Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Recording Gear => Topic started by: bgalizio on January 17, 2008, 01:29:41 PM
-
Thanks to hummat for spotting this!
http://www.edirol.net/products/en/R-44/
-
Interesting - 4 independent RCA outs - one for each channel...
And perhaps smarter level control? - (or at least an attempt at it) looks like a ganged pot - sensitivity and level. Nice - but looks too easy move the wrong knob...
Looks like a more basic edition of the R-4s...?
-
Looks like phantom power can be enabled per channel rather than in pairs. This would be useful in an on-stage/sbd scenario where it's a mono mix where you may want to spot mic something.
The drawback of 8GB SD card could become an issue when running 4 channel 24/96. If the set goes over 2 hours, you'll have to have a 'card-flip' in there somewhere.
-jay
-
It seems to be the R-4 Pro stripped down with a few essential differences:
-solid state vs. internal HD
-phantom by individual channel rather than pairs
-XLR/TRS combo inputs vs. XLR only
-s/pdif vs. AES/EBU digital I/O (open questions: is the s/pdif bit perfect or not? is digi+analog w/ sync to digi-in possible?)
-wordclock/remote sync via 1/8" stereo mini cable to link 2 devices
-smaller and lighter (may affect its mod-ability due to less space inside for swapping components?)
-
sweet.
what a perfect little B format recorder (or A format) for you soundfield / Tetra fans.
Double MS as well.
so 8gb is the SD max ?
I believe that isn't enough if that's the case.
still, sweet little box.
-
Wow! That looks tiny. Much smaller and cleaner than the regular R4.
Hmm. Just when you think you've got the perfect setup, something new comes along! Worse than the PC/computer world it seems...
Richard
-
so 8gb is the SD max ?
I believe that isn't enough if that's the case.
still, sweet little box.
it says it takes SDHC, 16 GB are common .they claim up to 32GB, but I have not seen one.
-
excellent.
:-)
-
This looks really h0t
-
price point?
-
wish I still had a "guy" there at Edirol.
-
nice
-
This could be hot... Any word on a street price?
-
Linkable for up to 8 Tracks of recording. Nice for getting the subgroup output of a small board.
I like the OLED display as well. Battery life on internals is so-so.
Wonder if it has to be modded for Condensers and rock shows?
-
There is a video conference next week in Orlando and Roland/Edirol will be presenting...I imagine we'll hear about a street price....
-
I dunno.
The plastic, toy-looking design of this thing doesnt impress me....
I had the R-4, and was kinda hoping they would go a step further, instead, they are repacking...
If they wanna strip the R-4, they should go for even smaller and sturdier.
And they should definetly get rid of those cheap internal mikes, they just make the thing look even more funny.
Just my opinion...
-
I dunno.
The plastic, toy-looking design of this thing doesnt impress me....
I had the R-4, and was kinda hoping they would go a step further, instead, they are repacking...
If they wanna strip the R-4, they should go for even smaller and sturdier.
And they should definetly get rid of those cheap internal mikes, they just make the thing look even more funny.
Just my opinion...
Edirol has always stuck with an affordability factor in their products. Unfortunately this has included cheesy pots, less than fantastic casing and layout, and a somewhat cheesy feel overall. What's good about them is usually an excellent feature set, solid if not excellent sound quality, and good PC interface.
It just happens to be their niche and it looks like they are sticking with it for now.
-
street price will be around $795...got this direct from Frank at Edirol....
-
Hrm ... If I ever go with a full-blown rig, this might be worth picking up.
I'll definitely keep my eyes peeled for info on this as it comes out. Running mics > r-44 would be a pretty small rig.
-
Will be released in April
-
The VERY affordable R-44 seems easy to power, capable of 88.2K modes, and inherently rugged using advanced flash memory. EXACTLY what I was looking for in an advanced 4-channel portable for 4-mic HRTF surround-sound.
As with most these newer flash decks, likely needing external mic pre for miking acoustic.
I would think a waiting line around the block for this one.
-
I wish they would come out with the Edirol R-22. :-\
-
I wish they would come out with the Edirol R-22. :-\
word
-
Why do they insist on putting so many buttons on the top of the unit. IMHO every feature should be accessible via the front panel.
-
Looks like a good bargin - 4 channels for under $800 or so.
Nicer features:
- Stereo 24/192KHz recording
- 4 channel 24/96Khz recording
- can link 2 and get 8 channels (but Edirol says they can't garantee record will start at the same time so don't know how great this will work beyond wordclock sync)
Limitations I see on early info:
- Dynamic range is only 100db on AD
- Balanced in's require TRS jacks and not XLR in's - Maybe a limitation of the original R-4's
Would like to know:
- would like to find out if this can sync to other devices not just another r-44
- seemless splits? assume yes
-
I'm curious if you can mix analog and digital inputs like the R4 Pro.
-
do you think the xlr outs are straight through or is there a digi stage in there?
-
The specs say XLR line out, but the photos show RCA for line out. Also RCA SPDIF in and out.
http://www.edirol.net/products/en/R-44/images/image_05_L.jpg
Flintstone
-
I'm curious if you can mix analog and digital inputs like the R4 Pro.
If it can I'll be getting one.
-
The specs say XLR line out, but the photos show RCA for line out. Also RCA SPDIF in and out.
http://www.edirol.net/products/en/R-44/images/image_05_L.jpg
Flintstone
ok, i had not seen that side yet. thank you sir.
-
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??
-
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 (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.
-
watchin'
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
Very nice, thanks for the video link.
I like when he shows you the AA batteries with 3 duracell and 1 energizer in there.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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"
:)
-
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.
-
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
-
Stealth 4-channel :P
-
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?
-
^ we will have to see. 8)
-
Digital trim/level give much better chance that all channels have inherent known/precision tracking ability. Possible to set exact 'dB' adjustments.
If you're talking about digital control of the analog input circuitry, that makes sense, but digital control of the digital circuitry is what you should do in your DAW after (well, assuming you don't just play stuff back from the recorder as is). Digitally changing the value of the bits being recorded to the digital recording medium during recording is absolutely the same as digitally changing them during playback or editing on the way back from the medium - where you get a chance to change your mind.
-
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.
That's a great idea for any recorder, even more important with a 4 track machine.
-
Digital trim/level give much better chance that all channels have inherent known/precision tracking ability. Possible to set exact 'dB' adjustments.
If you're talking about digital control of the analog input circuitry, that makes sense, but digital control of the digital circuitry is what you should do in your DAW after (well, assuming you don't just play stuff back from the recorder as is). Digitally changing the value of the bits being recorded to the digital recording medium during recording is absolutely the same as digitally changing them during playback or editing on the way back from the medium - where you get a chance to change your mind.
From that perspective, you're right about applying channel (mic input) gain tweaking in post DAW. And I see no reason this is any different than having in-deck fixed trim tracking ability.
FR-2LE is one of the decks I've not yet bench/features tested. And maybe SD 2-channel decks have this same ability, but not 744T with only 2 out of 4 channels having in-deck 'mic preamp' input/possible trim/then master up/down level setting tracking feature.
With most these digital decks using at least one stage of VCA (voltage controlled amplifier) in each recording channel, or direct analog signal into a single CODEC IC with internal analog amps also being digitally controlled in some manner, I personally see this an improvement over resistive-mechanical knob/fader channel gain for most accurate up/down level adjustments.
I did have chance to work original Fostex FR-2 deck, and this with resistive knob first gain stage trim using a very small knob, and then larger dual locking master level adjust knob on deck's front panel.
So if I remember correctly, this deck has two possible channel offset features, top-panel individual channel trims, and front panel master with locking tracking ability, but of dubious channel match accuracy.
I remember thinking FR-2 has too much room for tracking error, and no easy way to adjust absolute channel gain precision if mics that were already precision matched unless all the way or down (at the rotation stops) of the small top-panel channel trim knobs.
For consistent balanced stereo recording with known applied 2-channel tracking, such 'analog' type controls are most problematic, with 'stepped' digital gain control having much better tracking accuracy.
For that reason, I personally avoid the use of knob gain controls on my all analog preamplifiers. Instead use precision fixed resistor network with a multiple position switch so channel gain always with <0.1 dB channel tracking error; actually better precision than than most 'digital' systems using VCA circuitry.
-
I'm curious if you can mix analog and digital inputs like the R4 Pro.
If it can I'll be getting one.
Looks like it can....
From the user's manual:
(http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/9528/r44zl8.jpg)
-
I'm curious if you can mix analog and digital inputs like the R4 Pro.
If it can I'll be getting one.
Looks like it can....
From the user's manual:
(http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/9528/r44zl8.jpg)
Dang! this changes things!
-
looks like the only thing keeping me from making the leap is..... how do the pre-amps sound.
-
I'm curious if you can mix analog and digital inputs like the R4 Pro.
If it can I'll be getting one.
Looks like it can....
From the user's manual:
(http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/9528/r44zl8.jpg)
NICE
i am liking this box more and more
even though i prob wouldn't do 4 channels much
-
If they sound like the R4, they are usable. but not great.
if they sound like the R4 pro, same as above.
mod'd..., i hope to see this box kick some ass.
Just when I get a new deck...this comes out.
::)
-
If they sound like the R4, they are usable. but not great.
if they sound like the R4 pro, same as above.
mod'd..., i hope to see this box kick some ass.
Just when I get a new deck...this comes out.
::)
Here's hoping the same mods will apply..
-
Here's hoping the same mods will apply..
I don't see how they can. the R-4 handles the gain in the analog section and the r-44 handles it in the digital domain.
-
Here's hoping the same mods will apply..
I don't see how they can. the R-4 handles the gain in the analog section and the r-44 handles it in the digital domain.
There will be an analog input section with capacitors and op amps feeding into the A/D section. This will allow for the typical mods/upgrades. I'm betting Busman will be planning on working some magic with the R44. :)
-
safe bet.
-
I'm sure there will be parts in the analog path that are worth upgrading, and that those who are capable of such work (busman/oade) will be able to improve the quality of that path. however, I'm afraid that the same level of improvement in sound as seen in the R-4 may be hard to achieve since the lion's share of the gain will be done in the digital domain. Of course I'm not sure how the gain is handled once it's in the digital domain. The big question in my mind is.. is the work done via hardware or software? If it's software I seriously doubt there will be much oade/busman can do in that arena. If it's handled via hardware then maybe there are chipsets that could be considered an improvement over the stock compenents in the r-44.
then again maybe the stock components will be of far superior quality to anything edirol has ever done, and we'll all be blown away by the stock unit. a guy can dream right ;D
-
I'm sure there will be parts in the analog path that are worth upgrading, and that those who are capable of such work (busman/oade) will be able to improve the quality of that path. however, I'm afraid that the same level of improvement in sound as seen in the R-4 may be hard to achieve since the lion's share of the gain will be done in the digital domain.
That doesnt make sense - I would think...The "Lion's share" will come from the trimmer - in the analog domain...
Remember the "level of sonic improvement" might not be the same because this might not suck as badly as a stock R4...
-
it turns out you are right. I was confused I just looked back at the block diagram and you are correct. the sensitivity knob, which handles most of the gain is done in the analog domain. the level knob handles the small adjustments and it is done in the digital domain.
I say mod away oade and busman. I needs me a new 4 channel field recorder ;D
-
^ just a matter of time.
Looks like my modded R-4 might not be worth that much now.
-
^ just a matter of time.
Looks like my modded R-4 might not be worth that much now.
Yeah - Im starting to hear a low rumble of discontent from the R-4 owners...I always thought there was too much tied up in "non-taper" features on the R-4s - a device that wasnt really conceived with music recording in mind.
wav editing - who needs that? But you can bet thats part of the price...
-
Damn this creation! My resale value of my modded R-4 is now tanking faster than our stock market. I really, REALLY want to run one of these bad boys....but since my resale will be sucky....that's not really looking like a possibility anytime soon. >:(
but......I'll enjoy reading about everyone's experiences......
-
Yeah - Im starting to hear a low rumble of discontent from the R-4 owners...I always thought there was too much tied up in "non-taper" features on the R-4s - a device that wasnt really conceived with music recording in mind.
wav editing - who needs that? But you can bet thats part of the price...
hmm. I've got zero complaints with my r-4. the only reason I'd switch is the fact that the r-44 is smaller and can mix analog and digital signals. that way I can take digital patches when I'm recording in bigger sections at festivals and what not. or if I decide to get a stand alone pre/adc device I can still take a SBD feed with the open analog channels.
Looks like my modded R-4 might not be worth that much now.
that's what I'm afraid of. IMO the market is already weak for the R-4 and the addition of the R-44 can only hurt which really sucks for those of us who invested fairly early on in the R-4. I guess that's the price you pay. The good news is that I'm happy with my R-4 so I can wait around for a year or so after the R-44 hits the streets and the price falls sgnificantly (like it did with the r-4) and hopefully get a decent price on one.
-
could be worse. Could have bought a da-p1 new back in the day and try selling it now. Talk about tanking prices ;D
Such is the life of digital equipment. Buy when the price falls, sell before the price falls further.
Only thing that holds a nickel's resale, and sometimes increases in value, are microphones.
FWIW, I'm actually interested in this little box. May have to try one out.
-
FWIW, I'm actually interested in this little box. May have to try one out.
Doooooo ieeeeettt! ;D
just to make me jealous. I heard street prices will be around 7-8 bones. Still cheaper than a new r-4
K
-
FWIW, I'm actually interested in this little box. May have to try one out.
Doooooo ieeeeettt! ;D
just to make me jealous. I heard street prices will be around 7-8 bones. Still cheaper than a new r-4
K
It would be an even steven deal, swapping current recorder for that. Mine used and that new are about the same. We'll see. I'm lazy enough these days taping, I don't need to confuse myself. :P
-
So my pondering over whether or not to buy an all-in-one box vs separate pre & recorder is getting tougher and tougher.
-
With all I read about this recorder, I know exactly where part of my tax return is going. 4 channel here I come!!! No more synching 2 JB3's.
Mako
-
it turns out you are right. I was confused I just looked back at the block diagram and you are correct. the sensitivity knob, which handles most of the gain is done in the analog domain. the level knob handles the small adjustments and it is done in the digital domain.
I say mod away oade and busman. I needs me a new 4 channel field recorder ;D
Is that how the pro works too?
If so, why would anyone even use the fine adjust then? What's the point? Why not use the sens knob and that's it. I mean if fine adjust is just digital, hell, you can just do that in post, which you'd probably do anyway, so less quantization errors by waiting?
Also, I must be confused, cause what's the point of negative digital gain? I mean if I'm clipping, then decreasing levels digitally won't help at all. And if I'm not clipping, then why would I want to lower the gain digitally at all? I must be missing something...
Finally, I think I had a conversation with Doug once where I swear I remember him saying he thought the modded R4 actually was better than the R4 Pro -- a modded one. But can't remember the details of that conversation, but maybe this has something to do with it?
-
With all I read about this recorder, I know exactly where part of my tax return is going. 4 channel here I come!!!
Ditto that, but I'll probably wait until NEXT tax return (early 2009) and collect mics until then.
I'm still curious as to how well the pre in this thing works. If I can run four mics straight into it with no problem, I'm sold. I just gotta decide on four mics.
I was thinking 4x avantone CK-1, running cards in the middle and flanking that with split omnis.
-
it turns out you are right. I was confused I just looked back at the block diagram and you are correct. the sensitivity knob, which handles most of the gain is done in the analog domain. the level knob handles the small adjustments and it is done in the digital domain.
I say mod away oade and busman. I needs me a new 4 channel field recorder ;D
Is that how the pro works too?
yes, at least according to the block diagram. there maybe some minor techincal differences between the two, but from the macro-scopic view (a.k.a. block diagram) they are the same. the limiter is also digital, which in my mind raises questions about it's usefullness. Not because it's digital but because I don't know if it is useful to limit a signal digitally that was clipping in the analog world.
If so, why would anyone even use the fine adjust then? What's the point? Why not use the sens knob and that's it. I mean if fine adjust is just digital, hell, you can just do that in post, which you'd probably do anyway, so less quantization errors by waiting?
Also, I must be confused, cause what's the point of negative digital gain? I mean if I'm clipping, then decreasing levels digitally won't help at all. And if I'm not clipping, then why would I want to lower the gain digitally at all? I must be missing something...
I think that was basically the point of ozpeter's post a few pages back. seperating the gain stages between the analog and digital domain doesn't make much sense.
-
the sweet thing w/these decks is that even if you dont get them MOD'd, it doesn't take much of a preamp in front to really improve things.
a pair of V2s, for example. Still a pretty tight package.
:)
but here's hoping for the ass whompin' MODs. (AWM).
-
So is there anything preventing connecting a R-4pro with a R-44 and do 8 channels? Using word clock?
-
the sweet thing w/these decks is that even if you dont get them MOD'd, it doesn't take much of a preamp in front to really improve things.
a pair of V2s, for example. Still a pretty tight package.
:)
but here's hoping for the ass whompin' MODs. (AWM).
The question is what the "mic/line" switch does.
In the R4 it just adds a -20dB pad. it still goes through the same preamp!
Does anyone know what the R4pro does? Ie., what is the gain structure?
The R4pro is quite different than the regular R4. Probably it is the predecessor of the R44...
Richard
-
I don't think there is a mic/line switch on the pro, it's like the r44 with trim/gain controls.
-
I've now had a chance to skim the manual and it does look there are some "gotchas" with this design.
For instance, it doesn't look as if you could record on a stereo pair plus one mono track. So you'd need to record on four mono tracks. In that situation, with no monitoring pan controls, it appears that monitoring would therefore be in mono. Or you'd record on two stereo tracks and waste 25% media space. I can see track assign controls between left, right, and both (centre) but I'm not clear whether that would apply to recording (assigning tracks to stereo channels on record) or playback. There is a so-called "mixer" page in the menus but it seems only to relate to playback, not record monitoring. Ideally, that page would provide record monitoring facilities too, together with pan controls per channel. On the face of it, that would seem to be the sort of thing that could be fixed in a firmware update. But as it stands, for the kind of thing I do, the lack of proper monitoring control (unless you take along a monitor mixer too) would be a dealbreaker. That's a pity.
