Sound Devices 302 vs. Roland R-4 Pro - any advice?

T

Tom T

New member
Hi There,

I work for an small indie film production company in London and I'm in need of some advice!

We shoot most of our interviews on Canon 5D mkIIs and have, to date, recorded the audio (from a wireless lav mic and a shotgun mic) directly to a Zoom H4N recorder. It's worked fine to date, although it doesn't give us much flexibility to trim the audio levels when roaming. I'm doing a shoot in a couple of weeks time that'll require 2 wireless lavs and a shotgun mic, so it looks like I'm going to need to get a new field mixer / recorder. It would also be nice to have a mixer that we could hook up to our Sony Ex-1s as well.

Having done a bit of research online, it looks like my best bet would be to get a Sound Devices 302 and connect it to my Zoom H4N, however, this means that the three channels of audio will be mixed down to two. Another option that someone recently pointed me to was the Roland R-4 Pro device, which seems like it could act as a SD 302 and Zoom H4N rolled into one, in addition to giving me the capability to record 4 separate audio tracks. However, would the Roland r-4 be any use hooked up to our Sony EX-1s? The budget we're looking at is £1000 - £2000.

Does anyone have any advice on the above?? Would really appreciate it!

Cheers,

Tom
 
Tascam DR680 is my advice. I have just started a thread for the exact same situation as you. I need 3 tracks recorded discretely too.
 
The DR680 is a good recorder, but for multiple channels, you would still be best served to have a mixer in front. If your recording scenario is fairly buttoned down, you could get by without, but to ride levels on the fly, the 680 requires selecting the channel before adjusting the level. Although I am not familiar with quality or build of the R-4, the one thing it does offer is independent control for each of the four channels, so if you can't afford both mixer and recorder, the R4 may offer more control.

Using a mixer in front of a video cam is really nice when you can make it happen.

Grant
 
Lucas Adamson said:
Tascam DR680 is my advice. I have just started a thread for the exact same situation as you. I need 3 tracks recorded discretely too.
Click to expand...
Cheers Lucas. Just had a quick look at the Tascam DR680. It looks decent and a good price, but doesn't seem t have an easy dial control function for the individual XLR inputs like the R-4 or SD 302?
 
ggrantly said:
The DR680 is a good recorder, but for multiple channels, you would still be best served to have a mixer in front. If your recording scenario is fairly buttoned down, you could get by without, but to ride levels on the fly, the 680 requires selecting the channel before adjusting the level. Although I am not familiar with quality or build of the R-4, the one thing it does offer is independent control for each of the four channels, so if you can't afford both mixer and recorder, the R4 may offer more control.Using a mixer in front of a video cam is really nice when you can make it happen.Grant
Click to expand...
.Thanks for your response Grant. I've been riding the levels on the fly for a while now and it's a bit risky at times! Your right that the r-4 looks decent with the independent control, but haven't found anyone to vouch for it's quality or usability....as it stands it looks like the SD 302 might be a safer bet, just a shame it can't record audio as well as would save me having to connect he Zoom H4N to it....
 
I've used an SD302 many times, with 2 lavs and a boom, and it was very rare I'd need to control two faders simultaneously. The DR680 requires a single button push to select the track of which you wish to adjust the level. That is all.

The Roland/ Edirol R-44 also looks good, but this review over at B&H really put me off:

PROS: Over the past two years I have carefully reviewed nearly every 2- and 4-track field recorder on the market. It was my expectation that the R-44 would be the long-awaited alternative to the extremely expensive Sound Devices recorders, which we all wish we could own, but can not afford. Unfortunately, the R-44 does not fully step up to the challenge. The positive attributes of the unit are: solid-state SD memory (not included); superb sound quality (except at high sensitivity/gain settings); highly compact "miniature" design (plastic), made in Japan ... not China; well-organized controls; good work flows; and an excellent, but very small, outdoor-viewable LCD. Except for some unnecessarily small, poorly marked control buttons, and inadequate button illumination, the unit's logical layout makes it quite efficient to operate in daylight. Recording in low light is a different story.

