Edirol R44 vs (Zoom H4N + mix pre sound devices)

M

manjeet singh

Active member
Which of the following setups will give better out put? Any alternative suggestions in the similar price range ~1000$ or may be little bit more?
 
Wanted to understand the physics behind it...A SD mixer would make the signal clear, which is received from the mics...This signal should be better compared to the preamp stage of R44. Now does the recording part make a huge difference? Basically wanted to know if the pre amp stage is more important (superior circuitary involved) or recording data.

Drawing an analogy with the camera department..Lens would be equivalent to your mics, which means no compromise...Is it fair to equate preamps with the sensor of the camera...Recording in video is very complex...lot of codes formats are available..but in Sound it is almost same across the board.

Please provide some insights!
 
Even when using a mixer, you're still running thru the Zoom's analog circuitry prior to hitting it's A/D converters, which, when sending a line-in signal to zoom is where most of the damage occurs. So while you're getting a very good signal thru the SD mixer, you're still passing it thru fairly low performance analog components of the zoom. If you were shooting the signal from the SD mixer into an SD recorder, I would say otherwise, but having a great mixer in front of a so, so set of analog components kinda defeats the purpose.

Many have commented on the quality of the Edirol's preamps, and I would go one step further and say purchase one from The Oade Brothers with their pre-amp mod. And while yes, the SD preamps I would consider superior to the Edirol's, that advantage is negated by sending the signal thru the zoom. And to be clear, I'm not bashing the zoom. For the price it is an extremely capable recorder, but I don't think the SD will make up the difference compared to sending the signal directly to the edirol.

And you didn't ask about mics, all else being equal, I think the recording quality will be better with the Edirol alone.

And one very important note: No mixer, recorder, or microphone "makes" the signal "clean". With location recording work, the only thing we can do to a signal is make it worse, never better. The goal is to minimize the damage as much as our budgets will allow.
 
Last edited:
gpforet said:
And you didn't ask about mics, all else being equal, I think the recording quality will be better with the Edirol alone.

And one very important note: No mixer, recorder, or microphone "makes" the signal "clean". With location recording work, the only thing we can do to a signal is make it worse, never better. The goal is to minimize the damage as much as our budgets will allow.
Click to expand...

I am thinking of getting two sets of G3 transmitter and receiver set and replacing it's mic with a MKE2 Gold or a SanKen COS 11...Still contemplating the options. Still not sure what to do..Also a friend has a NTG2 mic...The thing is that the mics are available in India but the recorders like R44 are difficult to source.

I intend to shoot docu-dramas, re-enact the incidents which have happened using non-actors, real locations, natural lights....In some instances shooting with hidden camera, where the actor would converse with someone who does not know that we are filming him...Now I am trying to figure out how do I record that person's voice...Thinking of hiding the mic in a purse pen etc...due to the nature of the film why I have to have the lavaliers on the talent...can't always use the boom..

Have amazing talent in sound recording....The sound engineer did the 2nd unit sound on slumdog! So he is used to handle all the top end stuff, which I can not afford.

Point noted...Thanks for enhancing my knowledge!
 
I'd say both these combos have their advantages. The Edirol certainly has noisier preamps than the Mix Pre but you have four controllable channels, while the Zoom gives you also 4 channels but not four gain and level knobs! I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Zoom pres are much worse than the Edirol's. Note that when using wireless the preamp stage gets less important, as you can adjust output level on your receiver and you won't gain ride them as much as a wired mic.
So if you won't need more than two wired mics I'd go for the SD/Zoom combo and plug the wireless receivers directly into the Zoom.
I don't know about the Zoom's menu/file naming system etc. but I can say that the R44's menu and display is very very nice and quick to use. Hard choice, but both will perform what you're looking for.
 
The sound per dollar right now is low=zoom H2; mid=fostex FR2LE; upper mid=tascam 680
After the Tascam you can pay more but the difference will A) be very small B) may be worse
If you want some real audiophile stuff there is plenty to choose from, but the difference is pretty small
The Edirol is a fine sounding unit, the Tascam has 8 channels and the latest converter chips.
A lot of ppl like the Sony, too, the ones above are just my faves and I've used them extensively.
Lots to choose from; absolutely can't go wrong with the Tascam DR 680
 
DrDave said:
The sound per dollar right now is low=zoom H2; mid=fostex FR2LE; upper mid=tascam 680
After the Tascam you can pay more but the difference will A) be very small B) may be worse
If you want some real audiophile stuff there is plenty to choose from, but the difference is pretty small
The Edirol is a fine sounding unit, the Tascam has 8 channels and the latest converter chips.
A lot of ppl like the Sony, too, the ones above are just my faves and I've used them extensively.
Lots to choose from; absolutely can't go wrong with the Tascam DR 680
Click to expand...

Based on what analysis?
 
Was wondering how noticeable would the difference be, if the sound is recorded on 744T and modified R44 and may be other recorders put in?
 
Once you get up to the level of modified R-44s, SD 744s, and the like, often the biggest differences are to be found in the limiters, routing, control layout, and workflow.

But like most things, these are only tools, and the results are primarily based on the proficiency of the operator. None of these recorders will produce top shelf dialog recording without someone skilled in microphone selection and placement, as well as establishing proper gain staging and levels. Only experience can teach someone how to gently tickle the best limiters in the signal chain.

I say all this to say that proficiency is the key to the craft of dialog recording. Everyone here started with their first microphone and recorder and, at least in my own experience, it would not have mattered whether it was a H4n or a SD 744 recording my first attempts at booming an actor. Far more important than the level of gear are things like: keeping the mic pointed where it is capturing the best tone of the talent's voice (typically at a 1 inch circle where the neck meets the chest, choicing your angles so you get the best voice to background noise ratio while at the same time keeping the boom out of the shot, handling the boom in such a way as to minimize handling noise, ensuring that your gain is staged properly thru the signal chain. All of this requires practice. Hours and hours of booming actors, paying close attention to what you're hearing, and continually making adjustment to improve.

manjeet singh said:
Was wondering how noticeable would the difference be, if the sound is recorded on 744T and modified R44 and may be other recorders put in?
Click to expand...
 
If you're working in unpredictable/highly dynamic situations, the SD limiters might be better at saving yer audio arse than the Edirol's. I say this without having heard the Edirol's but knowing SD is considered to have excellent limiting. Same for the Tascam. If you're relying on wireless, those circuits will probably be the err..limiting factor.
 
The Fostex FR2LE is all you'll ever need for a smallish indie production. 2 XLR inputs is its only drawback. I picked up mine for around $400 (usually go for around $500). The Zoom is by far the weakest of the bunch. Skip the Edirol and spend the extra money somewhere else -- like on an NTG3 ($700).

My $.02
 
Brian_Rice said:
The Fostex FR2LE is all you'll ever need for a smallish indie production. 2 XLR inputs is its only drawback. I picked up mine for around $400 (usually go for around $500). The Zoom is by far the weakest of the bunch. Skip the Edirol and spend the extra money somewhere else -- like on an NTG3 ($700).

My $.02
Click to expand...
Yup. Great machine.
 
Now thinking if a Mix pre would work well with anyother recorder, which has 4 tracks and similar but cheaper than Edirol so that the budget would come around 1100-1200$...Any suggestions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top