More than 25 secs of pre-record is pretty cool, though.
-
Do I see a pattern here??? oHH oHH A NEW RECORDER.. This will be the end all of recorders... Everything that came before it is obsolete. When can we get it...? (the date slips) I got one... Oh, there are bugs... when is that update? OMG... A new better recorder...
-
Do I see a pattern here??? oHH oHH A NEW RECORDER.. This will be the end all of recorders... Everything that came before it is obsolete. When can we get it...? (the date slips) I got one... Oh, there are bugs... when is that update? OMG... A new better recorder...
:spin: :yack: QFT
-
I've now had a chance to skim the manual and it does look there are some "gotchas" with this design.
For instance, it doesn't look as if you could record on a stereo pair plus one mono track. So you'd need to record on four mono tracks. In that situation, with no monitoring pan controls, it appears that monitoring would therefore be in mono. Or you'd record on two stereo tracks and waste 25% media space. I can see track assign controls between left, right, and both (centre) but I'm not clear whether that would apply to recording (assigning tracks to stereo channels on record) or playback. There is a so-called "mixer" page in the menus but it seems only to relate to playback, not record monitoring. Ideally, that page would provide record monitoring facilities too, together with pan controls per channel. On the face of it, that would seem to be the sort of thing that could be fixed in a firmware update. But as it stands, for the kind of thing I do, the lack of proper monitoring control (unless you take along a monitor mixer too) would be a dealbreaker. That's a pity.
More than 25 secs of pre-record is pretty cool, though.
This is no different than the R4 or R4 Pro, and as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter much. Only reason why I "monitor" at all is just to make sure nothing terrible is wrong, other than that, check the levels and deal with it when you get home. It is too bad you can mix a line out on the fly, but no biggy really considering the price and 4 channels with pres/phaontom, there aren't a whole lot of options in that camp, not even the 744. So, as a pretty hardcore R4 user, this thing just looks like a smaller pro version with flash based memory for less money. What's not to like? Surely not perfect, just like the R4s aren't, but surely this thing will be sweet. And with two of them, that's a pretty damn mobile 8-chan multi rig (for less than half of a 744 no doubt!) considering you could handle 8 line or mic-level signals, with or without phantom, on 1/4" or XLR. Crazy.
-
This is no different than the R4 or R4 Pro, and as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter much. Only reason why I "monitor" at all is just to make sure nothing terrible is wrong, other than that, check the levels and deal with it when you get home. It is too bad you can mix a line out on the fly, but no biggy really considering the price and 4 channels with pres/phaontom, there aren't a whole lot of options in that camp, not even the 744. So, as a pretty hardcore R4 user, this thing just looks like a smaller pro version with flash based memory for less money. What's not to like? Surely not perfect, just like the R4s aren't, but surely this thing will be sweet. And with two of them, that's a pretty damn mobile 8-chan multi rig (for less than half of a 744 no doubt!) considering you could handle 8 line or mic-level signals, with or without phantom, on 1/4" or XLR. Crazy.
Agreed. Also depends on your planned use. I will get one so I can record 2 stereo pairs, no need to make difficult stereo-mic choices any more. I will be recording in Card and Omni everywhere. BUT I only have one MixPre so it will be a decision which mic gets the R-44 preamps :)
EDIT: Actually I have thought of another question...how long do you wait for all the production issues to be sorted before you buy one? 6 months? Who am I kidding...I will be lining up on day 1.
digifish
-
Do I see a pattern here??? oHH oHH A NEW RECORDER.. This will be the end all of recorders... Everything that came before it is obsolete. When can we get it...? (the date slips) I got one... Oh, there are bugs... when is that update? OMG... A new better recorder...
;D indeed.
However this is a significant step in the right direction. Things I like a lot -
4 independent channels (linkable to stereo pairs).
4 independent phantom switches.
Pre-record buffer.
There is not much wrong with this on paper. All that remains to be seen for me is how good the internal mic pres are and internal battery life. WRT the pres, I am sure they will be good enough for 95% of what I do (which is field recording).
digifish.
-
I'd accept that the monitoring issue would very much depend on how you are working. Typically I'd be recording out of earshot so all I'd hear would be the sound of the recorder, and sitting through a long symphony orchestral concert, possibly with a puzzled producer beside me, with mono monitoring or worse, would be a no-no. Also, during a performance I'm getting a feel for balance so that in post-production I'm not having to think that out from scratch. And, I usually run a stereo media backup from the monitor mix, and a half-baked stereo mix is of no use at all for backup.
Others might well not run into these issues at all. It just seems to me that it wouldn't have been that hard or expensive for them to have addressed the monitoring issue and widened their market to people who need normal balancable stereo monitoring during recording. Hopefully they read here...
-
Is anyone currently taking pre-orders for the R-44?
-
I'd accept that the monitoring issue would very much depend on how you are working. Typically I'd be recording out of earshot so all I'd hear would be the sound of the recorder, and sitting through a long symphony orchestral concert, possibly with a puzzled producer beside me, with mono monitoring or worse, would be a no-no. Also, during a performance I'm getting a feel for balance so that in post-production I'm not having to think that out from scratch. And, I usually run a stereo media backup from the monitor mix, and a half-baked stereo mix is of no use at all for backup.
Others might well not run into these issues at all. It just seems to me that it wouldn't have been that hard or expensive for them to have addressed the monitoring issue and widened their market to people who need normal balancable stereo monitoring during recording. Hopefully they read here...
Then this probably ain't the recorder for you (nor is the R4 or R4 Pro because they behave the exact same way for monitoring), but then again for that kind of work I'd think you'd be looking for something completely different. But what do I know?
From what I can tell this is simply an R4 Pro in a smaller form factor with solid state memory, ability to record digi/analog at the same time (we think), all four channels with their own RCA outs, and the ability to link two units together.
-
B&H Photo is....
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?shs=edirol+r44&ci=0&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=RootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?shs=edirol+r44&ci=0&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=RootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t)
-
I think this is going to be the box for me.
Any way I add it up, I'll be spending at least this much on either this box, or a smaller box with mods or a d50 + a pre.
this would give me far more out-of box capability than anything else out there for the $$.
For the moment, I'm funneling my saving toward an r-44. Things oughta fall into place just in time for its release, too.
-
I think this is going to be the box for me.
Any way I add it up, I'll be spending at least this much on either this box, or a smaller box with mods or a d50 + a pre.
this would give me far more out-of box capability than anything else out there for the $$.
For the moment, I'm funneling my saving toward an r-44. Things oughta fall into place just in time for its release, too.
Im already finding four track recording to be way too much of a PITA...post-production wise...So - Im just about back to two track.
Unless this thing can measure up to a stock Fostex FR2-LE - preamp-wise - forget it...No way Im getting a unit that has to be "modded" just to give it basic functionality...
Not knocking the modders - but I like to think of mods as taking something that works well - like the Fostex FR2-LE and making it better...not taking something that is basically useless stock and making it useful once modded.
-
Im already finding four track recording to be way too much of a PITA...post-production wise...So - Im just about back to two track.
Unless this thing can measure up to a stock Fostex FR2-LE - preamp-wise - forget it...No way Im getting a unit that has to be "modded" just to give it basic functionality...
Not knocking the modders - but I like to think of mods as taking something that works well - like the Fostex FR2-LE and making it better...not taking something that is basically useless stock and making it useful once modded.
the previous edirol units (r-4 and r-44) are far from useless without modification.
-
Im already finding four track recording to be way too much of a PITA...post-production wise...So - Im just about back to two track.
Unless this thing can measure up to a stock Fostex FR2-LE - preamp-wise - forget it...No way Im getting a unit that has to be "modded" just to give it basic functionality...
Not knocking the modders - but I like to think of mods as taking something that works well - like the Fostex FR2-LE and making it better...not taking something that is basically useless stock and making it useful once modded.
the previous edirol units (r-4 and r-44) are far from useless without modification.
Im under the impression these are preamp-weak - more for speech.
-
Im already finding four track recording to be way too much of a PITA...post-production wise...So - Im just about back to two track.
Unless this thing can measure up to a stock Fostex FR2-LE - preamp-wise - forget it...No way Im getting a unit that has to be "modded" just to give it basic functionality...
Not knocking the modders - but I like to think of mods as taking something that works well - like the Fostex FR2-LE and making it better...not taking something that is basically useless stock and making it useful once modded.
the previous edirol units (r-4 and r-44) are far from useless without modification.
Im under the impression these are preamp-weak - more for speech.
Interesting new thread over at GS. Apparently, a remotester picked up a 744t to replace his r4pro. After A-Bing in a studio setup with a u87, he preferred the r4 pro in every way. I think he even posted a sample.
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/remote-possibilities-acoustic-music-location-recording/174022-edirol-pro-4-better-sound-than-sound-devices-744t.html (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/remote-possibilities-acoustic-music-location-recording/174022-edirol-pro-4-better-sound-than-sound-devices-744t.html)
Take the comp fwiw, but very interesting nonetheless.
-
Im already finding four track recording to be way too much of a PITA...post-production wise...So - Im just about back to two track.
Unless this thing can measure up to a stock Fostex FR2-LE - preamp-wise - forget it...No way Im getting a unit that has to be "modded" just to give it basic functionality...
Not knocking the modders - but I like to think of mods as taking something that works well - like the Fostex FR2-LE and making it better...not taking something that is basically useless stock and making it useful once modded.
There'd be two, two channels recordings, of every concert, if I had one.
I'd likely use the spare channels in this way, myself. I am rarely the only taper when I tape and the ability to get a patch from another rig while running my own mics appeals to me. Also, I could use this at home for various purposes...
-
Im already finding four track recording to be way too much of a PITA...post-production wise...So - Im just about back to two track.
Unless this thing can measure up to a stock Fostex FR2-LE - preamp-wise - forget it...No way Im getting a unit that has to be "modded" just to give it basic functionality...
Not knocking the modders - but I like to think of mods as taking something that works well - like the Fostex FR2-LE and making it better...not taking something that is basically useless stock and making it useful once modded.
the previous edirol units (r-4 and r-44) are far from useless without modification.
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,83100.msg1113741.html#msg1113741
This user seems to testify to my point (although he has the opposite opinion) - he makes it work - but has to use on-mic pads...
For clarity: I speaking from the perspective of recording rock bands, gererally in bars and clubs...
-
Im already finding four track recording to be way too much of a PITA...post-production wise...So - Im just about back to two track.
Unless this thing can measure up to a stock Fostex FR2-LE - preamp-wise - forget it...No way Im getting a unit that has to be "modded" just to give it basic functionality...
Not knocking the modders - but I like to think of mods as taking something that works well - like the Fostex FR2-LE and making it better...not taking something that is basically useless stock and making it useful once modded.
the previous edirol units (r-4 and r-44) are far from useless without modification.
Also - this post...I mean - even a modded unit cant take a consumer level signal through a pro level input???...without pads???
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,92387.msg1234760.html#msg1234760
Not picking on the poster here - you do what you have to do...but I have never come a across a RCA out that was too hot for anything...particularly an XLR input...
This is the kind of stuff that scares me away from these units...
-
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,83100.msg1113741.html#msg1113741
This user seems to testify to my point (although he has the opposite opinion) - he makes it work - but has to use on-mic pads...
For clarity: I speaking from the perspective of recording rock bands, gererally in bars and clubs...
he testifies to your point by completely disagreeing with you? BayTaynt3d gives a very clear and detailed description of how he uses the pre-amp section of the R-4 and states that he likes it. how does that in anyway testify to the fact that it is useless? FWIW you aren't the first person I've heard with a similar opinion, but I think it's a little odd to claim that a device is "useless" for a specific purpose when there are literally dozens (maybe hundreds) of people using it on a regular basis to do that exact task. I'm using a modified unit myself after having run a stock unit for a number of months so obviously I think there is room for improvement in the stock units, but they are far from useless.
Also - this post...I mean - even a modded unit cant take a consumer level signal through a pro level input???...without pads???
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,92387.msg1234760.html#msg1234760
Not picking on the poster here - you do what you have to do...but I have never come a across a RCA out that was too hot for anything...particularly an XLR input...
This is the kind of stuff that scares me away from these units...
where exactly does anyone in that link you posted claim that a modded unit cant take a consumer level signal through a pro level input? I did a quick scan of the exact post you linked to and a few before and after it and see no reference that even sort of hints at that.
-
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,83100.msg1113741.html#msg1113741
This user seems to testify to my point (although he has the opposite opinion) - he makes it work - but has to use on-mic pads...
For clarity: I speaking from the perspective of recording rock bands, gererally in bars and clubs...
he testifies to your point by completely disagreeing with you? BayTaynt3d gives a very clear and detailed description of how he uses the pre-amp section of the R-4 and states that he likes it. how does that in anyway testify to the fact that it is useless? FWIW you aren't the first person I've heard with a similar opinion, but I think it's a little odd to claim that a device is "useless" for a specific purpose when there are literally dozens (maybe hundreds) of people using it on a regular basis to do that exact task. I'm using a modified unit myself after having run a stock unit for a number of months so obviously I think there is room for improvement in the stock units, but they are far from useless.
Also - this post...I mean - even a modded unit cant take a consumer level signal through a pro level input???...without pads???
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,92387.msg1234760.html#msg1234760
Not picking on the poster here - you do what you have to do...but I have never come a across a RCA out that was too hot for anything...particularly an XLR input...
This is the kind of stuff that scares me away from these units...
where exactly does anyone in that link you posted claim that a modded unit cant take a consumer level signal through a pro level input? I did a quick scan of the exact post you linked to and a few before and after it and see no reference that even sort of hints at that.
He's referring to installing -20db pads in the XLR end...assuming thats done for a reason (there might be another thread on this)
BayTaynt3d - I dont think we disagree at all - he just likes it and says he makes it work...but note he mentions he has to use the on-mic pads...not to protect the mic - but to protect the preamp - not good, and not the best way to attenuate...
Perhaps "useless" was a bit strong - but my point/concerns stand...
EDIT: I think rowjimmy has a modded unit (that disables line-in) so has to resort to attenuators to push the line level through the mic preamp...still - not a great solution...
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,96074.0.html
-
Also - this post...I mean - even a modded unit cant take a consumer level signal through a pro level input???...without pads???
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,92387.msg1234760.html#msg1234760
Not picking on the poster here - you do what you have to do...but I have never come a across a RCA out that was too hot for anything...particularly an XLR input...
This is the kind of stuff that scares me away from these units...
It would help me if you could summarize what the quoted posters are saying about the R4, or at least your interpretation of it. I'm really not seeing your point, at least without reading through the whole thread you've linked to. Nothing I'm reading points directly to any limitations of the R4, but if there are limitations, I'd like to know what they are.
Baytaynt3d says in the post you're pointing towards:
My whole strategy is to be able to run somewhere b/w 10am-1pm on the gain. That puts me in the sweet spot for less noise, and gives me some room to run if things get hotter than planned.
This doesn't seem at all to me he is saying the R4 can't take a hot signal without engaging the mic pads, only that he prefers to engage them in order to run the R4 with the gain between 10am-1pm -- not because of the limitations of the R4 but simply for his own preference on how to run his gear.
And without reading I have no idea what it means that someone owning an R4 wants attenuator cables. I've got a pair I sometimes use with my V3, but that has nothing to do with whether the V3 is a good piece of gear or not.
At any rate, the manual for the R44 says it can take an input level of +24dbu, which is a very hot signal -- well above the nominal consumer standard of -10dBV or the nominal pro output level of +4dbu. BTW, I think the max input level of the SD 722 is +24dbu as well, but I'd have to double-check that.
-
Also - this post...I mean - even a modded unit cant take a consumer level signal through a pro level input???...without pads???
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,92387.msg1234760.html#msg1234760
Not picking on the poster here - you do what you have to do...but I have never come a across a RCA out that was too hot for anything...particularly an XLR input...
This is the kind of stuff that scares me away from these units...
It would help me if you could summarize what the quoted posters are saying about the R4, or at least your interpretation of it. I'm really not seeing your point, at least without reading through the whole thread you've linked to. Nothing I'm reading points directly to any limitations of the R4, but if there are limitations, I'd like to know what they are.
Baytaynt3d says in the post you're pointing towards:
My whole strategy is to be able to run somewhere b/w 10am-1pm on the gain. That puts me in the sweet spot for less noise, and gives me some room to run if things get hotter than planned.
This doesn't seem at all to me he is saying the R4 can't take a hot signal without engaging the mic pads, only that he prefers to engage them in order to run the R4 with the gain between 10am-1pm -- not because of the limitations of the R4 but simply for his own preference on how to run his gear.
To be honest, he jumps back and forth talking about mic and line so much Im a bit confused at this point...
He says:
I've come to actually like the current gain setup in the stock R4 over time, but that probably has something to do with recording more jazz than rock. I find that running my mics with the -10db pad into mic-in on the R4 works in most situations for me, including fairly loud PA shows as long as I'm back by the SBD. That said, there will DEFINITELY be times when -10db won't be enough, so -15 might be a little better. However, I sure wouldn't want my line-in brought down by -15db personally, cause in all likelihood you're just going to have to make it up with the R4 preamps, which is something I personally try to avoid. I do, at times, run my mics (or the SBD) through some switchable pads that have -15, -20, -25, and then run mic-in on them,
Unless he is overloading the mics themselves - running the on-mic pads will only ADD noise...too much of a compromise. And his later comments seem to indicate he is attenuating based on volume...not so much "sweet spot for noise" - thats my take...
