Topic: R-44 Oade Mod vs. Busman Mod (opinions sought)

[acidjack]

Just got an R-44 as a very generous xmas gift and hoping to try it out soon.  Before I go any further I should preface this by saying I have read some of the posts in "Retail Space" on this issue, in particular the "Problems with Doug Oade" thread.  I'm not trying to solicit comments bashing anyone here; I just want to make an informed decision about whether (a) to get a mod at all and (b) if so, which one.  To the extent that you have particular negative feedback about a retailer that is germane to the decision, please send me a PM. 

I have been borrowing an Oade Concert Modded PMD660, and it sounds great.  I understand that Doug will mod an R-44 that wasn't purchased from him.  I know Busman only mods decks bought from other retailers, so not an issue. I've dealt with Chris (but not Doug) and know Chris has a reputation for great work. 

Has anyone ever done an A/B between a modded/unmodded R-44, and between the Oade/Busman mods? 

Barring having that available, what are people's opinions as to the effect of these mods on the sound of recordings?  Mics used will be DPA 4021.

Also, in deciding whether to get the mods at all, what did people not like about the stock R-44 pre that made them upgrade?  Most of my shows are loud/amplified. so noise floor is not an issue for me. 

[rastasean]

We do NOT service decks that were not sold by Oade Brothers Audio, any deck sent in for an upgrade MUST be in good working order or it is not eligible for the upgrade.

http://www.oade.com/digital_recorders/hard_disc_recorders/upgrades.html



Edirol R-44
4 channels of transparency modifications $250.00 USD

http://busmanaudio.com/mods.html

I think you may have the two mixed up.

[page]

We do NOT service decks that were not sold by Oade Brothers Audio, any deck sent in for an upgrade MUST be in good working order or it is not eligible for the upgrade.

http://www.oade.com/digital_recorders/hard_disc_recorders/upgrades.html



Edirol R-44
4 channels of transparency modifications $250.00 USD

http://busmanaudio.com/mods.html

I think you may have the two mixed up.

Someone reported here a bit ago that Doug would *now* mod some models that didn't come from him with some stipulations (e.g. everything worked, there was no warranty, something like that). He won't do *any* model (still no on old UA-5s for example), but the word on the street was that he would do some new stuff from 3rd party vendors. He is correct in that Chris will only do mods on decks from others, mostly cause he doesn't sell decks so you have to get it elsewhere.

Has anyone ever done an A/B between a modded/unmodded R-44, and between the Oade/Busman mods?

I don't think an A/B has ever been done. I toyed with the idea of getting an R-44 a while ago, but turned elsewhere so I don't have a complete knowledge base on that one.

[aaronji]

We do NOT service decks that were not sold by Oade Brothers Audio, any deck sent in for an upgrade MUST be in good working order or it is not eligible for the upgrade.

http://www.oade.com/digital_recorders/hard_disc_recorders/upgrades.html

The way I read the above link, Oade will upgrade recorders bought from a third party:

Oade Brothers Audio now offering upgrades for your digital recorder.

Please e-mail Doug Oade to obtain an RMA number. Turn around time is approximately 10 to 12 business days plus shipping time. We do NOT service decks that were not sold by Oade Brothers Audio, any deck sent in for an upgrade MUST be in good working order or it is not eligible for the upgrade.

All PMD 620 are available only on machines we sell, sorry but no exceptions

The following Upgrades are available for any Digital Recorders in good working order. Please note, our upgrade voids the factory warranty. We warranty only the parts we put in, not the entire machine.
You must contact Doug Oade via E-mail to obtain shipping and payment instructions.

[DSatz]

Until recently I didn't entirely trust the analog electronics of the R44 and assumed that I should use an outboard preamp and A/D converter, and just treat the R44 (at least its first two channels) as a "bit bucket." I've made maybe 20-30 live recordings that way.

Yesterday, though, I recorded two full-length opera performances with an using a pair of good microphones connected directly to the R44's XLR inputs with no outboard preamp, phantom power supply or A/D converter. Since then I've listened at some length to the playbacks, and so far, I really don't hear anything wrong with the recorder that would make me want to have it modified.

If I get time soon, I'll make some comprehensive measurements of the analog electronics since maybe there's something about noise or distortion or dither or frequency response that my ears haven't caught onto yet. But what I'm hearing seems good enough in terms of fidelity (output = input), and that's all that I really want from a recorder--besides practical usability, which the R44 certainly has.

--best regards

[Will_S]

I don't think an A/B has ever been done.

And this would give me pause about paying $250 to void my warranty, especially in light of DSatz' comments above.

It's not directly germane to the R44, but you might want to look at the A/B tests that have been done for the FR2LE.  Which suggest to me that by now even mid-level consumer gear is competent enough to not really need modifications...and that a lot of people who swear up and down that they hear obvious improvements from modded gear can't distinguish stock from modded in a blind test...even though they think they can, happily providing answers that turn out to be no better than random guesses.  That doesn't rule out the possibility that there would be clearly audible differences in some circumstances, but it also suggests that people often "hear" differences just because they want to.

Also the links below only looked at "transparent" mods, the "warm"/"vintage" mods may have a bigger effect, for good or for ill.

field A/B of FR2LE stock vs Busman transparency mod:
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=111772.0;all

home stereo test:
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=113128.0;all
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=113482.0;all

[datmike]

I don't think an A/B has ever been done.

