Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Battery Boxes, Preamps, Mixers, ADCs, and Processors => Topic started by: BayTaynt3d on September 29, 2006, 03:50:06 PM
-
I've got a question for anyone in the TS community that has experience using or listening to R4-based sources...
I've been averaging 1-2 recording per week since I got heavily into taping (audio) about a year ago. I've been through a bunch of different gear in that time period (immediate gear slut, which I guess comes with the territory, in fact just bought a pair of 481's a couple of days ago, whoo hoo!), and last night I was critically listening to the original sources of many of my AUD's (excluding the many, many matrixes I've made, excluding anything that was stealthed, and listening only to the ORIGINAL source, not the "produced" final versions). I found myself in awe of a couple of recordings that I made with my original C4 > BM2+ UA5 when compared to some of the others.
Now I know that the C4 are pretty low-end (but I know own 481s!!!), nor was the UA5 a V3 or something, so take this as all relative of course. I also know that these two recordings were made close-in on acoustic sets in somewhat ideal rooms, so that is obviously playing a role. I also know that I ABSOLUTELY LOVE my R4, the two extra channels have made such a difference in so many recordings I have made (mostly small acoustic with no PA, so being able to spot mic a piano that was low in the mix has worked wonders on many occasion) and the ease of matrixing at the venue and ability to mix the matrix in post has been just AWESOME. But that said, I just got the feeling that when I used the same C4 mics, the R4 sources, before being "touched up," sounded a little flat when compared to the BM2+ UA5 sources.
This is something I guess I never really noticed until now. I'm wondering if it had more to do with the different situations (ideal recording setups) than the preamps, but I'm not so sure. So, I guess I'm asking what other people think about the R4 in this regard. There can be no mistaking how nice it is to have 4 channels, and the matrixing potential, and for those two reasons, I don't see myself giving it up anytime soon, but I'm a little more concerned about the quality now than I was before -- but maybe that is misguided? It always seems to work out great after a little post work, but it got me wondering...
Thoughts?
-
I know precisely what you're talking about. I feel like I've lost a bit of the sonic characteristics I like in moving from the Oade Transparent-PLUS UA5 to the Oade Transparent R-4, namely transient detail. Tough to say because I don't have the T+ UA5 for direct comps, but overall I found the T+ UA5 had better transient detail, i.e. was "faster" sounding. That said, I'm loving the ability to run 4-ch. Given the fact that I'm not in a position to move to my ideal 4-ch setup (V3 > MT2496 + 722), it's a compromise with which I'm happy, so far.
Based on what I've heard of the Busman UA5 mods (not a lot, but a few), and if you're running a stock R-4 (or even a Busman mod), then I'm not at all surprised you're feeling the way you do, as it mirrors my experience.
Have you had a chance to use the R-4 in ideal circumstances similar to those in which you made the C4 > BM2+ UA5 recordings? Perhaps the R-4 will shine in similar circumstances, as well.
-
I've got a question for anyone in the TS community that has experience using or listening to R4-based sources...
I've been averaging 1-2 recording per week since I got heavily into taping (audio) about a year ago. I've been through a bunch of different gear in that time period (immediate gear slut, which I guess comes with the territory, in fact just bought a pair of 481's a couple of days ago, whoo hoo!), and last night I was critically listening to the original sources of many of my AUD's (excluding the many, many matrixes I've made, excluding anything that was stealthed, and listening only to the ORIGINAL source, not the "produced" final versions). I found myself in awe of a couple of recordings that I made with my original C4 > BM2+ UA5 when compared to some of the others.
Now I know that the C4 are pretty low-end (but I know own 481s!!!), nor was the UA5 a V3 or something, so take this as all relative of course. I also know that these two recordings were made close-in on acoustic sets in somewhat ideal rooms, so that is obviously playing a role. I also know that I ABSOLUTELY LOVE my R4, the two extra channels have made such a difference in so many recordings I have made (mostly small acoustic with no PA, so being able to spot mic a piano that was low in the mix has worked wonders on many occasion) and the ease of matrixing at the venue and ability to mix the matrix in post has been just AWESOME. But that said, I just got the feeling that when I used the same C4 mics, the R4 sources, before being "touched up," sounded a little flat when compared to the BM2+ UA5 sources.
