Topic: Edirol R-09HR - Part TWO

[Josephine]

My evening didn't quite go as planned . . . .
Didn't record @ 24/96.  In fact, didn't record at 24/48.

I made the mistake of upgrading to Version 1.4 minutes before I left for the show.
I didn't realize that would change all my internal settings. 
Kinda disappointed when I got home and realized my files were all 16/44, but it's still a nice sounding recording.

I'll be running 24/96 Friday. 

[Olychild]

Has anyone using a Mac upgraded to V1.4 yet? I am a bit of a computer idiot so the solution could be obvious.
I can't figure out what application to open the update with. Adobe reader doesn't like it that is for sure. I also got a blank black screen each time I tried to view the readme pdf on Roland's site.

[bgalizio]

Has anyone using a Mac upgraded to V1.4 yet? I am a bit of a computer idiot so the solution could be obvious.
I can't figure out what application to open the update with. Adobe reader doesn't like it that is for sure. I also got a blank black screen each time I tried to view the readme pdf on Roland's site.

Doesn't matter what computer you're on, as the update is run from the R-09HR. I've attached the pdf with instructions. You need to follow those to update.

[digifish_music]

My evening didn't quite go as planned . . . .
Didn't record @ 24/96.  In fact, didn't record at 24/48.

I made the mistake of upgrading to Version 1.4 minutes before I left for the show.
I didn't realize that would change all my internal settings. 
Kinda disappointed when I got home and realized my files were all 16/44, but it's still a nice sounding recording.

I'll be running 24/96 Friday. 

In all honesty, for a live recording of a band, it's highly unlikely that it will make any noticeable difference. 24/96 is just a huge waste of bandwidth/RAM unless you are recording bats IMO

Make some A/B comparisons at home, make two recordings 16/44.1 and 24/96 of the same noise (your stereo, a ticking clock, ambiance) and have a significant other play them to you 10 times each in random order. Blindfolded you write down what was what. Did you score significantly better than chance?

digifish

[digifish_music]

And what about the "Low Cut Frequency"?   How should I have that set?  100?  200?  Or 400?

I use low-cut when I am concerned about wind noise, or mechanical rumble (like recording on a bus) or know I am bout to be overwhelmed with bass (like I am sitting next to a sub). 100 Hz would be my pick. 200 and 400 are way too high if you are recording music. Although, it all depends on the source and location. Let your ears be your guide.

Generally leave it off form music recording or 100 Hz if you prefer the sound or are nervous about too much bass.

digifish 

[Olychild]

Has anyone using a Mac upgraded to V1.4 yet? I am a bit of a computer idiot so the solution could be obvious.
I can't figure out what application to open the update with. Adobe reader doesn't like it that is for sure. I also got a blank black screen each time I tried to view the readme pdf on Roland's site.

Doesn't matter what computer you're on, as the update is run from the R-09HR. I've attached the pdf with instructions. You need to follow those to update.

Thanks for the pdf, that is just what I needed. I'm off to try my first recording with this newfangled gadget tonight, hope it goes well.

[Craig T]

I just got done testing a 16GB A-Data class 6 SDHC card.  Ran it using a fesh pair of Energizer "standard" alkaline batteries.  Card formatted on the r09hr.  I got 5 hrs 15 min at 24/96, appears flawless, even stopped/started 4 times.  No "slow card" errors.  I haven't updated, so I'm running v1.03 firmware.  I do the same with my PNY 16GB class 6 SDHC card tomorrow.

[IanR]

Have had my R-09HR for about a month now, and use it with Sonic Studios DSM mics and preamp.

The results sound fine. The battery compartment door is a bit rubbish, and the R-09HR is generally much less solid-feeling than the Olympus LS-10 (but the Line-in sensitivity is good/useful, unlike the LS-10).

Managed to drop it about a foot onto a tabletop, causing a crack to appear in the clear plastic panel on the front, oops. Don't buy Roland's own case for it, it's rubbish. For the half the price a SatNav case from PC World does a better job.

[digifish_music]

OK I now have both the R09 and R09HR...first impressions of the on-board mics compared to the R09 are big improvement in self-noise...the internal mics may even be usable for ambiences...I'll post some comparisons of both doing field-recording soon. As others have said, feels better made and IMO probably how the R09 should have been in the first place (particularly from an internal mic quality perspective).





digifish

[digifish_music]

OK, here's some comparative recordings from the internal mics...