-
Also - this post...I mean - even a modded unit cant take a consumer level signal through a pro level input???...without pads???
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,92387.msg1234760.html#msg1234760
Not picking on the poster here - you do what you have to do...but I have never come a across a RCA out that was too hot for anything...particularly an XLR input...
This is the kind of stuff that scares me away from these units...
And without reading I have no idea what it means that someone owning an R4 wants attenuator cables. I've got a pair I sometimes use with my V3, but that has nothing to do with whether the V3 is a good piece of gear or not.
At any rate, the manual for the R44 says it can take an input level of +24dbu, which is a very hot signal -- well above the nominal consumer standard of -10dBV or the nominal pro output level of +4dbu. BTW, I think the max input level of the SD 722 is +24dbu as well, but I'd have to double-check that.
Well - without reading is key - I didnt read the post enough either!...the Oade mod disables the line input - So i think the fellow was trying to attenuate back down to mic level, so he could run a SBD signal into it...
But - without reading - yikes a pro-level input cant take a consumer level output...thats scary. (although - it doesnt seem to be the case...) In any case - a "mod" issue - not stock...my bad.
As I said earlier - "useless" is probably a bit too strong...
-
LOL, holy cow, wow... Maybe I wasn't clear enough with that old post, LMAO!!!
First of all, the R4 can easily handle whatever levels you throw at it, just flip the line-in switch and you're golden. So, all the talk about overloading completely missed the point. And, if you read my point about in-line pads: "I do, at times, run my mics (or the SBD) through some switchable pads that have -15, -20, -25, and then run mic-in on them, but I try to avoid putting those in the signal path if I don't have to." I say I try not to, but as anyone who's made a ton of matrix recordings knows, you don't always have control over what you're given, and sometimes the FOH is an arse and won't lower your signal. A pair a in-line pads will solve that issue right quick, and that's an issue pretty much any recorder you mention could run into in the field, which is why pads are recommended in the official TS Matrix Guide, LOL. That is really a worst case scenario, which pretty much NEVER happens.
As for the mic's pad "adding noise", someone also missed my point on that, which was, I'm specifically choosing b/w the noise (and coloring) of the pads vs. the noise in the R4's preamps. See, you're thinking about it wrong I think. I run the -10db pad on the mic because in MANY MANY cases that's all the headroom I need to run mic-in on the box. What does mic-in get me? Less of a need to increase gain on the R4 pres. See, in many situations, if I didn't run with the mic's -10db pad, then I'd have to run LINE-IN instead, meaning I'd also probably have to increase the gain on the pres significantly more. So, you see, it's my way of deciding between noise from the pre or the so called noise from the pad (and I doubt the pad on the 480 introduces that much noise). And for anyone pointing at this a downfall of the R4, I call BS. Most of you tapers out there record to line-in on your units anyway, because mic-in would overload! So, this is actually an ADVANTAGE as far as I'm concerned because I can actually run mic-in at times.
Finally, I've got to admit, I find it personally HILARIOUS that my post basically talking about how I like the R4, even a stock R4, got used as a proof point for how "bad" it is, LOL! Well, I guess that's one way to make the point.
FWIW, I think using my technique could also be applied to other "all in one" units to equally beneficial use. The point is to use as little pre gain as possible, and to take advantage of as much of the signal coming off the mics as possible. Now, one could argue about adding in the pad, but you have to compare that to the alternative in those situations, which is you might have to run line-in and add significant gain. Maybe if you had a V2/V3 it wouldn't matter, but for the other all-in-one boxes out there, I'm not so sure riding you're gain way high won't add MORE noise than the pad running into mic-in.
I had some other thoughts from the comments above, but now I forgot them, heh...
-
Just thinking about this again for a sec and realized maybe I still wasn't all that clear.
How about an example?
Say you're recording a show that is 10db too hot to record mic-in on your recorder, and that your recorder has a 20db pad (aka "Line In"). That's a pretty typical scenario that could play out for many more recorders than just the R4.
So, you might be faced with this choice:
(1) Flip on your recorders pad (aka run line-in). For the sake of argument, let's say your recorder has a 20db pad (R4, PMD660, etc.). So, you were 10db too hot, you engage line-in, and now you have 10db too much headroom, so you make up the difference using your pre's gain stage to add +10db.
or...
(2) On the other hand, if you're mics have a 10db pad on them, you could engage it, keep the recorder mic-in (no pad) and require no additional gain.
So, given a choice, and depending on your recorder and your mics, I'd most typically go with #2. Personally, for me, I'd way rather use my AKG480's 10db pad, than use the R4's 20db pad and add 10db of gain. And I bet that would be the better scenario for a lot of other mic/recorder combos out there. So, remember, I'm not adding the pad just to add noise, lol, I'm just choosing a smaller pad and the pad on my mics as opposed to the larger and unknown pad on the recorder -- AND, in the process of using the smaller of the two pads, I also get the added benefit of needing LESS gain too. Make sense? Seems to me that'd be a good approach for a lot of folks out there, even ones with better preamps, but what do I know?
-
Just thinking about this again for a sec and realized maybe I still wasn't all that clear.
How about an example?
Say you're recording a show that is 10db too hot to record mic-in on your recorder, and that your recorder has a 20db pad (aka "Line In"). That's a pretty typical scenario that could play out for many more recorders than just the R4.
So, you might be faced with this choice:
(1) Flip on your recorders pad (aka run line-in). For the sake of argument, let's say your recorder has a 20db pad (R4, PMD660, etc.). So, you were 10db too hot, you engage line-in, and now you have 10db too much headroom, so you make up the difference using your pre's gain stage to add +10db.
or...
(2) On the other hand, if you're mics have a 10db pad on them, you could engage it, keep the recorder mic-in (no pad) and require no additional gain.
So, given a choice, and depending on your recorder and your mics, I'd most typically go with #2. Personally, for me, I'd way rather use my AKG480's 10db pad, than use the R4's 20db pad and add 10db of gain. And I bet that would be the better scenario for a lot of other mic/recorder combos out there. So, remember, I'm not adding the pad just to add noise, lol, I'm just choosing a smaller pad and the pad on my mics as opposed to the larger and unknown pad on the recorder. Make sense? Seems to me that'd be a good approach for a lot of folks out there, even ones with better preamps, but what do I know?
I must admit, for rock bands - I almost always run the -20db pad on all of my preamps (that have 'em)...the only time I use the on-mic pads is with my 99 dollar Yamaha mixer...thats the only way I can run something like a 480 on that thing...
I've long wondered about line in vs mic in...is line in really just the same thing but 20db lower?...on all gear? Or just the R-4. Is there also some impedence difference? Pretty sure if I went line in on my pres, I would have to add gobs of gain
Isn't the idea of a pro mic output level going into consumer line input something Len Moskowitz or Oade came up with as a workaround solution to the weak mic pres in the old portable DATs? - and not so much something that should be a standard practice...I guess I've gotten used to a work scheme that translates well to various pieces of gear - and I dont see the translation here. But maybe Im just missing a pad on the mic in...
-
The few times I borrowed Ricks R4, I used the 10 db pads on my AKG 480s as well. For the exact reasons as BayTaynt3d stated above. No need to run line in on the R4 when I could just use the pads on the mics.
-
The few times I borrowed Ricks R4, I used the 10 db pads on my AKG 480s as well. For the exact reasons as BayTaynt3d stated above. No need to run line in on the R4 when I could just use the pads on the mics.
That part I get...I just dont get the feeling that running mics on line in is going to be the same as turning on my -20db switch on my preamp...
Also - I come to find that the on-mic pads, while handy for reducing gain in a pinch - should be avoided in favor of a pad after the mic...using the mic on-mic pads changes the mics S/N ratio - while the post-mic pads...do not.
Not trying to pick a fight - and I recant on calling it "useless" in a previous post (I was recalling comments made by others...)
-
FWIW, all line-in is on an R4 is a 20db pad. Same thing for a 660's XLR inputs, you can turn on the 20db pad or not.
Regarding the mic vs. non-mic pad, again I go back to my example. The choice for most of us is between a 10db pad on the mic or a 20db pad on our recorder plus gain. I'm sure it matters which mics and which recorder specifically, but the point I'm making is you can't just say "on mic pads change s/n" without considering the fact that you're alternative is a bigger pad and added gain, which also might affect s/n too possibly?
Anyway, I was just trying to rebut the whole R4 is useless thing. I think people bash the R4 way more than is needed really, but to each his own. Personally, I wish it was a bit more transparent and open sounding than it is, but then again, I can't tell you how many times having an extra spot mic or two, or an extra stereo pair, has made a HUGE difference in the recordings I've made. So, that's the tradeoff really.
I'm still trying to remember why Doug said something about liking a modded R4 more than the mods he does on the Pro. But I'm going to ask him again, cause I bet the same will hold true for the R44 (assuming he can even mod it).
Lastly, pretty much every recording on my website (see sig) that was made in the past year was on a stock R4, so if anyone wants any samples, there are a bunch on my website. Some of those recordings are only one pair, some are with two pairs, and many are with a pair plus a spot mic or two (I often run XY or DIN onstage and pull a direct from the bass amp cause I never seem to have enough bass in my ambient, and because in jazz, when the bassist solos, he's always too quiet, but in post I can use automation and raise up the bass solos, among other tricks, heh.)
-
FWIW, all line-in is on an R4 is a 20db pad. Same thing for a 660's XLR inputs, you can turn on the 20db pad or not.
Is this a standard amongst gear? - or just Edirols way of doing it...pretty sure hitting the -20 pad on my preamps mic inputs will not magically turn it into a line input...
And to be clear - when you say "turn on the 20db pad or not" - are you referring to the line/mic switch???
-
And to be clear - when you say "turn on the 20db pad or not" - are you referring to the line/mic switch???
Yes.
-
And to be clear - when you say "turn on the 20db pad or not" - are you referring to the line/mic switch???
Yes.
So - is it really a pad or what?
-
And to be clear - when you say "turn on the 20db pad or not" - are you referring to the line/mic switch???
Yes.
So - is it really a pad or what?
As far as I know, yes, a 20db pad.
Basically the exact same kind of thing a PMD660 does on the XLR inputs (you know, how everyone runs a 660 with the pad on). Same, same. That said, I'm pretty sure not all recorders do the same thing, but many do. Some have a separate signal path for line in, many don't. But someone with more engineering skills ought to chime in on this... Heh...
-
Lastly, pretty much every recording on my website (see sig) that was made in the past year was on a stock R4, so if anyone wants any samples, there are a bunch on my website. Some of those recordings are only one pair, some are with two pairs, and many are with a pair plus a spot mic or two (I often run XY or DIN onstage and pull a direct from the bass amp cause I never seem to have enough bass in my ambient, and because in jazz, when the bassist solos, he's always too quiet, but in post I can use automation and raise up the bass solos, among other tricks, heh.)
+T for an excellent website!
-
my 671 has a -20db pad. it also has a separate line in path.
-
my 671 has a -20db pad. it also has a separate line in path.
The bigger question is how often do you use it, the pad that is?
And, I'm assuming you can't really use the line-in path with XLR mics that require phantom, correct?
-
Is this a standard amongst gear? - or just Edirols way of doing it...pretty sure hitting the -20 pad on my preamps mic inputs will not magically turn it into a line input...
I don't know if it's standard but the Apogee mini-me works the same way as the edirol boxes
would you like to bash Apogee next?
-
Is this a standard amongst gear? - or just Edirols way of doing it...pretty sure hitting the -20 pad on my preamps mic inputs will not magically turn it into a line input...
I don't know if it's standard but the Apogee mini-me works the same way as the edirol boxes
would you like to bash Apogee next?
Lighten up - I made one negative remark - and recanted it 3 times...
Trying to understand how these work - I'm used to different approach...
Does Oade modify Apogee gear?
-
Is this a standard amongst gear? - or just Edirols way of doing it...pretty sure hitting the -20 pad on my preamps mic inputs will not magically turn it into a line input...
I don't know if it's standard but the Apogee mini-me works the same way as the edirol boxes
would you like to bash Apogee next?
Lighten up - I made one negative remark - and recanted it 3 times...
Trying to understand how these work - I'm used to different approach...
Does Oade modify Apogee gear?
+T for hangin' in there and recanting. :)
-
my 671 has a -20db pad. it also has a separate line in path.
The bigger question is how often do you use it, the pad that is?
And, I'm assuming you can't really use the line-in path with XLR mics that require phantom, correct?
I use the pad 99% of the time. The only time I don't is purely acoustical stuff. I've only used line in a couple of times and that was running off the board.
-
my 671 has a -20db pad. it also has a separate line in path.
The bigger question is how often do you use it, the pad that is?
And, I'm assuming you can't really use the line-in path with XLR mics that require phantom, correct?
I use the pad 99% of the time. The only time I don't is purely acoustical stuff. I've only used line in a couple of times and that was running off the board.
Yeah, so all I was really saying (in that older post from a different thread everyone was referring to) is to ask yourself this question... Are there occasions in that 99% of the time where you could have made it using the 10db pad on your mics going mic-in (aka recorder pad off) instead of running line in on the recorder (aka -20 pad on) and adding gain? And if so, then for the gear you specifically own, which way would be "better" to run? My intuition is that "less pad, less gain" is going to be the way to go under most scenarios. In my situation, I trust the smaller pad in the AKG more than the larger pad in the R4, and I prefer not adding unneccesary gain if I don't have to. All the other crap I laid out in that older post was just variations of the same basic concept, all of which I think is relevant to more gear than just the R4.
And, just for the record, and FWIW, YMMV, I do admit the R4 pres aren't the best, but they are OK, better than the rumors might have you believe, and I think modded, the unit is quite bad ass. And the R44, for the right people, is as close to a dream box for the value as we tapers have ever had given its price. And on the R4 front, I swear Doug told me once he prefers his modded R4 to his modded R4 Pro, so there might just be hope for the older box too, heh...
-
s as close to a dream box for the value as we tapers have ever had given its price.
I can say from the wedding and event crowd, this is a dream machine. In fact, speaking directly to Frank from Edirol, this unit from was conceived from feedback he got from my fellow videographers. I have used an R4 for over a year now at various video-related events and it has performed flawlessly. There were always features on the R4 Pro I would have liked on the standard, but the price range wasa a bit too high. Moving those needed features to a new box at a fraction of the cost...and operates at a much better power management level(now only four batts for twice the record time) is amazing. BTW, I found out yesterday, engineers in Japan finished testing syncing three R44s together with a very simple "Y" cable... ...may come in handy when I have very large live bands at my high-end reception events.
What makes this unit, and also the R4/R4Pro, of great value to the wedding and event videographer, it is ease of setup. We fight against a big demon when we record our events- TIME. I routinely have to race from the church to the reception venue to beat the bride and groom and rush in to setup my equipment (I should add, in many cases, I've had to setup audio at the church also...so I have to secure that equipment there and move/rush to the reception). Even if they only have a DJ, unless you have worked with them before, they can be problematic to work with to get a simple feed. They either don't want to let you have one from a fear "you'll mess things up for them", or they are too boneheaded about their stuff to know what is the best feed from their system. In addition, even if you get a direct feed, it can be a bit too sterile for our needs as you loose the "room feel" that is so important in this type of recording process. In the past, I've also supplemented the board feed with a AT 825 stereo mic (for example) to capture ambiance of the room/dance floor....and having the capability to run it to a single recorder...and one where I wasn't worried/consumed with getting a proper balance at the event (that is what post production is for). As I stated earlier, we simply don't have the time. I have gotten away from direct feeds altogether unless I've worked with a DJ before. I now mic the PA with some Rode M3 mics (they have an additional padding on them to attenuate) and run an ambient stereo mic.
Live bands is where is gets even more tricky..time wise. Getting a feed from the board in most small venues will only have the vocals going through the PA...so we must mic the rest of the musicians. Once again, having the luxury of recording seperate channels without the concern of having to mix it there reduces a huge amount of setup time. I'm lucky if I get much more than a few minutes of sound check before I'm off to others areas/events of the reception (to shoot video). Having a box where I can setup in a few minutes...set it and forget it for the rest of the night...and have it going to seperate channels I can mix in post is a dream machine to me....
-
Having a box where I can setup in a few minutes...set it and forget it for the rest of the night...and have it going to seperate channels I can mix in post is a dream machine to me....
Given that you press record and wander off, sounds like you need two...in case one fails :)
digifish
-
Having a box where I can setup in a few minutes...set it and forget it for the rest of the night...and have it going to seperate channels I can mix in post is a dream machine to me....
Given that you press record and wander off, sounds like you need two...in case one fails :)
digifish
Or not. I've probably made 100 recordings with my R4 by pressing rec and wandering off -- only one recording was lost out of the 100, the unit is a tank, and it was my fault for forgetting to recharge my batteries (that's one thing the R4 does not do well, shut down gracefully). The other thing I like if you're the type to "wander off," is the fact the R4, R4 Pro, and I also saw it on the R44, all have laptop locking holes. I often take advantage of that by locking the R4 to something so IT doesn't "wander off." LOL!
-
Now I'm curious about the gain structure and performance of the line vs mic in on the R-09 as well. I've got to imagine that as a less complex Edirol machine it also just pads down the line in.
Back a year and a half ago when my R-09's line-in jack broke and people started reporting that as a weak point, I switched to running my external preamp into the still functioning mic input for about 6 months until I had a chance to send it back to Roland for repair.
To do so I just backed off the gain a bit on both the external preamp and R-09 to compensate for what I assumed was additional gain added by the R-09 mic preamp stage when using the mic input. I was pleasantly surprised to not hear any additional noise or degradation in signal quality. My assumption at the time was that line-in would be cleaner than mic-in on the R-09 and that I was essentially trading gain I had been making with the higher quality external preamp (going line-in) for gain made with the R-09's preamp (mic-in). I now realize that in all likelihood by goin mic-in, I had instead effectively eliminated the input 'pad' on the R-09's line-input, allowing me to back off on the necessary gain addition of the external preamp.
