Topic: R4 in my hands...

[Nick's Picks]

Just showed up today..I didn't even know to expect it.  Edirol told me they'd send one for me to beat on, looks like it arrived.

I"m looking around for my flashcard to take some pics for you.

first off:
- its BIG.  About HHB portodat big, maybe taller.  FR2 big any way.  Same footprint.
- Light as a feather!
- takes AA batteries, and I bet todays 2000+mAh cells will power it at least 2 hours..but otherwise its 9.6v DC.  RC packs and old Edirol barrell size are still good w/this.
- 4 XLR inputs.  I dont think the 744 has that.  Phantom is supplied in pairs.  You can run 4 mono or two stereo (or just a single stereo pair)  two rigs into this one box !!  nice for testing. 
- probably same ol' mic preamps from the FA-101 / UA5, i'd guess.  but we'll see.  Thats not so bad if thats the case.
- its plastic.  A little more fragile feeling than i'd like.  more knobs and things to break than an FR2, but its about the same feel.
- all I/O options are on the sides, including usb and battery.  all analog on one side, all digi on another
- comes w/a nice little pack with velcro side access for all the jacks.

is this thing really only going to cost $1500 ?
wow.  I'd say they will sell A LOT of these.
definatly not as nice looking as the SD boxes.  Build quality is far from road-warrior robust, but its pretty slick still.
its standard Edirol Fare from what I can tell.  High value.  EAsy to tweak.  This box has cool options about it though.  ST-250 B format directly into this !!  that would be slicker than shit.  Cheapest surround setup I can think of, sans post processing software costs.

[timP]

finally somebody has one!

run it hard and let us know what it osunds like

[Nick's Picks]

pics...
but you can find better ones on edirols www site

[bhtoque]

I can help ya field test it if you want Nick.

JAson

[krebsy]

Niiiice!  Can't wait to hear some taper feedback.  +T's in advance!

[creekfreak]

very cool...look forward to hearing the feedback on it.

[John Kelly]

is this thing really only going to cost $1500 ?
wow.  I'd say they will sell A LOT of these.

I found a place online that was selling them for around $1350.

[silentmark]

These do resample through the digi in though, correct ?

[Nick's Picks]

yes.  stated in the manual specificaly.."will not lock on to external clock", and no matter what digital signal you feed it, it will clock it according to the settings on the R4 itself. 

also, it appears to only be able to handle 2gb files, yet it doesnt mention what happens when you get there (other than a light coming on).  No auto stop/start is mentioned.  I'm looking into this as my priority question for Edirol.  Waiting for a reply.
-EDIT-
found it in the manual.  it makes new seamless files.  all 2gb in size.  just like any other recorder I suppose. 

It has a pre-record buffer function, which is really sweet.  9 seconds at 24/96 stereo.  24 or so with 16bit.

the more I play with this, the more I like it.
we'll see how it sounds come soon.
Panic on 4-12 , a couple other new england shows after that.

one thing, not a stealthable deck.
;-)

[Rick]

also, it appears to only be able to handle 2gb files, yet it doesnt mention what happens when you get there (other than a light coming on).  No auto stop/start is mentioned.  I'm looking into this as my priority question for Edirol.  Waiting for a reply.

That's not good

[Nick's Picks]

found it in the manual.  it makes new seamless files.  all 2gb in size.  just like any other recorder I suppose. 

[nickgregory]

found it in the manual. it makes new seamless files. all 2gb in size. just like any other recorder I suppose.

that is probably why the buffer is there as well...allows it to do the switch from one file to the next

[Ed.]

so...
the r4 isn't bit accurate
the 671 only does 24/48 digitally
the r1 only does does 24/44.1 and only has analog in
PDAudio means you get to deal with core sounds
and the 722 is pricey

so far, i'm finding 24 bit recording to be a headache. (but i can't wait to upgrade)

[John Kelly]

so...
the r4 isn't bit accurate
the 671 only does 24/48 digitally
the r1 only does does 24/44.1 and only has analog in
PDAudio means you get to deal with core sounds
and the 722 is pricey

so far, i'm finding 24 bit recording to be a headache. (but i can't wait to upgrade)

Looks like the gist of it right now.

