Edirol R-4 Pro

[Noiz2]

These conversations always crack me up.

10 years ago people would have paid 10 times as much to have one of these units. And any of these units would outperform anything people were recording with 20 years ago and winning Oscars with.

I've recording some absolutely GORGEOUS audio with my R-4. Maybe it's not a sound devices, but it certainly will pass muster for any broadcast channel I am aware of, and it's good enough for any festival I am aware of.

Agreed, mostly. I don't think anybody 20 years ago would plunk down $20K for a plastic box, no mater what it sounded like. And it's kind of a false comparison. You can say that about most technology. The laptop I'm on would run circles around the Cray "supper computer" and it's a LOT less that a tenth the price. My "obsolete" PALM has about 40 times the memory and many many times the speed of the most fully loaded PC 20 years ago and cost a fraction.

So comparing an R44 to any twenty year old technology is just silly. You have to compare it to it's competition. That would be Marantz, Tascam and Sound Devices, and Fostex.

But I get a kick out of these discussions also, I grew up on 1/4" tape and got into film just as MAG was going out.

 

[PerroneFord]

Well, I didn't know there were rules for making comparisons... It's like in my industry, when people tell me their PC is slow. We put men on the moon with the equivalent of a 286. So maybe it's just the person sitting in front of the machine...

And I disagree with your statement. If studious could have bought audio as clean as the R-4 Pro, instead of fooling with analog they certainly would have for the price. Look at what they were paying for lights!

As for individuals buying things, look at what pro shooters paid for the Media100, or what editing shops paid for Avid Systems 10-15 years ago. We've come leaps and bounds and yet people will find something to complain about. People are worried the pre-amps on these units, and I've got issues with the diesel generator in my building 2 floors down giving me a rumble in my audio, or the street traffic outside when someone blows a horn.

I too did PLENTY of demo work for people on a Fostex 4-track that used casette tapes. I *might* have had Dolby B on it. Then we moved to a Panasonic SV3700 DAT recorder and thought we'd found heaven. We wanted to install a T1 to the house to move our data around but the $1500 installation and $500 a month were just more than we could afford. Now I have an internet connection just as fast for $40 a month, free installation.

The technology is good enough. Just get on with it.

 

[Nick Walters]

Nick I checked out the Oade Brothers, and I'm excited. Are they including the R44 itself with that Super Mod for 1,045.00? If so that's awesome. only 100.00 more and you have even better preamps. I am reading t right aren't I?

I'm only working off what I've read from the forum at taperssection.com, but yes it seems they are selling recorders with mods. In fact I believe that they won't allow you to send in a unit to be upgraded....it must be purchased from them.....I'm guessing this helps to pay the bills

It's a large purchase, and delicate equipment, so if you want to know the details I would suggest giving oade a call.

There is also another comany that does modifications to audio equipment www.busmanaudio.com and I believe he allows you to send in already purchased equipment.

 

[Rippie]

I wish I could agree with you on this.
Yes in theory what you say is true..
but the reality is
you really do have to compare apples to apples
and not an orange from 20 years ago.

Do you think the next fleet of manned rockets will have 286's in them?
Or do you think nasa will put the very best technology that is available to them?

As far as recorders go, in my opinion the sound that they create is only
half of the reason to buy a machine.
The other half is durability, ease of use, functions..etc.

I personally would never trust a "plastic box" in a jungle, or other harsh situation. Nor would I use such a box as a primary recorder when my rep is on the line.

If we continued with your reasoning you'd have to question why new cameras are made. I mean The D-600 was far beyond other video cameras in the 80's..
why improve?

I do get your point as I mentioned, and I'm the first one to say the gear
isn't what gets you good sound on location it's the guy running it..
but if you're going to compare gear against other gear
You have to fight it out in "present day".

Well, I didn't know there were rules for making comparisons... It's like in my industry, when people tell me their PC is slow. We put men on the moon with the equivalent of a 286. So maybe it's just the person sitting in front of the machine...

And I disagree with your statement. If studious could have bought audio as clean as the R-4 Pro, instead of fooling with analog they certainly would have for the price. Look at what they were paying for lights!