With the exception of one unusual (for me) and extremely loud show where I could have used a more padded input (I ran the external at 0 gain for the purpose of powering the mics only, and still ate up all the headroom in the signal chain with the R-09's mic input at a gain setting of 1), I had no problems running this way until I had the unit repaired. I at times thought it sounded 'cleaner' this way, but had no way of confirming this without going to the trouble of setting up a test. I was also still playing with finding the 'sweet spot' setting for my chain at the time so I was hesitant to attribute any perception of improvement to mic-in vs line-in without carefully eliminating the other variables. I only did casual critical listening, no noise floor analysis of 'effectively equivalent' gain settings that would yield identical levels of the same signal recorded though the line-in and then the mic-input. Now I'm interested again. Perhaps I'll go back to using the mic input more often.
-
Wow, did we get off-topic or what? LMAO!!!
This actually deserves to be it's own thread, cause I'm curious about other devices and other's experiences on this front...
(And BTW, that is EXACTLY what I've been thinking, and the reason for my approach, but I too have never done anything to actually verify it scientifically.)
-
Wow, did we get off-topic or what? LMAO!!!
This actually deserves to be it's own thread, cause I'm curious about other devices and other's experiences on this front...
(And BTW, that is EXACTLY what I've been thinking, and the reason for my approach, but I too have never done anything to actually verify it scientifically.)
Part of the problem is the team threads - there are hardly any R-4 threads...its all in the team area - and even harder to find - I found comments that mirrored my earlier remarks - but tracing a consistent opinion is tough.
I took note of Oade's favorable opinion of the FR2-LE stock pres - that carries enough weight that I might consider sticking with 2 channel for awhile - get my feet wet with 24 bit...rather than get into the R-44...A unit that (by my read) might need a mod to bring it up to the same level of performance - time will tell on the 44...
-
Wow, did we get off-topic or what? LMAO!!!
This actually deserves to be it's own thread, cause I'm curious about other devices and other's experiences on this front...
(And BTW, that is EXACTLY what I've been thinking, and the reason for my approach, but I too have never done anything to actually verify it scientifically.)
You bet. I felt a slight pang of conscience continuing the line of thought in this thread to not even the R4 but R-09.. but that passed. I do think it's a relevant discussion to the Edirol recorder family as well as other recorders that share front-end circuitry between mic & line inputs. I'm all for a dedicated thread on this though.
-
Or not. I've probably made 100 recordings with my R4 by pressing rec and wandering off --
I suppose I was thinking mainly about gain settings. I have had bad experiences lately trying to anticipate the gain for a jet fly-bys and thunder. But I suppose the dynamic range is a little more than the average wedding :)
http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/samplesViewSingle.php?id=47347
That said, with DJs, music, speeches etc...I'd still want to keep an eye on the gain. And to bring this back on topic, it's a shame the R-44 doesn't have some analog limiters infront of the A/D stages...that's something I love on the MixPre, safety net.
digifish
-
Or not. I've probably made 100 recordings with my R4 by pressing rec and wandering off --
I suppose I was thinking mainly about gain settings. I have had bad experiences lately trying to anticipate the gain for a jet fly-bys and thunder. But I suppose the dynamic range is a little more than the average wedding :)
http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/samplesViewSingle.php?id=47347
That said, with DJs, music, speeches etc...I'd still want to keep an eye on the gain. And to bring this back on topic, it's a shame the R-44 doesn't have some analog limiters infront of the A/D stages...that's something I love on the MixPre, safety net.
digifish
You're making me want to keep my FP24 that's in the YS right now, lol...
-
Quick R-4 phantom question...say you have a XLR board patch - can you still turn phantom on?
This seems like potential problem...wasnt there a Govt Mule gig a few years ago that was nearly canceled cuz some dude turned his phantom power on and blew up the board?
-
Not sure what happens if it is turned on, but your not supposed to. Not an issue on the R4 or R44 though. Just flip the switch. And it looks like it is easier on the 44 since each channel has a switch.
-
Quick R-4 phantom question...say you have a XLR board patch - can you still turn phantom on?
This seems like potential problem...wasnt there a Govt Mule gig a few years ago that was nearly canceled cuz some dude turned his phantom power on and blew up the board?
phantom power can be turned on and off on the R-4, but only for channels 1&2 or channels 3&4 not for each channel individually. As far as I understand it phantom should NEVER be on when taking a board patch with any device including the r-4 unless you want to fry the board.
-
Quick R-4 phantom question...say you have a XLR board patch - can you still turn phantom on?
This seems like potential problem...wasnt there a Govt Mule gig a few years ago that was nearly canceled cuz some dude turned his phantom power on and blew up the board?
phantom power can be turned on and off on the R-4, but only for channels 1&2 or channels 3&4 not for each channel individually. As far as I understand it phantom should NEVER be on when taking a board patch with any device including the r-4 unless you want to fry the board.
this is correct - turning phantom on would send 48v back to the board and fry it
-
Quick R-4 phantom question...say you have a XLR board patch - can you still turn phantom on?
This seems like potential problem...wasnt there a Govt Mule gig a few years ago that was nearly canceled cuz some dude turned his phantom power on and blew up the board?
phantom power can be turned on and off on the R-4, but only for channels 1&2 or channels 3&4 not for each channel individually. As far as I understand it phantom should NEVER be on when taking a board patch with any device including the r-4 unless you want to fry the board.
this is correct - turning phantom on would send 48v back to the board and fry it
Anyone ever been rejected for a patch because of this...? Im not even sure I would trust myself!
-
I'm sure it happens all the time. Maybe not directly but more indirectly. I've heard some FOH guys express concern about giving out patches because the guys patching out of them don't know their gear well enough.
-
True of XLRs... I don't think there is phantom voltage outputs on the TRSs (1/4 plug)
-
I know some engineers who will not give out an XLR patch unless they are comfortable with it and they know the person receiving it understands not to send phantom.
-
there certainly *can* be phantom on TRS.
Microtrack does it.
and, if I were an FOH guy making my living on my work of the evenings..., I would be super wary of giving access to anything at my board.
I might provide the patch, but it would be on my terms and with my gear.
-
Shouldn't any board output have blocking caps (or a transformer)?
I agree, you shouldn't put 48V on there, but I would expect any (decent) board would have some protection.
Richard
-
They should.. but I'd guess from the stories that some may not be.
Obviously not the usual scenario in any way shape or form but I remember reading that Healy's board was at some point in time DC coupled all the way through to the FOH amps, though I'd bet big money that the patch box thrown down to the section had de-coupling caps or x-formers in in path.
Nick's right and the Microtracker with phantom only available on 1/4" TRS inputs is the obvious example, but I'd bet any phantom capable recorder or preamp with 'combo' style XLR/TRS input jacks would do the same.
-
any 3 pin connection can carry phantom.
one to send, one to return and a ground. thats that.
-
Quick R-4 phantom question...say you have a XLR board patch - can you still turn phantom on?
This seems like potential problem...wasnt there a Govt Mule gig a few years ago that was nearly canceled cuz some dude turned his phantom power on and blew up the board?
phantom power can be turned on and off on the R-4, but only for channels 1&2 or channels 3&4 not for each channel individually. As far as I understand it phantom should NEVER be on when taking a board patch with any device including the r-4 unless you want to fry the board.
this is correct - turning phantom on would send 48v back to the board and fry it
Although you should never send phantom back into the SBD, I believe most good soundboards would easily block it these days. You don't have to fry too many SBDs before the manufacturers figure out they need to protect against it -- not just from tapers patching but from whatever else might happen, cause eventually it will, lol. But, I don't really know, I'm just saying, makes sense to me to not send phantom if you don't have to (same goes for Ribbons BTW, lol).
Also, being able to switch phantom individually on the R44 is one improvement I noticed immediately from the pics, that and those 4 RCA outs were nice tweaks too. Other than that, it looks to be a smaller flash version of the R4 pro without the timecode.
-
Well it looks like I might be one of the first guinea pigs for this thing ;D I just placed my order with sweetwater and supposedly I'm one of 4 people in their first shipment which is only 4 units. I'll you know how it goes
Edit: They are saying March 10th too. I'll believe it when I see it though ;)
-
I'll be holding off until Doug says he can mod it.
-
I'll be holding off until Doug says he can mod it.
Does that mean you wont want to borrow it and run AKG > V3 + SBD > Edirol R-44? ;D
-
I'll be holding off until Doug says he can mod it.
bingo
-
I'll be holding off until Doug says he can mod it.
Does that mean you wont want to borrow it and run AKG > V3 + SBD > Edirol R-44? ;D
should have said hold off purchasing...
:)
-
I'll be holding off until Doug says he can mod it.
bingo
I'd agree if I didn't have the V3
-
Cross posting from the Team R4 thread. I spoke with and emailed with a few people today at Edirol/Roland about the R4/R4 Pro/R44.
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,92387.msg1318553.html#msg1318553
I was led to believe that the R44 digital input WOULD NOT be bit accurate and the signal WOULD be resampled.
I have an email out to one of the top guys for a 2nd confirmation.
If true then it would distinctly separate the R4/R44 from the R4 Pro.
-
Cross posting from the Team R4 thread. I spoke with and emailed with a few people today at Edirol/Roland about the R4/R4 Pro/R44.
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,92387.msg1318553.html#msg1318553
I was led to believe that the R44 digital input WOULD NOT be bit accurate and the signal WOULD be resampled.
I have an email out to one of the top guys for a 2nd confirmation.
If true then it would distinctly separate the R4/R44 from the R4 Pro.
That is f*cking retarded. Why even have a digital input then? What's the point?
-
I was led to believe that the R44 digital input WOULD NOT be bit accurate and the signal WOULD be resampled.
Thanks Dave for ruining my day :P Hopefully the guy you talked to really didn't know... other wise I think a 702 might be on my horizon.
-
Sweetwater says:
They will be getting their first units in March 9.
-
So I decided to e-mail Edirol about the resample issue and got this repsone:
While the R-44 is not yet available and technical data is not yet
published, our team in Japan informs me that the SPDIF input of the R-44
will be sample accurate and will support 24-bit.
Best Regards,
Ted Rosen
Roland Systems Group
I got this response awfully fast though. I've got my doubts about it. Who knows if this guy really knows what I'm asking. I'd imagine the guy Dave talked would know better, but who knows.
-
but who knows.
^^^ the key three words.
FWIW, I got the same response when I bought my original R4. Lots of things could be fact or non-fact. Just have to have one in hand to confirm things.
For me the measuring stick is the price. While by appearance it looks great but with both the R4 and R4 Pro still being marketed I can't imagine that they'd undercut two current products at higher price points.
...but who knows
-
For me the measuring stick is the price. While by appearance it looks great but with both the R4 and R4 Pro still being marketed I can't imagine that they'd undercut two current products at higher price points.
My question is, is the resampleing of a digital inputs a product of bad design or cost cutting or both? I think both the iRiver 120/140 and MicroTracker have been proven bit accurate but both are on the cheaper end of recorders… the iRiver wasn’t even primarily designed as a recorder.
-
For me the measuring stick is the price. While by appearance it looks great but with both the R4 and R4 Pro still being marketed I can't imagine that they'd undercut two current products at higher price points.
My question is, is the resampleing of a digital inputs a product of bad design or cost cutting or both? I think both the iRiver 120/140 and MicroTracker have been proven bit accurate but both are on the cheaper end of recorders… the iRiver wasn’t even primarily designed as a recorder.
I'm sure there are experts here but I always understood it to be the chips used in the gear. I assume <---- that they cut costs by using lesser priced chips. Also I can't imagine most of their client base is as nit-picky about this issue like we are.
-
I assume <---- that they cut costs by using lesser priced chips. Also I can't imagine most of their client base is as nit-picky about this issue like we are.
And iRiver and M-Audio don't care for a sub $300 machine? Or did they stumble upon cheap chips that are bit accurate.
-
I assume <---- that they cut costs by using lesser priced chips. Also I can't imagine most of their client base is as nit-picky about this issue like we are.
And iRiver and M-Audio don't care for a sub $300 machine? Or did they stumble upon cheap chips that are bit accurate.
Again i'm sure there are experts here but with the MT and iRiver there ain't a whole lot feature wise to those units when compared to the R44.
If you had to cut back are you cutting back a bit accurate chip or are you cutting back on preamp chips?
-
when/where did iriver come up with a bit accurate , sub $300, 24BIT recorder?
just curious...
-
when/where did iriver come up with a bit accurate , sub $300, 24BIT recorder?
just curious...
I could be wrong, but I thought I read the iRiver was proven bit accurate for 16bit.
-
For me the measuring stick is the price. While by appearance it looks great but with both the R4 and R4 Pro still being marketed I can't imagine that they'd undercut two current products at higher price points.
My question is, is the resampleing of a digital inputs a product of bad design or cost cutting or both? I think both the iRiver 120/140 and MicroTracker have been proven bit accurate but both are on the cheaper end of recorders… the iRiver wasn’t even primarily designed as a recorder.
I'm sure there are experts here but I always understood it to be the chips used in the gear. I assume <---- that they cut costs by using lesser priced chips. Also I can't imagine most of their client base is as nit-picky about this issue like we are.
I doubt it has to do with lower priced chips, but it is probably just a design choice. Just guessing.
For background, there are probably a lot of reasons why a recorder will not be bit accurate, but the main one is that the recorder will use its internal clock/crystal for clocking the digital data stream rather than deriving the clock signal from the incoming digital data stream.
Also, in case it has been overlooked, from the R44 manual:
The R-44 is able to synchronize to the clock signal of the Digital input jack
This is in the section on digital recording, so it sounds like the R44 will not resample (will be bit accurate) when doing 2ch digital recording.
The manual doesn't say the same thing for 2ch digital + 2ch mic recording, so it might be resampling the digital stream for 4ch recording (using its own internal clock). To do 4ch recording correctly, all the channels need to be sampled off the same clock. The choice is either to derive that clock from the incoming digital data stream, or to use the internal clock of the R44.
I'm guessing by reading between the lines from the responses from Edirol that for 4ch recording, the R44 is using its own internal clock (and resampling the digital input). It would be better to use the clock data from the incoming digital stream (ie, not resample), but again, the R44 needs to use the same clock for all 4 channels (and it might be using its internal clock).
Bottom line, I'm guessing the R44 will be bit accurate for 2ch digital recording, but may not be for 4ch recording.
-
Well explained, sounds reasonable. Is the clock source the kind of thing that could conceivably be changed with a firmware patch?
-
Bottom line, I'm guessing the R44 will be bit accurate for 2ch digital recording, but may not be for 4ch recording.
I could live with that.
-
Well explained, sounds reasonable. Is the clock source the kind of thing that could conceivably be changed with a firmware patch?
Patch? - selectable clock source should be a "feature"
It shouldn't be that big of a deal to allow you to select a clock source...even my 100 dollar Behringer A/D can do that...
I can choose:
Internal
External
Dig-In
This quote would lead me to think the clock will be selectable: (from a few posts back)
The R-44 is able to synchronize to the clock signal of the Digital input jack
I would make the assumption that: If they can use dig-in for clock - it would HAVE to be bit accurate...otherwise, how could you get a reliable sync?
-
but who knows.
^^^ the key three words.
FWIW, I got the same response when I bought my original R4. Lots of things could be fact or non-fact. Just have to have one in hand to confirm things.
For me the measuring stick is the price. While by appearance it looks great but with both the R4 and R4 Pro still being marketed I can't imagine that they'd undercut two current products at higher price points.
...but who knows
I dont see these as equivalent machines...I would bet about 1/3 the cost of the R-4/pro is in all the "Wave Editing" software/feature set.(which the R-44 doesnt have) Edirol didnt include those for free. Despite the uselessness of on-board Wave Editing to our hobby - tapers still flocked to these devices...the device was still "worth it" for the features we wanted.
Price-wise, this seems to fit perfectly in the hierarchy of Edirol R-X series recorders...
-
I disagree, I think this product will seriously cannabilize sales to the other units for anyone not needing timecode, but what do I know?
-
Two observations:
1. Yes, please, let's have a thread somewhere to talk about dynamic range, mike vs. line inputs, pads on mikes versus pads on preamps, and in-line pads (an alternative which wasn't mentioned here, but is often preferable to the other two). Some of the information which people claimed as gospel truth in this thread was accurate; other such claims or assumptions, stated with equal vehemence, were not.
I wouldn't want to say that everybody overgeneralizes here, but sometimes some folks do it some, I guess.
2. If it turns out that the S/P-DIF input of this unit does something to the bits rather than storing them literally as received (and that does seem to still be an "if"), before we all condemn this, why don't we find out what it's doing to the bits? If it's removing DC offset, for example, that could be doing us a favor--or not, depending on how it's implemented. I mean, I'd prefer a straight-line approach, but not everything that is done unto a bitstream is uniformly and equally bad.
--best regards
-
Yes, please, let's have a thread somewhere to talk about dynamic range, mike vs. line inputs, pads on mikes versus pads on preamps, and in-line pads (an alternative which wasn't mentioned here, but is often preferable to the other two). Some of the information which people claimed as gospel truth in this thread was accurate; other such claims or assumptions, stated with equal vehemence, were not.
Dude, you can't just drop that like that without elaborating. Share the wealth, share what you know, we'll all benefit from it. Thanks.
-
Also, in case it has been overlooked, from the R44 manual:
The R-44 is able to synchronize to the clock signal of the Digital input jack
This is in the section on digital recording, so it sounds like the R44 will not resample (will be bit accurate) when doing 2ch digital recording.
