Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Edirol R-1 anyone have one or used one?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 1:10:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

This seems like it might be a useful thing to have around for remote recording,
particularly for intereviews and ambience. Anyone have any experience with it?
elaterium@aol.com (Mark Steven Brooks/Elaterium Music)

More about : edirol

Anonymous
December 1, 2004 1:10:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mark Steven Brooks wrote:
> This seems like it might be a useful thing to have around for remote recording,
> particularly for intereviews and ambience. Anyone have any experience with it?
> elaterium@aol.com (Mark Steven Brooks/Elaterium Music)

They haven't shipped yet.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 1:10:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mark Steven Brooks" <elaterium@aol.com> wrote:
> This seems like it might be a useful thing to have around for remote
recording,
> particularly for intereviews and ambience. Anyone have any experience
with it?
> elaterium@aol.com (Mark Steven Brooks/Elaterium Music)

Only the floor show at AES. BSW is purportedly going to ship on Dec 10th.

bobs

Bob Smith
BS Studios
we organize chaos
http://www.bsstudios.com
Related resources
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 2:43:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mark Steven Brooks <elaterium@aol.com> wrote:

>This seems like it might be a useful thing to have around for remote recording,
>particularly for intereviews and ambience. Anyone have any experience with it?
>elaterium@aol.com (Mark Steven Brooks/Elaterium Music)

It hasn't been released yet.

For a comparison of its features to a few other recorders (including our
PDAudio), please see:

http://www.core-sound.com/comparison-pdaudio-pmd-670-fr...

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
moskowit@core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 2:43:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 30 Nov 2004 23:43:07 -0500, moskowit@panix.com (Len Moskowitz)
wrote:

>
>Mark Steven Brooks <elaterium@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>This seems like it might be a useful thing to have around for remote recording,
>>particularly for intereviews and ambience. Anyone have any experience with it?
>>elaterium@aol.com (Mark Steven Brooks/Elaterium Music)
>
>It hasn't been released yet.

It hasn't? I've received catalogs listing the Edirol with prices.

Al
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 10:29:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

play-on <playonATcomcast.net> wrote:

>>It hasn't been released yet.
>
>It hasn't? I've received catalogs listing the Edirol with prices.

I too. But if you try and order them, Edirol says that they're not yet
coming into the US.

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
moskowit@core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 1:46:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

qukza <qukza@yahoo.com> wrote:

>You might also want to check out the forthcoming Marantz PMD-660 as
>well. See www.niehoff.nl/marantz/pmd660.pdf.

The Marantz PMD660 is a 16-bit recorder with sample rates up to 44.1/48
KS/s, S/N on the mic input of only 60 dB and only 80 dB on the Line
input, and a frequency response that's down 3 dB at 20 KHz. And it's
quite a bit larger than the R-1 so that it's perhaps a "handheld" only
if you stretch the definition. No word yet on when it will be released
for sale in the US.

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
moskowit@core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 3:13:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Will these units only record MP3s? I see no mention of 16-bit
recording on the PMD 660. Also, what is the largest flash card size
that is currently available?

Al

On 1 Dec 2004 06:24:17 -0800, qukza@yahoo.com (qukza) wrote:

>You might also want to check out the forthcoming Marantz PMD-660 as
>well. See www.niehoff.nl/marantz/pmd660.pdf.
>
>Some sites in Europe are reporting a forthcoming version of the
>PMD-670 that supports 96/24 recording. See
>http://www.nf-concept.de/news.php.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 6:34:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <mkrqq0tsahpsv1i968rn84pc4ikq5lh2t4@4ax.com> playonATcomcast.net writes:

> >It hasn't been released yet.
>
> It hasn't? I've received catalogs listing the Edirol with prices.

You've never seen that before? It happens a lot. Catalogs are laid up
a few months before they're mailed out. Prices and shipping dates are
usually estimates at that time, so they let you drool until you can
actually get it.

I liked the idea of the R1, but it has a mini jack for input and a
memory card for storage, two things I don't want in my next recorder.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 6:40:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

The PDF mentions WAV and MP3



play-on wrote:
> Will these units only record MP3s? I see no mention of 16-bit
> recording on the PMD 660. Also, what is the largest flash card size
> that is currently available?
>
> Al
>
> On 1 Dec 2004 06:24:17 -0800, qukza@yahoo.com (qukza) wrote:
>
>
>>You might also want to check out the forthcoming Marantz PMD-660 as
>>well. See www.niehoff.nl/marantz/pmd660.pdf.
>>
>>Some sites in Europe are reporting a forthcoming version of the
>>PMD-670 that supports 96/24 recording. See
>>http://www.nf-concept.de/news.php.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 9:21:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

play-on <playonATcomcast.net> wrote:

>Will these units only record MP3s? I see no mention of 16-bit
>recording on the PMD 660.

It will record both MP3 (up to 128 Kbps) and WAV (linear PCM, up to 16/48).

> Also, what is the largest flash card size that is currently available?