As for individuals buying things, look at what pro shooters paid for the Media100, or what editing shops paid for Avid Systems 10-15 years ago. We've come leaps and bounds and yet people will find something to complain about. People are worried the pre-amps on these units, and I've got issues with the diesel generator in my building 2 floors down giving me a rumble in my audio, or the street traffic outside when someone blows a horn.

I too did PLENTY of demo work for people on a Fostex 4-track that used casette tapes. I *might* have had Dolby B on it. Then we moved to a Panasonic SV3700 DAT recorder and thought we'd found heaven. We wanted to install a T1 to the house to move our data around but the $1500 installation and $500 a month were just more than we could afford. Now I have an internet connection just as fast for $40 a month, free installation.

The technology is good enough. Just get on with it.

 

[Ted Spencer]

I've never heard the term "pull down" used in audio terms. I guess that's a film thing.

It is a film (actually, video) thing, but since there's sound involved it's an audio thing too. It's mostly about dealing with the difference between 30 and 29.97 frame rates. 24 frame film can be pulled up to 30 without any change in audio being needed, but video is 29.97 (in NTSC countries at least), which necessitates slowing down ("pulling down") the original audio to match. It's a small difference (only 1 ms per second), but over the course of a two hour movie it adds up to a little over 7 seconds.

In a modern audio recorder or DAW you can generally set a proper frame rate at the beginning for whatever format you're working in (24, 29.97, 30), as well as 29.97 "drop frame", which is the same as regular 29.97 (aka "non-drop") except that frames numbers are skipped as they are counted to make them match clock time.

Pull up/down is only needed to correct for the speed difference between one format and another after it's been recorded.

 

[PerroneFord]

you really do have to compare apples to apples
and not an orange from 20 years ago.

Somewhat ironic since we spend an inordinate amount of time here comparing video cameras to a medium created over 100 years ago.

I personally would never trust a "plastic box" in a jungle, or other harsh situation. Nor would I use such a box as a primary recorder when my rep is on the line.

You mean like a video camera?

If we continued with your reasoning you'd have to question why new cameras are made. I mean The D-600 was far beyond other video cameras in the 80's..
why improve?

You don't have to question it. What I question is the assumption that somehow 20 years ago the technology was good enough to be considered worthy by Warner Bros, Sony, Paramount, Miramax, etc. And even though our modern machines trump recorders from that era in nearly every measurable way, they are somehow "not good enough" for modern filmmakers on DVXUser.


Yes, you want to use the best tools available if you can. I am not denying that at all. But stepping back a bit, it's somewhat humorous to see how caught up people get in having to have the latest and greatest of everything in order to "make art". AFI's top 100 American films of all time is a striking example of this to me. The top 10 include exactly 1 movie made after 1967. What do you think the noise floor of the pre-amps was on the recorders then?

 

[Rippie]

Comparing 100 years ago now?
err ok.
I guess we shouldnt compare a model T to a Viper then.
I mean they both have wheels.



when I say "plastic box" im not literally talking about the material
Im talking about the durability of the unit.

"plastic" material pro-camera's are built to be durable.
consumer level audio recorders (that happen to be plastic) arent
built nearly to the level of durability of the higher end recorders.


The units you mention were considered "worthy" 20 years ago because that the top of the technology available.
And when you ask how the noise floor on those units were compared to todays..

I've never worked with location pre amps from that era..but I own
neve's and api mic pre's from 30+ years ago and I can tell you by far they are superior to
a prosumer unit of today.

 

[Rippie]

AFI's top 100 American films of all time is a striking example of this to me. The top 10 include exactly 1 movie made after 1967. What do you think the noise floor of the pre-amps was on the recorders then?

And I do think quite possibly the reason those movies are in the top 10
are because of the stories and not the quality of the dialog recordings.
Content rules.

 

[Sound Chaser]

I own
neve's and api mic pre's from 30+ years ago and I can tell you by far they are superior to a prosumer unit of today.

The gear you mention is what I grew up with and learned my craft on for over 35 years. I absolutely love the 8100 series Neve pres. I use them too, because of the musical texture they impart into a mix...BUT, A PROSUMER PRODUCT OF TODAY ABSOLUTELY BLOWS THEM OUT OF THE WATER IN TERMS OF SPECS AND PERFORMANCE. Case in point--the immaculate rock solid performance of Alesis HD24XR, which much to the dismay of the so called "Pro" RADAR crowd outperforms it.