And this would give me pause about paying $250 to void my warranty, especially in light of DSatz' comments above.

It's not directly germane to the R44, but you might want to look at the A/B tests that have been done for the FR2LE.  Which suggest to me that by now even mid-level consumer gear is competent enough to not really need modifications...and that a lot of people who swear up and down that they hear obvious improvements from modded gear can't distinguish stock from modded in a blind test...even though they think they can, happily providing answers that turn out to be no better than random guesses.  That doesn't rule out the possibility that there would be clearly audible differences in some circumstances, but it also suggests that people often "hear" differences just because they want to.

Also the links below only looked at "transparent" mods, the "warm"/"vintage" mods may have a bigger effect, for good or for ill.

field A/B of FR2LE stock vs Busman transparency mod:
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=111772.0;all

home stereo test:
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=113128.0;all
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=113482.0;all

Very interesting...I'm about ready to pick a unit up and may not have the mod done.  It would be nice to have an a/b done in a concert setting, though.

[DSatz]

Will_S, I don't doubt that some circuit modifications can cause audible changes to a recorder's performance. People who want to hear differences between "A" and "B" will tend to hear differences whether they exist or not--but it is equally true that people who don't want to hear a difference will tend not to hear one even if it is there to be heard.

Listening requires an open mind, and for me at least, any desire to prove anything one way or the other spoils that. I have a personal policy of not discounting whatever someone else thinks they've heard--though if they start attributing what they think they've heard to a cause that doesn't make sense, I might quibble with them at that point.

That definitely comes into this picture, because one of the strongest justifications that seems to be given for op-amp and other part substitutions is "improved transient response"--increasing the "speed" of the circuitry in responding to rapidly changing signal voltages. And unfortunately, some very basic beliefs in this area, that are widely propagated and accepted in the audiophile community, are completely mistaken. Faster is not always better; there's something more like an optimal "speed" for a circuit stage, but it's not always simple to determine.

As I said, I don't want to discount what someone hears simply because their beliefs about why they're hearing it are objectively false. But I also don't want to assume that something which sounds better to someone else (or even to me) is a better thing for me to use in my recordings, if I don't know why it sounds the way it does in the first place.

Maybe the apparent sonic improvement depends on circumstances that were true only in one situation--as a crude example, if you're going to play a recording back over loudspeakers that have rolled-off treble response, it helps if you record with microphones that have a high-frequency elevation--but the result of that same response elevation might sound awful on better speakers. Looking at only one piece of the puzzle at a time can lead to some very wrong conclusions about the larger picture.

--best regards

[Will_S]

Will_S, I don't doubt that some circuit modifications can cause audible changes to a recorder's performance. People who want to hear differences between "A" and "B" will tend to hear differences whether they exist or not--but it is equally true that people who don't want to hear a difference will tend not to hear one even if it is there to be heard.

I don't think this applies to the comparisons posted...many of the respondents were proud owners of various modded gear.  Also note that most people weren't recording not hearing differences, they were reporting "differences" that didn't pan out in terms of consistently picking out stock vs modded.  So it's not as if most respondents didn't want to hear a difference.

But I agree the mods may well be audible in certain situations (and the warm/vintage rather than transparent mods are probably more audible), but people who insist that they make night and day, clearly audible differences have some 'splaining to do.

[dgale]

This is why there are things like double blind studies in the scientific research world - you need to design an experiment (which in this case is a comparison) that bypasses the various biases that virtually everyone has one way or the other.  For starters, you can't know which version you are listening to when you make the comparision - think of the ol' Coke vs. Pepsi blind taste test. 

You also need to set things up so that all other potentially confounding variables are the same, so you are sure you have narrowed any perceived difference down to what it is you are trying to compare.  And then you need to make sure to repeat this comparison similarly under a wide range of conditions - in this case different bands/music types, different venues, different locations, mic patterns etc. to decide if the perceived difference is consistent or varies under these changing conditions. 

It's pretty rare, if ever, that such a comparison has ever occurred.  I frequently see opinions lobbed around about this gear vs that gear, this technique vs that etc., and rarely have I ever seen a situation where I felt there was enough control to make an objective comparison...and even then, of course, we're talking about what our ears hear, which is is anything but objective.

Suppose I want to compare a set of KM140s vs. Schoeps cardiods at a certain venue/band - unless they are on the same stand, in the same pattern, and using the same, pre, A/D etc., how valid is the comparison?  Same deal if you wanted to compare the sound of a MiniMe to a V3 - all other parameters need to be exactly the same.  And then you have to guage opinions on which sounds best without the listeners knowing which is which, as everyone likely has an opinion already on which they like better.  I hate to see someone listen to one recording from a show and compare it to another made by someone else under a variety of varying conditions and then decide which gear or technique is best...sorry but it's the research scientist in me that cringes at this. 

