|
18 Jul 05 - 10:02 PM (#1523815) Subject: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: JudyB Hi! Has anyone actually used the relatively new Edirol R1 Portable Digital Recorder? Sounds interesting as an alternative to minidisc technology (which has lots of threads about the pros and cons), but it's harder to find any information from real users. We're looking for something that's portable and will let us record a song swap with decent enough quality to make out the words and tunes of the songs, and will let us record an individual singer in a quiet spot at high quality (though not CD quality - if we're going to record a CD for someone, they'll have to come to us!). We'd be expecting to use an external mic most of the time, though I am curious what the tiny built-in mic actually does. There seems to be more info (or maybe better promos) on the Marantz PMD660, but that's getting a little more pricy and really seems to be more machine than we need. If anyone's actually used either of them, I'd love to hear your experiences and thoughts. Thanks! JudyB |
|
18 Jul 05 - 10:30 PM (#1523828) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: Clinton Hammond As a 'real' MD user, what information do you find hard to find? |
|
19 Jul 05 - 09:41 AM (#1523902) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: JudyB Sorry - my sentence structure there was a bit shaky. What I was trying to say is that I hadn't seen any reviews/comments on the Edirol R1 from real users - only from reviewers who mostly had pre-production copies. There are lots of comments on MDs, and many people seem very fond of them. I guess my primary concern (and perhaps it's out of date) is that it sounds as if I can only get the music we record (of us and friends - I'm not trying to bootleg concerts!) into my computer by (a) sitting there twiddling my thumbs for hours while the MD plays into CoolEdit in realtime or (b) using a Sony transfer program called SonicStage which adds all sorts of copyright levels that (paranoid person that I am) I think might come back to haunt me someday. It's my understanding that with the Edirol or the Marantz, I can transfer the files using the same CompactFlash card reader I use for my camera (and in a pinch I could probably use one of the cards from the camera if we run low on memory while traveling). But I may be misunderstanding the process with the MDs - there's almost too much information out there, and it's not always clear what is out of date. Thanks, JudyB |
|
19 Jul 05 - 10:23 AM (#1523951) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: IvanB Judy, sorry I can't help you as regards the Edirol. It looks like a fine little machine and would almost certainly perform the function you want, albeit at a bit pricier level than MD. The main comment I wanted to make was regarding the copy protection scheme used by Sony for the MD system. If you use the optical input on a High-MD recorder, it won't let you upload optically to the computer, since the MD would be regarded as a copy of copyrighted material. This restriction wouldn't apply to your situation since you'd be recording in analog. For recordings made through the mic/line in, SonicStage allows one upload to a computer, then marks the file on the minidisc so it can't be uploaded to another computer. However, there's a Sony provided conversion utility to convert the uploaded file on your computer to wav format, at which point it's yours to do whatever you want with. Perhaps a bit more of a hassle than necessary, but it hasn't given me any grief so far. |
|
19 Jul 05 - 06:10 PM (#1524045) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: JudyB Thanks for the explanation, Ivan! I wasn't sure if the file had to stay in SonicStage format once it was on my computer or if I could pry the wav version out to edit or whatever. I did find a discussion on a cnet.com forum that provided some real-world reviews of the Edirol, and it's probably the way we'll go (if I can find one - most of the usual on-line places have it on backorder). But if that doesn't work, I now feel more comfortable going with MD. Thanks! |
|
19 Jul 05 - 06:32 PM (#1524061) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: GUEST,petr Ive been using an IriverFP790 mp3 player with an external Sony stereo mic. Ive only had it a few weeks after another musician recommended it, and have to say Im really pleased with the cost, quality of sound, and general performance. I never bothered getting a minidisc, mainly because you cant upload the digital version to your computer, Im sure the analog version is good quality. At the Fiddletunes festival in Port Townsend a couple of weeks ago, I saw a number of people using Irivers, and of course still a lot of people with md's but the one advantage is you dont have to bother with discs. You can record on to the Iriver, it has a USB port and as you transfer it to your computer it converts to mp3 format. My version is 512mb and I was able to save approx 8 1/2 hours at the highest quality (which was 44.1khz stereo, 128kbps) you can of course choose mono or lower quality and get more time, I did find that the 512mb version was almost enough for recording a lot of the sessions at the weeklong festival. Aside from the voice recorder, it