[pfife]

Is the analog inputs only on the R-1 really that big of a disadvantage?  Don't many people run 24bit using edirol a/ds?  Why would the R-1 be any worse than a UA-5?  (Granted, a modded UA-5 may not be a V3, but still...)

I realize that V3 owners can see this as a downgrade, but for many others, it seems its a distinct upgrade.  Unless I am missing something.

[John Kelly]

Is the analog inputs only on the R-1 really that big of a disadvantage?  Don't many people run 24bit using edirol a/ds?  Why would the R-1 be any worse than a UA-5?  (Granted, a modded UA-5 may not be a V3, but still...)

I realize that V3 owners can see this as a downgrade, but for many others, it seems its a distinct upgrade.  Unless I am missing something.

Maybe, but then with the R1 you're also limited to 24/44.1. 

[Ed.]

i think the R1 is probably a stealthers dream.  if i stealthed primarily, i'd be all over it.

[pfife]

I'm under the impression that a jump from 44.1 -> 48 isn't entirely noticable (within 16-bit);  But the jump from 16bit - 24bit is extremely noticable (I've heard that one myself!)... Don't know about 44.1 -> 96;  Anywas, for a lot of people running a UA-5 to a NJB3, and many run at 44.1, this still seems like it would be a nice upgrade.   I personally have been hesitant b/c of having to purchase CF cards...


Guess its all relative

[Ed.]

to a taper with a picky ear, i think they'd notice the upgrades...at least 16/44.1 > 24/96 but the first time i heard the difference, i have to admit i was a little disappointed.  its still there tho.

you raise a good point tho for the ua-5>jb3 users.  but the ua-5 is still more versatile too.

[JackoRoses]

I'm under the impression that a jump from 44.1 -> 48 isn't entirely noticable (within 16-bit);  But the jump from 16bit - 24bit is extremely noticable (I've heard that one myself!)... Don't know about 44.1 -> 96;  Anywas, for a lot of people running a UA-5 to a NJB3, and many run at 44.1, this still seems like it would be a nice upgrade.   I personally have been hesitant b/c of having to purchase CF cards...


Guess its all relative

I was reading last night about sampling resampling since I am not really familiar with the theories etc.
Some of what I was reading was how a lot of engineers would rather record at 44.1 then any other sampling
to prevent resampling down when mastering a cd. If they are going to put it on cd then they go with 44.1
regardless, if it is going on a dvd then they may do 96.
From what I read and if I read it right, they stay away from 48 due to the math.
It all is really interesting stuff and I am still reading through the digital sample theory and nyquists theory
which I have always heard alot about but never really understood.
Basically what I have grasped so far is, some engineers prefer recording at 24/44.1(82) then 24/48/96
and or they would go 16/44.1(82)
Personally I think there is a slight difference between going 44.1 >48 yet not very much and
it does not work in cd players. So while I am recording 16 bit I might just start doing all my pulls in 44.1 to
prevent a resample from 48 > 44

[pfife]

I just wonder if the difference was more because of the jump from 16 -> 24, or from 44.1 -> 96, or bof.  My suspicion is that its 16-24, cause I've heard that one with my own ears... If that's the case, then I think the R-1 would be sick!!!

[JackoRoses]

I just wonder if the difference was more because of the jump from 16 -> 24, or from 44.1 -> 96, or bof.  My suspicion is that its 16-24, cause I've heard that one with my own ears... If that's the case, then I think the R-1 would be sick!!!

Yes there is more of a noticeable differnce going 16/44 to 24/44
much better staging to my ears. Fuller sounds
44>48 sample rates is negligble and not noticeable to an ear that knows no different.

[Scooter]

I'm under the impression that a jump from 44.1 -> 48 isn't entirely noticable (within 16-bit);  But the jump from 16bit - 24bit is extremely noticable (I've heard that one myself!)... Don't know about 44.1 -> 96;  Anywas, for a lot of people running a UA-5 to a NJB3, and many run at 44.1, this still seems like it would be a nice upgrade.   I personally have been hesitant b/c of having to purchase CF cards...


