Topic: Edirol R-44 - Solid State 4 channel recorder

[Ozpeter]

When monitoring via the headphone socket of this or its stablemates, what control do you have of individual channels' pan and level?  (Monitor level/pan, not record level)?

For instance, if I was using this for recording a piano with a stereo mic and a violin solo with a mono mic, it would sound pretty weird during recording if the headphone monitoring had the piano in stereo on channels 1 & 2 and the violin in mono hard left on channel 3.  I'd normally want to pan the violin towards the centre and, independently of the record levels, balance the monitor levels of the two.  But there seems to be only input controls, not monitoring controls.  Maybe in software accessed via the screen??

[98indypacer]

When monitoring via the headphone socket of this or its stablemates, what control do you have of individual channels' pan and level?  (Monitor level/pan, not record level)?

For instance, if I was using this for recording a piano with a stereo mic and a violin solo with a mono mic, it would sound pretty weird during recording if the headphone monitoring had the piano in stereo on channels 1 & 2 and the violin in mono hard left on channel 3.  I'd normally want to pan the violin towards the centre and, independently of the record levels, balance the monitor levels of the two.  But there seems to be only input controls, not monitoring controls.  Maybe in software accessed via the screen??

It's hard to tell from the block diagram how the headphone control will work. 

http://www.edirol.com/images/stories/products/r44/r-44_block_diagram.pdf

I have several questions about this unit as well.  I guess we will have to wait until they post the owners manual online.

[Gutbucket]

watchin'

[rowjimmy]

Ok, I studied the block diagram a bit and here's a few things that I see (forgive me for repeating some previous observations):

Inputs:

• Sensitivity is on the analog side
• Lo/cut & level control are on the digital side.
• Both the built-in mics AND the s/pdif route to channels 1 + 2. The mics enter the path before the level pot, s/pdif is switched after (naturally.)
• S/pdif does not appear to pass though a resampling stage

Outputs:

• Headphones deliver a sum of all four channels. No telling how this is mixed or if it's a straight sum.
• Internal speakers deliver a sum of all four channels. No telling how this is mixed or if it's a straight sum.
• S/pdif delivers a sum of all four channels. No telling how this is mixed or if it's a straight sum.
• Line-outs Channel 1 + 2 may be switched to carry this summed signal.
• S/pdif output does not appear to resample. ie: if recording a two channel digital source, it appears the s/pdif output will be the same signal.

[willndmb]

Ok, I studied the block diagram a bit and here's a few things that I see (forgive me for repeating some previous observations):

Inputs:

• Sensitivity is on the analog side
• Lo/cut & level control are on the digital side.
• Both the built-in mics AND the s/pdif route to channels 1 + 2. The mics enter the path before the level pot, s/pdif is switched after (naturally.)
• S/pdif does not appear to pass though a resampling stage

Outputs:

• Headphones deliver a sum of all four channels. No telling how this is mixed or if it's a straight sum.
• Internal speakers deliver a sum of all four channels. No telling how this is mixed or if it's a straight sum.
• S/pdif delivers a sum of all four channels. No telling how this is mixed or if it's a straight sum.
• Line-outs Channel 1 + 2 may be switched to carry this summed signal.
• S/pdif output does not appear to resample. ie: if recording a two channel digital source, it appears the s/pdif output will be the same signal.

this is good right?

as for the headphones, the knob next to the jack says push to select, i wonder if that means you can select channels by themself

[rowjimmy]

I think, depending on how you value/dislike the summing and how it may or may not be mixed... yes. This is generally good stuff.

[vegas06]

Ok, I studied the block diagram a bit and here's a few things that I see (forgive me for repeating some previous observations):

Inputs:

• Sensitivity is on the analog side
• Lo/cut & level control are on the digital side.
• Both the built-in mics AND the s/pdif route to channels 1 + 2. The mics enter the path before the level pot, s/pdif is switched after (naturally.)
• S/pdif does not appear to pass though a resampling stage

Outputs:

• Headphones deliver a sum of all four channels. No telling how this is mixed or if it's a straight sum.
• Internal speakers deliver a sum of all four channels. No telling how this is mixed or if it's a straight sum.
• S/pdif delivers a sum of all four channels. No telling how this is mixed or if it's a straight sum.
• Line-outs Channel 1 + 2 may be switched to carry this summed signal.
• S/pdif output does not appear to resample. ie: if recording a two channel digital source, it appears the s/pdif output will be the same signal.

this is good right?

as for the headphones, the knob next to the jack says push to select, i wonder if that means you can select channels by themself

That is exactly what happens.
Push the button to select from CH 1/2/3/4 Dual channel or all four channels.
I saw a quick demo here online of the R44 functionality from a Edirol rep.

http://www.sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=6011

[Colin Liston]

Very nice, thanks for the video link.

I like when he shows you the AA batteries with 3 duracell and 1 energizer in there.

[Shawn]

the video has def. peaked my interest. If oade/busman can get these things performing at the same level sonically as the other edirol products I can see myself moving to one.

it's also cool that they mention recording concerts with it. Goes to show that they had us in mind when designing/building the unit.

[Ozpeter]

To me, this monitoring issue highlights not only that this device is fundamentally flawed, but it also emphasises how mis-designed almost all the devices we discuss here are - IMHO.

Why is it that most of these devices have level controls in the digital domain, whereas almost all other digital recording systems do not?  Isn't it significant that the first question people ask about any new piece of kit here is "what's the unity gain figure"?  That's because in essence people don't want digital gain - it's (broadly speaking) the audio equivalent of the dreadful digital zoom on cameras/camcorders.

