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

[sonidista]

I looking for a small device that can replace a Field Mixer, like Sound Devices, SQN, Wendt, or in my case (no one knows) Mystere, in case of sound quality /Pre´s /Limiters/ and usabilty.

If you're going to record dialogue or other stuff with unexpected levels I would recommend using the R-44 and your analog preamp at the same time. It's just easier to turn the knobs and see the levels on a MixPre or such. For ambience or music recording, where you don't need to have your fingers on the knobs all the time the R-44 is a nice standalone machine.

[digifish_music]

Ok here's my contribution to the R44 vs Rest-of-world mic preamps 

Edirol R44 internal mic preamps vs Sound Devices MixPre

Gear used

1. Sound source = Battery powered wall-clock (specially selected from a sample of 3 for it's broad-spectrum tick  ).
2. R44 recording @ 24 bit 44.1 kHz (internal batteries).  Recordings were post-converted to 16 bit.
3. Mic = Rode NT1-A large diaphragm condenser (worlds quietest condenser, so Rode claim)
4. External preamp = Sound Devices MixPre, running on internal batteries (benchmark quiet preamp?).
5. Location = Vocal booth.

Method

1. Rode NT1-A on mic stand, Clock on second stand.
2. Distance was adjusted (~ 10 cm, 4") so that the R44 achieved -12 dB with the max sensitivity (-56 dB).
3. Recording made while I crouched on the floor holding my breath (and believe me I had to, on my first attempt I could hear my nose whistling, I was about 1.5 meters away from and below the mic level. Serious amplification, or loud nose  )
4. Mix-Pre was then connected NT1-A --> MixPre --> R44 into the same channel as used previously (Ch1). R44 sensitivity was dropped to minimum (+4 dB).
5. The gain on the MixPre was then adjusted to match the same peak levels on the R44, as the R44 internal mic-pres gave at when they were at Max sensitivity (-12 dB peaks).
6. Recording made. Recording made while I crouched on the floor holding my breath.

NT1-A --> R44: R44 preamp max sensitivity @ -56 dB (Level @ 12 O'Clock). Low cut off, limiter off, phantom on. Peaks on R44 ~ -12 dB

NT1-A --> MixPre --> R44: R44 preamp Min sensitivity @ +4 dB (level @12 O'Clock), Lo cut off, limiter off, phantom off - MixPre (set to second highest level mark). Low cut off, phantom on. Peaks on R44 ~ -12 dB

...so the R44 was on a setting of 10/10 while the MixPre was operating on a setting 9/10.

Results

The following recording is 10 ticks R44 then 10 ticks MixPre

Click here to download WAV file (3 Meg)



Conclusions

Remembering that the test above is for the highest gain setting on the R44, it is clear that from a noise perspective the Edirol R44 mic preamps are no match for the Sound Devices MixPre, and nor would we expect them to be. The MixPre alone is about the same cost as the R44.

The question then is whether the stock R44 mic-pres are good enough for music and field recording?

For music recording, I have no doubt that the R44 pres are capable of delivering noise-free high-quality results (as demonstrated elsewhere in this thread). Certainly if you are recording any 'normal' musical instrument the stock R44 will deliver a professional result. To hear the difference between the MixPre and R44 you would need to be in a studio, and then the playback gain would need to be artificially boosted. If you are recording bands, then the sound is an order of magnitude louder so inherent MixPre vs R44 noise level comparisons are simply irrelevant. It will come down to whether you think the R44 pres have a 'sound' that you like rather than noise.

For field-recording, based on my own limited experiences with the R44 so far, the R44 will provide similarly excellent recordings in the majority of circumstances. I have been using settings of -44 dB max (2 steps or 12 dB down from the level heard above) and don't hear any noticeable hiss above the background noise. The hiss does become noticeable (compared to the MixPre) if I start normalizing gain on recordings and boosting playback-levels while listening with headphones or run the R44 at -50~56 dB in a quiet location. So, for extreme quietude locations recording distant sources, the R44 pres are marginal in comparison to the MixPre. Noise obsessed 'quietude' field-recordists will find that the R44 is not a 1-box solution. Sound Devices is still king of that hill IMO. Perhaps the modders will change that.