CONS: (1) The R-44 does not retain important settings between power cycles. Among these, and especially distressing, is that it does not remember the project folder last selected. There appears to be no practical method of updating the firmware or customizing the menus to correct this problem; (2) The R-44 was designed as a "portable" recorder, and owners will no doubt have many occasions to use the unit outside at night or in dimly lit environments, both indoors and outdoors. However, the unit is ill-equipped for this task because many of the switches are not illuminated, and because a number of important buttons, although lit, are too small, not marked, and therefore unreadable in the dark. Also, the illumination levels of the "power" and "record" buttons are preset to a high intensity, the bright glare of which makes operating the unit in darkness distracting, conspicuous to others, and very annoying. These two buttons cannot be dimmed. Ironically, the illumination of these buttons, and the other buttons indicating mode selection or unit activity, although bright in the dark, is not visible in daylight or even in bright shade. Obviously, vivid, but dimmable, LED button illumination should have been employed throughout the unit's design; (3) There is no "Standby" button for headphone monitoring. Instead, two buttons must be pressed simultaneously. This may be acceptable in a desktop unit, but in a portable this two-finger exercise makes initiating recording awkward, day or night; (4) The level of introduced noise, or hiss, at high sensitivity (gain) settings, is clearly audible in standby monitoring (using headphones). The resultant recording quality could be better at higher gain; (5) "Projects", i.e. WAV files, must be deleted one-at-a-time. Folders containing files can not be deleted at all. This makes multiple file deletions an unnecessarily tedious and time-consuming chore. The only efficient way to delete more than a one file at a time is to reformat the SD card ... an impractical non-solution that will not thrill users; (6) A carrying case (important), an SD card (essential), as well as a starter set of batteries ("got to have power"), should all have been included with this rather pricey recorder. Most customers will want their recorder ready for use when they receive it. Including these small, but essential items would have been a thoughtful courtesy and probably created a happier state of mind with the new purchase; (7) No remote control is provided or supported. A good, long-range remote is often essential for recording whether in the field or indoors; (8) The R-44 has no treaded mounting holes or mounting provisions whatsoever. This is too bad because it greatly limits use options and negates other virtues and potential flexibility of the unit's compact size. It's use is thus relegated to either a carrying case (not provided) or table top. If this small unit had mounting capabilities, and if it were not entirely plastic, it could easily be attached to microphone stands, light stands, or positioned most anywhere. Flexibility in positioning is particularly important in small mobile devices. I had to fabricate a small platform, and use a small bungee cord, in order to attach the unit to a light stand, otherwise I had few options for using it; (9) The unit requires high sensitivity/gain settings with most low-end to mid-range mics. "Hot" mics, such as the Audio-Technica 4073a or Sennheiser ME66, are therefore highly recommended. I first tried a Rode NTG-2, which yielded fabulous results for voice over or close recording situations, but was wholly inadequate for wildlife and ambient sound pickup due its relatively broad supercardioid pickup pattern and concomitant high gain requirements; (10) Wi-fi is a "must have" convenience that dramatically increases efficiency and usability of portable devices in many situations. Even low-end video cameras have it for years. It was unwise not include this feature in the R-44; (11) Two SD card slots would have been nice. I often have occasion to copy files to a separate card for distribution while continuing to record to the one in the unit; (12) The R-44 could also have acted as a computer interface. Other manufactures are starting to incorporate this highly sought after and flexible function, e.g., the Zoom H4; (13) Firewire is much faster and reliable than USB, and it is designed to "stream" media. Surprisingly it was not implemented in this unit, even though much less expensive devices have it, e.g., Alesis (all); (14) I was a bit surprised at the high power consumption rate for such a small device. Even with only one phantom-powered mic attached the batteries last just a few hours, even while not recording, and they get very hot in the process! Users of the R-44 will want to use the much more economical and much longer lasting NiMH rechargeables rather than relentlessly swapping out sets of 4 alkaline AA's.