This is something I guess I never really noticed until now. I'm wondering if it had more to do with the different situations (ideal recording setups) than the preamps, but I'm not so sure. So, I guess I'm asking what other people think about the R4 in this regard. There can be no mistaking how nice it is to have 4 channels, and the matrixing potential, and for those two reasons, I don't see myself giving it up anytime soon, but I'm a little more concerned about the quality now than I was before -- but maybe that is misguided? It always seems to work out great after a little post work, but it got me wondering...
Thoughts?
I have not tried the BM UA5, but I do notice that different pres/mics have different "flavors". I would describe the stock R4 as "warm" and some other stuff, like my Presonus Firebox as more "transparent". So, depending on what mods BM does to the UA5, you could be hearing that difference. There are also certain combinations that work best. For example, most people think that AKG mics go best with a "warmer" pre. But I think this is a matter of personal test more than anything else.
My view, however, is that 90% of the sound flavor comes from the mic placement, the room, and the sound tech. The only way to start comparing mics/pres is to either run them side-by-side, or be *very* familiar with the venue. So, I would just keep experimenting for now. For example, try running a second set of mics, like the C4, side by side with the AKG and see how different they sound.
Have fun...
Richard
-
I know precisely what you're talking about. I feel like I've lost a bit of the sonic characteristics I like in moving from the Oade Transparent-PLUS UA5 to the Oade Transparent R-4, namely transient detail. Tough to say because I don't have the T+ UA5 for direct comps, but overall I found the T+ UA5 had better transient detail, i.e. was "faster" sounding. That said, I'm loving the ability to run 4-ch. Given the fact that I'm not in a position to move to my ideal 4-ch setup (V3 > MT2496 + 722), it's a compromise with which I'm happy, so far.
Based on what I've heard of the Busman UA5 mods (not a lot, but a few), and if you're running a stock R-4 (or even a Busman mod), then I'm not at all surprised you're feeling the way you do, as it mirrors my experience.
Have you had a chance to use the R-4 in ideal circumstances similar to those in which you made the C4 > BM2+ UA5 recordings? Perhaps the R-4 will shine in similar circumstances, as well.
I think you nailed my perceptions EXACTLY: "faster and more detailed."
Thing is, <ducking>after mastering my recordings with a little EQ, compression, and the likes,</ducking> I usually end up with something I really enjoy and so do the musicians. So, it's not something I'm too worried about. And like I said the pros associated with two more channels have often made a HUGE difference for me. But I was a little shocked when I listened to all of the original, untouched sources again -- in fact, I was wishing I still owned that UA5 as it wasn't THAT expensive. But, I do realize that conditions in those two particular recordings were absolutety perfect. I might be able to go back to the one place and tape the same set of guys with the C4 (although it'll be tempting to use the 481s) > R4 sometime, so maybe I'll do that for comparison.
Poorly, you selling that firepod anytime soon? (that's the 8-channel right?)
-
One more thing for Brian...
So your "ideal" is V3 > 744. Forgive my ignorance, but let me make sure I understand that. So if running 4 mics, you go 2 straight into the 744 which provides phantom and pres, then run the other 2 into the V3 and then into the extra two line-ins on the 744? Is that how that would work?
-
I know precisely what you're talking about. I feel like I've lost a bit of the sonic characteristics I like in moving from the Oade Transparent-PLUS UA5 to the Oade Transparent R-4, namely transient detail. Tough to say because I don't have the T+ UA5 for direct comps, but overall I found the T+ UA5 had better transient detail, i.e. was "faster" sounding. That said, I'm loving the ability to run 4-ch. Given the fact that I'm not in a position to move to my ideal 4-ch setup (V3 > MT2496 + 722), it's a compromise with which I'm happy, so far.
Based on what I've heard of the Busman UA5 mods (not a lot, but a few), and if you're running a stock R-4 (or even a Busman mod), then I'm not at all surprised you're feeling the way you do, as it mirrors my experience.
Have you had a chance to use the R-4 in ideal circumstances similar to those in which you made the C4 > BM2+ UA5 recordings? Perhaps the R-4 will shine in similar circumstances, as well.
I think you nailed my perceptions EXACTLY: "faster and more detailed."
Thing is, <ducking>after mastering my recordings with a little EQ, compression, and the likes,</ducking> I usually end up with something I really enjoy and so do the musicians. So, it's not something I'm too worried about. And like I said the pros associated with two more channels have often made a HUGE difference for me. But I was a little shocked when I listened to all of the original, untouched sources again -- in fact, I was wishing I still owned that UA5 as it wasn't THAT expensive. But, I do realize that conditions in those two particular recordings were absolutety perfect. I might be able to go back to the one place and tape the same set of guys with the C4 (although it'll be tempting to use the 481s) > R4 sometime, so maybe I'll do that for comparison.