has an FM tuner. ALthough it has a builtin mic, I got an sony stereo mic ($100 canadian) It has a builtin pre-amp so its not necessary to get a battery powered mic. And since it has no motor like the minidisc you can just plug the mic directly into the Iriver, without worrying about the noise from the motor. IT takes one AA battery which lasts about 25 hours. (since it has no motor it has a low signal to noise ratio) I dont know how it compares with the minidisc in quality, but Im impressed with the sound quality (of course at a session it will pickup extraneous noise). One fellow at fiddletunes had both minidisc and the iriver. I never saw him using the minidisc. Ive also used it to record from lp's using the line-in recording mode, (I know I can use the line-in mic from my computer but I cant be bothered lugging my computer downstairs close to my stereo). Depending on your budget the 256mb version is $100 Canadian the 512mb is $170 and the 1gig is $250 or so. & if you are going to be recording Id recommend the sony stereo mic. (I found the 512mb version almost enough for a weeklong festival, but in retrospect I would have gotten the 1gig version which would have been plenty.) |
|
10 Aug 05 - 04:43 PM (#1539696) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: JudyB Well, we went with the Edirol, and it's been working well for us. So far I've recorded a voice lesson in our living room, a song swap at a friend's house, and a set at a festival (with the permission of the performer - and with the recorder in my purse to avoid hassles) - and they all came out fine using the internal mics! I've been recording everything as reasonably high quality MP3 - my goal in all cases wasn't to have CD-quality material, but to be able to hear the words and the tune. It is a bit pricy ($421 US from FullCompass - which (to put it a mini-plug) usually has great prices, though you do have to call them to get the price), but I can copy a 30-minute set (47 MB as 192 kbps stereo MP3) to my hard drive in under a minute) and we don't need external mics (tho' we did get a pair to use if we couldn't get the recorder near the center of the music). And it does record WAV files if we wanted to do something at that level. (It's not what I'd use for serious recording - but that was never the goal; I have other stuff for that, and would rather have the victim - oops, I mean performer - come here where I have a handle on ambient noise.) The 1 GB card we got for it will record around 11 hours at the 192 kbps setting - which should be enough for all but the really dedicated song circles! If you have any specific questions, let me know. I can also post some snippets from our recordings if anyone is interested. Thanks, everyone, for your comments - I now do know a lot more about the alternatives than I did when I started the thread! JudyB |
|
10 Aug 05 - 04:50 PM (#1539708) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: George Seto - af221@chebucto.ns.ca Sounds great, Judy. Thanks for giving us the update and another choice! |
|
10 Aug 05 - 11:41 PM (#1539830) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: RWilhelm For inexpensive portable digital recording check out the Archos Gemini 120. It is like an Ipod, slightly larger, with a 20GB hard drive. It has a stereo line input and records directly to MP3. Coming from a mixing board it is almost impossible to get a bad recording. Using microphones you need a preamp, like a mini-disk recorder, and a little patience but worth the effort. And it sells for under $200 US. |
|
11 Aug 05 - 12:28 AM (#1539848) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: open mike i do have one of the marantz units.. which allows me to record directly onto full sized disc. there is a battery' pack which makes it portable and we have recorded jam sessions in camp far from the nearest electricity. it is sort of bulky and the battery does not go for very long...maybe a couple of hours. I have also recenty used a DAT recorder but the technology seems nearly extinct. the tapes are hard to find. but it fits in the palm of my hand and does 90-100 minutes. the sony does not have an internal speaker so in order to hear it you need ear phone or an extrernal speaker plugged in. (Sony) |
|
11 Aug 05 - 01:36 PM (#1540161) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: GUEST,Russ I've used a minidisc recorder now for about 5 years. The transfer to computer has never been an issue. I start the transfer and then work with the computer while it continues. I also start the transfer before going to bed and save the resulting WAV file in the morning. I will probably switch to a different technology in the future, but I'm waiting for the market to shake out. Advantates to minidiscs that haven't been mentioned: One can quickly insert a new blank minidisc into the recorder. No need to open up space on a full hard drive. Full disks can be archived or kept until it is convenient to transfer the contents to hard drive and then CD. I have learned that no matter how big the hard drive, you will fillit much quicker than you ever thought possible. |
|
