Topic: Edirol R-09HR - Part TWO

[Mr.Fantasy]

I was talking to a guy who works at this music store in town, and I played the dumb consumer to see how much the guy actually knew......

Well, I will spare the entire account but he didn't know what he was talking about.

I think I am definitely going to *borrow* this box for a few months to see it it is drastically better than my R09...


I see a lot of people using the Church 9100 preamp with these boxes.....what are the next levels of quality above the Church pre?

Any recommendations?

[a-dub]

I see a lot of people using the Church 9100 preamp with these boxes.....what are the next levels of quality above the Church pre?

Any recommendations?

http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,105636.0.html

[Arni99]

I was talking to a guy who works at this music store in town, and I played the dumb consumer to see how much the guy actually knew......

Well, I will spare the entire account but he didn't know what he was talking about.

I think I am definitely going to *borrow* this box for a few months to see it it is drastically better than my R09...


I see a lot of people using the Church 9100 preamp with these boxes.....what are the next levels of quality above the Church pre?

Any recommendations?

The old R-09 is more noisy than the R-09HR, which is more noisy than the Sony-PCM-D50, Sony MZ-RH1 HI-MD or several other recorders with top-notch internal preamps.
http://www.avisoft.com/recordertests.htm

With the latter recorders you actually don´t need an external preamp as their internal ones are of top-quality.

I never used my SP-Preamp for taping concerts....ok, got it 2 days ago , will test it in 2 weeks with my DPA4061 mics and my R09-HR.

[flintstone]

Digifish did some test recording with mics that have low noise.  The tests show that
the R-09HR preamp is pretty quiet by itself, and that the noise level falls even
farther when using an excellent external preamp. (Digifish used the Sound Devices
MixPre, which costs about $650.)

http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,105893.msg1443847.html#msg1443847

Flintstone

[digifish_music]

Digifish did some test recording with mics that have low noise.  The tests show that
the R-09HR preamp is pretty quiet by itself, and that the noise level falls even
farther when using an excellent external preamp. (Digifish used the Sound Devices
MixPre, which costs about $650.)

http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,105893.msg1443847.html#msg1443847

Flintstone

I am just linking in the internal mic comparison of the R44, R09 and R09HR recorders in a field recording test. Internal mic-pres soon to follow.

http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,108779.msg1452098.html#msg1452098

[jmz93]

How much are used R-09's going for these days? Just the recorder, original SD card, AC adapter and USB cable?  I've had a couple offers around $200. I was hoping to get a bit more, but maybe the R9HR has come down from around $400 recently??? Has the bottom dropped out of the used R9 market?

Just looking for your thoughts guys. I'm about 95% certain I'm just going to sell.  I really want to upgrade to the HR!

[digifish_music]

Some more R09 vs R09HR internal mic-preap vs line-in comparisons.

Methods:

This is a variation on the ticking clock method...without the ticking clock.

The R09 and R09HR were fed from the mic-in jack...

AT3032 --> ART Phantom II --> Mic-in R09 @ 44.1 kHz, 24 bit, high-sensitivity [-12 dB peaks]
AT3032 --> ART Phantom II --> Mic-in R09HR @ 44.1 kHz, 24 bit, high-sensitivity [-12 dB peaks] 

then

AT3032 --> Sound Devices MixPre --> Line-in, R09 @ 44.1 kHz, 24 bit [-12 dB peaks]
AT3032 --> Sound Devices MixPre --> Line-in, R09HR @ 44.1 kHz, 24 bit [-12 dB peaks] 

I then edited out the inter-tick silence and have interleaved them so the two 'silences' can be clearly compared.

Results:

This recording is the inter-clink silence from the R09 alternated with the R09HR, the differences are obvious. The picture (spectrograph) shows time on the horizontal axis and frequency on the vertical axis (20 Hz to 20 kHz).

R09 vs R09HR inter-tick silence



This recording is the inter-clink silence from the R09 alternated with the R09HR, from the line in, the differences are very subtle (so I have marked the transitions on the spectrograph.

