Topic: Edirol R-09 release information

[mdarnton]

OK, never mind. I just found S/N specs for the R09, and they're really not very good--a lot worse than the MT. Funny--over on the MT side of things that discovery was one of the things that sent people off screaming for the R09--then the R09 comes along, and it's poor, by comparison.

 Hmmm. I guess it was just the unobtanium factor again......

[VA_TAPER]

OK, never mind. I just found S/N specs for the R09, and they're really not very good--a lot worse than the MT. Funny--over on the MT side of things that discovery was one of the things that sent people off screaming for the R09--then the R09 comes along, and it's poor, by comparison.

 Hmmm. I guess it was just the unobtanium factor again......

If you're talking about the specs from the soundpros site, they're just copied from the R-1, I have seen no official published specs on the R-09 and only testing will show actual S/N as m-audio was busted for listing the specs of their internal A/D chip not actual in device specs.

peace, chris

[tapeworm48]

Not sure of any online dealers, but I was in a local Sam Ash for an adapter and they had the R09 in stock.

thanks to neutrino, i picked mine up yesterday (sunday) from sam ash.

www.samashmusic.com to find one near you.

[live2496]

I don't think I've seen this mentioned..  Not all card readers can handle a 4GB SD card..  Here are some tests of commonly avail cards..

I had the same issue with XP only seeing 1gb of the 4gb chip.
This card reader works... http://ec.transcendusa.com/product/ItemDetail.asp?ItemID=TS-RD13S

[sleepypedro]

Thanks for the sam ash rec but the nearest store is 128 miles..  Guess I'll give guitar center a call in a few to see if they've got'em.

ummm, i'm betting that samash.com would have no issues with shipping one to you?

[mdarnton]

Ooooo. I see the pro-Edirol bias is really strong in these parts--just asking a pointed quesiton about the R09's performance and noting their lack of providing any meaninful specs cost me 4 ts!

[Zaphod]

Ooooo. I see the pro-Edirol bias is really strong in these parts--just asking a pointed quesiton about the R09's performance and noting their lack of providing any meaninful specs cost me 4 ts!

Tell me exactly what specs say about the actual sound of the unit?

That is the real question: How does it sound? Not how good are the specs, IMO.

[blackmikito]

Not sure of any online dealers, but I was in a local Sam Ash for an adapter and they had the R09 in stock.

thanks to neutrino, i picked mine up yesterday (sunday) from sam ash.

www.samashmusic.com to find one near you.

What's the going deal on these anyway?  $349 I'm guessing?

[macroint]

Pro-Audio wasn't BS'ing last week when they said they were getting a few in... I have a tracking number and it will be here wednesday 

I received mine on Friday from Pro Audio...

[gngrbrdman13]

OK, never mind. I just found S/N specs for the R09, and they're really not very good--a lot worse than the MT. Funny--over on the MT side of things that discovery was one of the things that sent people off screaming for the R09--then the R09 comes along, and it's poor, by comparison.

 Hmmm. I guess it was just the unobtanium factor again......

If you're talking about the specs from the soundpros site, they're just copied from the R-1, I have seen no official published specs on the R-09 and only testing will show actual S/N as m-audio was busted for listing the specs of their internal A/D chip not actual in device specs.

peace, chris

forgive my ignorance here.  Will someone please explain this to me?

[it-goes-to-eleven]

forgive my ignorance here.  Will someone please explain this to me?

The mt has great specs but the analog section isn't close to meeting them.  Huge amounts of background noise.  I am not surprised to hear that the specs they gave are of the chipset they used and not of the actual device.  That's fraud..   I heard it within seconds of first plugging my 4061's into the mt.. Hiss..   But it is a decent 24 bit bitbucket..

So with that loud noise floor there isn't much difference in range between the background hiss and the loudest noise.  I'd guess that 16 bit something > modsbm tapes could have more net resolution/dynamic gain/etc.  That's what folks are implying when they say the mt doesn't have 24 bit resolution/range/etc.  The noise floor is a big problem on jazz, folk or any other source that has quiet parts.  But it is not so much of a problem for T**l.

[gngrbrdman13]

forgive my ignorance here.  Will someone please explain this to me?

The mt has great specs but the analog section isn't close to meeting them.  Huge amounts of background noise.  I am not surprised to hear that the specs they gave are of the chipset they used and not of the actual device.  That's fraud..   I heard it within seconds of first plugging my 4061's into the mt.. Hiss..   But it is a decent 24 bit bitbucket..

So with that loud noise floor there isn't much difference in range between the background hiss and the loudest noise.  I'd guess that 16 bit something > modsbm tapes could have more net resolution/dynamic gain/etc.  That's what folks are implying when they say the mt doesn't have 24 bit resolution/range/etc.  The noise floor is a big problem on jazz, folk or any other source that has quiet parts.  But it is not so much of a problem for T**l.

so what this other person is saying is that the r09 is even worse than the MT?

I dont use my r01 for non 'under the radar' recording often.  I guess I should keep it that way.

[SunWizard]

Freelunch is talking about the MT only, and how its specs are fraud.  The R-09 preamp is far better than the MT and slightly better than the R-01 which most people agree has a decent pre.  Specs have never been released on the R-09, and I agree that specs don't matter its how it sounds.

[gngrbrdman13]

hopefully this is the last question I have on this part of the discussion.  So its only when you use the pre right.  I use an outboard pre when I use my r01 and when I will be using my r09.  The analog stage is still used however, the pre in the edirol unit would not be.  So this doesn't effect me directly is that right?

Thanks for all your guys' help!  I just want to understand better.

[Zaphod]

forgive my ignorance here.  Will someone please explain this to me?

The mt has great specs but the analog section isn't close to meeting them.  Huge amounts of background noise.  I am not surprised to hear that the specs they gave are of the chipset they used and not of the actual device.  That's fraud..   I heard it within seconds of first plugging my 4061's into the mt.. Hiss..   But it is a decent 24 bit bitbucket..

So with that loud noise floor there isn't much difference in range between the background hiss and the loudest noise.  I'd guess that 16 bit something > modsbm tapes could have more net resolution/dynamic gain/etc.  That's what folks are implying when they say the mt doesn't have 24 bit resolution/range/etc.  The noise floor is a big problem on jazz, folk or any other source that has quiet parts.  But it is not so much of a problem for T**l.

so what this other person is saying is that the r09 is even worse than the MT?

I dont use my r01 for non 'under the radar' recording often.  I guess I should keep it that way.

The person in question is arguing that were fluffing the R-09 greater than what the specs say about how it "should" sound.

Of course one does have to take into account how you are using the recorder. I can say with confidence that most of us here are going to be using the R-09 with an external pre, or mic power supply of some sort via line-in, and NOT using the internal mic. I suppose the context of how most use the recorder is often just assumed around here without being clairified, which includes myself.