But, that is not what engineering and producing great art is about. Numbers and specs today are way past the quality needed to produce a professional product, and that is what PerroneFord is talking about. People absolutely do get caught up on the pure snobbery side of owning gear...I should know I own $500K of audio. It was only after I became an old man that I learned to put it into perspective.

 

[Rippie]

The gear you mention is what I grew up with and learned my craft for over 35 years. I absolutely love the 8100 series Neve pres. I use them too, because of the musical texture they impart into a mix...BUT, A PROSUMER PRODUCT OF TODAY ABSOLUTELY BLOWS THEM OUT OF THE WATER IN TERMS OF SPECS AND PERFORMANCE. Case in point--the immaculate rock solid performance of Alesis HD24XR, which much to the dismay of the so called "Pro" RADAR crowd outperforms it.
But that is not what engineering is about. Numbers and specs today are way past the quality needed to produce a professional product, and that is what PerroneFord is talking about.

And im mainly talking about more than "quality" of sound.
Im talking about a piece of gear that you can pull out day after day
in whatever situation and have 100% confidence in it.

As far as the neve's being blown out of the water..
i truly doubt that. (read: give me a break)

Oh and in general spec's mean nothing to me.
I've seen decent spec's on low end mic's that sound ridiculously bad.

Ok im done.

 

[Ted Spencer]

Yeah, Sound Chaser's right. I've got 70's vintage pres too (Neve 1073s), and they're nowhere near what we'd call clean these days. I've also used APIs, Pultecs and every other kind of vintage gear for decades, and overwhelmingly, what they aren't is clean and transparent. What they do have is gobs of great sounding coloration and 'enhancing' kinds of distortion. Vintage Neves in particular are unclean as all get-out, but boy when they sound good they sound awesome...

It's also true that many relatively inexpensive devices now have mic pres that are far more clean and accurate than anything that was made 30 years ago at any price. Integrated circuit economics and development is why.

But no way am I ever parting with my Neves...

 

[Sound Chaser]

And im mainly talking about more than "quality" of sound.

That's exactly what this thread is about and why I provided a direct A/B comparison which incidently was weighted in favor of the 744t and not the R4 Pro that beat it. If you don't agree then supply your own hard core proof.

And im mainly talking about more than "quality" of sound.

I guess you didn't read what I just posted. "quality" is a pretty vague word. I prefer to be more precise-- musical texture

Im talking about a piece of gear that you can pull out day after day

in whatever situation and have 100% confidence in it.

That is exactly what I said in my original thread with a direct endorsement of the SD744t.

As far as the neve's being blown out of the water..
i truly doubt that. (read: give me a break)

Don't have to. Ted Spencer already took care of that.

 

[Sound Chaser]

What they do have is gobs of great sounding coloration and 'enhancing' kinds of distortion.

But no way am I ever parting with my Neves...

Love all that stuff, still have my DBX comps, Klarke EQs, Lexicon processing and 30 year old Neumans. That's why I'm an analog man....plus I'm old.
But, when it comes to editing and post--give me Pro Tools, Nuendo, or Logic or.....

 

[Noiz2]

You don't have to question it. What I question is the assumption that somehow 20 years ago the technology was good enough to be considered worthy by Warner Bros, Sony, Paramount, Miramax, etc. And even though our modern machines trump recorders from that era in nearly every measurable way, they are somehow "not good enough" for modern filmmakers on DVXUser.

Well this is also apples and Oranges. First off with out wanting to start a war, you should really know a bit more about what studios were using before making a lot of big statements. Miramax was not a studio, it was a distributor. The analog technology that big studio films were using twenty years ago is nothing close to what your thinking it was. A tuned Nagra using Nagra Master settings is an extremely quiet recorder with preamps that would stand up to anything out today. Film was recorded on Mag (that is 35mm film that is coated like recording tape but that is where the similarity ends) using Dolby SR, digital is just geting to that quality level. The change to digital for films had nothing to do with quality it had everything to do with money, pretty much the same for music.

