Topic: edirol r09/r09hr: what's the difference?

[shakes]

hey guys,

long time reader, 2nd time posting about gear.

i have been in the process of looking into buying either an edirol r-09 or an edirol r-09hr for taping. my question about these devices though is what's the difference besides the add on of the 24/96 for the hr. are there any features that make it mandatory to prefer the hr over the non-hr? i have tried reading many pages here, online and on other sites but i thought the nice folks here would have a some what definitive answer per say.

to be honest, i do not mind using the built-in mic with this recorder for now since i do not really have the money for any mics right now. i know my recordings may not come out the best but i figured you cannot always depend on some one else to record a show you attend so i would like to finally start taping them for my own personal enjoyment/sharing to others.

thank you

[Belexes]

There was a problem on some R-09's with the jacks failing.  That was fixed with the HR model.

I wouldn't use the internal mics.  Keep the unit at home until you can afford some external mics. YMMV.

[shakes]

would the internal mics go for the 09 + 09hr too?

[digifish_music]

would the internal mics go for the 09 + 09hr too?

I am not sure I understand that sentence

The internal mics in the R09HR have significantly less hiss than the R09 and sound better IMO. In short it means you will be better off when you need to capture a quiet moment with the HR.  I think everyone who has used the two, (including me) is agreed that the HR is a significant step forward in the evolution of the 09 line.

digifish
 

[shakes]

i'm sorry if my sentence didn't make sense. sorry.

the sentence about the internal mic was in regards to what some one said about the internal mic in the r09. i wasn't sure if that was also for the r09hr.

it looks like i'll have to save some more for the hr09 over the r09.

[sunjan]

i'm sorry if my sentence didn't make sense. sorry.

the sentence about the internal mic was in regards to what some one said about the internal mic in the r09. i wasn't sure if that was also for the r09hr.

it looks like i'll have to save some more for the hr09 over the r09.

If you happen to snatch an R09 on the cheap, you can send it to Church Audio here for modding the internals. I guess it only makes sense if you live on the US/CAN side of the pond...
But for serious taping, externals is the way to go. You should look into the Church combo, usually $289 for mics + preamp.

[NewTaper]

When people mention the R-09 HR is "Better" than the R-09 does this apply
to the actual sound recording ?

If I swapped out my R-09 for an R-09HR in the middle of a show would the latter sound "Better" ?

If so better how ?

My rig is : DPA-4061 > CA- Pre AMP > R-09


I am asking in this thread as it might be more visible then where I first asked this question in the Part 3 R-09HR thread.

Thanks for helping me yet again,
TN

[Gutbucket]

The biggest sonic advantage of the HR seems to be the quieter mic preamp stage.

If you are using external mics and an external preamp into the line-input then there is probably not a discernible difference in sound quality.

Note: I don't own an HR to do the comparison myself.

[Dede2002]

This is a very subjective matter.
But, to my ears, the R-09HR sounds better, simple as that. I used the R-09 for more than 2 years.
Plus, it's better built, more solid.

[Belexes]

Since you already have the R-09, there really isn't that much of a difference to warrant a swap out for the HR.  At least that's my opinion of it. I own a R-09 and D-50 for my 007 applications. 

[flintstone]

R-09HR is better constructed and has ergonomic improvements,
and has a better preamp for recording with internal and external
mics.  And it can record at 24/96. 

Guysonic's tests show the line inputs of the two recorders
have almost identical noise levels.  So you probably won't
hear a difference using the same mics and external preamp.

Flintstone