Poorly, you selling that firepod anytime soon? (that's the 8-channel right?)
Hey, I *rarely* sell stuff, just add it to my harem! Well, now I've got a Firepod (8ch), a Firebox (4 ch, 2 mic, 2 line), a UA5, two (!!!) DMIC20's, oh yeah and an VX440 (laptop interface) on the way. Nooooooooooo, I don't have a gear problem!
Richard
-
One more thing for Brian...
So your "ideal" is V3 > 744. Forgive my ignorance, but let me make sure I understand that. So if running 4 mics, you go 2 straight into the 744 which provides phantom and pres, then run the other 2 into the V3 and then into the extra two line-ins on the 744? Is that how that would work?
Well, not so much ideal as my next fiendish wanting. But really, only a 7x2, because it's a lot less expensive than the 7x4.
For 2-ch, I'd run:
mics > V3 analog out > 722
or
mics > V3 digi-out > MT2496 / 722
or
mics > 722
For 4-ch, I'd run:
mics1 > V3 digi-out > MT2496
and
mics2 > 722 (synced to the V3 via WC)
Edit to add: Tascam HD-P2's a less expensive option to the 722, so I may go down that road, first, depending on what P2 mods become available and how they sound.
-
Richard makes a good point about the room and the sound tech.
5 min. into a show, I will have a good idea whether or not to be excited about the recording. If it sounds like shit at the venue, then the recording will reflect that to some level. Different polar patterns and mic configs will help, but I don't think they make or break a recording. That's why I have a hard time listening to samples of gear and making a decision to buy it. What if it sounded like shit? You can't blame the gear...
I love using my non-audiophile friends to critique recordings, they are innocent and honest. they generally love outdoor recordings and typically turn away from a lot of the indoor stuff (no matter what the gear).
I also like to keep playback in mind. When someone is describing how their gear performed, maybe they listened on their tweaked and tuned audiophile system, or maybe they transferred straight to ipod and the stock ear buds. who knows...
-
I think the audible differences of different combinations of gear is something that too few people speak up about. I'd say that there are a good number of preconceived ideas of the quality of a tape relative to the $$$ spent on a taping rig. We have alot of gear sluts here and I always wonder if they are in it for the sound or if they are in it for the variety of gear.
Comparing different pieces of gear let alone different modded pieces of gear is so subjectional. The 480>V3 sound is great to my ears and what I like out of a tape. For you it may be lacking or too full or slow or fast or <insert adjective here>. Personally I am not a big fan of the Busman mod sound compared to the Oade mod sound in recordings I have heard but YMMV obviously.
Conditions and luck go a long way though. There have been shows i've taped from horrible spots that came out like magic as well as times i've been in a more ideal spots and have been disappointed with the results.
I for one am excited to hear how the 481's sound through the R4.
I love using my non-audiophile friends to critique recordings, they are innocent and honest. they generally love outdoor recordings and typically turn away from a lot of the indoor stuff (no matter what the gear).
So true.
-
I for one am excited to hear how the 481's sound through the R4.
Here is 483->R4
http://www.archive.org/details/SCI2006-06-29.akg483.flac16
-
I for one am excited to hear how the 481's sound through the R4.
Here is 483->R4
http://www.archive.org/details/SCI2006-06-29.akg483.flac16
Cool! +T Downloading a couple of songs now.
-
why not get the r4 busman modded?
-
why not get the r4 busman modded?
Actually mine has the busman Hybrid mod... Got it modded after SCI. I've just not had any good open oppertunities to tape since SCI. All the decent shows here have been at the loft which sucks for taping. However, after Roger Waters next week we have Lotus then Galactic then I'll be at Vegoose. Will probably tape during the fest but not the latenights. I'm hoping to get some splitters before hand to be able to create a comp at vegoose, but even without splitters I have it set up with 2 different sets of TLs we could set up right next to each other.
-
busman hybrid? please explain...
-
Get in touch with busman for more info... It's 2 chan of a w type mod that he is not officially offering and 2 chan of his 'normal' mod. You would need to talk to him to get the exact details and if he would be willing to do it for you. As of now I've run my 483s twice through the 2 side (sounds nice) and SBD once through the normal side.