It's currently at 12 GB, but that doesn't mean that the Marantz will be
able to use it.

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
moskowit@core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 8:09:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< I liked the idea of the R1, but it has a mini jack for input and a
memory card for storage, two things I don't want in my next recorder.
>>



And no digital in, so you're stuck with the onboard analog electronics & ADC.
Scott Fraser
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 8:09:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <20041202120949.05986.00000891@mb-m19.aol.com> scotfraser@aol.com writes:

> And no digital in, so you're stuck with the onboard analog electronics & ADC.

That's acceptable, if it's acceptable. The analog electronics of the
Jukebox 3 don't sound bad enough not to use (in fact it sounds better
than the TASCAM portable DAT that it replaced) but I worry about that
input jack every time.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 12:30:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>You might also want to check out the forthcoming Marantz PMD-660 as
>well. See www.niehoff.nl/marantz/pmd660.pdf.

The Marantz PMD660 is a 16-bit recorder with sample rates up to 44.1/48
KS/s, S/N on the mic input of only 60 dB and only 80 dB on the Line
input, and a frequency response that's down 3 dB at 20 KHz. And it's
quite a bit larger than the R-1 so that it's perhaps a "handheld" only
if you stretch the definition. No word yet on when it will be released
for sale in the US. >>




I like thee look of the Edirol R4. Depending on when it's released and what
the initial word on the street is, I'm seriously considering purchasing one for
an independant film we're working on in March. I had planned to rent a Deva or
a Portadrive, but for the cost of a weeklong rental it looks like I could buy
an R4. We'd run a DAT as backup, but if the Edirol is at all roadworthy, I
think it'll be a big hit.


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 8:34:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< That's acceptable, if it's acceptable. >>



Haven't seen any specs on it yet so we dunno.

Scott Fraser
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 12:39:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I design and build,for CBC Radio, minidisk mounting plates---a small
metal plate (with XLR-F and DC blocking cap on a linking cable) is glued
to the back of the recorder. The input jack is then safe from stress....

------------

Mike Rivers wrote:

> In article <20041202120949.05986.00000891@mb-m19.aol.com> scotfraser@aol.com writes:
>
>
>>And no digital in, so you're stuck with the onboard analog electronics & ADC.
>
>
> That's acceptable, if it's acceptable. The analog electronics of the
> Jukebox 3 don't sound bad enough not to use (in fact it sounds better
> than the TASCAM portable DAT that it replaced) but I worry about that
> input jack every time.
>
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 1:12:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <20041203003408.14349.00001248@mb-m13.aol.com> scotfraser@aol.com writes:

> Haven't seen any specs on it yet so we dunno.

Oh, you've seen the specs. They're just like specs for any other of
this sort of device - lots of features, no numbers other than
recording times. What we don't know yet is how good it sounds.

The 60 dB S/N for the mic input quoted on the Marantz recorder that
someone mentioned in this thread is consistent with their portable CD
recorder, which surprised me. In practice, is this as bad as it sounds
like it would be? That's on par with barefoot (no noise reduction)
analog tape which many people today consider too noisy.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 1:49:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1102077971k@trad
> In article <20041203003408.14349.00001248@mb-m13.aol.com>
> scotfraser@aol.com writes:
>
>> Haven't seen any specs on it yet so we dunno.
>
> Oh, you've seen the specs. They're just like specs for any other of
> this sort of device - lots of features, no numbers other than
> recording times. What we don't know yet is how good it sounds.
>
> The 60 dB S/N for the mic input quoted on the Marantz recorder that
> someone mentioned in this thread is consistent with their portable CD
> recorder, which surprised me. In practice, is this as bad as it sounds
> like it would be? That's on par with barefoot (no noise reduction)
> analog tape which many people today consider too noisy.

Actually, http://www.d-mpro.com/users/getdownload.asp?DownloadID=... says
65 dB. IME 5 dB at this point could make an audible difference.

IME, 65 dB is in the same range of the kinds of SNRs you get with live
recording unless you can make things really pristine.

The actual SNR could be dependent on gain settings, etc.
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 3:31:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <41B07A9E.6010402@netscape.net> donr39ca@netscape.net writes:

>
> I design and build,for CBC Radio, minidisk mounting plates---a small
> metal plate (with XLR-F and DC blocking cap on a linking cable) is glued
> to the back of the recorder. The input jack is then safe from stress....

A few years ago, PMI (the Studio Projects / Joemeek people) were
selling a couple of variations on a mounting rig for a minidisk or a
Walkman DAT that provided XLR mic inputs (though I don't think phantom
power), RCA line output jacks (ho hum, but not a big deal) and a
larger battery pack. It all made for a nice carrying rig, but at about
double the area of the original unit, which was still not bad. The
recorder was attached with Velcro so it could be removed easily. But
they didn't sell enough of them and are no longer selling them. I
don't remember who the original manufacturer was.