R09 vs R09HR line-in inter-tick silence (MixPre)

[guysonic]

I see a lot of people using the Church 9100 preamp with these boxes.....what are the next levels of quality above the Church pre?

Any recommendations?

While not supplying mic power for most mics, the PA-3SX is very compact to fit on back of R-09/HR decks, exceptionally quiet, very low distortion, has both clip/low battery indication, runs for over 500 hours on set of AA lithium, and has extended frequency bandwidth most suited for up to 96K high definition modes.

See details at:

www.sonicstudios.com/access.htm#3sx



Details/tips to attaching various gear to back of R-09HR deck shown in review just a bit below the noise spectrum graphs at:

www.sonicstudios.com/r09hrrev.htm#spectrum

[digifish_music]

I see a lot of people using the Church 9100 preamp with these boxes.....what are the next levels of quality above the Church pre?

Any recommendations?

While not supplying mic power for most mics, the PA-3SX is very compact to fit on back of R-09/HR decks, exceptionally quiet, very low distortion, has both clip/low battery indication, runs for over 500 hours on set of AA lithium, and has extended frequency bandwidth most suited for up to 96K high definition modes.

See details at:

www.sonicstudios.com/access.htm#3sx

Details/tips to attaching various gear to back of R-09HR deck shown in review just a bit below the noise spectrum graphs at:

www.sonicstudios.com/r09hrrev.htm#spectrum

Do you have a comparison of your PA-3SX vs the HR internals for something like the clock test?

digifish.

[justink]

I ran another test of the 16GB A-Data class 6 SDHC card... this time there was trouble.  I updated to v1.04 firmware, did a fresh format to the SD card, and set it to record at 24/96 with 1GB splits.  It recorded 4 files ok then when it split to the 5th file, it stopped recording (there is only 1 second recorded for the 5th file).  Unfortunately, I did not witness what happened when the recording stopped.  I went to check it and the unit had powered down (assuming it sat idle for 3 minutes - as that is how I had the power save setup).  I started recording again at it appears to be doing fine.

I guess I'll be repeating this test a few times.

Update:  So the recording continued fine until the batteries ran out, and the last file is ok, so I assume it saved it before completely shutting down.  I was using "Kirkland Signature" alkalines (Costco house brand) and got 4 hrs 4 minutes recorded before it shut down.  The 5th file that it stopped on as described above seems to be missing file header info since I can't get any file properties when downloaded onto my computer - not sure what this indicates, whether there was a "slow card" error during recording or not.

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.

i had the same problem last night for Dave Matthews Band!

the 5th file is one second long, even thought it was giving me good levels and recording all night long.

OFOTD mentioned this was a header issue and the file could be saved... can someone point me to an explanation or how to do this?

thanks,

-j

[flintstone]

Digifish,

The ambient sound recordings of the R44, R-09 and R-09HR are very useful.  The R-09HR with internal mics sounded very good.  I enjoyed what sounded like passing bicycle tires from 1:14 to 1:20 or so.  That sound was absent from the R-44 recording, and not nearly as clear with the R-09.  None of the recorders provided much stereo imaging.

The R-44 sounded pretty bad. I think the R-44's internal mics were not intended for critical recording, just for audio notes.  It would be very useful to hear the R-44 recording using your AT 3032 mics directly, compared with the AT 3032-->MixPre-->R44.

The comparison of the R-09 alternating with R-09HR makes it easy to hear the difference in noise floor between the two units.  The difference between the R-09 and R-09HR when receiving a signal via line in from your MixPre is more subtle, as you would predict from Guysonic's test results:

http://www.sonicstudios.com/-35dbR09HRvsR09LINE(LOG).gif

I think if a taper is recording line in most of the time, the R-09 would work as well as the R-09HR.

Thanks, and +T for your efforts!