The manual doesn't say the same thing for 2ch digital + 2ch mic recording, so it might be resampling the digital stream for 4ch recording (using its own internal clock).
Just a fyi, but the R4 Pro Manual about the Digital Recording and Dig+Analog is essentially the same as the R-44. In the digital recording section is says "The R-4 Pro is able to synchronize to the clock signal of the digital input connector." and there is no mention of this in the 2ch digital + 2ch mic recording section either
-
Take this FWIW:
I spoke with a rep from Sweetwater the other day and asked him if he knew if the digi input resampled or not.
He called me back today and said he spoke with someone at Edirol and that the R-44 is like the R-4 Pro in that it did NOT resample the digi input.
-
i think this machine may be The Winner in my book. cant wait to hear it / see it / touch it / feel it
-
Wow, did we get off-topic or what? LMAO!!!
This actually deserves to be it's own thread, cause I'm curious about other devices and other's experiences on this front...
...Yes, please, let's have a thread somewhere to talk about dynamic range, mike vs. line inputs, pads on mikes versus pads on preamps, and in-line pads (an alternative which wasn't mentioned here, but is often preferable to the other two)....
OK, lets have at it:
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,99261.msg1321995.html#msg1321995
-
Greetings to all... after a brief call with Markertek they 'claim' they can get me the R44 by March 8th. Order placed, let's see if they deliver.
Just moved over to radio after working television for 16 years and decided I need a good field recorder - everywhere I go the R4's keep coming up as the for field recording/interviews... then I find the R44 which seems works out cheaper, with a safer recording medium.
Oh, my name is Michael Wilkins, home-based in Central New Jersey, hailing from Liverpool, England - which is where the radio station broadcasts from.
-
Greetings to all... after a brief call with Markertek they 'claim' they can get me the R44 by March 8th. Order placed, let's see if they deliver.
Just moved over to radio after working television for 16 years and decided I need a good field recorder - everywhere I go the R4's keep coming up as the for field recording/interviews... then I find the R44 which seems works out cheaper, with a safer recording medium.
Oh, my name is Michael Wilkins, home-based in Central New Jersey, hailing from Liverpool, England - which is where the radio station broadcasts from.
welcome!
-
Man, if I were doing field interviewing, I'd probably use an Oade-Modded PMD660. Way smaller, still has XLR, can even patch a news bay directly (only the modded unit), noise floor is plenty low (again only on modded unit), rechargeable batteries last forever, instant on/off, uses standard CF cards, and 16-bit (which for voice seems plenty adequate to me, and possibly preferrable even). The ONLY reason I could think of using an R44 would be if I needed four mics/lavs for a big interview, otherwise the modded PMD660 kills on ENG use IMHO. The stock R4 is a gigantic heavy brick that takes 30-secs to boot compared to it -- although I'm sure the R44 would be better, I'd still go PMD660 unless I absolutely had to have 4-channels. (BTW, this is coming from someone who owns both an R4 and an Oade PMD660).
-
dennisrtyler - many thanks
BayTaynt3d - As I don't know what situations I will find myself in, I would rather have the 4 channels, then wish I had them - although the PMD660 looks like a terrific, tiny, unit.
Got to drop a "hello" to Rick who has quite the interesting Avatar - The only question is are you a plastic scouser or an ex-pat in TX :P
-
Got to drop a "hello" to Rick who has quite the interesting Avatar - The only question is are you a plastic scouser or an ex-pat in TX :P
Plastic ;D
-
It looks like the Sweetwater ship date of 3/10 has been pushed back to 4/11. Bummer.
-
It looks like the Sweetwater ship date of 3/10 has been pushed back to 4/11. Bummer.
Sweetwater told me they were getting 5 on 3/10 and that those have been spoken for.
Then they expect another shipment in April, which they already had 5 orders for.
Yeah bummer indeed.
-
It looks like the Sweetwater ship date of 3/10 has been pushed back to 4/11. Bummer.
Sweetwater told me they were getting 5 on 3/10 and that those have been spoken for.
Then they expect another shipment in April, which they already had 5 orders for.
Yeah bummer indeed.
Yeah I was one of those 5 for 3/10. At least that's what I was told.
-
Yep, just got off the phone with Markertek - direct from Roland, they will not be shipping until Mid-late April. That now leaves me in a quandry - what is a low-cost alternative so that when I pickup the R44 I won't be out of pocket that much?
Rick - plastic or not - you support a good team. :)
-
plaaastic...
-
Dropping the update in here - 'cause this is the first thread I posted in - I decided to go with the Zoom H4 recording from the Shure FP33 field mixer (I already own the FP33) until the R-44 comes in. Mostly due to the ability for true XLR inputs to the H4 unit and the 'breakaway' jack inputs on the R-09. Cost also comes into play, but not as much.
Thanks to all - this forum is a tremendous resource and look forward to inwardly digesting the knowledge further.
Will update - as I am sure numerous others - once the R-44 is delivered and played with.
-
Just checking in to track the news. Looks to be a cool box!
-
Well now that I've half talked myself into one of these, I wish I jumped on the first wave of orders. I'm planning on running 4 channel for Suwannee Spingfest at the end of March and assumed there was no chance these would ship before then. Anyone know of anyplace that I might contact that might ship before then? If I miss that window, I have no great rush and will wait until this summer to see how it plays out.
If not I plan on running two R-09's and trying the sync in post thing. I'm hoping the clocks of the two identical recorders will be somewhat close, though I'm not fooling myself into thinking it will be simple to sync, regardless.
-
If not I plan on running two R-09's and trying the sync in post thing. I'm hoping the clocks of the two identical recorders will be somewhat close, though I'm not fooling myself into thinking it will be simple to sync, regardless.
Absolutely the best feature of the R4/R4 Pro. Not having to screw around with lining things up in post is worth the price alone.
-
fwiw, i have run two 671's and the clocks were perfectly in sync. just had to line them up once. so, its probably the case with two r09's.
-
FWIW too, I've used two different models of Hi-MD reorders on a job and was amazed at how they held in sync throughout a classical string quartet performance.
-
fwiw, i have run two 671's and the clocks were perfectly in sync. just had to line them up once. so, its probably the case with two r09's.
FWIW too, I've used two different models of Hi-MD reorders on a job and was amazed at how they held in sync throughout a classical string quartet performance.
I'd attribute that to either (1) a relatively short performance, (2) not looking looking for the drift at a sufficiently zoomed-in level of detail, or (3) pure luck. You two probably just had very little drift, to the extent that it was not audible to your ears at the beginning vs. the end of the show.
The assumption that two of the same type of recorders' clocks will drift less than the clock of two different kinds of recorders is probably a safe one; however, it is a bad assumption that the different clocks of two of the same type of recorders will not drift. My experience has been that there will always be at least some drift between the clock of two different recorders (of same or different types), and I usually see it on the DAW as soon as 5-10 minutes into the show when zoomed in sufficiently (at ~ the detail of milisecs or even samples level of resolution).
-
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,99539.0.html (http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,99539.0.html)
im going to have to disagree with you on this one. the performance was not "short", i opened up both files in wavelab5's montage, zoomed in, started them at the same time. rendered. done. listen for yourself. the only luck i have ever had was bad.
-
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,99539.0.html (http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,99539.0.html)
im going to have to disagree with you on this one. the performance was not "short", i opened up both files in wavelab5's montage, zoomed in, started them at the same time. rendered. done. listen for yourself. the only luck i have ever had was bad.
It seems you were lucky this time IMO ;) I look forward to checking that out. How long is that electric set?
A drift of < 10 milisecs may not be noticeable expcept to the most OCD - unless you're looking for it - over the length of a 1-2 hour set if you happen to be lucky enough to have two recorders with internal clocks that close to each other. It doesn't change the principle, however, and my point is that it is not a safe assumption that there will not be drift just because two sources came from the same type/model of recorder.
-
the electric set was just over an hour or so. looks like i am going to get a lotto ticket asap. :P
-
Yet another thing I need to sit down and test carefully - one day...
-
Unclear, but does the R-44 support both SD and SDHC cards?
-
Unclear, but does the R-44 support both SD and SDHC cards?
from the R-44 homepage
"R-44 employs SD cards or large capacity SDHC cards as the recording media."
-
What threw me off was:
"Supports SDHC large capacity media"
being listed independantly without reference to the SD media. Many thanks though, Dennis.
-
fwiw, i have run two 671's and the clocks were perfectly in sync. just had to line them up once. so, its probably the case with two r09's.
FWIW too, I've used two different models of Hi-MD reorders on a job and was amazed at how they held in sync throughout a classical string quartet performance.
I'd attribute that to either (1) a relatively short performance, (2) not looking looking for the drift at a sufficiently zoomed-in level of detail, or (3) pure luck. You two probably just had very little drift, to the extent that it was not audible to your ears at the beginning vs. the end of the show.
The assumption that two of the same type of recorders' clocks will drift less than the clock of two different kinds of recorders is probably a safe one; however, it is a bad assumption that the different clocks of two of the same type of recorders will not drift. My experience has been that there will always be at least some drift between the clock of two different recorders (of same or different types), and I usually see it on the DAW as soon as 5-10 minutes into the show when zoomed in sufficiently (at ~ the detail of milisecs or even samples level of resolution).
QFT.
As someone who's synced all sorts of crap, audio, video, different recorders, different videocams, etc., the only thing that's "safe" to assume is that you will have drift for anything more than an hour. Whether it's audible or not will depend of course, but don't assume you'll still have sync at the tail. Also, if you're not careful, you'll end up with crazy weird phasing somewhere in the set, but you might not notice it until after listening to the whole thing again.
FWIW, I usually sync the head, then check the tail for sync, and stretch (using a good editor of course) one of the sources if needed to get perfect sync throughout. Another approach is to try syncing at the midpoint of the wav file, that way if you are drifting, it'll only drift half as far at the two ends as it would if you synced just the head of the wav.
-
If not I plan on running two R-09's and trying the sync in post thing. I'm hoping the clocks of the two identical recorders will be somewhat close, though I'm not fooling myself into thinking it will be simple to sync, regardless.
Absolutely the best feature of the R4/R4 Pro. Not having to screw around with lining things up in post is worth the price alone.
Although, just for the sake of the 4-chan virgins out there, if you're matrixing with an R4/R4-Pro and your AUD is significantly far from the stage/PA, you will STILL have to add a delay to your SBD channels so they sync with your AUD channels correctly. But, once you get the delay right, the beauty is they will then remain in perfect sync forever from that point on.
-
I noticed the first ones up on e-bay now.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Roland-Edirol-R-44-4-Channel-Portable-Recorder-NEW_W0QQitemZ200199120563QQihZ010QQcategoryZ41479QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQ_trksidZp1638.m118.l1247QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting
Claims to have 10. Title in the add says "New Samson ..." :o
digifish.
-
thread marker
-
Just got off the phone with Edirol. The delivery of the first batch of R-44's was pushed back until "mid-April", according to Justin at Edirol.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHobJi6TTak&feature=related
Video at Music messe.
Rep notes it has the same mic pres as the R4 pro.
digifish,
-
Rep notes it has the same mic pres as the R4 pro.
Okay let's look at this rationally without rose colored glasses on. If the R44 gets the best of both the R4 and R4 Pro then why 1. Is it significantly less than both models and 2. Why even bother having an R4 and R4 Pro if the lowest cost machine the R44 undercuts both completely? What history does Edirol have to support the thought that their lower cost models would outshine their pricer models? The UA5 maybe?
Maybe i'm biased owning an R4 Pro and formerly an R4 but I really find it hard to believe that this unit will outperform either of those models. When have you ever heard of a cheaper model outperforming the more expensive models in the taping world? Never.
I find it strange as well that each week one of us talks with someone at Edirol or Roland and we all seem to be getting different answers to the same questions. I was specifically told that the preamps in the R44 were different than the ones in either the R4 or R4 Pro. Now digifish's rep claims they are the same. I have zero doubt that what other members are reporting is exactly what they've been told so then I wonder how much the Edirol/Roland guys actually know about these units because they are conflicting themselves.
The buildup to this new unit is starting to remind me of the build up to the MicroTracker. Lots of conflicting info. Lots of folks thinking that the unit was going to outshine pricer competitors, etc.
-
Rep notes it has the same mic pres as the R4 pro.
Okay let's look at this rationally without rose colored glasses on.
I was not excited at all BTW. I was just reporting the most interesting thing I saw in the Messe video above. Whether or not it's true we will see. I have BTW sent a bunch of questions direct to Edirol (I am a dealer) and waiting for some responses.
With the way mass-manufactured electronics works, possible reduced manufacturing costs in china, possibly disappointing sales of the R4 and R4 pro, it is entirely feasible that they may reposition the unit and relaunch. I would expect to see the R4 die and the R44 and R4 pro continue. Particularly if they share the same circuit boards here and there.
BTW2: The R09-HR appears to be cheaper than the R09 it replaces.
digifish
-
Maybe i'm biased owning an R4 Pro and formerly an R4 but I really find it hard to believe that this unit will outperform either of those models. When have you ever heard of a cheaper model outperforming the more expensive models in the taping world? Never.
My R-09's were cheaper and much better than DAT, but you probably mean the same manufacturer's line. These things follow the computer buisness model more than typical recording hardware. Time marches on.
As a potential R44 buyer I'm hoping it smokes it big brothers for cheap! I'm not first in line though, I'm still realistic.
[rose colored glasses dangling at the ready on crokies/]
-
As far as I'm concerned, this unit could have the EXACT SAME audio quality as previous units and it'd still be a huge improvement on size alone. Not only is the unit way smaller (and man it looks great in that video), but no moving parts and much lighter b/c of flash, not to mention the potential to not need an external battery -- and my 4-chan setup just got a much, much smaller footprint, totally sweet and totally worth it IMHO for those reasons alone. But time will tell...
-
I have to stop by and ask, did I take a short knock to the head - or did Sweetwater inflate their price by $100? I could have been positive that this unit was getting billed for $795??? ???
-
as I toy w/the idea of re-joining team Soundfield...this deck was particularly appealing to me for several reasons. size, battery life, 4chan for B format.
but then I started to think of what 4 chan's of B format at 24/44 would run (4gb per hour) and how large of an SD card I could get....
and my excitement went away.
-
Rep notes it has the same mic pres as the R4 pro.
Okay let's look at this rationally without rose colored glasses on. If the R44 gets the best of both the R4 and R4 Pro then why 1. Is it significantly less than both models and 2. Why even bother having an R4 and R4 Pro if the lowest cost machine the R44 undercuts both completely? What history does Edirol have to support the thought that their lower cost models would outshine their pricer models? The UA5 maybe?
I dont see what the mystery is...?
The 44 doesnt have the wav editing stuff/timecode - so - they aren't equivalent devices (even if they are sonically comparable) - the 44 has fewer features...hence a lower price...
This deck will do nothing to undercut the market for folks who want onboard wav editing and timecode...cuz it doest have any of that...
-
as I toy w/the idea of re-joining team Soundfield...this deck was particularly appealing to me for several reasons. size, battery life, 4chan for B format.
but then I started to think of what 4 chan's of B format at 24/44 would run (4gb per hour) and how large of an SD card I could get....
and my excitement went away.
16gb SDHC card works fine in my R-09's. The SDHC spec supports up to 32g. That's 4 7-1/2 hours doable now and 8 15 down the road @ 4 x 24/44 (or 24/48) on a formatted card.
[edited for bad math]
I think you've accidentally doubled your file size requirements, Nick. 4 chan's of B format at 24/44 should run ~2gb per hour
-
Ken at Porta Brace says they are waiting to make a decision on making a case for these.
Edit to add that Ken says he will try to talk to Edirol at the NAB show in April, but said they usually don't show any desire to support their products as far as a case goes.
-
as I toy w/the idea of re-joining team Soundfield...this deck was particularly appealing to me for several reasons. size, battery life, 4chan for B format.
but then I started to think of what 4 chan's of B format at 24/44 would run (4gb per hour) and how large of an SD card I could get....
and my excitement went away.
16gb SDHC card works fine in my R-09's. The SDHC spec supports up to 32g. That's 4 hours doable now and 8 down the road @ 4 x 24/44 (or 24/48).
Maybe I'm confused, but isn't 2 channels at 24/44, 1GB/per hour? So 4 Channels would be 2GB/per hour.
A 8 GB card would yield about 4 hours of 4 Channels at 24/44 and about 8 Hours for a 16GB card. I'm I wrong?
Recording Time using 8 GB SDHC card
16 bit/44.1kHz : 755 minutes (Stereo), 377 minutes (4ch)
16 bit/48kHz : 694 minutes (Stereo), 347 minutes (4ch)
24 bit/48kHz : 462 minutes (Stereo), 231 minutes (4ch)
24 bit/96kHz : 231 minutes (Stereo), 115 minutes (4ch)
24 bit/192kHz : 115 minutes (Stereo)
For the most part 8GB should do the trick and 16GB should be plenty. With the prices dropping so fast on SD cards festivals shouldn't be a problem.
Unless B Format is something else?
-
24/48 = 1g per hour for 2 channels
-
as I toy w/the idea of re-joining team Soundfield...this deck was particularly appealing to me for several reasons. size, battery life, 4chan for B format.
but then I started to think of what 4 chan's of B format at 24/44 would run (4gb per hour) and how large of an SD card I could get....
and my excitement went away.
16gb SDHC card works fine in my R-09's. The SDHC spec supports up to 32g. That's 4 hours doable now and 8 down the road @ 4 x 24/44 (or 24/48).
Maybe I'm confused, but isn't 2 channels at 24/44, 1GB/per hour? So 4 Channels would be 2GB/per hour.
A 8 GB card would yield about 4 hours of 4 Channels at 24/44 and about 8 Hours for a 16GB card. I'm I wrong?