11 Aug 05 - 03:58 PM (#1540340) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: GUEST,pattyClink Just want to put in a word for our new toy, got an Olympus DS-2 slightly used for $100. Love it. Set it for 'focus on one close voice' or 'catch the whole room'. Instant Record and Stop, no fumbling for 30 seconds when someone starts singing or playing. Creates tons of little files as you need them, then you upload them to the PC and clean them up and delete the clinkers, save the good ones as Wavs or MP3s. Avoids that whole issue of 'burning' a disc full of stuff you don't want. I think there are more sophisticated versions out there, but this one is very small and works! |
|
22 Oct 06 - 02:11 PM (#1865769) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: George Seto - af221@chebucto.ns.ca Update on Edirol. The end of Sept was my birthday, and I had just gotten a flyer from Musicstop. In it, there was mention of the Edirol, R-9. After review of the specs online, I picked one up as it was on sale. The discounted price was about 15% off so it was like i didn't have to pay the provincial tax. It uses 2 AA batteries, either alkaline or NiMH rechargables. It records in Wave or MP3 onto SD memory cards, same as my digital camera. On Wave 16 bit setting, using a 1G card, it can store about 1.5 hours. Or MP3, 192kbps, it'll save about 11.75 hours or down to 128kbps it's a whopping 17.5 hours, and if you drop all the way to 64kbps, it's 35.25 hours!!!!!! Whee!!! IT has a built-in microphone, but also you can plug in a stereo or mono microphone or straight line-in using 3.5 mini plug connections. It has a headphone jack on the side which doubles as an OPTICAL OUT!!!! Size is about 4" tall, 2.5" across and about 1.25" thick. It obviously fits into the palm of your hand easily. It's as easy to use as a cassette recorder, a 5 position square on the front, Up, Down, Left, Right, and IN. The IN is the Record function. However, the first in is for standby. It allows you to set the input levels. The display near the top is about 1.2" x 0.75" and gives you Elapsed time of recording, VU, Time of Day, Amount of Recording Time left available, and Title of the track. As well, there is a horizontal bar showing the amount of memory used so far. The recording indicator flashes red when in standby/pause, and goes to a steady red when actually recording, so you can tell if you're actually recording. The VU meter also has a red PEAK indicator just below the display. On the back there are 4 switches. Mic gain - High and Low, Mic Type - Mono or stereo, AGC - On or Off and Low Cut - On or Off. In the past 3 weeks, I've found it to be very handy and useful for field recordings. To power on or off, you have to hold the switch for a couple of seconds. There is a little mechanism which prevents you from spilling the batteries accidentally when taking out the SD memory card. The same space also holds a USB plug, one of the tiny ones. All in all, I would highly recommend this for anyone doing field recordings, or attending workshops. I haven't tried the USB functionality, but just popping out the SD card and then into the laptop to play with using Cool-Edit is SO easy and fast. Send me an e-mail if you have any specific questions |
|
22 Oct 06 - 04:07 PM (#1865851) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: eddie1 I use a Marantz PMD660 with external Beyer mike. It has all kinds of capabilities but I always copy into CoolEdit for editing so don't use them. Excellent recordings but the case is very sound sensitive. I understand the latest generation of minidisks allows copying direct into a pc through USB? Eddie |
|
22 Oct 06 - 05:16 PM (#1865902) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: Micca George, I have been using my Edirol R-9 for field recordings for a few months and it is TERRIFIC, The USB upload makes a complete LAUGHING STOCK of Sonys "pseudo" MD USB connectivity, I have uploaded 6 hours of MP3 recordings to my computer in 5 minutes!!! and editing the MP3s using a bog standard editor is simplicity itself, all in all I am very pleased with it and would reccommend it to anyone making field recordings |
|
22 Oct 06 - 05:29 PM (#1865910) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: johnadams After a short play with the Edirol recorder, courtesy of the Yorkshire Garland Song Project who had just purchased one, I was glad I'd decided to look a bit wider, mainly due to the build quality (thinking about the abuse that I put my recorders through - my Sony MD is bent and useless now, which is why I was looking for a new recorder). The Marantz is excellent but a bit big for recording in sessions which is one of the things I do regularly. I've used them on film shoots too but they don't easily hide from the camera if I want to use them close to the action. Eventually, I plumped for the M-Audio Microtrack 24/96 which has turned out to be an excellent all-round machine with just a couple of disadvantages. It has an internal battery which can last up to 8 hours before needing recharging but if you do run out of power there's no alternative but to recharge, during which time it's offline. Also, using it on a film shoot in Spain, I discovered that it stops working when the temperature gets into the 90s - not a problem that I'm going to worry about very often. There is a mini-jack mic input and a tiny t-bar mike to go in it and the quality is phenomenal for the size. There's also a couple of phantom powered balanced mic inputs which I use for posh work, but using the power drains the battery quite quickly. The recordings can range from mp3 128bit/sec giving 17+ hours mono recording on a 1Gb flash card to WAVs at 96K/24bit - super quality for 58 minutes mono. At little bigger than a pack of cigarettes and not much heavier, it's very easy to place it to record in a session, or hide it in an actor's pocket if I'm filming. All in all not a bad little machine but I shall check out some the others mentioned above. J |