Because this potentially innovative field recorder could have been a "great" recorder with very little effort or extra design and manufacturing costs, because it inexplicably did not incorporate several obvious and thoughtful refinements common in other units, and because the recorder does not come "ready for use", I have awarded the R-44 only 3 stars. Yes, I would recommend this to a friend​
 
Lucas Adamson said:
I've used an SD302 many times, with 2 lavs and a boom, and it was very rare I'd need to control two faders simultaneously. The DR680 requires a single button push to select the track of which you wish to adjust the level. That is all.The Roland/ Edirol R-44 also looks good, but this review over at B&H really put me off:
PROS: Over the past two years I have carefully reviewed nearly every 2- and 4-track field recorder on the market. It was my expectation that the R-44 would be the long-awaited alternative to the extremely expensive Sound Devices recorders, which we all wish we could own, but can not afford. Unfortunately, the R-44 does not fully step up to the challenge. The positive attributes of the unit are: solid-state SD memory (not included); superb sound quality (except at high sensitivity/gain settings); highly compact "miniature" design (plastic), made in Japan ... not China; well-organized controls; good work flows; and an excellent, but very small, outdoor-viewable LCD. Except for some unnecessarily small, poorly marked control buttons, and inadequate button illumination, the unit's logical layout makes it quite efficient to operate in daylight. Recording in low light is a different story.CONS: (1) The R-44 does not retain important settings between power cycles. Among these, and especially distressing, is that it does not remember the project folder last selected. There appears to be no practical method of updating the firmware or customizing the menus to correct this problem; (2) The R-44 was designed as a "portable" recorder, and owners will no doubt have many occasions to use the unit outside at night or in dimly lit environments, both indoors and outdoors. However, the unit is ill-equipped for this task because many of the switches are not illuminated, and because a number of important buttons, although lit, are too small, not marked, and therefore unreadable in the dark. Also, the illumination levels of the "power" and "record" buttons are preset to a high intensity, the bright glare of which makes operating the unit in darkness distracting, conspicuous to others, and very annoying. These two buttons cannot be dimmed. Ironically, the illumination of these buttons, and the other buttons indicating mode selection or unit activity, although bright in the dark, is not visible in daylight or even in bright shade. Obviously, vivid, but dimmable, LED button illumination should have been employed throughout the unit's design; (3) There is no "Standby" button for headphone monitoring. Instead, two buttons must be pressed simultaneously. This may be acceptable in a desktop unit, but in a portable this two-finger exercise makes initiating recording awkward, day or night; (4) The level of introduced noise, or hiss, at high sensitivity (gain) settings, is clearly audible in standby monitoring (using headphones). The resultant recording quality could be better at higher gain; (5) "Projects", i.e. WAV files, must be deleted one-at-a-time. Folders containing files can not be deleted at all. This makes multiple file deletions an unnecessarily tedious and time-consuming chore. The only efficient way to delete more than a one file at a time is to reformat the SD card ... an impractical non-solution that will not thrill users; (6) A carrying case (important), an SD card (essential), as well as a starter set of batteries ("got to have power"), should all have been included with this rather pricey recorder. Most customers will want their recorder ready for use when they receive it. Including these small, but essential items would have been a thoughtful courtesy and probably created a happier state of mind with the new purchase; (7) No remote control is provided or supported. A good, long-range remote is often essential for recording whether in the field or indoors; (8) The R-44 has no treaded mounting holes or mounting provisions whatsoever. This is too bad because it greatly limits use options and negates other virtues and potential flexibility of the unit's compact size. It's use is thus relegated to either a carrying case (not provided) or table top. If this small unit had mounting capabilities, and if it were not entirely plastic, it could easily be attached to microphone stands, light stands, or positioned most anywhere. Flexibility in positioning is particularly important in small mobile devices. I had to fabricate a small platform, and use a small bungee cord, in order to attach the unit to a light stand, otherwise I had few options for using it; (9) The unit requires high sensitivity/gain settings with most low-end to mid-range mics. "Hot" mics, such as the Audio-Technica 4073a or Sennheiser ME66, are therefore highly recommended. I first tried a Rode NTG-2, which yielded fabulous results for voice over or close recording situations, but was wholly inadequate for wildlife and ambient sound pickup due its relatively broad supercardioid pickup pattern and concomitant high gain requirements; (10) Wi-fi is a "must have" convenience that dramatically increases efficiency and usability of portable devices in many situations. Even low-end video cameras have it for years. It was unwise not include this feature in the R-44; (11) Two SD card slots would have been nice. I often have occasion to copy files to a separate card for distribution while continuing to record to the one in the unit; (12) The R-44 could also have acted as a computer interface. Other manufactures are starting to incorporate this highly sought after and flexible function, e.g., the Zoom H4; (13) Firewire is much faster and reliable than USB, and it is designed to "stream" media. Surprisingly it was not implemented in this unit, even though much less expensive devices have it, e.g., Alesis (all); (14) I was a bit surprised at the high power consumption rate for such a small device. Even with only one phantom-powered mic attached the batteries last just a few hours, even while not recording, and they get very hot in the process! Users of the R-44 will want to use the much more economical and much longer lasting NiMH rechargeables rather than relentlessly swapping out sets of 4 alkaline AA's.Because this potentially innovative field recorder could have been a "great" recorder with very little effort or extra design and manufacturing costs, because it inexplicably did not incorporate several obvious and thoughtful refinements common in other units, and because the recorder does not come "ready for use", I have awarded the R-44 only 3 stars. Yes, I would recommend this to a friend​
Click to expand...
Hi Lucas, thanks for the post. I'll take a more serious look at the tascam - it does sound decent. I notcied that the review that you copied was for the R-44, not the R-4 (pro) that I was looking at, but they do seem to have similr features, so I assume they'll have similar problems. Thanks again for your advice. Tom
 