Recording Time using 8 GB SDHC card
16 bit/44.1kHz : 755 minutes (Stereo), 377 minutes (4ch)
16 bit/48kHz : 694 minutes (Stereo), 347 minutes (4ch)
24 bit/48kHz : 462 minutes (Stereo), 231 minutes (4ch)
24 bit/96kHz : 231 minutes (Stereo), 115 minutes (4ch)
24 bit/192kHz : 115 minutes (Stereo)
For the most part 8GB should do the trick and 16GB should be plenty. With the prices dropping so fast on SD cards festivals shouldn't be a problem.
Unless B Format is something else?
You are correct I was off by a factor of 2 (as was Nick, I didn't think it through, just multiplied using his figure).
Filesize wise B-format is just 4 linked tracks (usually labled W,X,Y,Z instead of L,R for stereo).
Goin' back to edit my post..
-
I guess it was only me who took a knock to the head regarding the sudden $100 increase in the price of this unit.. either that or it just was not interesting.
-
I guess it was only me who took a knock to the head regarding the sudden $100 increase in the price of this unit.. either that or it just was not interesting.
Well for some reason the R-44 page isn't coming up for me on sweetwater. If its true, I sure hope they honor my pre-order.
Maybe they were only listing the MSRP? B&H photo still shows it for $795.
-
Just got off the phone with Sweetwater - they said they will honour the price I ordered under. Presuming this is also domino for everyone else who also ordered under that price.
In regards to their site - their search engine is down at the moment.. it is not just the search for the r-44.
-
duh
:)
I forgot about the channels. my brain was thinking 1gb/hour (per channel)...but thats per stereo channels.
-
fyi
Hello;
Our team in Japan has verified that the following high capacity cards
will work in the R-44:
Panasonic RP-SDM16GK1K, 16GB OK
Panasonic RP-SDV16GK1K, 16GB OK
TOSHIBA SD-HC032GT4, 32GB OK
TOSHIBA SD-HC016GT4, 16GB OK
- Ted Rosen
Roland Systems Group
I checking to see if cards greater then 8GB had been tested.
-
thanks Rick!
-
Pretty please test SPDIF in and make sure it is bit accurate and not re-sampled.
-
Pretty please test SPDIF in and make sure it is bit accurate and not re-sampled.
I'll try to when ever I get mine, though I've never done it before and I don't know how to do it either :)
-
Promo video from Edirol up, see link below main picture with arrow...
http://www.edirol.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=313&Itemid=390
-
Promo video from Edirol up, see link below main picture with arrow...
http://www.edirol.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=313&Itemid=390
Wow, that was painful, lol...
-
Promo video from Edirol up, see link below main picture with arrow...
http://www.edirol.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=313&Itemid=390
Wow, that was painful, lol...
Indeed :)
At least it gives you a feel for the unit if you are thinking of getting one. I have one on back order so 192 kHz 24 bit sampling here I come :o
Well, I'll try it once and then get over it :)
I may use 96 kHz sampling to capture some ultrasonics and transpose it down for experimental reasons, tho...like bats.
http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/samplesViewSingle.php?id=41851
digifish
-
Promo video from Edirol up, see link below main picture with arrow...
http://www.edirol.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=313&Itemid=390
jesus, that was terrible.
-
I was waiting for "Troy McClure" from the Simpsons to show up and narrate.
Nice looking rig. Damn, this is tempting.
-
i wonder how long it will take for the r-44 pro to hit the market if it ever does?
-
i wonder how long it will take for the r-44 pro to hit the market if it ever does?
mid april is the newest word from reps
edit: nevermind, just re-read and saw that you were referring to a potential r-44 pro.
-
Ordered one today - now onto newegg for a card or two.
-
i wonder how long it will take for the r-44 pro to hit the market if it ever does?
I've been told later this month, I have one on back order.
digifish
-
If you run an external preamp, will you be able to bypass the preamps?
-
If you run an external preamp, will you be able to bypass the preamps?
superb question....I wanna know also.
-
If you run an external preamp, will you be able to bypass the preamps?
superb question....I wanna know also.
Highly unlikely considering the earlier models design.
-
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.
That's a great idea for any recorder, even more important with a 4 track machine.
If I recall it right, the Aaton Cantar has that feature. A little high-priced though, compared to the other units discussed here...
-
Has this thing started shipping yet?
-
Has this thing started shipping yet?
4/25 was the last update I got from Sweetwater
-
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.
That's a great idea for any recorder, even more important with a 4 track machine.
If I recall it right, the Aaton Cantar has that feature. A little high-priced though, compared to the other units discussed here...
Just do it in post. I don't even bother worrying about that kind of thing at the venue, why bother. That might not be true for all situations, but for audience recording concerts it's never been an issue for me.
-
I got a call this afternoon from the company I ordered from (DVE Store, Seattle, WA) and they apprised me that they will receive their 1st shipment tomorrow and I hope to have it Friday. ;D
Update: R-44 is enroute via FedEx for delivery 4/11. I'll post pics when it arrives..
-
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.
That's a great idea for any recorder, even more important with a 4 track machine.
If I recall it right, the Aaton Cantar has that feature. A little high-priced though, compared to the other units discussed here...
Just do it in post. I don't even bother worrying about that kind of thing at the venue, why bother. That might not be true for all situations, but for audience recording concerts it's never been an issue for me.
Agreed for how most of us will use it, but it becomes more important for people recording 4 channel surround or especially Ambisonic B-format where you need 4 channels with equally tracked gain.
-
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.
Isnt that how the FR2LE works - sensitivity trimmers followed by master gain...kinda like a channel strip...?
-
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.
Isnt that how the FR2LE works - sensitivity trimmers followed by master gain...kinda like a channel strip...?
yep
-
As someone noted around here somewhere, it looks like the price on these went up about $100 since the pre-orders were first advertised. Any recommendations on which reputable dealer is offering the best price?
--Michael
-
As someone noted around here somewhere, it looks like the price on these went up about $100 since the pre-orders were first advertised. Any recommendations on which reputable dealer is offering the best price?
--Michael
The price went up because the value of the dollar is so low right now. I also think that Edirol realized the demand will be through the roof for this unit and wanted to bring the price up at least to that of the older R4.
You won't find any reputable dealer that is selling the R-44 for less that $895.
-
Just arrived and 1st thing out of the box is that this is really small...and really cool. Love the feel and layout, now I am just waiting an delivery of an SDHC card to test it out ;D
Here are some pics:
(http://www.boa.com/r44__00.jpg)
(http://www.boa.com/r44__01.jpg)
(http://www.boa.com/r44__02.jpg)
(http://www.boa.com/r44__03.jpg)
-
Nice Boa. Hope to hear some of your recordings. Are you planning on getting the pre's flavored?
Looks like they are using a Polane based finish. (Such as my Sherwin Williams Carbon Black satin Polane finish) which will be much more durable than the finish on the R-4. A little trial and error looks like its paid off.
-
Where did you get th is? I need to order one.
-
Nice Boa. Hope to hear some of your recordings. Are you planning on getting the pre's flavored?
Looks like they are using a Polane based finish. (Such as my Sherwin Williams Carbon Black satin Polane finish) which will be much more durable than the finish on the R-4. A little trial and error looks like its paid off.
I sure do want to - I need to email Busman and see if he has any time to take a look at it. He did my R4 and I really like its sound.
-
Can you posts some pics of the new OLED screen on. Love to see how it looks.
-
Does anyone know if you can you overdub on the R-4 or the R-44?
In other words, record one or more tracks at a time in sync, while monitoring the original tracks.
Blair
-
The R-44 is definitely out in Japan, I just stumbled across this...
http://picasaweb.google.com/surround2011org/ChichibuRailway/photo#s5182769273881528130 (http://picasaweb.google.com/surround2011org/ChichibuRailway/photo#s5182769273881528130)
(http://www.digifishmusic.com/public/images/r-44.jpg)
this is interesting too...
http://picasaweb.google.com/surround2011org/ChichibuRailwayDay3/photo#5183435646647437442 (http://picasaweb.google.com/surround2011org/ChichibuRailwayDay3/photo#5183435646647437442)
(http://www.digifishmusic.com/public/images/surround.jpg)
...and to not go too far off-topic, here's some pics of the display as requested above :)
http://picasaweb.google.com/surround2011org/Edirol_R44 (http://picasaweb.google.com/surround2011org/Edirol_R44)
(http://www.digifishmusic.com/public/images/r-44-display.jpg)
digifish
-
The R-44 is definitely out in Japan, I just stumbled across this...
http://picasaweb.google.com/surround2011org/ChichibuRailway/photo#s5182769273881528130 (http://picasaweb.google.com/surround2011org/ChichibuRailway/photo#s5182769273881528130)
digifish
Holy shit! I thought we tapirs were obsessive. Look at all that gear to record a train!!!
Richard
-
Just as well it's not in the UK, where after all that setting up the train would turn out to have been cancelled anyway.
Actually it does look like a pretty serious surround rig. Though to get the best results from it, perhaps it should be on the tracks themselves. OK, between the tracks.
-
Actually it does look like a pretty serious surround rig. Though to get the best results from it, perhaps it should be on the tracks themselves. OK, between the tracks.
:)
He even seems to be using a (LD condenser) mic for the sub frequencies, propped up against the fence (upper right in the first shot). True 5.1?
digifish
-
Any word on how big a SDHC this thing can handle?
-
Any word on how big a SDHC this thing can handle?
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,97214.msg1348722.html#msg1348722
By the way, my R-44 should be here Friday ;D
-
Any word on how big a SDHC this thing can handle?
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,97214.msg1348722.html#msg1348722
By the way, my R-44 should be here Friday ;D
I got one in transit too. Jazzfest here I come.
-
If you run an external preamp, will you be able to bypass the preamps?
superb question....I wanna know also.
Highly unlikely considering the earlier models design.
so it looks like you can run SPDIF line in for Ch 1/2. if that is the case then it would bypass the internal pres. So then you would only be dealing with channels 3/4.
-
If you run an external preamp, will you be able to bypass the preamps?
superb question....I wanna know also.
Highly unlikely considering the earlier models design.
so it looks like you can run SPDIF line in for Ch 1/2. if that is the case then it would bypass the internal pres. So then you would only be dealing with channels 3/4.
Correct assuming that you have a pre that is a pre and a/d combo like the V3 or AD1k. The only way you bypass the pres inthe R44 is if you run digital in. If you run out of just a ore and are using the R44 a/d section then you are still getting some of the pres of the R44.
-
A couple of points I noticed from playing around the last few days without ts.com :)
01. Uses a Transcend Type 6 16g SDHC card with no problem.
- Got one from newegg.com for less than $75 delivered.
02. Gain is controlled by a Combo Level Knob:
02a. The sensitivity dial (outside of the knob) is set in 11 incremental steps; +4, -2, -8, -14, -20, -26, -32, -38, -44, -50 and -56 dbu.
02b. The level dial (inside of the knob) is a continual
- Set each channels independent sensitivity, then fine tune it with the channel's level dial. Its worked good so far.
-
Boa, how do the stock pre's sound?
-
Boa, how do the stock pre's sound?
They sound adequate so far :D
-
Another size comparison. About the same height and depth as a PMD-671 and maybe a little more then a third less the width.
I'm about to start doing some run time test (both 16/44 and 24/44). I'm going to do:
Beyer MC930 > R-44 testing AA 2500mAh Rechargeables, AA Alkalines and, 9v ION 5400mAh battery
Beyer MC930 > V3 > R-44 (digi-in) testing AA 2500mAh Rechargeables, AA Alkalines and, 9v ION 5400mAh battery
Anyone want me to test anything else?
(http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j34/rbendes/IMG_2423.jpg)
(http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j34/rbendes/IMG_2424.jpg)
-
Beyer MC930 > R-44 testing AA 2500mAh Rechargeables, AA Alkalines and, 9v ION 5400mAh battery
Beyer MC930 > V3 > R-44 (digi-in) testing AA 2500mAh Rechargeables, AA Alkalines and, 9v ION 5400mAh battery
All good tests there.
The ones I've bolded are the ones I was wondering about. Specs state 9-18vdc (i believe) for the R-44 so I'm wondering if the 9v DVD LiIons will work OK if the voltage drops a bit in use. If not I suppose I could run 2 DVD batts in series. I have two that I alternate for the V3 currently, but could wire them to provide the V3 with 9v and the R-44 with 18v.
-
Anyone want me to test anything else?
Yes, please, thank you. Take a digital source with a couple of small tracks and run a spdif to your other bit bucket listed above. (Marantz?) Record a couple of tracks. Then hook your R-44 up and run the same few tracks. Then dump them to your PC and do a bit comparison using EAC's "Compare Wavs" feature to check bit accuracy. If it is off it will tell you how many samples the recording is off by.
I am less worried about battery life than I am about it re-sampling the digi-input.
-
Anyone want me to test anything else?
Yes, please, thank you. Take a digital source with a couple of small tracks and run a spdif to your other bit bucket listed above. (Marantz?) Record a couple of tracks. Then hook your R-44 up and run the same few tracks. Then dump them to your PC and do a bit comparison using EAC's "Compare Wavs" feature to check bit accuracy. If it is off it will tell you how many samples the recording is off by.
I am less worried about battery life than I am about it re-sampling the digi-input.
Will this be accurate if the tracks are even slightly different in length?
-
No it won't be accurate if they are different lengths. Get in a wave editor and chop them to exact start and stop times.
-
Well I don't think AA will work in the field. I'm just pass an hour and the batteries are almost done.
-
Under what conditions? Lights on, phantom on, sampling rate, etc etc?
-
Under what conditions? Lights on, phantom on, sampling rate, etc etc?
I ended up getting about 2:30. Phantom On, LCD on lowest brightness, recording 24/44 and I was using Alkalines. I'll try Digital in next.
The good news is it saved the file before shutting down.
-
Under what conditions? Lights on, phantom on, sampling rate, etc etc?
I ended up getting about 2:30. Phantom On, LCD on lowest brightness, recording 24/44 and I was using Alkalines. I'll try Digital in next.
The good news is it saved the file before shutting down.
Is that 2 1/2 hours with phantom on all 4 or just 2 phantom, 2 line in?
I bought some rechargeables for mine to try, but its not here yet to try.
-
Under what conditions? Lights on, phantom on, sampling rate, etc etc?
I ended up getting about 2:30. Phantom On, LCD on lowest brightness, recording 24/44 and I was using Alkalines. I'll try Digital in next.
The good news is it saved the file before shutting down.
Is that 2 1/2 hours with all 4 channels?
I bought some rechargeables for mine to try, but its not here yet to try.
2 Channels
-
I really like the new Peak Hold feature. It's much easier to see where your levels are. It was always tough on the R4 when got close to 6db/3db. Does the R4pro have peak hold?
-
I'm pretty sure it will switch to the AAs if you lose external battery power. It did at least when I unplugged my external battery. I guess it makes the AAs a good emergency power backup
-
I just got a little more then 6 hours with 2500mAh AA batteries going digi-in 2 Channel 24/44
-
Really interested in runtime for 4xPhantom at 24-bit running on AAs... And whether the DVD batts I've been using for my R4 will work with the R44...
-
And whether the DVD batts I've been using for my R4 will work with the R44...
Roland assured me that the wallwarts for the R4 and R44 are interchangeable. Ive also run the R44 without issue on a 9v 5400mah DVD battery.
-
Really interested in runtime for 4xPhantom at 24-bit running on AAs... And whether the DVD batts I've been using for my R4 will work with the R44...
I can't Imagine AAs lasting very long considering 1 set of mics only lasted about 2 and half hours. Since I've only got one set of mics, I can't test 4xPhantom. DVD batteries will work too.
-
DVD Batts. That's good news, cause I can get 4+ hours easily with 4xPhantom@24bit on my R4 with the LED on the entire time -- I'd think the R44 would only be better than that without a spinning HD and all...
-
Here is a link to an in-store performance I recorded with Boa's R44 yesterday:
http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=514804
4021 > EAA > R44 @ 2496
-
Got mine today. Jazzfest here I come. :D :D :D
-
Who is selling these? Anyone here?
Who has the lowest price?
Anyone know?
-
I'll have my 1st outing with the R-44 Friday. If I catch the opener I'll run 930s>R-44 just to see how the mic-ins are.
Who is selling these? Anyone here?
Who has the lowest price?
I got mine from Sweetwater for $770. I think there was a $100 price increase, but sweetwater honored the pre-order price I was quoted.
-
Got mine today. Jazzfest here I come. :D :D :D
Morst mentioned to me that you are also getting a portable hard drive with a card reader built in. Do you have a link to that unit by chance? Seems it would be a great piece to have with the R44.
-
Got mine today. Jazzfest here I come. :D :D :D
Morst mentioned to me that you are also getting a portable hard drive with a card reader built in. Do you have a link to that unit by chance? Seems it would be a great piece to have with the R44.
Hey Steve, yes its wolverinedata.com, if you order it now I think you can get in on the 30 mail in rebate.
-
I'll have my 1st outing with the R-44 Friday. If I catch the opener I'll run 930s>R-44 just to see how the mic-ins are.
who are you seeing this Friday?
-
I'll have my 1st outing with the R-44 Friday. If I catch the opener I'll run 930s>R-44 just to see how the mic-ins are.
who are you seeing this Friday?
Ryan Montbleau Band @ Momo's. I'm on the guest list for +1 if you want to come. They are playing from 9:00 to 10:00 according to the Momo's website.
-
Cool! I was wanting to go to the show, just not sure if I was going to be able to get off work in time. Let me see what I can do about getting off in time. I'll let you know by Thursday.