[kirk97132]

I run an R-44, stock.  I do have a Busman modded UA-5 and have had Busman mod a set of mics.  The way I look at it is....not better or worse but different.  A mod (can?)will make it sound different.  What is harder is to get a mod undone.  For example, if I sent my R-44 out to get modded and once it was done I either didn't like it or wanted to change it, when then it is problematic.  I run separate preamps in front of my R-44.  It does not bother me to pack the extra gear.  I have also used the stock preamps in the R-44 and have been happy with the results.  By using outboard preamps I can easily try others or even change the ones I use.  With an all in one box you can't......well you can technically if you use the digi in from a preamp to channels 1&2 on the deck.  In the last two years it has allowed me to run many different combination's.   Now if it were modded I would in essence be running two different style preamps together and that might not be the best choice.   I've stuck with it stock.  And if you try to resell I don't think you get a good return on the investment of having it modded.  As for what I hear....I think it all sound good, with the preamps can sound better.  It also allows me to run what preamp I want on what channel I want.  I am not limited to IE: warm on 1&2, transparent on 3&4.  IN that set up I have to run all 4 channels if I want to use the transparent part of the mod.   I am not sure exactly what the mods cost now but for close to the same price of a mod you can buy a decent used preamp or even a new one like the little box.  Of course everyone uses their decks to suit their needs and what works for me may not work for you, kirk

[datmike]

I think I'm going to run my new R-44 stock with a 3 year full-coverage warranty.  I can decide after 2 years whether or not I need a mod done......best of both worlds perhaps!!

[illconditioned]

Personally, I would not have a unit modded unless I'm told what chips are replaced.  It is crazy to let someone get "under the hood", and make some potentially useless changes, and then not tell you what they did!

I did my own mods, and I believe they are better, but I don't have any way of knowing.  Well, I have anecdotal evidence.  In particualr, for the R4, I remember what it sounded like before and after.  I also have a modded unit (mine) and an unmodded unit (a friend's) with the same mics (fixed) in the same room.  Different show, but I'm pretty convinced, for the R4 at least, that the mod makes it more detailed.  This was with Countryman B3 lav mics hanging in front of the stage.

I guess if I wanted to be systematic, I would mod one channel.  Then feed both channels with a small omni (like Countryman B3), and do some *ambient* recordings with mics side-by-side.  Unfortunately, I was too impatient when I did my mods.  I just ripped the unit apart and modded both channels!  For me, the cost was minimal, just $20 or so in parts.

Finally, I expect our mods to have more effect on portable gear, where the rail voltages are lower.  For example Edirol UA5 and R4 have +/-5V, and the Fostex FR-2LE has something like 8V (single sided).  In these cases getting a good "low voltage" opamp in there should really help.  At least that is my belief.

  Richard

[digifish_music]

Listening requires an open mind, and for me at least, any desire to prove anything one way or the other spoils that. I have a personal policy of not discounting whatever someone else thinks they've heard--though if they start attributing what they think they've heard to a cause that doesn't make sense, I might quibble with them at that point.

I disagree. What listening requires is an objective response indicator, that way the bias or mind of the individual is irrelevant, and that is what I think Will_S was getting at.

An objective response indicator is simply one where you can get it right or wrong. In this case identify which of a pair is the modded or non-modded unit. Here your biases are irrelevant, you can either do it or you can't. You also get the luxury of using any subjective method to distinguish them. That is you can listen out for whatever you think is better about it, perhaps not even listen, perhaps its a sense of euphoria you believe the mod creates in you, doesn't matter.

If you can't reliably identify the modded unit in a statistically meaningful number of forced-choice, blind comparisons (preferably double blind), then the mod is crock (for you). If no-one can do it, then it's just global crock.

This is a post I made about this area a while back, looking to define a gold standard for such comparisons.

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=113862.0

This is a great read...

http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/

It's interesting to still see people claiming that they can hear SACD (~20 bit @ 196 kHz) is 'clearly' better than CD standard, it's not.

digifish

 

[stevetoney]

Regarding mods, the bottom line is that a mod makes a unit sound different...but objectively speaking different can be better or worse.  It depends on your subjective likes and dislikes. 

Here on ts.com, many members are like minded and most I think are live music location recordists.  So, it's likely that certain mods are going to receive a better reception from this group than others.  It's like modding a recipe to add more sugar...many or most might like sweeter, but a few people like unsweetened. 

So, if you're unfamiliar with the sound of a mod, you really need to do your own research (for example, on Live Music Archive) and decide for yourself.  Even then it can be a difficult decision, because as others have pointed out, unless the recording was made in a controlled setting specifically for performing a A vs. B test, there are usually other subjective factors that influence the sound on recording versus the other.  I do think that, if you're an experienced listener of gear, you can get a general feel for the sound of a mod if you have several samples to listen to against several samples unmodded.

Having said this, most mods claim to use higher quality, lower noise components that lowers the noise floor from the stock model.  Again, proof of this claim should be verified, but assuming it's true and you do alot of recording where the lowest noise is needed, like nature sounds, then it's probably likely that a mod will help you out.

[justink]

just for clarification... i got this email from Doug just last week when i asked him about modding R-44's bought elsewhere:

Hi Justin, yes we now upgrade the R44 no matter where it was bought. Info on the upgrades offered is here:
http://www.oade.com/digital_recorders/hard_disc_recorders/upgrades.html
thanks and happy holidays...Doug

Doug Oade
Oade Brothers Audio
548 Meridian Rd
Thomasville, Ga. 31792
www.oade.com

[justink]

also, to the OP.

i'm running 4021 > Oade CM R-44

if you'd like to send me your gear, i can run an A/B comparison for Mayer in March. 

i was planning on trying a (402x) > bmp2+ UA-5 vs. Oade CM R-44 comp, but that'd be pretty interesting as well.

[DSatz]

Um, how could these "comps" possibly tell you anything about the usefulness or value of a modification? You have a band making a certain sound; that sound has whatever qualities it has (loudness, balance of highs/mids/lows, distortion, etc.), which a given listener might consider to be a nice set of qualities or perhaps not.

