Lining up for an Edirol R-4....

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

Hello All,

I see that folks are taking pre-orders for these, none I've dealt with
before. Kellies, B&H, Compmusic, Jack's Music Store...

Any non-binding, your opinion only, my-mileage-may-vary good/bad/ugly
experiences preordering with these or others that I may have missed?

Was dragged through considerable hassle the last time I did a
preorder.

Much obliged.
Andy

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

On 28 Jan 2005 15:28:33 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <41fa6b9b.7503058@News.Individual.NET> nospamaeng@houston.rr.com writes:
>
>> I see that folks are taking pre-orders for these, none I've dealt with
>> before. Kellies, B&H, Compmusic, Jack's Music Store...
>>
>> Any non-binding, your opinion only, my-mileage-may-vary good/bad/ugly
>> experiences preordering with these or others that I may have missed?
>
>I've been wanting to get one to review. I spoke to the product manager
>for it at the NAMM show and he said they'd be available in about a
>month.
>
>I wish it was a little smaller and I don't need four channels and most
>of the features, but it looks more substantial than a Jukebox 3 that
>I'd love to replace. I really had hopes for the Sound Devices but I
>couldn't figure out how to work it without asking, and that's bad. I
>forget things quickly. Ditto with the Fostex. At least I could start
>the Edirol.

The beefier construction of the R-4 is what really has my eye --
Often having to setup the heavy stuff and then having to treat the JB3
with kid gloves is becoming too incompatible too often. If things
stay on the path we're on now, I'm darn near ready to give it a whirl
as soon as they start shipping.

Best,
Andy

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

remember that edirol also has a new 2-channel box coming out - the R-1
-
http://www.edirol.com/products/info/r1.html

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

jnorman34@comcast.net wrote:
> remember that edirol also has a new 2-channel box coming out - the R-1
> http://www.edirol.com/products/info/r1.html

It's out, but shipments are slow (first units shipped at the beginning of December, second batch last week.)

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

In article <1106953950.205942.83950@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> jnorman34@comcast.net writes:

> remember that edirol also has a new 2-channel box coming out - the R-1

That's out already. It's a no-sale for me because it has:

- Mini phone jacks for inputs (and outputs)
- Flash card memory rather than hard disk

Otherwise, I really like it. I wish it was something I wanted, but it
isn't.



--
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

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

In article <20050129121819.10663.00000379@mb-m29.aol.com> egghd@aol.com writes:

> Mike, We discussed the mini phone jack issue. What is it about the flash card
> memory you don't like?

Ultimately, the cost. I'm perfectly content with 16-bit, 44.1 kHz
recording for the applications I'd use such a recorder. I consider it
to be a DAT replacement. It's been quite a while since I purchased DAT
cassettes, but I just checked Cassette House to be sure they were
still available, and sho'nuff, you can buy 2 hours worth of storage
for about $3.

Since I expect that it will be a quite a while yet before I can get a
flash memory card for $3 that will store 2 hours of 16/44 audio (and
when we can, it will be something other than the format used by the
R1) I'd have to use it as a fixed media recorder, buying one or two of
the largest capacity cards possible (adding a few hundred hidden bucks
to the $500 cost of the recorder) then transfer data (on my own time)
to a less expensive storage medium.

The Jukebox 3 that I bought new for about $300 when it was a new
product includes over 20 hours of fixed recording media, so it's
considerably cheaper than a flash card recorder. For my use, the R4
would be essentially the same as the Jukebox at considerably more
cost, but mechanically more robust and with some features that I might
use sometime. I can see recording 4 channels occasionally, but
probably will never use its editing or signal processing features.