-
Had a problem with Transcend 16Gb SDHC Class 6 cards...testing the unit with 4channels @ 48/24 with phantom enabled on all four channels got a sd card slow message....unit would not shutdown and had to remove batteries to power off. Testing with a 8 gb Sandisk proved ok.... Curious of what other are using for cards (successfully)
-
Had a problem with Transcend 16Gb SDHC Class 6 cards...testing the unit with 4channels @ 48/24 with phantom enabled on all four channels got a sd card slow message....unit would not shutdown and had to remove batteries to power off. Testing with a 8 gb Sandisk proved ok.... Curious of what other are using for cards (successfully)
Thats the card I am using, although it has not run 4xphantom yet; just Stereox2 wth no issues.
-
Had a problem with Transcend 16Gb SDHC Class 6 cards...testing the unit with 4channels @ 48/24 with phantom enabled on all four channels got a sd card slow message....unit would not shutdown and had to remove batteries to power off. Testing with a 8 gb Sandisk proved ok.... Curious of what other are using for cards (successfully)
Were you do 4xmono or 2xStereo? I doubt the size of the card would make any difference.
-
4xMono has caused others grief on the other units. I always run 2xStereo at 24/44.1 and have never had a problem (on stock R4). It's easy enough to split out mono tracks if you need them in post, so I'd suggest ppl stick with 2xStereo. After all, if you run 4xMono, chances are at least two channels are a stereo pair anyway, so you'd have to put them back together in post anyway, so what's the difference?
-
After all, if you run 4xMono, chances are at least two channels are a stereo pair anyway, so you'd have to put them back together in post anyway, so what's the difference?
For me there is a significant time difference when editing in post. Once I went 4xmono it made everything for me a whole lot more streamlined.
All in what you're used to I guess.
-
In Vegas you can just drag/drop multiple copies of stereo or mono files from track to track, and with a simple right-click on any event you can choose R, L, or Stereo. Done.
But my main point was that there are multiple TS-documented instances of 4x mono freezing up (I think, heh) and there are no documented instances of that for 2x stereo (that I've seen on TS -- I think). Just saying...
I'm all for 4xMono too by the way, I love my R4. :)
-
Oh, and one more plug for Vegas, you can do all that dragging/dropping with flac files native on the timeline, heh. I now flac my originals immediately and then edit non-destructively on those flac files from vegas. Such a nice workflow...
-
Oh, and one more plug for Vegas, you can do all that dragging/dropping with flac files native on the timeline, heh. I now flac my originals immediately and then edit non-destructively on those flac files from vegas. Such a nice workflow...
One more thumb up for 4 x mono and Vegas only after I mix to two channel then I use SF 8.
-
Oh, and one more plug for Vegas, you can do all that dragging/dropping with flac files native on the timeline, heh. I now flac my originals immediately and then edit non-destructively on those flac files from vegas. Such a nice workflow...
One more thumb up for 4 x mono and Vegas only after I mix to two channel then I use SF 8.
Why even bother with SF? You can do your entire edit non-destructively in vegas with endless plugins, automation, etc. Then as long as you have the original flac and the vegas project file, you can re-render out a new master anytime you want in the future. So nice.
-
I can't let go of this lack of pan control issue in the otherwise excellent R44 - sorry to be boring! But really, providing for balance control in the monitor mixer menu page would seem to me significantly to extend the market for the device further. It would enable proper playback on location without needing to have a mixer connected to the channel outputs - which to my mind is one item too many to carry around, especially as it would probably be larger and heavier than the recorder, and not battery powered (unless disproportionately expensive).
As it stands, monitoring options are restricted to those set out at the back of the manual. You can (in summary) either listen to each channel one at a time, or in stereo pairs (one pair or both pairs) or all four in mono. You can't listen to channel 1 on the left, channel two on the right, and channel three in the middle (for instance), neither can you do anything more subtle like listening to channel 1 on the left, channel two on the right, and channel three half-way between the right and the centre.
Why would you want to? Well, say you were recording four singers standing in a row, each with a mic. How would you play that back (or monitor it) in stereo without the positioning of the singers being completely scrambled?
If the CPU in the device was basically capable of outputting other than left/right/centre as at present, it could work as follows:-
The present mixer menu page would remain as at present, and you'd cursor across the four faders as at present, from one to four, adjusting monitor levels with the jog wheel. Anyone not interested in pan controls would not see them and could ignore them. But if you cursored to the right from fader four, you'd find yourself in a pan page, very much like the fader page, but with the faders horizontal, controlling pan. Further presses on the right cursor would go from pan control one through four. Turning the jog wheel would set the pan position/value for the current pan control. Cursor left from the first pan control to get back to the present fader page. Conceptually it would be like a set of four level faders with four balance faders to their right, but lack of space would require the split across two display pages.
Everything else would stay the same. To hear the panned mix, you'd press the headphone volume control as at present until the "LR" appeared against all channels on the display (as at present). If you hadn't altered the channel pans, that would as at present give you a mono mix of all channels. If you had altered the pans, you'd hear a stereo mix reflecting the pan changes you had made.
So, to repeat, what I'm suggesting would make no difference that I can see for someone not wanting to get into pans. It would work for them just like now. But the extra pan page (if you chose to access it) would make a huge difference in usability for the device for those needing panned monitoring direct from the device.
I suspect such a thing could be added through a firmware upgrade. I've seen references to people here talking to Frank of Roland, and if anyone can suggest a contact route to him, I'd be very keen to put this proposal forward. Just sending an email to Roland would probably not get the idea to the right place.
-
What is strange is after the problems develops on the 16gb transcend card, it can't be reformated...either in the R44 any any other SDHC device. Both cards I have are doing the same thing. However, I use a 8gb Sandisk card and I can record 4 X mono with no problems....
I'm suspecting a card issue...and I'm going to replace with another brand and check
-
When recording, or when record-paused, is it possible to display the monitor mix menu screen? The manual implies that it can't be done, which would be a problem.
-
Has anyone tried to see if the digital input resamples?
-
When recording, or when record-paused, is it possible to display the monitor mix menu screen? The manual implies that it can't be done, which would be a problem.
On an R4 at least, no. Monitoring options are extremely limited. If you need robust monitoring, you're probably going to need to look elsewhere... Then again, at this price point with 4 chanels, 4 pres, 4 phantom, you don't have much choice.
-
Has anyone tried to see if the digital input resamples?
Actually, I was wondering how one goes about determining this. In other words, how can you tell if the unit is locking on the A/D clock in front of the digital input, versus resampling using the R44's clock?
-
On an R4 at least, no. Monitoring options are extremely limited. If you need robust monitoring, you're probably going to need to look elsewhere... Then again, at this price point with 4 chanels, 4 pres, 4 phantom, you don't have much choice.
Thanks - indeed, one can't complain at what is there for the price, but if a significant extension of the ability of the unit would "only" be a matter of a firmware change, then perhaps increased sales would offset the possibly small further development effort. But of course it might not be a small matter, or even possible at all.
As far as I'm aware, there is no small inexpensive battery powered device on the market which will take four line outputs from an R4/R44 and, via four level controls with concentric balance controls, produce a stereo mix for headphones. Nearest option would be small Behringer-type mixer I guess. Perhaps there's a modest market there for someone to hand-make such a piece of kit - to sit underneath an R-44 maybe!
-
Actually, the "Rolls MX28 Stereo Mini-Mix VI" would appear to do the job nicely - it's only got three stereo/mono inputs but assuming you were working with a stereo pair and two spots, that counts as three. Or if working with four mono mics, you'd probably have two of them panned hard left and right anyway, so again, they could go in as a stereo pair.
The downside is that it's not available here in Australia...
-
It's worth noting that this mixing for monitoring is made possible by the new RCA outs configuration on the R44, the R4 has a stereo RCA out that essentially records whatever monitoring mode the headphone out is playing (stereo, all four mixed, one chan at a time mono). I'm liking the flexibility those four independent outs enable.
But I'm interested to see how this SD card thing plays out, and I'm eagerly waiting to see how reliable is this thing turns out to be, and also will anyone being offering mods on the box. If things look good, I'm selling my R4 and Oade PMD660 and going for one of these puppies I think. Time will tell, heh...
-
I'm using a Panasonic SD5 high def camcorder with 4 or 8Gb SDHC cards and have had no problems with the data rate vs card write speed - it fills a 4Gb card in about 40 mins, so (without having actually checked the math) that's got to be rather faster than audio even 4 channels at 24/96. So I'd be confident that in principle SDHC is up to the task.
BTW, thinking on, the Behringer Xenyx 502 very compact and cheap mixer would work as well as the Rolls mixer for monitoring from those four handy outputs. And you can get it everywhere. But battery powering is not an easy option. Hmmm.
-
DATBRAD, I make that kind of test by programmatically generating a sequence of digital samples whose values follow a predictable mathematical sequence. I store them as a wave audio file and burn that file to a CD.
I then play that CD on a player that has a digital output, which I connect to the digital input of the device under test. Then I record the result and look at the sample values in the second file. If they follow the pattern that I programmed into the first file, then the signal wasn't resampled (or was resampled perfectly, such that it doesn't matter).
I used a similar technique about ten years ago when I set out to evaluate computer CD-ROM drives. I wanted to know what really happened when people capture ("rip") digital samples from audio CDs at high speed--which, back then, was only 8X instead of the 50X and higher of today. I saw considerable skips, interpolations, samples repeated, arbitrary channel reversals, etc. on most of the drives that I tested, including "name brands." It's a fact that a lot of people apparently either don't know about or refuse to think about.
--best regards
-
I dont know if it will apply to resampling queries..but This software (http://www.libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm) is really interesting.
-
As far as I'm aware, there is no small inexpensive battery powered device on the market which will take four line outputs from an R4/R44 and, via four level controls with concentric balance controls, produce a stereo mix for headphones.
The following is an option...
Behringer battery powered mixer (http://www.behringer.com/UBB1002/?lang=ENG) @ approx $100 USD.
(http://www.behringer.com/UBB1002/ubb1002_medium.jpg)
-
Indeed the Behringer battery mixer is an option, but too big (if trying to pare things down to R-44 scale) for my personal liking.
Another approach to checking digital data is simply to invert one version against another - any differences will quickly be revealed. Lining up two versions of a wave file is usually easier than one might think.
-
Last night I ran my R-44 for the 1st time in the field. A couple of thoughts:
- The stock pre-amps seem decent for amplified shows. I wasn't pushing them hard and there was plenty of head room. I don't have a good enough play back systems to make a critical review of sound quality, but the recording sounds pretty good. I didn't notice any noise. I'll post a sample later.
- At the show I thought there was something wrong with channel 3. I wasn't getting any signal, but this morning I tested it again and it seemed to be working ok, so I'll have to keep any eye on it. I'm hoping it was some kind of human error :P
- I'm not sure how the R-44 saves the settings so I would check them before you start recording. I think if you change the source, it defaults back to 1xStereo.
- The level/sens knobs are small. I even have pretty thin, average sized hands and it was a little tricky to change two channels at once.
All in all its a better smaller version of the R-4.
I ran MC930 > R-44 and MC930 > V3 + SBD (mono) > R-44
-
that's god to know Rick. Glad it's working now. And I remember now the only time i've run line in was with RCAs. I was thinking about the R4 line in with the XLRs. The recording sounds fine but brickwalled.
About to head to Strait music and pick up a XLR > RCA cable.
-
that's god to know Rick. Glad it's working now. And I remember now the only time i've run line in was with RCAs. I was thinking about the R4 line in with the XLRs. The recording sounds fine but brickwalled.
About to head to Strait music and pick up a XLR > RCA cable.
R-44 doesn't have RCA ins...
-
Last night I ran my R-44 for the 1st time in the field. A couple of thoughts:
- The stock pre-amps seem decent for amplified shows. I wasn't pushing them hard and there was plenty of head room. I don't have a good enough play back systems to make a critical review of sound quality, but the recording sounds pretty good. I didn't notice any noise. I'll post a sample later.
- At the show I thought there was something wrong with channel 3. I wasn't getting any signal, but this morning I tested it again and it seemed to be working ok, so I'll have to keep any eye on it. I'm hoping it was some kind of human error :P
- I'm not sure how the R-44 saves the settings so I would check them before you start recording. I think if you change the source, it defaults back to 1xStereo.
- The level/sens knobs are small. I even have pretty thin, average sized hands and it was a little tricky to change two channels at once.
All in all its a better smaller version of the R-4.
I ran MC930 > R-44 and MC930 > V3 + SBD (mono) > R-44
Couple comments from a long-time Stock R4 runner (comments are re R4 not R44, but I bet some still apply):
- In general, the pres are better than most people give the R4 credit for, and have decent headroom if pad/sensitivety set right. BUT they can be a bit "flat" compared to some of the more transparent-sounding mods and other manufacturer's models. They can also be a bit noisy when totally cranked.
- What was on the other end of Chan #3. A mic? Maybe phantom got turned off accidentally? Phantom is individually-switchable per channel on the R44, correct? (a feature I very much welcome).
- In addition to checking settings, it wouldn't be a bad idea to do a format on your SDHC card before each show. Ensures it's formatted in a way that that specific device expects (I use my SDHC cards in multiple devices) and it ensures a perfectly defragged card for recording.
-
I've been testing it out and getting ready for Jazzfest, but how does the pre record work? Do you just turn it on in the menu, then you leave it on record/pause, then when you start it it has the past 5 seconds on there too? Thanks ::)
-
Manual p68 -
"You can specify the length of time that the sound is captured “retroactively,”
starting from before the moment you pressed the [REC] (record) button. This
setting specifies the number of seconds that is captured retroactively.
* The maximum time depends on the sampling frequency, the sample size (bit depth),
and the mode setting."
Once the mode is on, it's recording all the time in essence - and eating the batteries a bit faster.
-
Once the mode is on, it's recording all the time in essence - and eating the batteries a bit faster.
Which is why I usually leave it off. I figure if I ever need a few seconds of pre-record at 24-bit, then I've got bigger problems at that point (like I'm way late), lol...
-
Once the mode is on, it's recording all the time in essence - and eating the batteries a bit faster.
Which is why I usually leave it off. I figure if I ever need a few seconds of pre-record at 24-bit, then I've got bigger problems at that point (like I'm way late), lol...
It's useful for field recording and sampling. When the exact timing of the sound of interest is a little unpredictable.
I'm going to be spending a week in the with an R44 recording nature sounds (http://www.sailingstardust.com/pix/FinishingTasmania/finishing_tasmania-11.jpg), looking forward to the pre-record feature 8)
digifish.
-
- What was on the other end of Chan #3. A mic? Maybe phantom got turned off accidentally? Phantom is individually-switchable per channel on the R44, correct? (a feature I very much welcome).
It was a SBD feed out of a 1/4 output. What's weird and why I thought there was something wrong with the input was that channel 4 was working fine, so I just moved that cable to channel 3 but I still got no signal. I'm thinking maybe the R-44 switch to 1xStereo for some reason. Regardless I tried the RCA outs on my TV today and both channel 3 and 4 worked fine.
-
Once the mode is on, it's recording all the time in essence - and eating the batteries a bit faster.
Which is why I usually leave it off. I figure if I ever need a few seconds of pre-record at 24-bit, then I've got bigger problems at that point (like I'm way late), lol...
It's useful for field recording and sampling. When the exact timing of the sound of interest is a little unpredictable.
I'm going to be spending a week in the with an R44 recording nature sounds (http://www.sailingstardust.com/pix/FinishingTasmania/finishing_tasmania-11.jpg), looking forward to the pre-record feature 8)
digifish.
Well I guess you just have to put it in rec/pause for long enough to get the levels right. Right?
-
Has anyone found a good bag for the R44 yet? I think the accessory bag is $85 and I'd like to see other options..
-
My r 44 fits in my sonic bag no prob. Could someone answer my last post, please. I am leaving to NOLA in 11 hrs and just wanted to have it figured out. Thanks
-
I have mine in a SoiniCase. It works, but I don't really have access to the top buttons unless I take the R-44 out.
I'm not sure about the Pre-record. Why don't you test it? I know on the 722 if it was on it was pre-recording.
-
Of course you have to put it into rec/pause if you want to check levels. But I don't think it needs to actually be in rec/pause to be pre-recording, it's always doing that once you turn on pre-record I believe (could be wrong though). Regardless, all pre-record does is to continuously record a buffer full of audio at the then set levels on the deck -- it couldn't do anything else really.
-
that's god to know Rick. Glad it's working now. And I remember now the only time i've run line in was with RCAs. I was thinking about the R4 line in with the XLRs. The recording sounds fine but brickwalled.
About to head to Strait music and pick up a XLR > RCA cable.
R-44 doesn't have RCA ins...
sorry, I was referring to the 671 RCAs.
-
I've been testing it out and getting ready for Jazzfest, but how does the pre record work?
Could someone answer my last post, please. I am leaving to NOLA in 11 hrs and just wanted to have it figured out. Thanks
There has to be an explanation as to why picklemic waited about 18 hours for a written answer to a question that would take about one minute to test himself... anyway, good luck with NOLA!
-
I've got my couple of questions to this big little unit:
1 how long do the batteries last (AA) when recording 4 channels with 48V turned on at 48/24? (been asked before, I know, but I found no answer yet...)
2 how long does it take the R-44 from being powered up/switched on until when the record can actually start?
-
With 48/24 and 4 phantoms on regular AAs, I got about 2 1/2 hours...with Eveready ePhoto Lithiums, I get a little over 6 hours at the same recording parameters
-
I'm still having problems with 16gb cards and 4 X 1 record setup. First it was with a couple of Transcend cards...now with an A-Data card...at approx 8 minutes into the recording I get a n SD card slow message and the only way to come out of the recording is to either pull a battery or remove the card....
Is anyone else seeing this? Doesn't appear to manifest itself with stereo X 2 parameter
-
I ordered the R44 from Sweetwater mid February and was told they were expected to ship towards the end of March. When March came and went I was told 3rd week of April. Up until a few weeks ago the latest date was the end of April. After checking today I was told June 9th?? :banging head: WTF??