|
22 Oct 06 - 05:31 PM (#1865915) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: IvanB My Sony Hi-MD recorder gave up the ghost about fifteen minutes after its warranty ran out, so I replaced it with the Edirol R-1. I wish I'd waited a few months, because the R-9 came out and I like its size better. That being said, the R-1's proved to be a great asset for recording workshops, singarounds and the like. And, as Micca said, the speed of transferring the files to a PC is far quicker than Hi-MD ever was and without the "copyright protection" bars and hoops of the Sony. |
|
22 Oct 06 - 05:54 PM (#1865934) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: George Seto - af221@chebucto.ns.ca I agree, Micca. IT is excellent. Thanks for the reviews of the other products. I opted out of several which were large and bulky with XLR inputs, as I don't really need all the fancy stuff. Simple is what I needed. With this R-9, the battery supply is cheap and simple. Even comes with an AC adapter which I haven't used yet. I looked at that Microtrack but I don't like batteries that I can't swap out in a few seconds. It's too often I need it and don't have charged batteries. At least with this, I can just pop into any drug store or just about any store for a few Alkaline batteries. |
|
22 Oct 06 - 08:45 PM (#1866086) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: bigchuck We recorded several gigs this past summer with the EDirol R-09 with excellent results. Battery life seemed abit short, however. Zoom just came out with its H4 recorder, which purports to do all that the Edirol does and considerably more, with 2 xlr jacks with phantom power, usb port, and included software, for about $100 bucks less ($299). I just bought one myself and will give a review as soon as I have some experience with it. Sandy |
|
22 Oct 06 - 09:44 PM (#1866117) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: JudyB Charley is still very happy with the Edirol R-1, and I used my new Edirol R-09 for the first time on our recent trip to the UK - the quick checks with earphones sounded great (they don't have a speakers - one of the trade-offs to keep them small), and I'll know more once I've transferred the files to the computer that's hooked to the stereo. Glad to hear they're working well for most of the folks who have tried them! JudyB |
|
22 Oct 06 - 10:50 PM (#1866150) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: JohnInKansas I haven't seen anyone mention the faddists' favorite iPod, and suspect it's not of much direct interest here, but a recent newsmail reports a "minor" problem that still is worth knowing about, for mini recorders in general. "So much for Apple's quality control. A recent batch of new iPods come complete with a nasty virus, preinstalled on the hard drive." (Ziff Davis newsmail) Details at: Small Number of Apple iPods Included Virus, PC Magazine 10.18.06. This report says that "only about 25 machines have been reported affected." They appear to refer only to US, and possibly Euro distribution; apparently ignoring prior reports that a "few thousand" infected machines recently were given out in Japan by MacDonalds, if I recall correctly in a promo co-sponsored by HP. Apple states: "As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it." (Note that Apple released a set of 12 patches to OSX within the past month that are literal carbon copies of some released for Windows over the past couple of years. The vulnerability used by the virus in this instance appears to utilize one of the "holes" included in the patch, but this is not confirmed.) Question: Why was Apple using a Windows computer to program their iPods? (The "cause" reported in the Japanese reports.) "The virus is fairly easily removed with a conventional virus scanner, Apple said. However, the iPod must be connected during the scan." (Note: Removal only works if your AV is reasonably up to date.) Apple intends to "take no action." The bottom line here though is that your recorder probably can't be infected via the making of audio recordings; but any time you connect to another persons computer to "share files" there is the risk that malware could be included with what you copy, and subsequently could infect your own machine the next time you connect. As that doesn't appear to be a use commonly anticipated here, consider this all just a side note. Please continue with main topic. John |
|