-
Get in touch with busman for more info... It's 2 chan of a w type mod that he is not officially offering and 2 chan of his 'normal' mod. You would need to talk to him to get the exact details and if he would be willing to do it for you. As of now I've run my 483s twice through the 2 side (sounds nice) and SBD once through the normal side.
couldnt you run a splitter and run 483>wmod(2 chan)
>normal busman mod(2 chan)
-
Get in touch with busman for more info... It's 2 chan of a w type mod that he is not officially offering and 2 chan of his 'normal' mod. You would need to talk to him to get the exact details and if he would be willing to do it for you. As of now I've run my 483s twice through the 2 side (sounds nice) and SBD once through the normal side.
couldnt you run a splitter and run 483>wmod(2 chan)
>normal busman mod(2 chan)
Yep... If I ever get a splitter I was going to do that. For Vegoose I know a few people that will be there with unmodded R-4s. If I get a splitter I'm going to do a comp between the mods/unmodded with the 480s. If not one of them will also be running TLs and I'll have a set of those along with me also. There was a good silver splitter up in the loaner section but I think it's been out for a while.
Would also like to run a comp with my Oade WMod UA-5 in the chain. Honestly though when I got the w mod from busman it was not a mod he wanted to offer on a regular basis publically and at first did not really even want me to mention I had it so people would not bug him about it. Any w comparison I did I would probably get his approval before releasing. I would not be surprised if I am the only one with the w version right now.
-
For your information, I've done a comparison of *my* mod. The files are at:
www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~mannr/R4
My mod would best be described as "warm", but I'm still experimenting with various Opamps. This was done with a pair of CK91's, a self made battery box, and a splitter into a mod (Ch1/2) and unmod (Ch3/4) R4. The mics were about 10-15' from the stage in a very small club.
I didn't really notice that much difference, maybe I can improve with different opamps, but please let me know if you notice anything (and which sample you prefer...)
Richard
-
Good thread.
I feel like I've lost a bit of the sonic characteristics I like in moving from the Oade Transparent-PLUS UA5 to the Oade Transparent R-4, namely transient detail.
I definitely agree with Brian here. I don't have the Transparent mod on the R4 (I have the basic mod), but I do know that after running the R4 for an entire weekend at Camp Bisco, my favorite combo was running P+ UA-5 > R4. I ran the majority of the festival straight 481 > R4, but my ears definitely prefer a brighter, faster, more detailed sound - which the Oade Presence/Plus mod UA-5 gives me a lot more of when I used it. Then again, my ears prefer this pre over pretty much anything I've listened to. ;) Honestly, I don't think I'll ever sell it unless I stop taping.
-
I wonder which really sounds best with a variety of different mics?
nice pre to stock R4
Oade/Busman mod R4
nice pre to Oade/Busman mod R4 (assuming line-in is affected by the mod)
I know there are other mods and different types of mods to consider so any opinions on specific mods in this comparison would be very interesting.
-
Good thread.
I feel like I've lost a bit of the sonic characteristics I like in moving from the Oade Transparent-PLUS UA5 to the Oade Transparent R-4, namely transient detail.
I definitely agree with Brian here. I don't have the Transparent mod on the R4 (I have the basic mod), but I do know that after running the R4 for an entire weekend at Camp Bisco, my favorite combo was running P+ UA-5 > R4. I ran the majority of the festival straight 481 > R4, but my ears definitely prefer a brighter, faster, more detailed sound - which the Oade Presence/Plus mod UA-5 gives me a lot more of when I used it. Then again, my ears prefer this pre over pretty much anything I've listened to. ;) Honestly, I don't think I'll ever sell it unless I stop taping.
If anyone is curoius I've (partially) traced the front end of the R4. As suspected, "line in" is just an attenuated version of mic-in, so everything goes through the same pres/opamps. Now, perhaps a better preamp improves the sound since it adds the first 20dB or so in a nicer/cleaner way than the internal pres. I don't know. I'm still experimenting with my mods. My next step is to try a really fast opamp on the front end. Maybe I can get a more "transparent" sound this way.
Richard
-
I went from a stock UA-5 to a bm2p+ UA-5 to a stock R-4. I also switched from C4's to the Peluso's for a few shows before buying the R-4. IMO, The stock R-4 pre does sound a little flatter than the bm2p+ UA-5, but much better than the stock UA-5. However, I am very happy with the sound of the R-4.