You put microphones in particular places in that room, but they're not absolutely identical microphones in absolutely identical places. You then make recordings on two different recorders and you play them back later to compare them.

I'd say the chances would be quite small that you would ever hear identical sound from the two recordings even if the recorders were absolutely identical. Digital recorders certainly can sound identical if all the variables are controlled carefully enough, but that probably won't be the result that you'll get because of the separate microphones and mike positioning, and analog gain settings which aren't exactly alike.

So what does the result tell you? If one recording has nicer sounding low frequencies than the other one, for example--that could be due to differences in frequency response, absolute amplitude, distortion or several room and miking variables, for example. Even if you feel that you like the results better on (say) the modified recorder, it could be because that band's PA system or the room they were performing in had a peculiar characteristic and the modification has another peculiar characteristic that's working to counter or limit that effect. Or it could be that the two effects reinforce, and you happen to like the mixture.

Either way, the difference that you hear has no predictive value. The next recording you make may have--no, will have--a different set of characteristics and problems. Just because a certain medicine helps you to recover from one illness does not mean that you should take it for every one of 1,000 other illnesses.

There is no one sound-altering treatment that always makes things sound better, or else you could route your signals through it an infinite number of times and each time, the result would keep sounding better and better--an obviously absurd situation. But if a circuit modification actually helps a recorder to perform better (i.e. make its output more nearly equal to its input), then that can be determined on a test bench far more easily and reliably than by ear, where there are so many other factors that can't be controlled.

--best regards

[Will_S]

Um, how could these "comps" possibly tell you anything about the usefulness or value of a modification? You have a band making a certain sound; that sound has whatever qualities it has (loudness, balance of highs/mids/lows, distortion, etc.), which a given listener might consider to be a nice set of qualities or perhaps not.

Well for one thing, you can tell if the differences between the stock and modified recorders are even audible in the first place, and thus whether the "better" question is even relevant.  It would appear they are not under the circumstances in the linked tests.  I agree it doesn't tell you which is "better" in all circumstances, but it can suggest circumstances where there aren't any audible differences at all.  Seems useful to me.

You put microphones in particular places in that room, but they're not absolutely identical microphones in absolutely identical places.

This does not describe how any of the "comps" linked in the first post were actually performed.

[page]

I'd say the chances would be quite small that you would ever hear identical sound from the two recordings even if the recorders were absolutely identical. Digital recorders certainly can sound identical if all the variables are controlled carefully enough, but that probably won't be the result that you'll get because of the separate microphones and mike positioning, and analog gain settings which aren't exactly alike.

Ideally, you would run 1 set of mics, into 1 pre-amp (or phantom provider of some sort), and then run a split output (1 3pin XLR to 2 3pin XLRs) and run one modded unit and 1 stock unit. I had a set of cables made specifically for this purpose.

The rest of your comment makes sense in that this is just comparing this one situation out of the vast number of possible situations, however, I think some controlled testing is better then no controlled testing most of the time (pending getting results that are unlikely to appear the majority of the time and extrapolating them to said usage which may be what you're getting at).

[justink]

Page, I think if you take your approach, you'd be only comparing the A/D stage of the two units (because you'd only be using the same pre for one set of mics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought neither bussman or oade mods mess with the A/D, only the mic and line in stages. So, going that route wouldn't provide any difference at all, right?

I think you'd have to use two sets of mics and go directly to the pre of whichever box you'd want to compare. That's why I'm going to try DPA's > bmp2+ UA-5 (coax out) > Oade CM R-44 (bit bucket) and DPA's > Oade CM R-44 (pre). Both sets of mics on the same stand. The only non controled variables would be the small sonic differences in the seperate pairs of mics and one pair being a few inches vertically higher than the other, but that's about as close as we can get... Asside from recording two seperate instances from a venue's PA of a recorded track Using the same set of mics and swapping the pre's between takes. 

Maybe if you know a venues sound guy and get there early enough, he could replay some house music for you and this could be achieved?  I might try that out one day if I can.

[page]

Page, I think if you take your approach, you'd be only comparing the A/D stage of the two units (because you'd only be using the same pre for one set of mics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought neither bussman or oade mods mess with the A/D, only the mic and line in stages. So, going that route wouldn't provide any difference at all, right?

Correct, my bad, I blanked on what was being compared.

Run the following to compare preamp stages:
Single Mic set > pigtail cables > each R-44 (stock and modded) and run P48 off of just one of the decks. If the R44 shows the decibel level, the set them the same, otherwise as close as you can get I guess.

[Myco]

Page, I think if you take your approach, you'd be only comparing the A/D stage of the two units (because you'd only be using the same pre for one set of mics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought neither bussman or oade mods mess with the A/D, only the mic and line in stages. So, going that route wouldn't provide any difference at all, right?

I think you'd have to use two sets of mics and go directly to the pre of whichever box you'd want to compare. That's why I'm going to try DPA's > bmp2+ UA-5 (coax out) > Oade CM R-44 (bit bucket) and DPA's > Oade CM R-44 (pre). Both sets of mics on the same stand. The only non controled variables would be the small sonic differences in the seperate pairs of mics and one pair being a few inches vertically higher than the other, but that's about as close as we can get... Asside from recording two seperate instances from a venue's PA of a recorded track Using the same set of mics and swapping the pre's between takes. 