Settings -

Low cut off.
WAV @ 44.1 kHz / 24 bit
ACG off
R09 Level = 15 (50%)
R09HR Level = 40 (50%)
Recording levels both looked equivalent (max ~ -15 dB)
Recordings post normalized.

Recording environment-

Me mucking around in my kitchen with a spoon and glass.
The recorders were side-by-side with about 3 cm separating them on the kitchen bench. Both facing the source of the sound (me).

Download a 320 kbps mp3 of the event here ~ 0.9 Meg

The recording is spliced R09-R09HR-etc as shown below, if you are wearing headphones you should be able to clearly hear the change. The times of the cuts are at ~ 5, 11, 15, 19 & 21 seconds.



So the R09HR mics sound a considerably quieter than the R09 on internal mics, the R09HR now approaches what I would call acceptable noise for recording fairly quiet sources, while the original R09 is only suitable for loud sources (IMO). However there's still a fair amount of hiss on the HR. You can also see from the image above that there is less digital noise in the R09HR recording (note the 13.4 kHz line in the R09 sections, although this is not audible unless near silence is normalised).

For recording solo instruments, small groups/ensembles the internal mics on the R09HR would be quite capable, apart from the lack of placement flexibility.

The R09HR mic and line-in are both quieter than the R09 (which was very good using either), I'll post some more details later. I plan to use the R09HR with a MixPre for critical field recordings OR R09HR-plugin-powered binaurals for stealth field-recording (home made Panasonic WM-61A caps or similar Sound Professionals).

digifish

[illconditioned]

The R09HR mic and line-in are both quieter than the R09 (which was very good using either), I'll post some more details later. I plan to use the R09HR with a MixPre for critical field recordings OR R09HR-plugin-powered binaurals for stealth field-recording (home made Panasonic WM-61A caps or similar Sound Professionals).

digifish

Hey, thanks for the great post!

I'm *very* curious if that diginoise appears on mic or line in.  You're going to run the tests with binaurals on mic in, right?  I want to check both artifacts and pre noise.  This would be an excellent test.

  Richard

[digifish_music]

I'm *very* curious if that diginoise appears on mic or line in.  You're going to run the tests with binaurals on mic in, right? 
  Richard

Will do...tomorrow.

digifish

[efksound]

Digifish thanks for all the great info and the pics!!!
If you find sometime could you be also so kind to post a silent recording using line in?
I'm still waiting to see if the HR has less selfnoise than the PMD620 and H2
Thanks

[JD]

Well I have had the r09hr for a little more than 3 weeks now and managed to get about 30 hours of run time on it.
I patched with it, took board feeds with it, ran with a pre amp and external mics, and ran with the internal mics. All without any problems 

A few observations...

Likes
--Better build quality, input jacks are thru soldiered to the PCB
--Better display screen, larger and much easier to see
--I like the finer resolution on the level controls
--While it pretty much sounds like crap, the internal speaker does some have value for reference in the field
--I think the internal mics sound better than the r09, even though I don't really plan on using them
--I think the new battery door/ placement is an improvement?
--As best as I can tell, I think the overall sound for line-in is better than the R09
--It's easy to disassemble and reassemble 


Dislikes
-- I don't like the hold button being on the back
--Not to keen on the placement of the input jacks in relation to the level buttons (kind of awkward to adjust the levels when using a RA jack)
--Not to sure about the new battery door, seems like it could be lost easily

Overall, I am happy with the R09hr. The only thing I think I might do to it is take it apart again and remove the plastic sliders for all of the switches on the back except for the "hold" button so that one, it will be easy to find the hold button when running undercover, and two it would eliminate the chance of accidentally flipping any of the other switchs.

[digifish_music]

Dislikes

--Not to sure about the new battery door, seems like it could be lost easily

Overall, I am happy with the R09hr. The only thing I think I might do to it is take it apart again and remove the plastic sliders for all of the switches on the back except for the "hold" button so that one, it will be easy to find the hold button when running undercover, and two it would eliminate the chance of accidentally flipping any of the other switchs.

Nice summary +T

Poor Edirol, they just can't win with the battery door We all thought the R09 door was going to break...but I don't think anyone ever reported an issue...and now they 'fix' it and we are all complaining about the possibility of losing it

About the switches, you could just put some electrical tape over the ones you don't want to use?

digifish