Perhaps I'll do a busman2 upgrade sometime, but funds are now diverted from the "AV equipment" (as my fiancee says), as we just moved into our new house this weekend. At any rate, I haven't heard any true comps yet, so I can't really make a decision as to the mod's sound anyway!
-
Well,
I also agree that different circuits just sound different. I will throw in that I use the same op amps for the R4 that I used for the UA-5 and I love the sound. I do find that the noise generated by the R4 is pretty bad if you need to crank the gain but I also think this is do to the completely different gain structure between it and the UA-5. Personally I thought the R4 sounded good stock until I did the mod then after hearing the differences from the String Summit I thought it sounded completely flat and not musical(sp). The mod brings it up to snuff for music recordings and I also will continue to develop the mod to drop the noise floor.
From what I can see the only way to drop the noise in the unit is to change the gain structure and naturally it will appear to be less noisy because you will be able to crank the gain more before hearing the hiss. The problem there for me is I like the gain structure. I feel it gives me more options for different environments (loud and quiet shows).
Yes I do have op amps that I can use for a warmer mod than the current one I offer.
I will be trying to put more of my recordings up on the archive so if you want to hear how my mod sounds check there.
Oh and I love the functionality of the R4. It is such a great piece of equipment and easy to use. I have a hard time doing 2 mic recordings now that I have run 4 mics a few times it just sounds huge and in your face.
-
Well,
I have a hard time doing 2 mic recordings now that I have run 4 mics a few times it just sounds huge and in your face.
I could not agree more with this statement. Mod or unmodded, 4 mics seems to sound much better than two.
-
Well,
I have a hard time doing 2 mic recordings now that I have run 4 mics a few times it just sounds huge and in your face.
I could not agree more with this statement. Mod or unmodded, 4 mics seems to sound much better than two.
I've had mixed results running 4-ch. I've mostly run my 414s split omni + a center pair of ORTF/DIN/DINA cards or hypers. I recently tried XY for the center pair and if my recent Tortoise recording is any indication, I like the sound much better. With near-coincident cards/hypers + split omnis, the sound seemed to lack focus and came across kinda smeared and undefined. Not sure what to call it, really. At any rate, changing the center pair to XY really locked in a strong center to the image, while the included angle + the split omnis help open up the soundstage. I'm looking forward to trying this option to get a better feel for it v. the near-coincident center pair.
-
I mostly use 3 and 4 as "supplements" when needed, but I tape a lot of small ensembles in not-so-crowded conditions a lot. I use a main stereo pair, then run split omnis on seperate stands sometimes. But many times, it's a main pair and one or two spot mics. I've run stereo pair plus one spot inside a piano many times. I got to know the stuff I was taping, and it was easy to spot when the piano (in a jazz mix usually) was going to be too quite (relegated to the back of the group sometimes). So, I run a pair plus one mic a fair amount (no fourth mic). Sometimes a pair, and then one omni back by the keys and bass and drumkit. That always seems to pick up a bunch of bass and warmth back there (on stage) that the main pair in front doesn't. Then, just mix in accordingly, and sometimes not at all (if it makes the mix worse).
Also, you can use EQ to "isolate" your intended target more if that helps your mix. Like in that last case, I might put that omni back there just for some bass. Then in post, I might rolloff a lot of the highs on that one mono channel before panning it and fading it in with the main pair until I get what I was looking for -- in that case maybe it was more sub-like lows. Many times I run with a main AUD back by the SBD (house snake if possible) and then go for split omnis stage lip in front to pick up the brass in a more rich way. In that case, in post I might roll off a bunch of bass on the omnis so they isolate the brass section a little more, then pan and mix in the omnis of the brass into the main AUD pair from back by the board. This way, I just use the omnis to sweeten the brass section up, and I'm relying on the main AUD pair to bring most of the bass (they pick up the whole room after all). Anyway, don't forget about the possibility of doing this -- EQ'ing each mic or pair independently. Because you can use it to your advantage sometimes (you can also use it to totally F it up real bad too, LOL). Another thing I do sometimes is to use a J-disc for one pair back farther and something else on for the other pair in closer to the sound source. One close and one far offers some nice possibilities in post. Use the close stereo pair as a base, then fade in the farther mics (that picked up more of the room) to add just the right amount of verb/wet into the mix.