Maybe if you know a venues sound guy and get there early enough, he could replay some house music for you and this could be achieved?  I might try that out one day if I can.

If you intend on comparing the mod vs no mod then you need both a modded deck and an unmodded deck unless only 2 channels are modded on your deck. Your stated experiment will only compare the difference between adding a pre-amp into the chain vs no pre-amp.

[justink]

Yeah, I don't have access to a stock R-44 but I'm curious if running my bmp2+ UA-5 is worth carrying in my bag now that I got the Oade CM R-44. So that's why I'm planning a comp between the two. I am definitely interested in hearing a stock R-44, busman mod and oade mod comp though!

[rastasean]

Yeah, I don't have access to a stock R-44 but I'm curious if running my bmp2+ UA-5 is worth carrying in my bag now that I got the Oade CM R-44. So that's why I'm planning a comp between the two. I am definitely interested in hearing a stock R-44, busman mod and oade mod comp though!

If I ever get a r44, I'll keep it stock and let whoever run as many tests as they want but right now its a little too high for me.

[Myco]

Yeah, I don't have access to a stock R-44 but I'm curious if running my bmp2+ UA-5 is worth carrying in my bag now that I got the Oade CM R-44. So that's why I'm planning a comp between the two. I am definitely interested in hearing a stock R-44, busman mod and oade mod comp though!

I have a busman mod myself. I've heard a few of my teammates talking about getting an oade mod, so if it goes down i'll be sure to run a comp one of these days because a fair amount of these guys run the same mics also.

[page]

Yeah, I don't have access to a stock R-44 but I'm curious if running my bmp2+ UA-5 is worth carrying in my bag now that I got the Oade CM R-44. So that's why I'm planning a comp between the two. I am definitely interested in hearing a stock R-44, busman mod and oade mod comp though!

I have a busman mod myself. I've heard a few of my teammates talking about getting an oade mod, so if it goes down i'll be sure to run a comp one of these days because a fair amount of these guys run the same mics also.

I've got the splitter cables if you want to use them.

edit: And I suspect Nick might have some as well, just thought of that. If anyone else wants to do a comp off of a single set of mics, I can loan you the cables.

[rowjimmytour]

Would a semi fair A-B test be something like this?
Mics #1>cable #1 left> Mics #2>cable #2 right>R44 stock
Mics #1>cable #2 right>Mics #2>cable #1 left>R44 modded
w/ both mics and cables being the same and ran in the same patterns stacked within " of each other on stand. Record a least three different bands shows this way and then blind test each mix side by side.

[page]

Would a semi fair A-B test be something like this?
Mics #1>cable #1 left> Mics #2>cable #2 right>R44 stock
Mics #1>cable #2 right>Mics #2>cable #1 left>R44 modded
w/ both mics and cables being the same and ran in the same patterns stacked within " of each other on stand. Record a least three different bands shows this way and then blind test each mix side by side.

It's an approximation, but it wouldn't conclusively give you an accurate picture of what the mod does. To accomplish that, I still think you have to feed the same signal to both decks.

[Will_S]

I think a fairer test is using just a single pair of mics, and repeatedly switching which of two decks they are connected to over the course of a show, making multiple switches mid-song.  Of course, this means you get a recording that is all chopped up...best to do this when another taper is documenting the whole show, or it's something you don't really care about.  (Or a soundcheck.)

Of course, you won't be comparing the exact same passage, but you eliminate all the other parts of the recording chain that might be different.  With enough blocks to compare, you can see if you consistently prefer just the stock clips, just the modded clips, or if it turns out that the clips you prefer are not consistently from one recorder or the other.  Switching the mics between recorders many times is key, that way you don't need to worry about something like the sound being better in the second set.

If you really want to be a stickler about it, play with the gain controls ever so slightly each time as well, trying to get the levels as consistent as possible but that way you won't consistently have one deck at a different gain setting than the other (aside from differences forced if the mod changes sensitivity dramatically, but that's not something you'd want to discount anyway).  You should probably normalize each clip unless you think the difference between decks is so subtle that any post-processing of the signal will obscure it.

Even better, have someone else do this and provide you with the files, such that only he knows which clips came from which deck. 

[page]

I think a fairer test is using just a single pair of mics, and repeatedly switching which of two decks they are connected to over the course of a show, making multiple switches mid-song.  Of course, this means you get a recording that is all chopped up...best to do this when another taper is documenting the whole show, or it's something you don't really care about.  (Or a soundcheck.)

Of course, you won't be comparing the exact same passage, but you eliminate all the other parts of the recording chain that might be different.  With enough blocks to compare, you can see if you consistently prefer just the stock clips, just the modded clips, or if it turns out that the clips you prefer are not consistently from one recorder or the other.  Switching the mics between recorders many times is key, that way you don't need to worry about something like the sound being better in the second set.

If you really want to be a stickler about it, play with the gain controls ever so slightly each time as well, trying to get the levels as consistent as possible but that way you won't consistently have one deck at a different gain setting than the other (aside from differences forced if the mod changes sensitivity dramatically, but that's not something you'd want to discount anyway).  You should probably normalize each clip unless you think the difference between decks is so subtle that any post-processing of the signal will obscure it.

Even better, have someone else do this and provide you with the files, such that only he knows which clips came from which deck.

If your going to go to the trouble of switching every so often, why not just run splitter/"Y" cables?