But the point that for DVX filmmakers (step back 20 years and we are talking 16mm) the technology has far exceeded what the average user has the ability to get out of it is very valid. 16mm audio was a nightmare, very restricted, very noisey. Low priced recorders were very dodgy. In twenty years the "quality" at the top hasn't changed much but the "quality" at the bottom and middle has improved tremendously.
The cost of "good" quality has come way down and I'm with you in finding it humorous that low budget filmmakers are bitching about features they couldn't have touched 20 years ago with out selling their house. But indi world and Hollywood world are very different places. No production professional in the film world 20 years ago would have traded their Nagra for an R44. Maybe for FX recording, we have always been closer to the bleeding edge, but not for production work. Heck about 12 years ago major films only used DAT as the safety copy. The "real" sound was on 1/4" tape. Big film is very conservative. Compatibility, reliability,(repeat that a few more times) and Quality are the top 5 important features. Money is important but the top 5 translate to $. Quality is important but if your recorder fritzes out who cares how good it would have sounded. We are not talking recording studios here, down time costs $$$$$, and your job.

 

[Chadfish]

I'm only working off what I've read from the forum at taperssection.com, but yes it seems they are selling recorders with mods. In fact I believe that they won't allow you to send in a unit to be upgraded....it must be purchased from them.....I'm guessing this helps to pay the bills

It's a large purchase, and delicate equipment, so if you want to know the details I would suggest giving oade a call.

There is also another comany that does modifications to audio equipment www.busmanaudio.com and I believe he allows you to send in already purchased equipment.

Oh yeah I'm going to call them when I'm ready. I think an R44 is in the cards eventually, unless something pops up that blows it away in over all bang/buck. I checked out www.busmanaudio.com but it's a pretty scarce web page, and their mod is 250.00. I don't own an R44 yet, so I'm fine buying one already modded from Oade Bros. It will save some shipping, and their modded one is only 100.00 bucks more than a new one from B&H. Since they are the dealer, I'm sure they are making more than 100.00 bucks on the deal.

Thanks for the heads up on them!

 

[Richard Crowley]

Thumbs up for Oade Brothers

Thumbs up for Oade Brothers

Just as a note to anyone, I read here about some of the dirty parts in the R-4, and no one has mentioned http://www.oade.com

They can upgrade that and many other recorders so that they're alot cleaner.

I have an R4 from Oade Brothers and I am quite pleased with. I use it mostly for smaller-scale location music recording because it is smaller and less overhead than lugging the big Alesis HD24 hard drive 24 channel recorder.

 

[adamwc1776]

I am also evaluating the 744t and Edirol R-4 Pro for purchase, primarily for use with the Canon 5D Markii and Panasonic HDX900 and RED ONE, essentially, for documentary and indie filmmaking (with video), not usually for use in pure live recording of music.

I am obviously intrigued by the Edirol because of reports that its audio performance is superior to the much more expensive 744t. I was noting that people were saying that the Edirol is not well-suited for use with video cams. But Edirol lists the R-4's ability to generate audio that syncs with typical video frame rates, 23.976, 24, 25, 29.97, 29.97D, 30, 30D on this page (http://www.rolandsystemsgroup.com/en/products/edirol-by-roland/field-recording-mainmenu-390/r-4-pro).

I know the 744t is listed as a four track recorder, but it only has two XLR inputs. I'd have to get cable adapters to use two other mics with the mini-XLR line-level inputs it offers for channels 3 & 4.

So, I guess my question is... except for battery life performance... what would be the compelling reasons to spend more (about $1800 more!) for the 744t?

 

[misscc803]

@adamwc1776-Look into the Fostex PD204 might spark your interest and it has TC. Great machine.


Nicole

 

[adamwc1776]

Thank you, Nicole. I'll certainly look into it. Though on first glance, one of the things I like about the Edirol and the SD 744t is that they record to solid state media, which I have far more confidence in for field recording. Not necessarily a deal-breaker, but this is a major consideration. The Fostex bills itself as a "location" recorder, emphasizing portability but not really that it would be over the shoulder of a recordist who may need to move in a way that would make a dvd skip or an HD miss a beat.

Still hoping for some thoughts on my original question re: the advantages of the 744t over the R-4 Pro.

Thanks,
Adam

 

[SouthBySoWhat]

I've enjoyed owning the R4-Pro and have used it on 3 features this year, plus lots of shorts and industrial stuff. I've always gone line-level from a 442's direct outs and it sounds just fine that way.

I'm currently selling it as I upped to a 788t, search the DVX marketplace if interested.