I understand that many of those setups are not realistic depending on the venue, band, and your relationship with everyone. But in case you do get those opportunities I thought I would share some of my stories with the R4 on that front. So, that said, I haven't really run too many 4-channel recordings from a single stand. In those situations, I usually just go with a 2-channel setup like "normal" -- cuts down on the gear to haul around too. HOWEVER, if I were to try some form of it (4-channel on one stand), I'd try to push the second pair to the extremes I think. Like how about running something like Hypercard-ORTF plus XY for the middle channel. That might be interesting in post, you could spread the stereo imaging of the main XY pair just as much as you wanted to by mixing in the uber-wide Hyper-ORTF. Another extreme example might be j-disc omnis (that pick up the whole room) and then a much more focused tight second pair like XY-hypers at 60-70 degrees or something. Then mix the super-airy j-disc with the uber-tight XY-hypers@70 to see what kind of mixes produce different results. Start with the tighter XY pair and expand it with the j-disc pair, or vise-versa.
And of course, there's the OBVIOUS surround sound attempts. Not sure those are worth it considering some of the other things you could do can produce better options for a 2-channel stereo mixdown. But that said, in the right venue, in the right spot, with the right band, it might be pretty cool to point at least one hyper or card straight backward. In post just that one channel would give you enough to do mixdown to Dolby Digital 5.1 or something for kicks. I've never really done it (experimented a little), but I'd like to do it at least once -- super easy with a clamp to the stand too.
So, has anyone ever actually tried some of those single-stand 4-channel configs?
-
I could not agree more with this statement. Mod or unmodded, 4 mics seems to sound much better than two.
The problem with that theory is that it really does depend on which four mics you are using. I have found alot of tapes recently on etree, DaD and other sites where a taper is using four mics but the tapes sound like garbage when they shouldn't. If you listen to some of the recent Panic tapes from a few folks who use 4 mics they sound incredible. Great sound stage. The fact that they are using compatible mics to me is the biggest difference. If they threw up two random pairs of mics I am quite sure the difference is night and day.
On the flip side of that I know that alot of budgets do not allow two pairs of Neumann/AKG/DPA/Schoeps/etc. But there has got to be some experimentation on compatible sounds mics. Throwing up random pairs isn't the answer.
Speaking of these random mic 4 channel tapes have you noticed that on all of those torrents you almost always get a comment like "it's 4 mics so it must be the shit". If we start conditioning people to like a tape due to its lineage instead of what it sounds like then i'll sell all my stuff and get some ratshack mics and a minidisc
With the rise in people owning R4's and 744's I am shocked that there is not more 4 channel discussion on mics combinations and configurations. Maybe someone needs to start one?
-
With the rise in people owning R4's and 744's I am shocked that there is not more 4 channel discussion on mics combinations and configurations. Maybe someone needs to start one?
Yes, please.
Listening to learn.
-
If anyone is curoius I've (partially) traced the front end of the R4. As suspected, "line in" is just an attenuated version of mic-in, so everything goes through the same pres/opamps.
Hi Richard, when I run UA-5 > R4 I use digi in via s/pdif. I think maybe you just mean line in vs. mic in through the XLR's goes through the same pre's, as I can't imagine the signal going D>A>D... Just want to make sure I understand you correctly.
With the rise in people owning R4's and 744's I am shocked that there is not more 4 channel discussion on mics combinations and configurations. Maybe someone needs to start one?
I've been reading the few posts I see here like Brian's with interest. I've been wondering what I would get for a 2nd pair. What kind of mic combo's would folks consider a good "match"? :) If money weren't an issue, I'd probably get a pair of 140's right now...
-
With the rise in people owning R4's and 744's I am shocked that there is not more 4 channel discussion on mics combinations and configurations. Maybe someone needs to start one?
Yes, please.
Listening to learn.
I just wrote a whole bunch about my experiences and thoughts about four posts up...
-
If anyone is curoius I've (partially) traced the front end of the R4. As suspected, "line in" is just an attenuated version of mic-in, so everything goes through the same pres/opamps.
Hi Richard, when I run UA-5 > R4 I use digi in via s/pdif. I think maybe you just mean line in vs. mic in through the XLR's goes through the same pre's, as I can't imagine the signal going D>A>D... Just want to make sure I understand you correctly.
Yes, you're right, it will be digital and no analog muck from the R4 at all. Note that you *cannot* record any more (analog) channels, so the R4 is just a bit bucket. 24 bits, yes, but still a bit bucket.
