Topic: Edirol R-44 - 4 Channel Recorder (Part II)

[Ozpeter]

Here you go -

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/9/22/1451533/R-44%20dynamc%20range.mp3

I listened very carefully to the wave version vs this mp3 version and I can't hear anything about the mp3 (256kbps) which, compared to the wave file, invalidates its use for this dynamic range example.

The original was 44.1kHz, 16 bits, preamp level -38dB, input level 0dB (12 o'clock position of the fader knob).

The music was recorded on location, and the following 'silence' in a recording studio, same mics, same levels.

To my mind, if the noise performance of the R-44 was any better, you'd have a hard job finding a location quiet enough to make it worthwhile, or mics quiet enough.

And no, I don't think a 24 bit recording would have provided a different result, as the recording studio background noise level was greater than that which needs more than 16 bits to capture (at risk of staring an argument...)

[NOLAfishwater]

thanks for posting +T. can't wait for mine to get here.

[hypnotoad]

Thanks for the sound tests Ozpeter +T.  I wonder when these units are actually going to be back in stock for ordering.

[NOLAfishwater]

This will be my set up when it comes in:

Ch 1&2: AKG 414>V3>R-44 SPDIF + Ch 3&4: AKG460>R-44 Analog (w/ Limiter On)

or

Ch 1&2: AKG>V3>R-44SPDIF + SBD Patch>R-44 Analog

[Ozpeter]

Forgot to mention that the limiter was not on in the sample I posted, so the dynamics are entirely natural.  The only thing that was on apart from phantom was the R-44 "MS" effect,.

[sonidista]

Here, I got my unit today. Overall first impression is good. If you're -like me- gonna use the R-44 for dialogue recording, I recommend using a (portable) preamp, since phantom powered condenser mics require a high sensitivity level, and if you crank that up on the R-44 the noise level is quite high.

Apart from that, the R-44 is nice and easy to use, Not as heavy as I thought yet it seems robust. The internal mics are pretty noisy, too, though they sound OK otherwise. No problems using a Kingston class 6 8GB SDHC card. Monitoring could be louder - again, spoken from a dialogue recording point of view.
Menu and display are nice, although input levels on the display are too vague if you have to deal with unexpected peaks. The limiter seems alright and better (softer) than others on digital units I've used (Nagra Ares BB).

One question I have not been able to answer from teh manual: does anyone know at what frequency the Low Cut cuts off?

[qpwoei]

...
Now one thing I can already say is that the R-44 in 16 bit mode is capable of revealing the shortcomings of this particular studio.  The 'silence' actually includes the sound of people talking in the corridor outside, through the double doors to the studio, together with a trace of background electrical hum which was also
...

The MKH's huge sensitivity hadn't anything to do? My MKH60 (40 mV) catches the noise of two fingers rubbing at 2 m (the main reason that these mics are used often for nature recording). Not trying to understimate the R44 or anything, just saying that for testing purposes... less 'peculiar' mics would be better

[Ozpeter]

phantom powered condenser mics require a high sensitivity level

Some do, some don't.  As someone has commented above, the MHK series mics I use don't, and the very cheap Naiant mics I've also been trying with it have an even higher output level than the MKH's  (subjectively anyway).   I'd have thought that if you're recording quiet stuff with low output mics, you're simply using the wrong mics for the job (though of course not everyone can afford mics appropriate to each task!).

I just can't hear (or see on spectral analysis) significant noise levels from the R-44 preamps in any practical situation (including speech recording) that I've encountered so far.

[Gutbucket]

Here you go -

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/9/22/1451533/R-44%20dynamc%20range.mp3

I listened very carefully to the wave version vs this mp3 version and I can't hear anything about the mp3 (256kbps) which, compared to the wave file, invalidates its use for this dynamic range example.

The original was 44.1kHz, 16 bits, preamp level -38dB, input level 0dB (12 o'clock position of the fader knob).

The music was recorded on location, and the following 'silence' in a recording studio, same mics, same levels.

To my mind, if the noise performance of the R-44 was any better, you'd have a hard job finding a location quiet enough to make it worthwhile, or mics quiet enough.

And no, I don't think a 24 bit recording would have provided a different result, as the recording studio background noise level was greater than that which needs more than 16 bits to capture (at risk of staring an argument...)

I'm impressed by the absence of noise in that sample and I'm encouraged so far by all reports except the price increase and the Transcend 16gb card issues. I've only really run my R-09's with external preamps, but I'd rather not use them with the R-44 if it can compare sonically. Noise performance is a big part of that battle, although not all of it.

