Topic: Has anyone tested the Edirol R4 yet?

[timP]

just wondering...... i know there was some chatter hear when it was first announced
for ~1500 it might not be to bad a deal.... if it has a pre/AD as nice as a UA5...

http://www.edirol.com/products/info/r4.html

[Ed.]

is it out yet?

[Teen Age Riot]

My parents used to drive a Renault R4 back in the 70's....



Sorry, couldn't resist... 

[nickgregory]

I didnt think it was shipping yet

[timP]

 saw them for sale online             and didn't know they were not being shipped yet.....


guess that would keep you from being able to test it out

[Genghis Cougar Mellen Khan]

My parents used to drive a Renault R4 back in the 70's....



Sorry, couldn't resist... 

  thanks for the laugh

[Diggin]

interesting product, not big on the looks of it though

[John Kelly]

It started shipping late last week.  I'd hope the pres are bit better than the UA5, considering the price.

[Sanjay]

Looks like a nice alternative to the SD 744, at quite a bit less than cost, in a few years these things will be alot cheaper hopefully.

[John Kelly]

Looks like a nice alternative to the SD 744, at quite a bit less than cost, in a few years these things will be alot cheaper hopefully.

And if it had a bit perfect digital input I'd be all over it.  Although I am trying to decide if I really care or not that it resamples.

[Sanjay]

Looks like a nice alternative to the SD 744, at quite a bit less than cost, in a few years these things will be alot cheaper hopefully.

And if it had a bit perfect digital input I'd be all over it.  Although I am trying to decide if I really care or not that it resamples.

What if you just ran straight xlr in? and bypassed the V3 would it resample?

[Brian Skalinder]

What if you just ran straight xlr in? and bypassed the V3 would it resample?

In that case you're feeding it an analog signal and the R4 performs the ADC internally, so...no resampling.  Only if fed a digital signal from an outboard ADC will the R4 resample.  At least that's my understanding.

[John Kelly]

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.

[Rick]

Of course then you'd have to worry about how the preamp sounded.

Yes, P, T and, W mods need to be done 

[krebsy]

OK , I can't decipher those signal flow diagrams for squat, but are the xlr pairs running separately in the preamp stage on this thing?  In other words channels 1,2 thru one analog circuit, and channels 3,4 thru a seperate analog circuit.  Just imagine it, T-mod on chan. 1,2 and W-mod on chan. 3,4!!  I doubt it works like that, but it sure would be sweet!!   

http://edirol.com/products/info/r4/brochure.pdf

[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...

[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.