Tom T said:
Hi Lucas, thanks for the post. I'll take a more serious look at the tascam - it does sound decent. I notcied that the review that you copied was for the R-44, not the R-4 (pro) that I was looking at, but they do seem to have similr features, so I assume they'll have similar problems. Thanks again for your advice. Tom
Click to expand...

From that review it does sound as though not enough consultation with regular end users lead to a few design flaws, eh!
 
I use an R-4 Pro on a regular basis, and I've tried out the R-44 once. The two units operate basically the same, and are very simple and easy to use. Thought I'd adress some of the things in the review, and how they relate to the R-4.

(1) The R-44 does not retain important settings between power cycles. Among these, and especially distressing, is that it does not remember the project folder last selected. There appears to be no practical method of updating the firmware or customizing the menus to correct this problem
Click to expand...
This is unfortunately true, and one of the big problems. If you created a folder to record into, and shut the unit off, when you start it you must go in and select that folder again. It's easy to forget, and a hassle. I work around this by simply not using folders. When one project is done, I transfer and remove it, and different scenes can be given different names to give structure.

(2) The R-44 was designed as a "portable" recorder, and owners will no doubt have many occasions to use the unit outside at night or in dimly lit environments, both indoors and outdoors. However, the unit is ill-equipped for this task because many of the switches are not illuminated, and because a number of important buttons, although lit, are too small, not marked, and therefore unreadable in the dark. Also, the illumination levels of the "power" and "record" buttons are preset to a high intensity, the bright glare of which makes operating the unit in darkness distracting, conspicuous to others, and very annoying. These two buttons cannot be dimmed. Ironically, the illumination of these buttons, and the other buttons indicating mode selection or unit activity, although bright in the dark, is not visible in daylight or even in bright shade. Obviously, vivid, but dimmable, LED button illumination should have been employed throughout the unit's design
Click to expand...
Also true, but I've never had an issue with it. After using it a few times I can feel my way to the right buttons without looking (though it's a problem in the cold when you have to take your gloves of). The bright buttons can be taped over.

(3) There is no "Standby" button for headphone monitoring. Instead, two buttons must be pressed simultaneously. This may be acceptable in a desktop unit, but in a portable this two-finger exercise makes initiating recording awkward, day or night
Click to expand...
The Two button operation can be a hassle, but is in my opinion mostly about habit. You cannot monitor the input without doing this though.

(4) The level of introduced noise, or hiss, at high sensitivity (gain) settings, is clearly audible in standby monitoring (using headphones). The resultant recording quality could be better at higher gain
Click to expand...
The R-44 preamps are of lower quality than the R-4 Pro. The R-44 has a measured EIN of about -112dB, and the R-4 Pro of about -128dB.
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/type/ww...derList/docs/R-44_R4-Pro_FR2_LundstenMeas.htm

(11) Two SD card slots would have been nice. I often have occasion to copy files to a separate card for distribution while continuing to record to the one in the unit
Click to expand...
The R-4 Pro has an internal drive, and no slot for SD or CF cards. I think it can record onto an external drive through usb though, but this should be checked. I've never had any problems with the hard drive, and it's on 80gb.

