampling DACs used in playback are resampling devices.  The "jitter-reducers" that folks put between their digital playback sources and high end DACs in particular are nothing more than resampling devices.  I used to use one of these in my playback system and many people still do -- and they pay high dollar for them.

This isn't meant as an attack on Nick or anyone in particular.  But it really seems to me that folks need to put the re-sampling in perspective.  Re-sampling as part of cloning and trading that happens again and again should certainly be avoided.  But a one-time resampling during the recording process, while not ideal, is not as bad as ATRAC or mp3.  IME it is more like deciding to normalize in post to boost your levels.

All that said, I can't at this point justify getting either a 722 or a 744 since I love my V3 and am not ready to part with it, nor to spend that much more on a digital capture device.  But if the R4 is any good, at the price it will sell for and since it can also do 4-channel, it does pique my interest a bit, resampling or not.  

[nickgregory]

agree with your point Todd....I dont do anything to shows either (other than cut and fade) for the same reason that I want to avoid resampling.  But I have no doubt that you are right that I probably could not hear the difference between a resampled source vs. a sampled source, but since I feel that losing anything in principle is bad, I try to avoid it...

[MattD]

Todd, just to throw a counterpoint in, any resampling or A/D conversion that is done is only worth the clock you're using. If Edirol managed to stick a Big Ben in there as a master clock, I'd bet it'd sound better than the current resampling scheme (whatever it is ... black box method).

However, in field recording, I don't know if we'd ever hear that difference. I will personally be open to the idea that it's inaudible so long as I haven't done the comparison myself, or know someone who's ears I trust who has.

On to the 722, I'd say the price difference between it and the R4 is quantifiably justified. I don't think that's the point of this thread, so I'll leave it at that.

[Todd R]

Matt -- totally agree that resampling quality depends on how it is accomplished, and I'm sure the edirol products are no Big Bens.  Still, just trying to make the point that re-sampling isn't necessarily as evil as it is portrayed.

Also, I'm not trying to say the 722 isn't worth it, just isn't worth it to me.  I'm not intending on getting rid of my V3, so the 722 doesn't seem worth it just to capture bits.  Not to mention that I'm pretty convinced that at this point in my life, I'm too lazy to do 24 bit.  3 vehicles with CD players, and 4 home stereos.  I may convert one home stereo to do 24/96, but for all the other I'd have to make 16/44 CDs in addition to the 24/96 DVDs, and I'm not ready for that extra step. 

So the R4 is more comparable to a 744 for me -- it would allow 4 mic matrixes, sbd+aud matrixes, and separate aud 2-channel and sbd 2-channel.  And I could run ANSR 24>16 bit out of the V3 to a JB3 and then run analog in to the R4 to do 24/96 and to do matrixes.  So it adds alot of flexibility for not too much money.  Anyway, not to say I'm going for it, but it is interesting to consider.

[Nick's Picks]

resampling...dont scare me none.
for the cheap money this thing is going to run...what the hell.
I like it, personaly.  The R4 will be in a lot of .txt files.  Especialy if Doug can work his upgrade
tweaks in there.  T mod on one pair, W on the other.  ;-)


or, imagine ST-250 B format into this.  Its the only thing under a nagra that would work.  Cheapest surround rig I can think of.