Guess its all relative

I was reading last night about sampling resampling since I am not really familiar with the theories etc.
Some of what I was reading was how a lot of engineers would rather record at 44.1 then any other sampling
to prevent resampling down when mastering a cd. If they are going to put it on cd then they go with 44.1
regardless, if it is going on a dvd then they may do 96.
From what I read and if I read it right, they stay away from 48 due to the math.
It all is really interesting stuff and I am still reading through the digital sample theory and nyquists theory
which I have always heard alot about but never really understood.
Basically what I have grasped so far is, some engineers prefer recording at 24/44.1(82) then 24/48/96
and or they would go 16/44.1(82)
Personally I think there is a slight difference between going 44.1 >48 yet not very much and
it does not work in cd players. So while I am recording 16 bit I might just start doing all my pulls in 44.1 to
prevent a resample from 48 > 44

If the soundcard/recorder supports it, sometimes I will go with 88.2.  It an easier downsample to 44.1.

[JackoRoses]

I'm under the impression that a jump from 44.1 -> 48 isn't entirely noticable (within 16-bit);  But the jump from 16bit - 24bit is extremely noticable (I've heard that one myself!)... Don't know about 44.1 -> 96;  Anywas, for a lot of people running a UA-5 to a NJB3, and many run at 44.1, this still seems like it would be a nice upgrade.   I personally have been hesitant b/c of having to purchase CF cards...


Guess its all relative

I was reading last night about sampling resampling since I am not really familiar with the theories etc.
Some of what I was reading was how a lot of engineers would rather record at 44.1 then any other sampling
to prevent resampling down when mastering a cd. If they are going to put it on cd then they go with 44.1
regardless, if it is going on a dvd then they may do 96.
From what I read and if I read it right, they stay away from 48 due to the math.
It all is really interesting stuff and I am still reading through the digital sample theory and nyquists theory
which I have always heard alot about but never really understood.
Basically what I have grasped so far is, some engineers prefer recording at 24/44.1(82) then 24/48/96
and or they would go 16/44.1(82)
Personally I think there is a slight difference between going 44.1 >48 yet not very much and
it does not work in cd players. So while I am recording 16 bit I might just start doing all my pulls in 44.1 to
prevent a resample from 48 > 44

If the soundcard/recorder supports it, sometimes I will go with 88.2.  It an easier downsample to 44.1.

exactly, and thanks for not pointing out my error (82) 

[Tim]

i think the R1 is probably a stealthers dream. if i stealthed primarily, i'd be all over it.

The other guy that records the Hutchins Consort with me is all about these R1/R4 units.
His idea right now is for the R1, A: to try the stereo mic that is built into the unit, on a stand, in front of the band.
 B: A self powered mic pair / short cables (1ft) -> analog in, on a stand in front of the band.
I asked him about level adjustments, and he said he'd run it conservatively, and adjust in post, that the headroom, and noise floor of 24bit easily allows for running conservatively rather than trying to cram-full all 16bits of dat/wav.

on a side note,......
I actually dove into learning a computer music editing program over the last few days, (Felttip Software-Sound Studio), and actually turned out my first edited master.
:snaps suspenders:

welcome to the late 20th century moke

I guess since the music you're recording is from the 17th century you're not doing too bad

+T

[Ed.]

i've tried to hear the differences in 44.1 vs 48...i can't tell if they're there or if i'm just making it be there.  either way, recording at 16/44.1 saves me about 10 minutes in resampling time in post.

my buddy records all the studio stuff his band does in 24/88.2 for the easy conversion.

and +t moke for your computer using - you'll be a pro in no time.

[Ed.]

i bet i'd have the same reaction trying to use a stand-alone unit.

[Scooter]

I'm under the impression that a jump from 44.1 -> 48 isn't entirely noticable (within 16-bit);  But the jump from 16bit - 24bit is extremely noticable (I've heard that one myself!)... Don't know about 44.1 -> 96;  Anywas, for a lot of people running a UA-5 to a NJB3, and many run at 44.1, this still seems like it would be a nice upgrade.   I personally have been hesitant b/c of having to purchase CF cards...