--
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

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

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message news:znr1107021605k@trad...
>
> In article <20050129121819.10663.00000379@mb-m29.aol.com> egghd@aol.com writes:
>
> > Mike, We discussed the mini phone jack issue. What is it about
> > the flash card memory you don't like?
>
> Ultimately, the cost. I'm perfectly content with 16-bit, 44.1 kHz
> recording for the applications I'd use such a recorder. I consider it
> to be a DAT replacement. It's been quite a while since I purchased DAT
> cassettes, but I just checked Cassette House to be sure they were
> still available, and sho'nuff, you can buy 2 hours worth of storage
> for about $3.
>
> Since I expect that it will be a quite a while yet before I can get a
> flash memory card for $3 that will store 2 hours of 16/44 audio (and
> when we can, it will be something other than the format used by the
> R1) I'd have to use it as a fixed media recorder, buying one or two of
> the largest capacity cards possible (adding a few hundred hidden bucks
> to the $500 cost of the recorder) then transfer data (on my own time)
> to a less expensive storage medium.
>
> The Jukebox 3 that I bought new for about $300 when it was a new
> product includes over 20 hours of fixed recording media, so it's
> considerably cheaper than a flash card recorder. For my use, the R4
> would be essentially the same as the Jukebox at considerably more
> cost, but mechanically more robust and with some features that I might
> use sometime. I can see recording 4 channels occasionally, but
> probably will never use its editing or signal processing features.
>
But if you can transfer everything to the computer at high speed,
what's the problem with that? Flash cards should last forever.

And in the same vein, has anyone ever seen a Sony ICD-BM1
digital voice recorder? "Professional quality sound and high-level
functionality ...". It might be a toy, but it's a toy I'd love to have.
http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/IN [...] =ICDBM1VTP

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

L David Matheny <ldmnews1@netassoc.net> wrote:
>But if you can transfer everything to the computer at high speed,
>what's the problem with that? Flash cards should last forever.

THEN where do we put it? I want to put it, quickly, on something that I
can put on the shelf and expect to be around soon.

And I am tired of formats that "should last forever." Too many of them have
already failed on me. I want a format that actually does last.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> L David Matheny <ldmnews1@netassoc.net> wrote:
>
>> But if you can transfer everything to the computer at high speed,
>> what's the problem with that? Flash cards should last forever.
>
>
> THEN where do we put it? I want to put it, quickly, on something that I
> can put on the shelf and expect to be around soon.

Define soon.




> I am tired of formats that "should last forever." Too many of them have
> already failed on me. I want a format that actually does last.

I'm afraid the short answer at this time for digital media is "It doesn't exist." Digital archiving is going to require a completely different approach than analog archiving did, and it's going to require both technology and human intervention--neither of which bodes well for the archived material making it through a dark age.

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

In article <ctivfg$2r$1@panix2.panix.com> kludge@panix.com writes:

> And I am tired of formats that "should last forever." Too many of them have
> already failed on me. I want a format that actually does last.

And as I keep saying (and one of these days someone other than you
will believe me), the media may have a landfill life of 500 years, but
the hardware and knowledge to play it tends to have a life of less
than 50 years, often as little as 5.

I have a camera that uses xD memory cards, and you see about one ad
for those for twenty of the CF or SD formats, and they're roughly
double the cost per megabyte than the other formats. I guess this one
isn't going to last forever. This week's Circuit City flyer lists a
256 MB xD card for $60 less $15 instant savings and $10 rebate,
closeout, no rain checks. So I guess I'd beter pick one up PDQ lest my
camera that will last forever won't be able to take pictures. And it's
barely a year old. And there are a lot more people taking photos with
digital cameras than are recording audio.




--
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

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

james of tucson wrote:
> On 2005-01-30, L David Matheny <ldmnews1@netassoc.net> wrote:
>
>
>> But if you can transfer everything to the computer at high speed,
>> what's the problem with that? Flash cards should last forever.
>
>
> Actually, they do have a finite duty cycle. It's long but not
> easily predictable

It's far longer now than it was even a decade ago.



> it's enough of a problem to keep flash memory devices
> out of critical aviation components.

Completely? Or just for heavy read/write applications? Flash is perfectly suited to tasks where writes are few (like OS or firmware updates) but still somewhat dicey for things like VM swapping.

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

"james of tucson" <fishbowl@radagast.home.conservatory.com> wrote in message
news:slrncvr3jf.qd2.fishbowl@radagast.home.conservatory.com...
> On 2005-01-30, L David Matheny <ldmnews1@netassoc.net> wrote:
>
> > But if you can transfer everything to the computer at high speed,
> > what's the problem with that? Flash cards should last forever.
>
> Actually, they do have a finite duty cycle. It's long but not easily
> predictable, and it's enough of a problem to keep flash memory
> devices out of critical aviation components.
>
That's interesting. Is the finite duty cycle due to the mechanical
wear and tear of normal usage, or is there some way that the actual
electronic components wear out over time. I put a 512MB CF card
in my Canon digital camera, and that lets it hold over 300 photos.
I have no reason to remove it ever. Will it still wear out?