Here's a thought, if you don't mind a little clutter and need a world-class 4 channel field-recording solution (on a 'budget'), an R44 + 2 x MixPres will cost about $2000 USD. For that you get 4 channels of pristine mic-pres + 4 channel superb digital recording at 24 bit, 88.2 kHz.

PS: Don't forget to take the S/N or your mics into account too, the NT1-A used here is a very, very quiet mic (~ 5 dB-A self noise). Once you add in some significant hiss from your microphones then the differences may not be as noticeable as demonstrated above.

digifish

[Ozpeter]

"...well, something sucks, because I can't find /sounds/R44-Internal_vs_MixPre.wav. "

C'mon, share the secret! 

[digifish_music]

"...well, something sucks, because I can't find /sounds/R44-Internal_vs_MixPre.wav. "

C'mon, share the secret! 

Try it now

[Ozpeter]

Downloading now... 

Hmmm - I'm puzzled as you've clearly got noise at that preamp setting and I didn't.  I shall investigate further!

[goofy23]

sonidlsta
thanks, i looked at the R44 and Fr2le in store yesterday, the knobs are really small, you are right, maybe a bit too small.
I liked the idea of a small backbone healthy device, but maybe these units are too flimsy.
i like those Sound Devices and their light weight, but their knobs are also not very good on the small units, maybe as bad as the flimsy knobs on R44/Fr2le.
But i the SD´s have at least good pre gain knobs and analog gain knobs, which the R44 miss (no analog unity gain knob ,only digital gain afterward), the Fr2le seems to only have those analog gain knobs and no pre gain adjustable (maybe in menu), i think, don´t know.
 
digifish
your record proved how good the pre´s of the Sound devices are ! impressive.
The Edirol R44 is much worse.
Thanks  your recording helped much, now i know the R44 isn´t usable for me, as i seldom record music, in first  i record ambient and speech.

But again i am very astonished of the pre´s performance, and i wonder cause iused the SD302 often before, but not with a large diapragma mic.
"Only" with Sennhesier MKH`s, Neumann`s, Rode NTG-1 small diapragh, but never expirienced the noiseless performance in these extreme form.
I wonder how the SD`s pres perform technically compared to SQN,Mystere (portable mixer from switzerland), Wendt.
I think it the SQN and Mystere´s are fatter in sound (which i like) and have more gain but i dont know if they as noise free.

But this thread is over the Edirol, so this is too far away, i just have to mention my thought´s (dont know why, i am a pre-amp freak)
But what maybe interests all readers of this thread is how it compares to FR2lE?

[hypnotoad]

Thanks for the continual testing/poking/prodding of this unit digifish.  This thread is very interesting.  +t

[NOLAfishwater]

since I will be running the V3 in front of the R-44, I am not all too concerned with the Pres. Mainly going to be doing matrixes. But if I actually run 4 mics, I will probably get channel 3&4 modded by Busman once the warranty has expired.

Digifish. Thanks for the research. It is good to know.

[digifish_music]

sonidlsta
 
digifish
your record proved how good the pre´s of the Sound devices are ! impressive.
The Edirol R44 is much worse.
Thanks  your recording helped much, now i know the R44 isn´t usable for me, as i seldom record music, in first  i record ambient and speech.

The MixPre is a benchmark for quiet operation (as is the NT1-A). But remember also the MixPre alone it costs almost the same as the R44

While there is an obvious difference, the R44 was being run flat out (does anyone ever run their gear this way?), once you start recording the sort of sources people here record, it would not be an issue. Just listen to OZPeters classical recording.

I purchased the R44 with the intention of using it for field recording, and from my experiments so far it sounds great. I'll post some up on freesound and post the link here. I have been using -32 dB and -44 dB (2-4 steps down from that tested) and the noise just drops away dramatically. However, for very quiet sources the R44 pres are marginal. But you can't expect Sound Devices performance for Edirol money

I also wish Edirol made MixPres...they would be $300

digifish

[digifish_music]

Downloading now... 

Hmmm - I'm puzzled as you've clearly got noise at that preamp setting and I didn't.  I shall investigate further!