I've been reading the few posts I see here like Brian's with interest. I've been wondering what I would get for a 2nd pair. What kind of mic combo's would folks consider a good "match"? :) If money weren't an issue, I'd probably get a pair of 140's right now...
I don't have that much experience with different mics, aside from AT853 and AKG 391/3 that is...
Richard
-
Hi Richard, when I run UA-5 > R4 I use digi in via s/pdif. I think maybe you just mean line in vs. mic in through the XLR's goes through the same pre's, as I can't imagine the signal going D>A>D... Just want to make sure I understand you correctly.
So far, I believe all tested Edirol products turned out to NOT be bit-accurate. I would bet that the R4 is not bit-accurate, but since nobody has tested, we don't know for sure.
Let's assume it is not bit-accurate. Run a test, maybe ua-5 > optical > jb3 (16 bit) and ua-5 > coaxial > R4 (16-bit). Compare them, maybe even post them! I predict that there will be no sonic difference.
-
Yes, you're right, it will be digital and no analog muck from the R4 at all. Note that you *cannot* record any more (analog) channels, so the R4 is just a bit bucket. 24 bits, yes, but still a bit bucket.
Thanks for the clarification. If I don't have 2 more channels available, a bit bucket with really nice level meters is fine with me. I guess I was more commenting on the fact that the stock pre's in the R4 don't sound as good to me as the mod UA-5. However, I won't turn down a 4 channel opportunity just because of that...
So far, I believe all tested Edirol products turned out to NOT be bit-accurate. I would bet that the R4 is not bit-accurate, but since nobody has tested, we don't know for sure.
Is bit accurate important? I would think the sound of the preamp is more important than the 1's and 0's.
-
OK, I tried a second mod on the R4. The files are at:
www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~mannr/R4
sample1b.flac, sample2b.flac.
They are both modded, but differently. One is "warm" (what I showed before) and the other is "transparent" (a new opamp). I'm really not sure if these mods even work. Please let me know:
- do you hear a difference?
- what do you like better?
NOTE: These are recorded with body-worn Sennheiser MKE40 cardioids (lav mics) into a battery box. (The same mics through a splitter.) There is some obvious "brickwall" distortion there. I obviously need a 3-wire battery box (or the "4.7k mod") to fix this. I guess you should just listen to the quiet parts :).
Richard
-
So, here are my mods so far:
Ch1: IC1 (pre), IC2 (driver), short R8, R23
Ch2: IC3 IC4 , short R39, R58
Ch3: IC5 IC6 , short R65, R68
Ch4: IC7 IC8 , short R93, R112
I replaced all the chips with AD8512. (And I notice a difference from my previous chips, it is more "transparent"...) Busman uses a different chip which I have not (yet) tried, but for me the AD8512 is pretty good.
The result off this is *much reduced* noise floor on all channels (try a dynamic mic like Shure SM57/58 to see the difference). But it disables the Line in on Ch3/4. Ch1/2 work for both mic and line.
Enjoy...
Richard
-
I've never used a stock R4, but I recently had Oade upgrade my t-modded R4 to ACM (which wasn't available when I originally bought the unit late last year) and I really couldn't be happier with the sound I'm getting now with my 481s. The tmod was a little dry and clinical sounding to my ears, but the ACM sounds warmer and bigger without being any less detailed -- I don't know the first thing about electronics myself, but Doug tells me this is largely due to using FETs in his ACM circuits vs. BJTs in the TMOD. Noise is negligible even with the gain close to max. I don't feel the need to put anything else in front of it (not that I have the world's most discerning ears at age 54), my last couple of pulls are finally sounding the way I've always wanted my recordings to sound -- that is, I can close my eyes and feel like I'm there again. :) Ergonomically, the R4 itself is wonderfully simple to operate, especially after coping with the many design flaws of the Core MIC2496 > Microtrack combo I was using. The only problem I've ever had is overloading the "line in" (attenuated mic in) circuit on channels 1 & 2 with an unusually hot board feed, so I got a couple of XLR pads to handle that eventuality.
I got the R4 mainly to do matrix without having to synch in post, but I hope to get some 482s next year and do a little 4-mic recording -- neither my Audix M1290s nor AT943s with omnis blend well with the 481s. Dan Lynch will be running his legendary KM-150s + 4021s (united at last!) into my box for Lesh & Friends at Nokia Theater next month, I'm really looking forward to hearing what that sounds like and also finding out how my 481s sound with his Mini-Me.