[Will_S]

I think a fairer test is using just a single pair of mics, and repeatedly switching which of two decks they are connected to over the course of a show, making multiple switches mid-song.  Of course, this means you get a recording that is all chopped up...best to do this when another taper is documenting the whole show, or it's something you don't really care about.  (Or a soundcheck.)

Of course, you won't be comparing the exact same passage, but you eliminate all the other parts of the recording chain that might be different.  With enough blocks to compare, you can see if you consistently prefer just the stock clips, just the modded clips, or if it turns out that the clips you prefer are not consistently from one recorder or the other.  Switching the mics between recorders many times is key, that way you don't need to worry about something like the sound being better in the second set.

If you really want to be a stickler about it, play with the gain controls ever so slightly each time as well, trying to get the levels as consistent as possible but that way you won't consistently have one deck at a different gain setting than the other (aside from differences forced if the mod changes sensitivity dramatically, but that's not something you'd want to discount anyway).  You should probably normalize each clip unless you think the difference between decks is so subtle that any post-processing of the signal will obscure it.

Even better, have someone else do this and provide you with the files, such that only he knows which clips came from which deck.

If your going to go to the trouble of switching every so often, why not just run splitter/"Y" cables?

If you have suitable cables and are sure they are sonically transparent, sure, go for it.  How does phantom powering work through such a cable?  Any weird changes in input impedance?

[goodcooker]

to the OP - this thread wandered off into "comp" land so....

I have never had any Oade modded gear with the exception of a digi mod UA5 so it was really no different "sounding" than it was stock...but I have had two different Busman modded recorders - a Marantz PMD670 and an Edirol R4. The Marantz had totally useless preamps for concert recording before the mod. The R4 I ran stock a few times and I thought it sounded thin and hissy at higher gain. After the Busman mod (vintage1,2, transparent 3,4) the preamps sounded full and rich with negligible hiss even at almost max gain.

The most notable improvement on the R4 was lowering the gain on the inputs (I guess lowering the sensitivity) so that you could use it for concert recording. At rock shows I had to run it at line in (engages 20dB pad) and crank the gain to about 75%. With the lower noise floor also accomplished by the mod I was able to do this without problems.

I guess my point is that the mods accomplish other ends than just changing the sound (or flavor) of the preamps.

The R44 purportedly has better sounding preamps than the R4 so if I were you I would buy a stock unit, run it a few times in a few different situations then decide if you want or need the mod done then.

I run a stock PMD620 now...Oade mods them but I don't see the need....sounds fine to me behind my preamp.

Back to your regularly scheduled "that comp would be useless" banter 

[Myco]

Yeah, I don't have access to a stock R-44 but I'm curious if running my bmp2+ UA-5 is worth carrying in my bag now that I got the Oade CM R-44. So that's why I'm planning a comp between the two. I am definitely interested in hearing a stock R-44, busman mod and oade mod comp though!

I have a busman mod myself. I've heard a few of my teammates talking about getting an oade mod, so if it goes down i'll be sure to run a comp one of these days because a fair amount of these guys run the same mics also.

I've got the splitter cables if you want to use them.

edit: And I suspect Nick might have some as well, just thought of that. If anyone else wants to do a comp off of a single set of mics, I can loan you the cables.

This would probably be the best suggestion, and the most accurate representation of the signal.

A splitter going into the two different decks while using the same mics would provide the same input to both decks, but the splitter would need to terminate in XLR's to input into the analog stage, the coax input would only test the A/D stage which isn't modded as justink pointed out.
Great points page & justink!

[page]

This would probably be the best suggestion, and the most accurate representation of the signal.

A splitter going into the two different decks while using the same mics would provide the same input to both decks, but the splitter would need to terminate in XLR's to input into the analog stage, the coax input would only test the A/D stage which isn't modded as justink pointed out.
Great points page & justink!

Yeah, I've got XLR terminated splitter cables for this specific purpose. I was going to comp the FR2-LE this way and then I sold mine...

I think a fairer test is using just a single pair of mics, and repeatedly switching which of two decks they are connected to over the course of a show, making multiple switches mid-song.

If your going to go to the trouble of switching every so often, why not just run splitter/"Y" cables?

If you have suitable cables and are sure they are sonically transparent, sure, go for it.  How does phantom powering work through such a cable?  Any weird changes in input impedance?

They're standard cabling that we use, but more importantly, both ends are from the same cable stock, so they "sound" the same and won't be a conflicting element. Running two decks against a single mic body will load the body more, however nothing drastic has been reported, there are probably some eletrical engineers or people with more intimate knowledge of loading that could shed some light on it. I got the idea when Dirk did it when he did file sets for people to listen to with pre-amps and this would be done in a similar approach (until then I didn't know it was possible). For running P48, just turn it on from 1 deck, not both.

As for ABX testing, it's the closest we will get to being able to analyze audible differences in a somewhat critical fashion because the only different variable between two file sets will be the gain between the two (however small) and the mods. It's still just one situation (so nature recording, a club, outdoor PAs, crowd noise, etc could be other tests), but it's a relative sample of what we do.

At that point, the two questions to ask are:

• Can you tell a difference?
• If so (and it's not a guarantee), which do you prefer?

The later would most likely require additional tests to determine an overall average, but the former should be reasonably answerable off of one test for the majority of uses that people have here.

Back to your regularly scheduled "that comp would be useless" banter 

It's a slow week so far, we don't have much else to talk about. 