I just listened to yours, it sounds about the same. The spectrum looks the same too. Why did you think mine was different?

digifish

[Ozpeter]

The dynamic range for the MixPre is given as about 10dB better than the R-44 - but from my supplier even discounted it costs about 20% more.  And it's got half the number of channels.  And it doesn't record.  I think the most interesting test would be putting the R-44 up against the FR2-LE, which does seem to have a reputation for good preamps at the price (though again, only half the number).

Here today it's raining, which causes enough background noise to make it impossible to test further - that noise is radically louder than any R-44 preamp noise.

[Ozpeter]

I just listened to yours, it sounds about the same. The spectrum looks the same too. Why did you think mine was different?

digifish

I could instantly hear the preamp noise in yours but not in mine - I think yours has the advantage of being recorded in a quieter environment - also mine was in stereo which perhaps confuses the issue.  Once the rain stops I'll try mono.

Edit - and your external very nice preamp is quieter than my 15 year old one! 

[goofy23]

Sound Devices are great but i dont like the handling of the small units, and also the limters can be better.
But for the price they are great, here in germany they are the price breakers for TV Sound recording, you can not get beter for less money, (if you import them from USA).
Remember a SQN 2s cost 2500€, a Mystere over 3000€ SD, is ridiciously cheap more and more are using them for ENG than SQN.

And you are right about noise levels, i told i used him several times and i never cared about it, i cared about my sound, not the noise which was no problem cause my usable signal was ways above the noise.

[Ozpeter]

my usable signal was ways above the noise.

Indeed, that's the thing - the tests we've been running have little relevance to real recording situations unless you're doing nature recording of very quiet sounds in a very quiet environment.

If you are wanting to record and reproduce music, so that when you sit in front of the loudspeakers the perceived level of the playback is the same as the original sound (in other words, you're not amplifying the music, and the system noise, to a higher level than is natural) then almost any modern recording device will exhibit no audible system noise - especially given that few households are quiet enough for the purpose.  You have to increase the level of the system noise to a point where the music is unrealistically (and painfully) loud to begin to hear the difference between the various devices - and we get to the point where owner pride and satisfaction is really what we're talking about!

[digifish_music]

my usable signal was ways above the noise.

Indeed, that's the thing - the tests we've been running have little relevance to real recording situations unless you're doing nature recording of very quiet sounds in a very quiet environment.

Indeed. Your classical recording shows that (and I assume that would be the most demanding situation most tapers would encounter).

I also agree with your point also about mono vs stereo hiss, stereo is perceived to be less intrusive as it is interpreted more as background noise where mono is heard as a localized source.

...from what I have experienced so far the R44 makes excellent field recordings, but the pres are possibly marginal for extreme 'quietude' settings where distant bird/frog/ambiances are being recorded. Even my NT4 + MixPre can be too hissy, the urge to use the mic preamp as a 'magnifying glass' is irresistible, give the man gain and he will use it

So here is an R44 field recording (NT4 mic naked, hence the low frequency wind noises as I move), -36 dB setting (6/10) I stand at my front door and record my front yard, back inside the house and close the door. Walk through the house (passing the kitchen and dishwasher) into a quiet room and then into an even quieter one so you can better hear the mic-pres. (3 meg 320 kbps mp3, spectrum below)



On the other hand, one reason I like the MixPre + R09 combo on the road is that you have a lot of flexibility to record 'pro' or stealth/binaural depending on the circumstances. The R09 however seems to emit a lot more EMI than the R44, I had the R09 resting on-top of the MixPre the other day recording some ambiance and some digital interference is audible in parts of the recording, the R44 does not do the same when placed against the MixPre. If someone is looking for a killer (2 channel) field recording rig, I think it would have to be a MixPre + R09HR.  Cost~$1000 (USD), what beats that?

Something I noticed BTW, the self noise of the R44 seems to increase step-by-step until you hit -36 dB when it drops, then keeps increasing after that setting, do you notice that? I checked this and all channels on mine do the same (headphones need to be up fairly high).

While mentioning the R44 headphone amp, again I am astonished how good (noise free) it is.

digifish