23 Oct 06 - 06:38 AM (#1866314) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: Grab I've been using an iRiver MP3 player for a while for recording. Main problem is a lack of metering - it's *very* easy to saturate its line-in. If you can find a widget with a VU meter and clipping indicator, that's worth its weight in gold. Also, if my experience is anything to go by then internal mics won't cut it for live recording. It's OK for practising with just you singing and an acoustic guitar, but anything amplified will overload the mic. You'll need proper mics and a mixer to make that work. As far as recording time goes, anything over 256MB should be fine. That'll get you several hours at a decent MP3 quality, which is usually plenty (unless you're planning on recording every minute of a week-long festival). Graham. |
|
23 Oct 06 - 06:39 AM (#1866316) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: GUEST,Shimrod Anyone know of a good, reliable source for these Edirol recorders in the UK? |
|
23 Oct 06 - 06:49 AM (#1866323) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: GUEST,padgett I have been using one for recording [Edirol R1] and found that the internal mike is pretty good (see also Yorkshire Garland) Can use batteries but probably best to use power supply/etc supplied to plug socket as this can drain quickly easy to use,portable no weight apparently being used by journalists similar to dictaphone but can download from Edirol to Hard drive as mp3 I have also had some success in burning from hard drive to CD using Focus software program Flash card 512MB from memory cost around £20 UK External mike /speakers may be needed too depending on what you want Ray |
|
23 Oct 06 - 07:41 AM (#1866335) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: treewind Another vote for the Edirol R-09 here. Interesting to compare with the M-Audio Microtrack: - batteries are replaceable AA, alkaline or rechargeable, and it'll run on a mains unit (supplied), so if the batteries go flat you can either pop in some more or run off the mains. The only restriction is that it won't charge the batteries when running on external power. - I haven't tried mine at 90 degrees! - the internal mics are very handy. I have yet to bother with plugging in an external mic. I'm sure if I used an external preamp with P48 and good condenser mics I'd get a studio quality recording limited only by the room acoustics. - similar range of recording quality from low rate MP3 to 24/48k (The R09 doesn't do 96k but that doesn't bother me) - similar very small size. - toss the included 64Mb flash card and get 1Gb, and get some high performance rechargeable batteries, and you've got a hell of a lot of recording time in your pocket. I believe the latest Sony HI-MD recorders have finally lifted the restrictions on access via USB, but the marketing damage is done. Direct USB storage device compatibility was high on my list of priorities when buying the R-09. No software required. Both Windows and Linux just see an external disk drive. I really liked MD in its time but flash memory and USB are winning the day now. Anahata |
|
23 Oct 06 - 08:08 AM (#1866353) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: Charley Noble I'm still quite happy with the "larger" R-1 which I've been using for this past year. It's flash cards are compatible with what I use in my Nikon SLR. "Larger" does not mean massive; it still fits conveniently in a shirt pocket while it's not so small that I might overlook it when I'm packing up. I find the quality of the recordings amazingly good, and the ease with which the flash card can transfer the recorded file to computer extremely convenient. Now I really should learn more about editing, instead of depending on JudyB to clean up after me! Cheerily, Charley Noble |
|
23 Oct 06 - 11:50 AM (#1866540) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: Midchuck The R-09 will take up to a 2 gig card. That gives you two hours of recording in WAV files, or a day or two in high-quality MP3s. And you can get as many cards as you want. Two of my vehicles have only cassette players. I'm thinking of recording all my favorite songs, off CDs or vinyl or tape, on one card as "192" MP#s, and using the Edirol as a car player. Peter. |
|
23 Oct 06 - 02:32 PM (#1866640) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: IvanB Another note about Edirol and memory cards. Don't know if it's true about the R-09 but the R-1, although the manual says it will take up to a 2Gb card, will actually take a 4Gb. The limitation is that there is a 2Gb limit on the size of any one file. Since it would take a long time to create a file of that size using any of the mp3 compression rates, I doubt this is a serious limitation except if one were recording in raw wav format. It would be interesting to know if the R-09 shares this attribute. One thing I like about the R-1 is the size of the controls, especially after fiddling with the small rocker switches on the MD recorder. How are the controls on the R-09 as to size and ease of use? |
|
23 Oct 06 - 05:08 PM (#1866721) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: Fidjit And the price ? Chas |
|
23 Oct 06 - 05:11 PM (#1866723) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: Micca For the Tech specs including pix of the button size and layout, (I think they are very close to actual size Look here |
|
23 Oct 06 - 05:12 PM (#1866727) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: Micca about £300 that is UKP |
|