If you record straight into a PC with a proper soundcard or interface, you have analog input level controls on the interface (or none, if it has no mic inputs), and the digits are fed straight to your DAW software as is.   Normally that software would not out-of-the-box provide for digital input level control, only monitoring / playback level control.  Similarly, take something like the Korg D888 multitracker - you've got input trim per channel, and everything else (faders, pan, eq, etc etc) only affects monitoring and playback/mixdown.

All these correctly-implemented devices are so set up that analog clipping does not occur before digital clipping, or, digital and analog clipping happen at the same level.  You set the record levels entirely with the input trim controls in the analog domain - there's no point in digitally amplifying on the way to the storage medium, as you can do that safely on playback/mixdown, and if you need to digitally attenuate, well, your analog input is clipping anyway, so that's where you deal with it.

Now in the case of the Edirol R-44, digital gain should be fixed at unity, and the four knobs with concentric rings should adjust the monitoring/playback levels and pan, and analog input trim should be implemented another way.  Maybe by pressing and turning the channel knob, if there's not space for more knobs.  Or in software, with the pushable playback level knob flipping the rest between trim and monitoring functions.  Or with an assignable nudger like the zoom rocker on a camcorder.  Or whatever, it's not hard.

Sure, you could argue that during recording you are merely acquiring data and all you need do it to ensure that levels are correct, and never mind what the overall sound is like at that point.  But there are many scenarios where you do need to keep and ear on the overall sound, and while you could manipulate input levels to get a balance, personally I take the view that all channels should be adequately modulated and then attenuated on playback to achieve the correct relative balance.

So - am I right or am I wrong?  Who here would be taken aback if digital level controls were done away with on their kit?   Does anyone find them irreplaceably useful?

[H₂O]

I like in the video how the rep says something like: "there is a new metal inner casing that is extremely durable... that will allow the r-44 to withstand being run over by a uh... very light vehical"

 

[guysonic]

My objection with actual analog (resistive trim/level knob/slider control) is they do not track well enough, at least for my purposes using matched/calibrated multi-channel mics.  

Digital trim/level give much better chance that all channels have inherent known/precision tracking ability. Possible to set exact 'dB' adjustments.

What I would like to see, and spoke to SD engineer about this, is feature to fix each channel gain/level independently (like to calibrate not so precision matched mics), THEN have ability to adjust master level with all channels tracking up/down together, but maintaining the preset channel offset.   None of the two or 4 channel digital decks I've checked seem able to do this.

[flintstone]

Guysonic,

I think the Fostex FR-2LE can do what you describe.  It's got trim adjustment for each channel so mics can be matched.  And then it has master volume to increase/decrease the result.  Both work in the analog side of the preamp. 

The FR-2LE is two channels only, and has no time code or digital input.  But it's quite capable for about $450 on eBay.

Flintstone

[tfs8271]

Stealth 4-channel 

[Shawn]

To me, this monitoring issue highlights not only that this device is fundamentally flawed, but it also emphasises how mis-designed almost all the devices we discuss here are - IMHO.

Why is it that most of these devices have level controls in the digital domain, whereas almost all other digital recording systems do not?  Isn't it significant that the first question people ask about any new piece of kit here is "what's the unity gain figure"?  That's because in essence people don't want digital gain - it's (broadly speaking) the audio equivalent of the dreadful digital zoom on cameras/camcorders.

If you record straight into a PC with a proper soundcard or interface, you have analog input level controls on the interface (or none, if it has no mic inputs), and the digits are fed straight to your DAW software as is.   Normally that software would not out-of-the-box provide for digital input level control, only monitoring / playback level control.  Similarly, take something like the Korg D888 multitracker - you've got input trim per channel, and everything else (faders, pan, eq, etc etc) only affects monitoring and playback/mixdown.

All these correctly-implemented devices are so set up that analog clipping does not occur before digital clipping, or, digital and analog clipping happen at the same level.  You set the record levels entirely with the input trim controls in the analog domain - there's no point in digitally amplifying on the way to the storage medium, as you can do that safely on playback/mixdown, and if you need to digitally attenuate, well, your analog input is clipping anyway, so that's where you deal with it.

Now in the case of the Edirol R-44, digital gain should be fixed at unity, and the four knobs with concentric rings should adjust the monitoring/playback levels and pan, and analog input trim should be implemented another way.  Maybe by pressing and turning the channel knob, if there's not space for more knobs.  Or in software, with the pushable playback level knob flipping the rest between trim and monitoring functions.  Or with an assignable nudger like the zoom rocker on a camcorder.  Or whatever, it's not hard.

Sure, you could argue that during recording you are merely acquiring data and all you need do it to ensure that levels are correct, and never mind what the overall sound is like at that point.  But there are many scenarios where you do need to keep and ear on the overall sound, and while you could manipulate input levels to get a balance, personally I take the view that all channels should be adequately modulated and then attenuated on playback to achieve the correct relative balance.

So - am I right or am I wrong?  Who here would be taken aback if digital level controls were done away with on their kit?   Does anyone find them irreplaceably useful?

it took me a minute to figure out what you were saying, but I guess I do have to agree with.

However, what I realized after thinking about it and going back to the block diagram's for both the R-44 and the R-4 is that it is highly unlikely that oade/busman will be able to do much with respect to improvements in the analog path to the R-44 because there really isn't all the much going on in the analog path since the gain is being handled digitally. I'd curious to hear what others think. am I totally wrong?