I once made a board with Velcro to attach the recorder and Velcro
straps to secure the cables, but it was just too much trouble and
didn't look very professional. I'm waiting for them to build the
machine that enough of us want to warrant it. The Edirol R-4 would be
ideal for me if it was two channels rather than four, but when it
becomes available, I'll investigate it and see how it does, with
particular consideration to the media. I can live with 2 extra
channels. It isn't that much bigger because of it.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 8:02:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< Oh, you've seen the specs. They're just like specs for any other of
this sort of device - lots of features, no numbers other than
recording times. What we don't know yet is how good it sounds. The 60 dB S/N
for the mic input quoted on the Marantz recorder that
someone mentioned in this thread is consistent with their portable CD
recorder, which surprised me. In practice, is this as bad as it sounds
like it would be? That's on par with barefoot (no noise reduction)
analog tape which many people today consider too noisy.>>

Too noisy for me, especially since I'd primarily want a portable device like
this for recording really quiet nature sounds, distant birds, etc. I've yet to
find any that weren't too noisy for this sort of thing, although there are a
bunch of newer devices I have yet to hear. Since the analog input electronics
have been the noisiest part of the portable DATs I've used, I was hoping the
Edirol would have a digital in so that stuff could be bypassed with something
better. Oh well, maybe the next generation Edirol.

Scott Fraser
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 8:19:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

eganmedia@aol.com (EganMedia) wrote in message news:<20041202163010.16116.00001668@mb-m02.aol.com>...
>
>
> I like thee look of the Edirol R4. Depending on when it's released and what
> the initial word on the street is, I'm seriously considering purchasing one for
> an independant film we're working on in March. I had planned to rent a Deva or
> a Portadrive, but for the cost of a weeklong rental it looks like I could buy
> an R4. We'd run a DAT as backup, but if the Edirol is at all roadworthy, I
> think it'll be a big hit.

Just an FYI that there's no timecode or BWF support on the R-4.
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 8:23:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:<znr1102087755k@trad>...
> In article <41B07A9E.6010402@netscape.net> donr39ca@netscape.net writes:
>
>>
>> I design and build,for CBC Radio, minidisk mounting plates---a small
>> metal plate (with XLR-F and DC blocking cap on a linking cable) is glued
>> to the back of the recorder. The input jack is then safe from stress....
>
> A few years ago, PMI (the Studio Projects / Joemeek people) were
> selling a couple of variations on a mounting rig for a minidisk or a
> Walkman DAT that provided XLR mic inputs (though I don't think phantom
> power), RCA line output jacks (ho hum, but not a big deal) and a
> larger battery pack. It all made for a nice carrying rig, but at about
> double the area of the original unit, which was still not bad. The
> recorder was attached with Velcro so it could be removed easily. But
> they didn't sell enough of them and are no longer selling them. I
> don't remember who the original manufacturer was.

Pass Audio (UK, no relation to Nelson.)

There was also a Jr. version without the mounting cutout and variable gain controls.
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 10:46:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in
news:-pSdnVjl1o5CFy3cRVn-3Q@comcast.com:

> IME, 65 dB is in the same range of the kinds of SNRs you get with live
> recording unless you can make things really pristine.

Except that it leaves you no headroom.

I typically record with known peaks about -12 dBFS. That only leaves 53 dB
to the quietest signal, not always below the noise floor of the room.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 12:45:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Carey Carlan" <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B4965A8DF14gulfjoehotmailcom@207.69.189.191
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in
> news:-pSdnVjl1o5CFy3cRVn-3Q@comcast.com:
>
>> IME, 65 dB is in the same range of the kinds of SNRs you get with
>> live recording unless you can make things really pristine.
>
> Except that it leaves you no headroom.
>
> I typically record with known peaks about -12 dBFS. That only leaves
> 53 dB to the quietest signal, not always below the noise floor of the
> room.

Good point.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 12:22:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <f5827a0b.0412031719.30977dc7@posting.google.com> kurt@nv.net writes:

> Just an FYI that there's no timecode or BWF support on the R-4.

I can live without both of those, but I'm surprised that it doesn't
write broadcast wave files - maybe the lack of internal recording time
has something to do with it. I'd think that the film crowd would like
to just dump files into their workstation and have them line up nice
and neat.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
December 5, 2004 10:32:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Here's the Marantz page for the PMD-671:
http://www.d-mpro.eu.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=4321

"A new flagship model for the Marantz Professional digital recording
range, the PMD671 adds 96kHz/24 bit capability, shift time playback
and read after write monitor (for confidence monitoring) to the list
of features found on the popular PMD670."

qukza@yahoo.com (qukza) wrote in message news:<6e76a941.0412010624.5142e160@posting.google.com>...
> You might also want to check out the forthcoming Marantz PMD-660 as
> well. See www.niehoff.nl/marantz/pmd660.pdf.
>
> Some sites in Europe are reporting a forthcoming version of the
> PMD-670 that supports 96/24 recording. See
> http://www.nf-concept.de/news.php.
!