[Will_S]

Running two decks against a single mic body will load the body more, however nothing drastic has been reported,

But even if it's nothing *drastic*, what impacts will it have on potentially subtle differences?

For running P48, just turn it on from 1 deck, not both.

Hmm, it seems reasonable to think that having phantom on versus off could have a subtle effect on a deck's sound. 

That's why I favor the multiple clip approach.  You'll never be able to create exactly equal conditions for both decks, so go with randomization and replication to let the confounding factors average out.  Of course take every step possible to reduce the confounding factors first, but I'm not convinced splitter cables and running phantom on only one deck is the way to go.

[page]

Running two decks against a single mic body will load the body more, however nothing drastic has been reported,

But even if it's nothing *drastic*, what impacts will it have on potentially subtle differences?

I'm not an electrical engineer (aka; shit if I know what load differences do, but it should effect the sound on both boxes the same).  My comment was based on the observation that nobody said anything about it when Dirk or Todd did their comps which were done in similar fashions. It doesn't mean there arn't differences from the stock sound, just nobody said anything (hence nothing "drastic") when comparing two files from the same loaded signal.

Someone else can step up and field this one on the science of what loading does.

For running P48, just turn it on from 1 deck, not both.

Hmm, it seems reasonable to think that having phantom on versus off could have a subtle effect on a deck's sound. 

That's why I favor the multiple clip approach.  You'll never be able to create exactly equal conditions for both decks, so go with randomization and replication to let the confounding factors average out.  Of course take every step possible to reduce the confounding factors first, but I'm not convinced splitter cables and running phantom on only one deck is the way to go.

To me, thats like saying "80% isn't 100%, so I'm going to go with 40% instead because I can't achieve 100%." Comparing clips that are not the same content doesn't lead to sturdy critical analysis. The whole point of doing double blind testing is to mitigate as many factors as possible so any differences that are noted are more likely to be real and not a result of bad research. Having the same source content to compare against is one that is especially pertinant as cymbols may be hit less, instrument volume changed, the room could fill up and create differences between clips, but running the same signal out to two decks mitigates all of these. You are correct in that it doesn't resolve if any modifications were made to the Phantom production or distribution chain, however I think this is smaller issue then not having comparable content which can obscure the results of the basic question of "is there a difference" thus preventing the follow up question about discriptors of differences (presuming there are any).

At the end of the day, I think being able to actually attempt to ABX them against each other and articulate if there are any differences trumps (what I see as) minor issues related to P48 usage and affecting the sound via loading of the microphone (which both decks should experience). Hell, if you want to resolve the P48 question, run a PS2 or 2Phant or whatever else provides P48 without gain between the mics and the decks so neither deck has P48 turned on and both decks will have any sonic imprint that the phantom box is puting into the signal (thus mitigating it as a difference). That just leaves the load issue which I still think is near the bottom of the priority list of effect.

It's a slow news week. 

[datbrad]

Hoping to bring this discussion back to the basic question, I think the difference between Oade and Busman is a matter of personal taste, such as some prefer Honda to Toyota, but essentially there is very little difference in the key performance areas of automobiles between these brands, just styling and "flavor".

I talked to Doug about the overall objectives of modification several years ago when I was looking at his modded gear.

Doug explained that basically none of the prosumer gear made by Marantz, Tascam, Rolland, Fostex, etc. uses premium chips in their preamps that meet specifications we expect for concert recording, or for nature recording at the other end of the scale. With this type of short-cut, mfgs can save enough to impact the price points of their recorders and 90% of the users that buy the decks will not require anything more. Oade and Busman make mods to these units that fit specifc recording conditions that the stock chips are ok for, but not ideal for.

Doug can optimize a recorder's preamps for either the high input sound pressure headroom needed for concerts, or he can select opamps and input capacitors best for soft sources requiring heavy gain and low noise.

You can listen to comps, but the best way to validate Oade's mods is to find someone who had a PMD660 before and after Doug modded it for concert taping, and see what they tell you.

[illconditioned]

Within the realm of opamp swaps there are a limited number of choices you can make.  If you aren't changing any other circuit components, you cannot change the gain range--that is set by external components.  Generally, you are looking at a few specifications, such as noise, gain bandwidth, slew rate, quiescent current, distortion, and rail-to-rail operation.  You cannot change the headroom of a circuit merely by swapping opamps unless you are going from a chip that cannot operate rail-to-rail to a chip that can.  That feature is often exclusive of speed, since the market for faster chips usually also has a high enough power supply that rail-to-rail is not important.  Thus, rail-to-rail is a more common feature in chips designed for low voltage supplies.

When you go to faster and quieter chips, you may find that power consumption (quiescent current) will increase if the stock chips selected were low-power types.  That could be benign, but it will mean reduced runtime.

From what I can tell, the biggest problem is the rail voltages.  Edirol seems to use +/-5V (UA5, R4).  Fostex FR2-LE is 8V (single sided).  I've seem some Maudio gear (MobilePre) with only 5V (single sided).

Low voltage and faster opamps seem to help.  I've used AD8620 (expensive) and more recently LM4562.  The LM4562 are very nice, the latest National Semi audio product, and operate at less than 5mA per channel.  They have low noise and are spec'd down to +/-5V.  They are approx $5 at Digikey.com.

  Richard

[Will_S]

You can listen to comps, but the best way to validate Oade's mods is to find someone who had a PMD660 before and after Doug modded it for concert taping, and see what they tell you.