Has anyone in the US received one of these yet? Has anyone received one from Sweetwater? ???
Thanks, Ed
-
Has anyone in the US received one of these yet? Has anyone received one from Sweetwater? ???
Thanks, Ed
I did, but I was the 3rd person to order one.
-
I did, but I was the 3rd person to order one.
[/quote]
Thanks. I'm not sure what my order number (place in line) was. I hope I get this before June 9th.
-
Well Australia has them :)
I am (initially) blown away by this, much less plastic than I was expecting, feels professional...sounds (great)...I'll post some comparisons between this and other gear later...
(http://www.digifishmusic.com/public/images/r44.jpg)
Nice touch the buttons illuminate (should have read the manual :) Can all be adjusted, on/off etc.
(http://www.digifishmusic.com/public/images/r44-night.jpg)
One negative, I love gadgets but finding all the menu-based systems annoying to use for some reason, the R-09 doesn't cause me the same stress...perhaps when I get used to the layout I will feel happier.
-
I've got my couple of questions to this big little unit:
2 how long does it take the R-44 from being powered up/switched on until when the record can actually start?
It takes about 5 seconds to boot and get it recording.
Two features I miss from the R09 -
1. the ability to set a maximum file-size and have the unit do seamless splits when the limit is reached.
2. The lack of mp3 encoding and playback.
Some things that seem odd it can't do (yet?)
1. Can't turn off the lights completely like on the R-09.
2. Can't play and record simultaneously.
Annoying
1. I mentioned the pages of menu interfaces in a previous post. The interface needs you to use both the buttons and the scrub wheel, it's like they added the scrub wheel in the menus because they could, rather than needed to.
2. The 1/100ths of a second time display while recording...it looks too frenetic whizzing away :)
3. It's actually very heavy for its size, the metal chassis I suppose.
Useless feature
1. 196 kHz recording ... like that's ever going to be useful.
2. Blue power on LED...it's obvious the unit has power as the display is on :o
digifish
-
Keep the info coming! Thanks for comments so far. Some questions arising -
1. the ability to set a maximum file-size and have the unit do seamless splits when the limit is reached.
I forget whether anyone has determined whether it splits seamlessly at the set 2Gb (?) value, or misses some stuff?
3. It's actually very heavy for its size, the metal chassis I suppose.
I was going to ask whether it tends to skid around when you press the front buttons esp the monitor selector, but perhaps the weight prevents that?
it's like they added the scrub wheel in the menus because they could, rather than needed to.
Renaming files with no scrub wheel to quickly select characters would be tedious, no?
2. Blue power on LED...it's obvious the unit has power as the display is on
But the display can be set to turn off after a set time, I think?
-
Can anyone confirm or deny if the digital input resamples the input?
-
Keep the info coming! Thanks for comments so far. Some questions arising -
1. the ability to set a maximum file-size and have the unit do seamless splits when the limit is reached.
I forget whether anyone has determined whether it splits seamlessly at the set 2Gb (?) value, or misses some stuff?
2. Blue power on LED...it's obvious the unit has power as the display is on
But the display can be set to turn off after a set time, I think?
It's seemless @ 2GB
Nope, just not as bright.
-
Well Australia has them :)
I am (initially) blown away by this, much less plastic than I was expecting, feels professional...sounds (great)...I'll post some comparisons between this and other gear later...
(http://www.digifishmusic.com/public/images/r44.jpg)
Excellent picture digifish, thanks for sharing. +T :)
-
Okay, just got off the phone with Edirol. I called the number on the "support" page at Edirol.com.
I asked, "Does the digital input resample the incoming digital signal."
THe first person I spoke did not know the answer, so he asked someone else. After a few minutes on hold this is the answer I got:
"The digial input locks on to the clock of the incoming digital signal, so no it does not resample the input."
They didn't seem sure, but this was the answer I was hoping for. Hopefully someone here can confirm this.
-
Okay, just got off the phone with Edirol. I called the number on the "support" page at Edirol.com.
I asked, "Does the digital input resample the incoming digital signal."
THe first person I spoke did not know the answer, so he asked someone else. After a few minutes on hold this is the answer I got:
"The digial input locks on to the clock of the incoming digital signal, so no it does not resample the input."
They didn't seem sure, but this was the answer I was hoping for. Hopefully someone here can confirm this.
I got the same response from Edirol which supposedly confirmed it with the engineers in Japan. I'm going to try to get with someone here in Austin to test it though.
-
I was going to ask whether it tends to skid around when you press the front buttons esp the monitor selector, but perhaps the weight prevents that?
IMO no chance of skidding. It's weighted to the spot :) After examining the unit closely I can see it's a metal box/chassis with some plastic covering the corners of it (basically).
But the display can be set to turn off after a set time, I think?
Only dim from what I can see. I hope a firmware update will fix this...why waste precious power?
Renaming files with no scrub wheel to quickly select characters would be tedious, no?
Yes. But renaming files with a scrub wheel is tedious too :) My issue is that there seems to be an inconsistent use of the scrub wheel through the menus.
digifish.
-
The manual seems pretty clear on the resampling issue -
* The R-44 is able to synchronize to the clock signal of the Digital input jack.
* When the input sampling frequency and set sample size differ, the sampling frequency display blinks and mute data
is generated.
* When Sync Mode is set to Slave, digital input is disabled. Set Sync Mode to Master when recording from a digital
device. See '“5 System Setup” (p. 69) in “System setup” for settings.
-
I wonder if I'm going to be able to settle with one R44 to replace both my R4 and PMD660? It's probably going to come down to how much bigger is it really from my PMD660 I think. If it's not much bigger, then out with the PMD too, lol! Although it is Oade-modded and hella-small for those two-channel 16-bit gigs, heh...
-
I'm still having problems with 16gb cards and 4 X 1 record setup...
What is the class/speed rating of these cards?
Doesn't appear to manifest itself with stereo X 2 parameter
Like I said, heh... Just use 2x stereo...
-
I wonder if I'm going to be able to settle with one R44 to replace both my R4 and PMD660? It's probably going to come down to how much bigger is it really from my PMD660 I think. If it's not much bigger, then out with the PMD too, lol! Although it is Oade-modded and hella-small for those two-channel 16-bit gigs, heh...
Initial impressions - I only had a bit of time to experiment last night, I was recording with the R44 vs MixPre mic-preamps using an NT4 pointed at monitor speakers. The main difference seemed to be cranking the pre-amplification, the MixPre was quieter, but for most people here I don't think they will need to be using anywhere that much gain.
...and I am not really sure how true that is...since I had no idea how much gain I was using relatively. I set the R44 to +4 dB which is the least sensitive setting and the smaller knob to the 12 O'Clock position. Then used the MixPre to bring the R44 meters to the same level, as I was with the internal pres ~ Peak level was ~ -20 dB. I need to get organized and start recording some ticking clocks :)
More pics of the R44 with other things you may own...
(http://www.digifishmusic.com/public/images/r44vs-1.jpg)
(http://www.digifishmusic.com/public/images/r44vs-2.jpg)
digifish
-
I'm still having problems with 16gb cards and 4 X 1 record setup...
What is the class/speed rating of these cards?
Doesn't appear to manifest itself with stereo X 2 parameter
Like I said, heh... Just use 2x stereo...
It was a class 6 card...
Talking with edirol, they admit not every card available will work in the R44 as architecture differs among manufactures...and they agree the 4X1 is a problem that needs to be addressed to the engineers in Japan...
-
Something odd.
I just noticed the time remaining on the card counter, counts down in large steps....
16 bit @ 44.1 kHz = 12 second steps.
16 bit @ 88.2 kHz = 6 second steps.
24 bit @ 88.2 kHz = 4 second steps.
So it seems to be counting down the time in 0.01 Gb steps.
Odd.
digifish
-
I cracked, and bought one today.
Comments:-
If you turn on phantom power while recording, the whole recording digitally mutes on all channels for a few seconds - so be careful not to turn on channel 4 phantom when intending to turn on the limiter.
The limiter does appear to operate in the analogue domain, although the block diagram shows it after the A to D converter. I tested this by connecting the mic inputs to the output of a Mackie mixer, whose output was switched to mic level. Then I played some material from an iPod through the mixer into the R-44 mic inputs. As you increase the analogue gain, a little indicator to the left of the level display lights up when the preamp clips (even though the actual meter isn't going over the top, if you have the digital level fader down a bit). Turn on the limiter, and the preamp clipping light no longer comes on at the peaks, and the resulting recording when examined in Audition shows undamaged waveforms. However, the limiter is really a compressor with a threshold set at about -10dB. So, if you don't want the recording compressed significantly, you should aim to have the "forseen peaks" knocking around -12dB. Then the limiter will only cut in on the occasional "unforseen peaks", which shouldn't be too noticable. Normalise afterwards to make up the gain.
Noise levels at the mic input are good (imho). I tested this with an MS stereo pair of Sennheiser MKH series mics, first fed directly into the R-44 (with the MS "effect" on, which works very nicely), then with a Sennheiser mic preamp designed for these mics feeding the R-44 at line level. The recording was made at night in a suburban bedroom with a faintly ticking clock and distant traffic rumble, plus a bit of TV sound coming from another room. After carefully aligning the levels between the two recordings, I couldn't tell the difference nor see the difference in Audition's spectral display. As far as I am concerned, for all practical purposes, after running the preamp level at one which I know would be appropriate for recording classical chamber music, it's effectively noise free as far as I'm concerned.
I've not had a chance to check out battery life, but will do so over the next couple of nights, with a set of 2600mAh rechargable batteries, and a lithium polymer external battery pack. I did try yanking out the mains adapter plug during a recording and indeed the internal batteries take over nicely. I should be able to get some pretty prodigious running times from the external battery pack handing over to the internals, which I think should work.
Build quality is impressive - it's pretty hefty in the hand. Level and trim knobs are indeed fiddly. Markers are not written into recorded files (that's pretty lame). Display is small but very clear and easy to read from a variety of operating positions. Internal mics are quite usable if you really needed to. The scrub wheel does scrub when the transport is paused - in increments of 3/100 sec, which is where the 100th second display comes in - enabling you add a marker at exactly the right place (but more's the pity they don't show in the DAW).
Chief downside for my purposes is lack of pannable, balance controlled monitoring - and while recording you can't even control the relative channel balance as the mixer menu can't be reached. This means that once you go beyond a stereo pair, you'll need to use an external monitor mixer running off the four channel out connectors,to really judge what you're getting, or if you want to do any balanced playbacks. The monitoring provision does enable you to judge whether there's actually a problem with any of the channels, as you can go through them one by one, so if that's all you need you won't be troubled by what troubles me.
I'm hoping to try it for real at a string quartet recital on Sunday.
-
I cracked, and bought one today.
Comments:-
...
I'm hoping to try it for real at a string quartet recital on Sunday.
Nice summary, agree with all that.
+T
The 100th sec display while recording is dumb (IMO) however. 1 second would be enough.
I have been trying to find hidden pages, no luck...I have turned the unit on with just about every button held. I will be interested to see what the first firmware revision delivers.
digifish
-
I cracked, and bought one today.
does anyone have these in stock yet?
-
They have proved to be a very hot item as just about every distributor sold out their first shipment. Looks like early to mid June before they become available again...even then if you're not on a waiting list you might miss out :-)
-
www.videoguys.com.au had at least one more in stock.
-
I've not had a chance to check out battery life, but will do so over the next couple of nights, with a set of 2600mAh rechargable batteries, and a lithium polymer external battery pack. I did try yanking out the mains adapter plug during a recording and indeed the internal batteries take over nicely. I should be able to get some pretty prodigious running times from the external battery pack handing over to the internals, which I think should work.
What about when you plug it back in?
-
I've not had a chance to check out battery life, but will do so over the next couple of nights, with a set of 2600mAh rechargable batteries, and a lithium polymer external battery pack. I did try yanking out the mains adapter plug during a recording and indeed the internal batteries take over nicely. I should be able to get some pretty prodigious running times from the external battery pack handing over to the internals, which I think should work.
What about when you plug it back in?
It goes back to external power
-
I've not had a chance to check out battery life, but will do so over the next couple of nights, with a set of 2600mAh rechargable batteries, and a lithium polymer external battery pack. I did try yanking out the mains adapter plug during a recording and indeed the internal batteries take over nicely. I should be able to get some pretty prodigious running times from the external battery pack handing over to the internals, which I think should work.
What about when you plug it back in?
It goes back to external power
No kidding. :P Does it do it gracefully? That's the question.
-
I got 2 hours 57 mins from the Ni-MH batteries last night, recording 4 mono tracks at 16/44.1, four phantoms on, display on, buttons on dim, illumination off.
-
Is it known whether the input level knob, the continuously variable one, operates in the analogue or digital domain? The block diagram shows it after the A/D but given that it seems wrong about the limiter, maybe it's wrong about the input level.
-
Is it known whether the input level knob, the continuously variable one, operates in the analogue or digital domain? The block diagram shows it after the A/D but given that it seems wrong about the limiter, maybe it's wrong about the input level.
The diagram is wrong. The limiter is definitely pre-A/D.
More info:
The unit is designed to stand upright on a table if you need. Nice touch.
The headphone monitoring mutes when there is no signal, so it's hard to test how noisy the headphone amp is. I need to load up a silent WAV file and have a listen.
digifish
-
Heh - this is neat - if you have the pre-recording on, and you press stop then play within the number of seconds provided in the prerecord setting, you'll achieve an almost gapless split - just a few samples missing - I'll try to work out how many later.
-
Heh - this is neat - if you have the pre-recording on, and you press stop then play within the number of seconds provided in the prerecord setting, you'll achieve an almost gapless split - just a few samples missing - I'll try to work out how many later.
Yes, that's something else that is missing the R-09 has, split files on the fly.
digifish
-
More comments and thoughts:-
Feature request - when you have an effect selected to apply during playback, it would be good to hear it during monitoring during recording, but not applied to the recorded sound. So, for instance, that would allow you to monitor an MS pair as XY, while still writing as MS to the file.
Comments -
Although the USB interface of the R-44 is described as USB 2.0 High Speed, it seems to be significantly slower to transfer files via that route, compared with popping the card into a reader - say 10 mins vs 4 mins.
In my test, the number of samples dropped when pressing stop followed by record was about 6700 (rather more than a few, but that's 0.151 secs, which isn't long). If you did that between songs during applause or silence, it would be no problem to fix in your DAW afterwards.
Take back all I said about markers not being written into files - the freeware editor Wavosaur shows them in BWF and wave files, and it also is able to open R-44 multichannel (four channels in one file) files - time to experiment further with that little gem of a program! Audition seems unable to read them correctly, which surprises me as it's pretty standard on that kind of thing.
Fast forward and rewind is very nice - accelerates from slow and precise up to a high speed which makes winding to the right place in a 3 hour+ file straightforward.
The more I use the R-44 the more I like it. Very nice piece of kit.
I guess I should try to definitively resolve the digital resampling question next...
-
The more I use the R-44 the more I like it. Very nice piece of kit.
Agreed, two more pieces of info from me...
1. The headphone jack is amazingly quiet, so quiet I am stunned. The R44 headphone amplifier is a piece of audiophile gear :o
I generated a 1 minute silent wav file...cranked the headphone jack and ... almost nothing, I was straining to hear the difference between max and min volume. So thinking Edirol could be using some form of trickery, I applied -60dB amplification to a 44.1 kHz CD track and loaded it into the R44, cranked the volume - again music now clearly audible, no hiss.
2. Removing SD cards from the R44 is a bit fiddly, it's hard to get your fingers around the card without the top rail of the side interfering. Not going to be fun when you are in a hurry, in the dark.
digifish
-
Resampling of digital input test:-
I recorded 27 minutes from a CD player's digital out into the R-44 digital in. Then I ripped the CD, and opened up the R-44 version and ripped version in Adobe Audition's multitrack view. I aligned the waveforms and inverted one channel. Then I created a mixdown.
The mixdown was substantially silent due to the inversion of identical waveforms. However, there are occasional spitches of very brief audio where the ripped audio and the recorded audio are briefly different. This is quite possibly related to errors in the rip.
My understanding of resampling would be that the two versions of the file would gradually drift out of phase, leading to continuous audio in the mixdown after a while. This does not happen in this test, which appears to indicate that the digital input of the R-44 is not resampled.
If I've gone about this in the wrong way, please let me know. I can imagine that recording into the R-44 a file already present in the PC via the R-44 digital in, and comparing that with the original already on the PC, would eliminate the spitches of inaccurate samples, but I don't think this is worth the effort unless there is a clamour for me to do so.
-
Ozpeter, try ripping that CD to your hard drive first and then recording it via your sound card digital out into the R-44 digital in. From there you should be able to dump the R-44 version back on to your hard drive and use EAC's "Compare WAVs" tool to see if they are identical. That way there are no question about rip errors. (they can occur but are moot)
-
Time for a new thread?
-
Ozpeter, try ripping that CD to your hard drive first and then recording it via your sound card digital out into the R-44 digital in. From there you should be able to dump the R-44 version back on to your hard drive and use EAC's "Compare WAVs" tool to see if they are identical. That way there are no question about rip errors. (they can occur but are moot)
I thought you'd say that... well, maybe tomorrow.
-
Thanks for the continual updates digifish. They're slowly leading me into purchasing a large ticket item.
Just doing my part to help the economy. ;D
-
Time for a new thread?
It is time. If someone starts a new one up, I'll lock this one. I'd start one myself, but don't want this under my reply list, as I'm not in the market for a 4 channel recorder.
-
Time for a new thread?
It is time. If someone starts a new one up, I'll lock this one. I'd start one myself, but don't want this under my reply list, as I'm not in the market for a 4 channel recorder.
Time to move
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,103270.0.html