Flintstone

[digifish_music]

Digifish,

The R-44 sounded pretty bad. I think the R-44's internal mics were not intended for critical recording, just for audio notes.  It would be very useful to hear the R-44 recording using your AT 3032 mics directly, compared with the AT 3032-->MixPre-->R44.

+T's all-round, I agree. It was another miserable weekend here, so hence all the testing from indoors and my front porch I still do plan to test...

R09, R09HR & R44 internal preamps with AT3032's and possibly NT4 for the same field-recording sound, although I need to find somewhere without the background wind in the trees (that masks background hiss or may be mistaken for the same) AND is interesting to listen to AND is fairly constant so that I can get a sample from all three. I need a chamber orchestra playing in the forest on a still day

The comparison of the R-09 alternating with R-09HR makes it easy to hear the difference in noise floor between the two units.  The difference between the R-09 and R-09HR when receiving a signal via line in from your MixPre is more subtle, as you would predict from Guysonic's test results:

http://www.sonicstudios.com/-35dbR09HRvsR09LINE(LOG).gif

I think if a taper is recording line in most of the time, the R-09 would work as well as the R-09HR.

I agree, the line in on all machines is fairly much the same, and I would not be upgrading from an 09 to 09HR on that basis alone. I wanted the better mic-pre performance for binaural and stealth recording that I do. The fact the internal mics are now better was a bonus, and something that makes me more comfortable to make an internal-recording at a pinch.

digifish

[guysonic]

Do you have a comparison of your PA-3SX vs the HR internals for something like the clock test?

digifish.

No microphone input direct comparison exists as yet, only the input noise comparison graphics shown below and also in the posted review at www.sonicstudios.com/r09hrrev.htm


(MIC POWER ON NOISE GRAPHIC)


(MIC POWER ON/OFF GRAPHIC)][/b]

Obvious low frequency noise with HR mic power ON, and not so bad low level high frequency noise with mic power turned off

Perhaps when another HR arrives here a comparison recording of chromatic wind chimes might offer audible insight to benefits of eliminating the high frequency noise using LINE input with an external preamplifier

[gmm6797]

Saved these steps from year back when I had R1 wav file issues, im not the editor, no idea who was back then

OFOTD mentioned this was a header issue and the file could be saved... can someone point me to an explanation or how to do this?

* Open up the damaged file.
* Copy the damaged part of the audio and paste into a new file within Audition/Cool Edit. Make sure that the bit depth and sample rate are the same as the original file.
* Save the damaged audio to a RAW .pcm but before saving, go to "Options" within the File Save dialog (near the bottom of the Save dialog) and select "24 bit Intel PCM" with a byte offset of "0".
* Close the damaged file.
* Now open up the damaged .pcm, select the correct bit depth and sample rate. It'll now give you the option to select the byte offset of the file. Since we all know that the byte "0" doesn't work, we only have "+1" and "+2". One of these will work. I've found that taking a 10sec sample of the damaged file and going through this process will let you know which byte offset to use in a short amount of time. Once you know, then you can process the big file. When the damaged file opens up and looks normal, then copy the good data and paste it into the original audio where the damaged part is. I usually cut out the damaged part of the original and then paste in the good. All you have to do next is cut out any bad parts in the original so that the audio lines up correctly with the newly pasted good audio.
* Another little tidbit, so far I have found that if you have to use the "+1" byte offset, you need to swap the channels and when using the "+2" byte offset, the channels appear to be fine. I've only done a few files so far and this seems to be the pattern.

[kcmoejoe]

checking in (for the record)....I taped the other night for the first time with my compact rig - DPA 4061's > SP Batt.Box > R-09HR (line-in) with great results at about 25ft. from the stage taping three bands with levels from 65-72, so I guess with no preamp in front (except for the R-09's pre) and the 4061's you should get as close to the sound source as possible to get the best recording if your in the very far back 50ft. or more from stage you'll probably have to run the levels around max (80). This was rockabilly, indie rock, and bluegrass amplified.