But the PMD 660 was a particularly bad piece of gear - noisy and easy to overload.  The R44 and FR2LE spec out (and by all accounts, sound) a lot better stock than a stock 660 does. 

[datbrad]

You can listen to comps, but the best way to validate Oade's mods is to find someone who had a PMD660 before and after Doug modded it for concert taping, and see what they tell you.

But the PMD 660 was a particularly bad piece of gear - noisy and easy to overload.  The R44 and FR2LE spec out (and by all accounts, sound) a lot better stock than a stock 660 does.

Good point.

In in keeping with fair disclosure, my reason for getting the Oade warm mod 661 was not really seeking an improvement in specs, but rather to obtain a recorder sound as close to the professional analog and early pro DAT recorders I grew accustomed to their FET input sound during the '80s and early '90s. Listening to both Oade and Busman warm mods, I already was leaning that way when Doug Oade introduced the warm mod 661.

[colors]

I've done an A/B of my stock R-44 and Oade Super Mod R-44.  Ran X/Y KSM141 pairs into each.  2 files, one the modded, one the stock.  have at it!

http://www.alanmunshower.com/dump/a.wav

http://www.alanmunshower.com/dump/b.wav

[colors]

so no one wants to take a stab at it huh?  maybe I should start a new thread...

[printguy]

I've got them downloaded, just need to get some time to sit and listen. Through my laptop speakers at the office won't tell me anything!

[Gutbucket]

OK, I clearly prefer b.

Any chance you have additional files with the mic sets swapped?

[colors]

only these mics were used.  I do have the whole set of improvised music. 

I also preferred B.  My roommate and I noticed a more well defined image, especially when paying attention to the snare and tenor sax. 

I'll get another sample up soon.

[illconditioned]

There is no one sound-altering treatment that always makes things sound better, or else you could route your signals through it an infinite number of times and each time, the result would keep sounding better and better--an obviously absurd situation. But if a circuit modification actually helps a recorder to perform better (i.e. make its output more nearly equal to its input), then that can be determined on a test bench far more easily and reliably than by ear, where there are so many other factors that can't be controlled.

--best regards

I suggest that there are noticeable differences.  Certainly if you compare two mic capsules, like Panasonic WM60 vs. Countryman B3, both have similar frequency response, but the B3 sounds much more "detailed", "rich", "warm", "natural", etc.  What is the measureable difference? I would really like to know.  There must be something you can measure with audio processing,  but what is it?


It seems there is some notion of "transparency" or "realism".  I think the classical recording people are the ones to ask.  Some people use a 1/2" metal diaphragm "measurement"  mics, like B&K, or ACO-Pacific, both of which are sold in retail channels (DPA and others).  Furthermore, the clear output of these capsules will challenge the preamp and ADC stages to be as transparent as possible.


In my own experience, the most transparent mic I have is the Countryman B3.  Both the Edirol R09 and Sony PCM M10/D50 are sufficient to reveal the detail of this mic (at least to show a significant improvement over a lesser mic, like Sennheiser MKE2 or Tram TR50).  I felt that (my) Edirol R4 mod improved the detail when using the B3 mics.  Why is that?  I suspect it is because the opamps are run at too low voltage (+/-5V = 10V total swing).  Replacing these improved the sound to my ears.  I don't know about other rigs though.


  Richard

[Chadfish]

These files are actually the first I've come across with mod/unmod r-44 comparison. Thank you for that! It's hard for me to tell a difference between the two recordings. First I thought I liked the "A" recording better, then others said "B" and at that point I couldn't tell. Are these uncompressed? Where can we get the key to the test? PM me?

Personally I'm stuck, money in hand, trying to decide between a mixed-mod R-44 (Super on 1-2, Concert on 3-4), and a stock DR-680. If I go r-44 it will definitely be modded.
Looking for input:  I have a wider range of needs than the usual taper. I'm a videographer that does record live music shows and plays sometimes.  For that I like the idea of concert mod for a board feed, and super mod for stereo mic to do matrix recording. But the real reason I want the super mod is for dialogue and nature recordings. My thinking is that these mods would cut the noise mostly, which isn't really a factor recording a band, but when recording nature, where you undoubtedly want to turn up in post to hear distant birds, or when recording dialogue for film - to turn up a line someone delivered quietly the quieter pres should help me out in post. I do have an SD MixPre, but that covers only 2 channels.

Then... In comes the DR-680. Many are singing it's praises, and saying the pres are nice and clean. But how clean? There is no Oade mod. Doug Oade says he isn't fond of the DR series of recorders and doesn't think he'll be doing a mod any time soon. I love the idea of more tracks as that can certainly come in handy for me, but can it deliver as quietly as an Oade R-44? There is on guy on the DR-680 part IV who says the 680 pres are better than the R-44 according to specs, but specs are just numbers written by the manufacturer. This is getting long so I'll wrap it up.

Simple test that would help me. Mono or stereo mic(s) plugged straight , at a decent stereo system. A-B-C between R-44 stock, R-44 modded, DR-680 stock. Play the same musical passage for each. Play the passage at loud volume, and at a very very quiet volume so we can normalize(same gain increase on each rather than normalize each) and assess the noise.

I know most likely nobody has all 3, or even just a modded R-44 and a 680, but if so please...  Aside from that, can anyone speak to the quality of a 680 compared to a modded R-44? That's where I'm at. The extra tracks would be wonderful, but quiet pres trump that for me.