0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Front Row Center on August 11, 2008, 04:23:53 AMWell my Edirol HR failed me with the mic jack problem common to the previous model. I had static and 2-3 second dropouts. It depressed me after all the work involved, not to mention a recording that is almost impossible to fix. I'm going to have to send it in for repair which will take 3 weeks. When I get it back I'm going to use the hot glue method that was mentioned earlier. I wish they would beef up the jacks to be able to take normal wear and tear.
Quote from: su6oxone on August 11, 2008, 05:50:36 AMQuote from: Front Row Center on August 11, 2008, 04:23:53 AMWell my Edirol HR failed me with the mic jack problem common to the previous model. I had static and 2-3 second dropouts. It depressed me after all the work involved, not to mention a recording that is almost impossible to fix. I'm going to have to send it in for repair which will take 3 weeks. When I get it back I'm going to use the hot glue method that was mentioned earlier. I wish they would beef up the jacks to be able to take normal wear and tear.That's very disappointing to hear. +T for your troubles. Hopefully this won't be a (relatively) common problem with the R-09HR like on the R-09, but it's not terribly surprising considering the only change really is some more glue or epoxy, and not mechanical attachment of the jack to the board.
Quote from: digifish_music on August 11, 2008, 08:10:26 AMQuote from: su6oxone on August 11, 2008, 05:50:36 AMQuote from: Front Row Center on August 11, 2008, 04:23:53 AMWell my Edirol HR failed me with the mic jack problem common to the previous model. I had static and 2-3 second dropouts. It depressed me after all the work involved, not to mention a recording that is almost impossible to fix. I'm going to have to send it in for repair which will take 3 weeks. When I get it back I'm going to use the hot glue method that was mentioned earlier. I wish they would beef up the jacks to be able to take normal wear and tear.That's very disappointing to hear. +T for your troubles. Hopefully this won't be a (relatively) common problem with the R-09HR like on the R-09, but it's not terribly surprising considering the only change really is some more glue or epoxy, and not mechanical attachment of the jack to the board. I thought guysonic's pics show a very solid mechanical solution, the jack pins penetrate the board and are bent once through, then soldered......I wonder how much torque was applied to the jack that broke?
Quote from: digifish_music on August 11, 2008, 08:10:26 AMI thought guysonic's pics show a very solid mechanical solution, the jack pins penetrate the board and are bent once through, then soldered......I wonder how much torque was applied to the jack that broke?
Quote from: JD on August 10, 2008, 03:26:20 AMI am getting about 7 hours with my sanyo 2700 rechargeables.
Quote from: gmm6797 on August 11, 2008, 09:32:31 PMQuote from: JD on August 10, 2008, 03:26:20 AMI am getting about 7 hours with my sanyo 2700 rechargeables.I got 7 hours and 7+ hours on 2 tests with Energizer 2700's from WalMart... 4 for 9.99... best deal going, as you should get about 2 years of used on the set of 4, even with taping a lot of shows... that is how long a set of 4 that I rotated in and out of the R09 got me... I am guessing way more than 150 shows
Quote from: Arni99 on August 12, 2008, 03:04:10 AMI use Duracell 2650mAh and never get more than 4h15min on my R09-HR.Well, nevertheless 4 of these rechargeables make 8h-8h30min and I wont be taping more than 8 hours a day anyway.
Quote from: digifish_music on August 05, 2008, 06:48:08 PMQuote from: flintstone on August 05, 2008, 03:46:38 PMDigifish's test results show very clearly the low level of self-noise of the R-09HR's built-in preamp when used with good external mics....FlintstoneI'd agree with that. The internal pres do a very good job (from a hiss/noise perspective they are at first impression similar to the R44, something to find out). Remember that the ticking-clock test is a tough and revealing comparison. I am confident that for recording most bands, that you would not need anything more than an R09HR + Phantom-box + nice mics. I will be making some field recordings of things at various levels over the next week or so. As I have an R09, R09HR, R44. All have internal mics so...R09 - internal mics / external mics + internal Pres / external + MixPreR09HR - internal mics / external mics + internal Pres / external + MixPreR44 - internal mics / external mics + internal Pres / external + MixPre...would seem to be in line for direct comparison. digifish
Quote from: flintstone on August 05, 2008, 03:46:38 PMDigifish's test results show very clearly the low level of self-noise of the R-09HR's built-in preamp when used with good external mics....Flintstone
Quote from: JM Charcot on August 12, 2008, 05:36:00 AMQuote from: digifish_music on August 05, 2008, 06:48:08 PMQuote from: flintstone on August 05, 2008, 03:46:38 PMDigifish's test results show very clearly the low level of self-noise of the R-09HR's built-in preamp when used with good external mics....FlintstoneI'd agree with that. The internal pres do a very good job (from a hiss/noise perspective they are at first impression similar to the R44, something to find out). Remember that the ticking-clock test is a tough and revealing comparison. I am confident that for recording most bands, that you would not need anything more than an R09HR + Phantom-box + nice mics. I will be making some field recordings of things at various levels over the next week or so. As I have an R09, R09HR, R44. All have internal mics so...R09 - internal mics / external mics + internal Pres / external + MixPreR09HR - internal mics / external mics + internal Pres / external + MixPreR44 - internal mics / external mics + internal Pres / external + MixPre...would seem to be in line for direct comparison. digifishI'd be glad to hear.Especially the internal mics for field recordings, as you said they were quite OK..
Quote from: Dede2002 on August 12, 2008, 10:19:27 AMI gave up the rechargeables for good. Back to Duracell.
Quote from: digifish_music on August 12, 2008, 07:20:47 PMQuote from: Dede2002 on August 12, 2008, 10:19:27 AMI gave up the rechargeables for good. Back to Duracell. Why? digifish
Quote from: Dede2002 on August 12, 2008, 08:11:49 PMQuote from: digifish_music on August 12, 2008, 07:20:47 PMQuote from: Dede2002 on August 12, 2008, 10:19:27 AMI gave up the rechargeables for good. Back to Duracell. Why? digifishWhy not?
Quote from: digifish_music on August 12, 2008, 08:40:40 PMQuote from: Dede2002 on August 12, 2008, 08:11:49 PMQuote from: digifish_music on August 12, 2008, 07:20:47 PMQuote from: Dede2002 on August 12, 2008, 10:19:27 AMI gave up the rechargeables for good. Back to Duracell. Why? digifishWhy not? The conservative life expectancy of a AA nimh battery in the hands of the average consumer is about 250 charge cycles. That means you will save, at least ((250 x $Cost-of-disposables) - (Cost-of-NiMH + Charger)). That works out to (a worst case scenario of) saving ~ $220 (per battery). 4 batteries is ~$650.digifish
Quote from: Dede2002 on August 13, 2008, 12:07:10 AMYou're probably right. Maybe it's a mojo thing. I don't like/trust them rechargeables.