(13) Firewire is much faster and reliable than USB, and it is designed to "stream" media. Surprisingly it was not implemented in this unit, even though much less expensive devices have it, e.g., Alesis (all);
Click to expand...
The R-4 does not have firewire either, but as it's not a unit meant to be used as a computer interface, I find this of no importance. Audio files are small compared to video, and does not take a long time to transfer.

(14) I was a bit surprised at the high power consumption rate for such a small device. Even with only one phantom-powered mic attached the batteries last just a few hours, even while not recording, and they get very hot in the process! Users of the R-44 will want to use the much more economical and much longer lasting NiMH rechargeables rather than relentlessly swapping out sets of 4 alkaline AA's.
Click to expand...
The R-4 Pro eats batteries like crazy. It takes eight AA:s, and they will be gone in 2-3 hours. An external solution is highly recommended.


I would also like to adress three things that I find troblesome about these recorders that the review didn't touch.
1. There are no analogue low cuts or limiters - there are digital ones, but as such they cannot protect from overload. Few recorders of this price range does though, which is one of the reasons for using a mixer in front.
3. The monitoring cannot be configured exactly as you want, but is governed by presets. The odd number channels can be heard in the left ear, but not the right, and the even number channels in the right but not left (or they can all be heard in both, or just one). You can choose to hear all channels, or just ch1+2 or 3+4. This means that you must think about which channel you patch into depending on if you want to hear it, and how. This also means, that if you have 4 mics, and want to hear 3 of them but not the 4th, you must anyway.

Also, while the R-44 has individual phantom power for all preamps, rhe R-4 has a combined switch for 1+2, and 3+4.

The R-4 is considerably larger than the R-44, which is very small for a 4ch recorder.

And, not to forget, the R-4 Pro has timecode, which the R-44 hasn't.
 
"I've used an SD302 many times, with 2 lavs and a boom, and it was very rare I'd need to control two faders simultaneously. The DR680 requires a single button push to select the track of which you wish to adjust the level. That is all"

One thing I left out with regard to riding the levels on a 680 is that the metering display is not very good compared to something like a 302. So besides having to select each channel, you are further crippled by the display. I'm not bashing the 680, but to suggest it is a combo mixer - recorder with anything like the functionality of a 302 just isn't reality. I own both.

Grant
 
Jema said:
I use an R-4 Pro on a regular basis, and I've tried out the R-44 once. The two units operate basically the same, and are very simple and easy to use. Thought I'd adress some of the things in the review, and how they relate to the R-4.This is unfortunately true, and one of the big problems. If you created a folder to record into, and shut the unit off, when you start it you must go in and select that folder again. It's easy to forget, and a hassle. I work around this by simply not using folders. When one project is done, I transfer and remove it, and different scenes can be given different names to give structure.Also true, but I've never had an issue with it. After using it a few times I can feel my way to the right buttons without looking (though it's a problem in the cold when you have to take your gloves of). The bright buttons can be taped over.The Two button operation can be a hassle, but is in my opinion mostly about habit. You cannot monitor the input without doing this though.The R-44 preamps are of lower quality than the R-4 Pro. The R-44 has a measured EIN of about -112dB, and the R-4 Pro of about -128dB.https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/type/ww...derList/docs/R-44_R4-Pro_FR2_LundstenMeas.htmThe R-4 Pro has an internal drive, and no slot for SD or CF cards. I think it can record onto an external drive through usb though, but this should be checked. I've never had any problems with the hard drive, and it's on 80gb.The R-4 does not have firewire either, but as it's not a unit meant to be used as a computer interface, I find this of no importance. Audio files are small compared to video, and does not take a long time to transfer.The R-4 Pro eats batteries like crazy. It takes eight AA:s, and they will be gone in 2-3 hours. An external solution is highly recommended.I would also like to adress three things that I find troblesome about these recorders that the review didn't touch.1. There are no analogue low cuts or limiters - there are digital ones, but as such they cannot protect from overload. Few recorders of this price range does though, which is one of the reasons for using a mixer in front.3. The monitoring cannot be configured exactly as you want, but is governed by presets. The odd number channels can be heard in the left ear, but not the right, and the even number channels in the right but not left (or they can all be heard in both, or just one). You can choose to hear all channels, or just ch1+2 or 3+4. This means that you must think about which channel you patch into depending on if you want to hear it, and how. This also means, that if you have 4 mics, and want to hear 3 of them but not the 4th, you must anyway.Also, while the R-44 has individual phantom power for all preamps, rhe R-4 has a combined switch for 1+2, and 3+4.The R-4 is considerably larger than the R-44, which is very small for a 4ch recorder.And, not to forget, the R-4 Pro has timecode, which the R-44 hasn't.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your detailed review Jema and for adding detail to the R-44 review - it's much appreciated
 