23 Oct 06 - 06:46 PM (#1866788) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: JudyB about $400 in the US at Full Compass - other on-line retailers are probably similar. |
|
25 Oct 06 - 12:54 AM (#1867885) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: George Seto - af221@chebucto.ns.ca I've been able to use 1 set of fresh AA NiMH rechargables and recorded about 3 hours on them. The 1G card I've been using will record 1.5 hrs so the 2G should be close to 3. That's using the 16bit 44.1Khz WAV files. |
|
25 Oct 06 - 09:04 PM (#1868738) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: GUEST,UK Also worth looking at Zoom H4. Some nice features and specifications and good reports, I've not always been very Zoom pro but been very pleased with the results so far.more information |
|
08 Nov 06 - 09:54 AM (#1879080) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: GUEST What are the diferences between Edirol R-1 and Edirol R-09 apart from size please? thanks |
|
08 Nov 06 - 10:49 AM (#1879120) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: George Seto - af221@chebucto.ns.ca Hi Guest, the major ones are that the R-01 uses Compact Flash memory and has a lot of different effects, whereas the R-09 has SD Memory cards and only REVERB for effects. Hope that helps. |
|
08 Nov 06 - 11:20 AM (#1879156) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: treewind ...and price! A. |
|
08 Nov 06 - 11:47 AM (#1879174) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: nutty Looks too technical for me but then I love the simplicity of the Olympus. It's so easy to use and I recently recorded a full night of singing at my local club without needing to use the external mike . The pickup was amazing. Downloaded it all to the PC but have not yet deleted the evening. I'll can just plug in my external speakers and listen to it all again - just like an MP3 player. Bought it (Olympus VN-960PC) in Argos reduced to £59.99 Anyone interested ... SEE HERE |
|
08 Nov 06 - 12:09 PM (#1879189) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: GUEST,Shimrod Yes, I've got an Olympus DM-20 which I use with a small, external Sony mic. It seems to work fine for recording stuff like unaccompanied singing - and you can transfer files, via USB cable, to your PC and make CDs from them. Nevertheless, the quality could be a bit better (I don't think you'd want to record a full orchestra on one!) - but then these Olympus devices are only intended to be voice (ie. speech) recorders after all. It's a bit like a cheaper compact digital camera compared to a digital SLR. Having said that, though, I believe that there is a device coming out at the end of this month (can't remember the name - 'Boost' or something??) which gives much better quality than the Olympus and is actually cheaper. My local music shop is going to let me know when they arrive. |
|
08 Nov 06 - 02:02 PM (#1879313) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: GUEST "Hi Guest, the major ones are that the R-01 uses Compact Flash memory and has a lot of different effects, whereas the R-09 has SD Memory cards and only REVERB for effects. Hope that helps." Thanks for that, are there any other differences I need to know about will will help me decide which to purchase? Thanks |
|
08 Nov 06 - 07:50 PM (#1879665) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: IvanB Following is the effect list for the R-1: Easy EQ - Sets equalization by presets for Flat (no effect), Pop, Rock, Dance, etc. For Speech - Clarifies a recorded speaking voice and reduces sibilance. Voice Perform - Transforms a voice by altering the pitch. To me, a "toy" effect, essentially. 10 band EQ - 10 band Equalizer Noise Reducer - Reduces hissing or rushing background noise. Hum Noise Cut - Self-explanatory. Reverb - Probably self-explanatory. Int-Mic Rec - Modifies the sound recorded by the internal mic to simulate larger and/or famous studio recording mics. Ext-Mic Rec - Same as above for an external mic. Mastering - Processes sound to give more definition and more consistent volume. Center Cancel - Cancels sounds located at the center of a stereo recording. Tuner - Pitch generator for tuning. Metronome - Self-explanatory. If used during recording, neither the sound of the tuner nor the metronome are recorded. I've heard the sound quality is slightly better on the R-1, although I suspect this may be only marginal or even a subjective call. Otherwise, unless you feel you need one or more of the above effects when recording, the R-09 is probably the better choice due to its handy size. If I hadn't bought the R-1 before the R-09 was announced I'd have probably bought the R-09, since my planned use is for recording workshops, singarounds etc., mainly for new material. I'm unaware of any other major differences between the two machines. Hope this info is helpful to you. |
|
09 Nov 06 - 03:39 AM (#1879957) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: GUEST Many thanks IvanB Extremely helpful, I think I will go for the R-09. |
|
09 Nov 06 - 04:01 AM (#1879967) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: Scrump What are the benefits of having the effects (Reverb, etc.) on the recording device itself? I'm assuming you could take the raw recording and download it to a PC and process it there using suitable software (e.g. to add reverb, reduce noise etc.). Can someone explain why you would want the effects on the recording device? |