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

In article <36kccnF539k8uU1@individual.net> ldmnews1@netassoc.net writes:

> > The problem is that you HAVE to do it, and you have to do it in a
> > timely manner.

> True, but isn't that a reasonable tradeoff for the increased reliability
> that should result from using an all-electronic device (vs mechanical)?

We can argue this forever, but I think not. It's not the media or the
equipment that costs, it's the time. If you can find someone who will
trade off money (to pay for the time) for increased reilability of
playback of something of questionable (or unpredictable) value, that's
fine. Otherwise a lot of recording engineers will be donating a lot of
time for the sake of "increased reliability." We already donate too
much media - clients expect disk space for their recording project to
be free since it's in the computer.

> So you need a capture device that lets you insert tract markers as you
> record?

No, because I don't really want to be bothered with that as I'm
recording. Funny how we want those things because they're available,
though. An analog tape deck doesn't have track markers, though I
always put a track sheet in the box with the time for each track, and
I can cue it up pretty close (exactly if there's leader spliced in) by
looking at the counter on the tape deck. But we've become accustomed
to CDs and direct access to tracks. The fact that you might have five
songs on a 10" reel of tape and 20 songs on a CD makes a difference,
too.

> And you don't really need the audio CD immediately, do you?

I might want to leave one behind for the client.

> Don't you trust the data CD? If not, you could read it before purging
> the hard drive copy of the file. And your next computer will be faster.

Either way, it's still a time sink.

> > If I had a DAT, I'd put it on the shelf

> That's probably what I would do with the data CD. And I'm asking
> all of the above because I assume you've thought this stuff through
> a lot more than I have. Thanks for your comments.

I have data CDs on the shelf, too, but as the size and shape of the
medium changes, the documentation to go along with it shrinks. With a
10" tape reel, or even a 7" reel, I can write just about all the
information about the contents on the box, or on a sheet of paper that
I put into the box. I used to buy those cases that hold two DATs (the
real one and the eventual backup, or rough and final mixes, or first
set and second set) primarily because they were large enough so you
could write the contents on the edge of the box and put a log sheet
inside. I have yet to come up with a satisfactory way of listing the
contents of a CD that's easy to read, and quick to make. I have to use
a computer. Fooey!


--
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

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

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <20050129121819.10663.00000379@mb-m29.aol.com>
egghd@aol.com writes:
>
> > Mike, We discussed the mini phone jack issue. What is it about the
flash card
> > memory you don't like?
>
> Ultimately, the cost. I'm perfectly content with 16-bit, 44.1 kHz
> recording for the applications I'd use such a recorder. I consider it
> to be a DAT replacement. It's been quite a while since I purchased
DAT
> cassettes, but I just checked Cassette House to be sure they were
> still available, and sho'nuff, you can buy 2 hours worth of storage
> for about $3.
>
> Since I expect that it will be a quite a while yet before I can get a
> flash memory card for $3 that will store 2 hours of 16/44 audio (and
> when we can, it will be something other than the format used by the
> R1) I'd have to use it as a fixed media recorder, buying one or two
of
> the largest capacity cards possible (adding a few hundred hidden
bucks
> to the $500 cost of the recorder) then transfer data (on my own time)
> to a less expensive storage medium.
>
> The Jukebox 3 that I bought new for about $300 when it was a new
> product includes over 20 hours of fixed recording media, so it's
> considerably cheaper than a flash card recorder. For my use, the R4
> would be essentially the same as the Jukebox at considerably more
> cost, but mechanically more robust and with some features that I
might
> use sometime. I can see recording 4 channels occasionally, but
> probably will never use its editing or signal processing features.
>
Exactly! Why even use CF as the intermediate? Why not just get the
much cheaper Neuros that already records directly to a compact integral
20-40-60-80 gig HD and is instantly recognized by any computer via USB
2.0?

---CB

>
>
>
> --
> 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