Guess its all relative

I was reading last night about sampling resampling since I am not really familiar with the theories etc.


Some of what I was reading was how a lot of engineers would rather record at 44.1 then any other sampling
to prevent resampling down when mastering a cd. If they are going to put it on cd then they go with 44.1
regardless, if it is going on a dvd then they may do 96.
From what I read and if I read it right, they stay away from 48 due to the math.
It all is really interesting stuff and I am still reading through the digital sample theory and nyquists theory
which I have always heard alot about but never really understood.
Basically what I have grasped so far is, some engineers prefer recording at 24/44.1(82) then 24/48/96
and or they would go 16/44.1(82)
Personally I think there is a slight difference between going 44.1 >48 yet not very much and
it does not work in cd players. So while I am recording 16 bit I might just start doing all my pulls in 44.1 to
prevent a resample from 48 > 44

If the soundcard/recorder supports it, sometimes I will go with 88.2.  It an easier downsample to 44.1.

exactly, and thanks for not pointing out my error (82) 

Sorry, wasn't trying to rub it in.  i had no clue what the "(82)" was...

[JackoRoses]

I'm under the impression that a jump from 44.1 -> 48 isn't entirely noticable (within 16-bit);  But the jump from 16bit - 24bit is extremely noticable (I've heard that one myself!)... Don't know about 44.1 -> 96;  Anywas, for a lot of people running a UA-5 to a NJB3, and many run at 44.1, this still seems like it would be a nice upgrade.   I personally have been hesitant b/c of having to purchase CF cards...


Guess its all relative

I was reading last night about sampling resampling since I am not really familiar with the theories etc.


Some of what I was reading was how a lot of engineers would rather record at 44.1 then any other sampling
to prevent resampling down when mastering a cd. If they are going to put it on cd then they go with 44.1
regardless, if it is going on a dvd then they may do 96.
From what I read and if I read it right, they stay away from 48 due to the math.
It all is really interesting stuff and I am still reading through the digital sample theory and nyquists theory
which I have always heard alot about but never really understood.
Basically what I have grasped so far is, some engineers prefer recording at 24/44.1(82) then 24/48/96
and or they would go 16/44.1(82)
Personally I think there is a slight difference between going 44.1 >48 yet not very much and
it does not work in cd players. So while I am recording 16 bit I might just start doing all my pulls in 44.1 to
prevent a resample from 48 > 44

If the soundcard/recorder supports it, sometimes I will go with 88.2.  It an easier downsample to 44.1.

exactly, and thanks for not pointing out my error (82) 

Sorry, wasn't trying to rub it in.  i had no clue what the "(82)" was...

can I get away with saying my head was abbreviating it from 88.2 to 82  haha

[Nick's Picks]

found it in the manual. it makes new seamless files. all 2gb in size. just like any other recorder I suppose.

that is probably why the buffer is there as well...allows it to do the switch from one file to the next

the buffer is there so that you never miss anything when you are recording.  band starts unexpectedly...but the device is recording before you hit the record button....thus saving the day.

the new file feature just happens in the background.  you dont need to push buttons or monitor the time.  Its smart about it.
a good thing.

[nickgregory]

the buffer is there so that you never miss anything when you are recording. band starts unexpectedly...but the device is recording before you hit the record button....thus saving the day.

the new file feature just happens in the background. you dont need to push buttons or monitor the time. Its smart about it.
a good thing.

understand that...I was commenting that it probably uses the buffer so that while it saves the file/opens new file, it doesnt miss any music in the transfer...but that is merely a guess on my part

[Nick's Picks]

right...I gotcha now.
yea, i bet that buffer works all the time and enables the seamless files

[cascademedia]

FYI - We got 3 R4s in stock and have one left that is not spoken for.   I thought I would just let ya'all know before it gets snatched up.   They tell me it will prob be another 4-6 weeks before we see more.


have a nice weekend.

Frank