|
09 Nov 06 - 04:48 AM (#1879987) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: GUEST Because you can play back via earphones or external speakers which may be an option you require. |
|
09 Nov 06 - 10:27 AM (#1880186) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: IvanB Scrump, I agree with you about the use of the effects when recording. I've never used any of them on my R-1, preferring to have a flat recording which I can play with on my PC, with more control of the outcome and ability to undo any undesirable changes. OTOH, I hadn't paid a lot of attention to the effects available until I got out the manual to do the above post. I recorded a few workshops this summer where I couldn't get an ideal placement of my mic, resulting in a wide variation of volume. I might try the mastering effect when I'm in that type of situation again, just to see if it provides a better recording. For the stuff I'm recording, sound quality isn't paramount, I just want to be able to get lyrics and tunes from any new material I want to gather. |
|
09 Nov 06 - 12:07 PM (#1880282) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: GUEST The Reverb on the R09 are available only on the playback if you are the kind of person that finds the recording of "reality" bland and uninteresting, I used my R09 extensively at this years Getaway and the unedited recordings sound really good. Mostly I just put the recorder on the table or other flat surface in the vicinity and let it run, where it is too quiet for comfort I may need to Normalize after I download to my editing software, but so far it is excellent. |
|
09 Nov 06 - 12:09 PM (#1880285) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: GUEST,Micca in exile the above was me |
|
09 Nov 06 - 01:29 PM (#1880368) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: GUEST What kinds of software are you guys useing to edit your recordings from the Edirols please? |
|
09 Nov 06 - 06:26 PM (#1880650) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: GUEST I use Adobe Audition (the succesor to Cool Edit), however, since I'm really intersted in harvesting tunes and lyrics, I mainly do a bit of normalizing where necessary. |
|
09 Nov 06 - 11:53 PM (#1880904) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: George Seto - af221@chebucto.ns.ca I use Audacity or Cool Edit. Either works great. |
|
13 Nov 06 - 09:44 AM (#1884649) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: George Seto - af221@chebucto.ns.ca Some tutorials for Audacity: Audacity Tutorial 1
|
|
19 Nov 06 - 03:11 PM (#1888420) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: GUEST,Steve First time dig rec and leaning toward Edirol R-9 for interviews and 17 piece big bands (trombone player). I read someone had problems with R-9 and audacity. Anyone know of any? If so, workarounds? Is there a legal way to get Cook Edit to work since Adobe took it over? |
|
19 Nov 06 - 06:56 PM (#1888565) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: George Seto - af221@chebucto.ns.ca I haven't had any problems with using Audacity for the files created by the R09. Can you elaborate on these problems? You might fine an old copy of Cool Edit '99 to d/l but for the most part, Audacity will do the same stuff, with a re-learning curve because of the different interface. I don't do anything extensive, just edit the large files into small chunks and some normalizing or de-amplifying. |
|
22 Nov 06 - 10:47 PM (#1891365) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: Don Firth I would like to get knowledgeable opinions on some specifics, but since this general subject has already been discussed in about eleventy-fourteen threads, I thought I'd piggy-back on this one rather than risk general wrath by starting yet another one. I've made a lot of tapes—practice tapes and informal tapes from song fests and such, most made on a small, portable cassette recorder—but I've never done a genuine "buy it at your local record store" record. I had a close brush or two with eastern record companies back in the early Sixties, but nothing ever came of it, and although there were a couple of record companies in the Puget Sound area, they were focused on local soft rock cum doo-wop groups (e.g., The Fleetwoods—no relation to Fleetwood Mac). Not only were they not interested in the local folk scene, they were downright hostile to it. So no joy there. In Dave Van Ronk's memoir, The Mayor of MacDougal Street, he phrases it very neatly: "In vinyl veritas." Having a record out gives a singer a certain legitimacy. Among other things, it makes getting gigs a whole lot easier. Not that I'm seeking gigs. I consider myself essentially retired, and am open only to informal song fests, occasional folk festivals, and a house concert now and then. Although I know two or three people locally with some pretty good home recording equipment who would, I'm pretty sure, be willing to work with me on cobbling together a CD or two (one person has already put out a few quite good CDs of local folks), I would actually prefer to do it on my own time and in my own way—on my own