Topic: Edirol R-09

[pfife]

I very much want to be able to record at 24/48.  I see it as an upgrade for that, individual level meters, smaller size... Don't get me wrong, I really dig the R-1, but I'm gonna move to this when it comes out if the 4gb card issue is fixed.

i feel the same way. +T back to you, pfife. at 24/48, no upsampling required: you can make a DVD-V disc with Audio DVD Creator (which will have more player compatibility than a DVD-A disc at 24/44.1).

This is exactly what I want to do.

[cpatch]

I'm a lot less impressed after watching the video than I hoped I would be (although I do love that screen!)...the demo just made it even more glaringly obvious to me how many ways it falls short of the MT for everything that it did right. Is it that hard for someone to take a step forward in designing these things without taking two back???

Could expand on your observation?

Well, I currently have an MT that actually works, so despite my current disgust for M-Audio (for various reasons not completely related to the MT) I'm not going to move to something else unless it's a step up. The R-09 falls short of the MT in the following areas for me:

- 1/8" input only...a deal-killer in and of itself
- No phantom...30V is better than nothing but without XLR or TRS inputs it's a moot point anyway
- No digital input, which I need when I'm out of stealth mode and using the MT with my AD-20
- No more rugged-looking in build-quality than the MT, but that could just be the demo unit

On the plus side:

- Great screen
- Not M-Audio
- Replaceable batteries

I'm well aware that the MT is perceived as somewhat of a crap shoot based on the experiences of early adopters, and for that reason alone is enough to make it a non-option for many here. That wasn't my point in my original post. My point was that while M-Audio may not have done it right, they did it. Why can't a company like Edirol come in 6 months later, learn from M-Audio's mistakes, and do it properly? Why release something that offers less instead of more (or at least the same done better)?

Craig

[gewwang]

- No digital input, which I need when I'm out of stealth mode and using the MT with my AD-20

So are you saying the ad20 has a better a/d than the r1 @ 24/44.1?

- No more rugged-looking in build-quality than the MT, but that could just be the demo unit

I can't imagine any box being less rugged than the MT.

[spyder9]

I'm a lot less impressed after watching the video than I hoped I would be (although I do love that screen!)...the demo just made it even more glaringly obvious to me how many ways it falls short of the MT for everything that it did right. Is it that hard for someone to take a step forward in designing these things without taking two back???

Could expand on your observation?

Well, I currently have an MT that actually works, so despite my current disgust for M-Audio (for various reasons not completely related to the MT) I'm not going to move to something else unless it's a step up. The R-09 falls short of the MT in the following areas for me:

- 1/8" input only...a deal-killer in and of itself
- No phantom...30V is better than nothing but without XLR or TRS inputs it's a moot point anyway
- No digital input, which I need when I'm out of stealth mode and using the MT with my AD-20
- No more rugged-looking in build-quality than the MT, but that could just be the demo unit

On the plus side:

- Great screen
- Not M-Audio
- Replaceable batteries

I'm well aware that the MT is perceived as somewhat of a crap shoot based on the experiences of early adopters, and for that reason alone is enough to make it a non-option for many here. That wasn't my point in my original post. My point was that while M-Audio may not have done it right, they did it. Why can't a company like Edirol come in 6 months later, learn from M-Audio's mistakes, and do it properly? Why release something that offers less instead of more (or at least the same done better)?

Craig

Because Edirol's "Less" is still better than MAudio's "More".  Build quality is everything.  Edirol has that part figured out.  M Audio, well ..........................   


Its like comparing a Buick to Jaguar.  The Jag has all the bells and whistles and looks really sexy, but its always in the shop.  The Buick is always on the road and does the job.  Gets me where I want to be with no fuss.

[bconnolly]

Because Edirol's "Less" is still better than MAudio's "More".  Build quality is everything.  Edirol has that part figured out.  M Audio, well ..........................   

Granted, the MT isn't a beast nor does it have that weighty heavyness to it that makes it feel like a tank... but I've never felt that it was going to break and I have no issues with it while recording.

sorry for the de-rail.

[pfife]

the one thing about this box that intrigues me is that i may be able to use it as the adc for my second rig and capture a high quality 24 bit recording, if the adc is the same as the r1. 

mics > psp2 (1/8" ouput) > r09 (1/8" input) @ 24/48.

this box may be the stealthy 24/48 adc that a lot of us using a quality pre have been looking for. 

I think someone called them, and they said that it was the same adc as the r1.

[gewwang]

on another note, how does the r1 adc stack up against the v3 adc? anyone done a comp?

I have run v3 @24/48 vs r1 @ 24/44 and couldn't notice much difference and certainly not enough to justify keeping the v3.

[cpatch]

Build quality is everything.  Edirol has that part figured out.

Actually I'd say Marantz has that part figured out over both Edirol and M-Audio. (At least in terms of ruggedness.)

Craig

[nickgregory]

Build quality is everything.  Edirol has that part figured out.

Actually I'd say Marantz has that part figured out over both Edirol and M-Audio. (At least in terms of ruggedness.)

Craig

actually I would argue that sound devices has them all beat

[cpatch]

why would having the 1/8" input supply the p30 be a problem?  i don't follow............

That could just be my own ignorance. Can you run XLR mics into a 1/8" mic jack? I know you can get adapter cables but I was under the impression that there's a fundamental difference (on several levels) between an 1/8" mic jack and an XLR/TRS jack that results in, at best, a sacrifice in sound quality if you try to do this.

Craig

[spyder9]

671 vs 722 would be a cool comparison.  Same mics, no preamp, would do it. 

Agreed on Marantz.  I've been going back and forth:    MP2 > R09 or 660.   24 bit ain't no thing to me right now.    Stealthier rig is. 

[pfife]

24 bit ain't no thing to me right now.    Stealthier rig is. 

Blasphemer!  Actually, can't you have both with the r-09?

[pfife]

on another note, how does the r1 adc stack up against the v3 adc? anyone done a comp?

I have run v3 @24/48 vs r1 @ 24/44 and couldn't notice much difference and certainly not enough to justify keeping the v3.

Edirol should pay you comission!   

[spyder9]

24 bit ain't no thing to me right now.    Stealthier rig is. 

Blasphemer!  Actually, can't you have both with the r-09?

2 boxes.  Crotchability gets dicey when you have a long hoof from the parking lot, like SPAC's.    

[pfife]

24 bit ain't no thing to me right now.    Stealthier rig is. 

Blasphemer!  Actually, can't you have both with the r-09?

2 boxes.  Crotchability gets dicey when you have a long hoof from the parking lot, like SPAC's.    

Yup.. that's correct.  my oversight!