I ran two simultaneous R-09 rigs a month or so back for 4 tracks outdoors, one a foot behind the other-
ADK TL's (Blumlein) > V3 > R-09
DPA 4060's (39" A-B) > MMA6000 > R-09

Both sources sound quite nice, different in the ways you might expect.  I'd only played then back separately off a laptop 'till last weekend.  On a lark, I plugged the outputs of both R-09's into my surround receiver, the Blumlein to the fronts, spaced omnis to the rears, loaded the files on the cards and pushed play simultaneously (I'd tried to start the recordings simultaneously to get them as close as possible).  Damn, it was spot on.. and stayed that way for the whole set.  Very nice surround, enveloping ambience and audience, especially real sounding bass end.  I just got a copy of Samplitude Master but haven't played with it yet to sync them.  Obviously this 'mixing in air' scenario is more accommodating of small amounts of drift than mixing bits to stereo with potential comb filtering issues.  But I was really surprised that I heard no drift over a 1:15 set.  It will be interesting to see how close they really are.  I did have both recorders in the same bag so they were the same temperature while recording.  Encouraging, but of course that much easier for you R-44'ers.  I assume the R-44 can delay one pair during playback as a playback effect for mic distance sync or surround delay.

Had to test out running stealth surround for my regular Sunday jazz gig.  Oh baby.  Am I going to have to do this for everything now?

Carry on.

[Ozpeter]

Damn, my Transcend 8Gb card has just died.  I recorded a test using it in the R-44, played it back, turned off the R-44, removed card, inserted into PC cardreader and - nothing.  It now won't work in anything. 

So, repeated the test using a Panasonic 8Gb card, which seems to have survived the experience.  What this test does is to attempt to show R-44 preamp noise, or lack of, at full preamp gain.  Again, I used the Sennheiser MKH mics as it seems to be logical to use low noise mics for such a test.  First you hear the sound of a tiny clock about 2 inches from the mics, in a quiet suburban bedroom during the day.  Quiet, you say??  Well, with the gain involved you hear lots of background noise, but standing in the room you'd think the background was silent.  Now the first 20 seconds has the R-44 preamp gain set to -2dB - almost the minimum.  It's fed from a Sennheiser preamp with its gain knob set pretty high. The next 20 seconds is with the mics connected to the R-44 direct and with the preamp gain at its highest level.  This bit was with the R-44 powered by an external battery pack.  Then there's 20 secs with internal batteries, and the last 20 secs with external Edirol-supplied mains supply pack.

Surely with that amount of gain I'd be hearing noise behind the ambience if it was significant?  But I can't.  Looking at the file using Audition's spectral view, there's a very obvious 18kHz tone during the second 20 secs, arising from use of the third-party external battery pack - it could have arisen acoustically as the battery pack is close to the mics and it contains circuitry to supply multiple voltages from the batteries.  But other than that, it looks pretty good to me.

Link to file -

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/9/22/1451533/R-44%20test.mp3

[Gutbucket]

The section using the Senn preamp is quieter, but the sound is also less bright than second and third section using just the R-44 preamp gain.  If they were EQ'd to match there would be less difference.  Eventhough I'm not intimately familiar with the mics, either way there's less hiss at full gain than I expected.

[edited spelin']

[Ozpeter]

I did my best in the short time I could devote to the test to get the levels something like the same, but indeed the Sennheiser preamp recording (the first 20 secs) is a bit lower level than the rest.  This however would tend to show up more easily any significant hiss in the R-44 preamp recording, as the gain there is effectively higher.  I've not messed with the recordings in my DAW at all to attempt to get the perceived level the same - I felt that might be seen as rigging the test! - you can do that for yourselves if you want.

The chances of anyone saying "hmmm, that's a bit hissy" when listening to an R-44 music recording in real life conditions seem to me to be close to zero, if the mics used are half decent. 

[tfs8271]

tfs8271

[sonidista]

Has anyone tried to power the R-44 from an external battery? I did, using the 12 V out from my preamp's NP1 battery pack which I normally use to power a radio mic receiver (that would normally use one 9V battery). The power cable fits and sticks in the R-44's ext power plug (though it is slightly slimmer than the power cord connector that came with the R-44), however it won't run on this power source. (Of course I set ext battery in the menu, tried 9V, tried 12V, but nothing works). Any idea, anyone?

[Ozpeter]

I'm pretty sure the R-44 needs negative polarity to the centre - is that how you connected it?  I had to make up a special cable for that reason.