Jema said:
I use an R-4 Pro on a regular basis, and I've tried out the R-44 once. The two units operate basically the same, and are very simple and easy to use. Thought I'd adress some of the things in the review, and how they relate to the R-4.This is unfortunately true, and one of the big problems. If you created a folder to record into, and shut the unit off, when you start it you must go in and select that folder again. It's easy to forget, and a hassle. I work around this by simply not using folders. When one project is done, I transfer and remove it, and different scenes can be given different names to give structure.Also true, but I've never had an issue with it. After using it a few times I can feel my way to the right buttons without looking (though it's a problem in the cold when you have to take your gloves of). The bright buttons can be taped over.The Two button operation can be a hassle, but is in my opinion mostly about habit. You cannot monitor the input without doing this though.The R-44 preamps are of lower quality than the R-4 Pro. The R-44 has a measured EIN of about -112dB, and the R-4 Pro of about -128dB.https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/type/ww...derList/docs/R-44_R4-Pro_FR2_LundstenMeas.htmThe R-4 Pro has an internal drive, and no slot for SD or CF cards. I think it can record onto an external drive through usb though, but this should be checked. I've never had any problems with the hard drive, and it's on 80gb.The R-4 does not have firewire either, but as it's not a unit meant to be used as a computer interface, I find this of no importance. Audio files are small compared to video, and does not take a long time to transfer.The R-4 Pro eats batteries like crazy. It takes eight AA:s, and they will be gone in 2-3 hours. An external solution is highly recommended.I would also like to adress three things that I find troblesome about these recorders that the review didn't touch.1. There are no analogue low cuts or limiters - there are digital ones, but as such they cannot protect from overload. Few recorders of this price range does though, which is one of the reasons for using a mixer in front.3. The monitoring cannot be configured exactly as you want, but is governed by presets. The odd number channels can be heard in the left ear, but not the right, and the even number channels in the right but not left (or they can all be heard in both, or just one). You can choose to hear all channels, or just ch1+2 or 3+4. This means that you must think about which channel you patch into depending on if you want to hear it, and how. This also means, that if you have 4 mics, and want to hear 3 of them but not the 4th, you must anyway.Also, while the R-44 has individual phantom power for all preamps, rhe R-4 has a combined switch for 1+2, and 3+4.The R-4 is considerably larger than the R-44, which is very small for a 4ch recorder.And, not to forget, the R-4 Pro has timecode, which the R-44 hasn't.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your thoughts on this Jema - it's much appreciated
 
ggrantly said:
"I've used an SD302 many times, with 2 lavs and a boom, and it was very rare I'd need to control two faders simultaneously. The DR680 requires a single button push to select the track of which you wish to adjust the level. That is all"

One thing I left out with regard to riding the levels on a 680 is that the metering display is not very good compared to something like a 302. So besides having to select each channel, you are further crippled by the display. I'm not bashing the 680, but to suggest it is a combo mixer - recorder with anything like the functionality of a 302 just isn't reality. I own both.

Grant
Click to expand...

This is very true. There is no substitute for a Sound Devices or equivalent field recorder, but it all depends where you're at and what level of control you need I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top