equipment. "Now, here's my plan. . . ." —Shel Silverstein What I have in mind is to record, over a period of time, just about every song I know and, also over time, put out as many CDs as I have in me. An ongoing project. I would like to get my own recording equipment and set up my own studio. Of necessity, I would have to do it on the cheap. But with digital recording these days, I understand that one can get pretty good quality sound at not too steep a cost. I have just become acquainted with the Marantz PMD660. A friend has one. It's about the size of my old portable Panasonic cassette recorder, but it records on solid-state CompactFlash cards—like a digital camera—and you can download what you've recorded to a computer with a USB cord, just like a digital camera. The sound quality I heard coming back through the earphones was most impressive. And my friend has burned a few CDs from things he's recorded on it (using a Shure external mic) that sound very good to my ear. The Marantz lists for $649, but lots of places sell them for $499. I'd wince a bit, but if it will do the job, I could go that. I've read a few reviews that have bad-mouthed it, but a thorough reading shows that those who didn't like it were relying on the in-built mics, which are okay, but hardly up to commercial quality for music. For good quality stuff, one really needs an external mic. I've done some research on mics, and the consensus seems to be that large diaphragm condenser mics are generally preferred for voice and acoustical instruments. Since I will be recording just my voice and my acoustic guitar—no tubas, drums, Swiss bells, cannon shots, etc.—that sounds like the route to go. Dynamic mics, such as the Shure SM58, are perhaps more durable under hard use (like live performance, getting accidentally whacked with a drumstick, etc.), but since I would be using the condenser mic at home, that shouldn't be a problem. The SM58 is a very good mic, but from what I've read, condenser mics are generally preferred by record studios for vocals. And acoustic guitars. Condenser mics can get pretty pricy, but gleaning info on good, relatively inexpensive condenser mics came up with the several possibilities. ADK, Behringer, Audio Technica, and Studio Projects all have large diaphragm condenser mics available for between $90 and $150, and although the caveat is always "you get what you pay for (usually)," the reviews on these look pretty good. Also, would I need two mics, one for voice and one for the guitar (preferable, I know), or would one mic actually suffice? Rather than spending $500 on one of the big-name music editing programs, I note that there are a several available for download for from $35 to $50, including one (Audacity) that's free. The downloadable ones seem to have all or most of the features of the big-ticket ones, but here I know I'm in over my head. I'm not looking to make a wad of money (although if one or more of them went platinum, I wouldn't burst into tears), I just want to get the songs down and get them out there, just in case someone might want to give them a listen. Actually, if I just broke even, I'd be tickled pink. Nor, for that matter, am I particularly interested in doing a lot of multiple dubs (singing harmony with myself or adding a second guitar track—although that could be kind of a snort), just voice and guitar. So I figure the Marantz PMD660, a good but relatively inexpensive condenser mic, and one of the downloadable music editing programs, and I'm set to record my stuff, then burn a master CD. I would then seek help from that point on, but I think I know who to talk to about that. Does this sound like a plan? Or am I cruising through dreamland? Opinions? Suggestions? Don Firth |
|
23 Nov 06 - 04:41 AM (#1891480) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: The Fooles Troupe You're going to need a PC to do some of teh shuffling around. What have you got - Widows or Linux? |
|
23 Nov 06 - 01:37 PM (#1891886) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: Don Firth CPU Athlon 64 with 1 GB RAM, 80 GB hard drive, CD/DVD player/burner. Windows XP Don Firth |
|
23 Nov 06 - 09:08 PM (#1892174) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: JudyB First question - can you balance your voice and guitar to get a mix you like by singing (or playing) louder or softer? When I record Charley with his banjo, I usually want the vocal mic a bit louder than the instrument mic. Moving the mics nearer or farther will do that a little, but also affect tonal quality. As long as you're only recording two tracks, you can probably achieve some control by recording one on the left channel and the other on the right, and then mixing them in your editing program - I think that should let you change the relative volumes of the two tracks before you merge them (though I've never tried Audacity). You probably could record with one mic as long as it had a nice wide pattern - but you'd have no way to change the relative volume later, and the mic would have to be far enough away that your voice and guitar sort of converge on it - which is beyond the range of accurate reproduction for some mics. One possible concern - how good were the earphones you were using when you listened to the sound of the Marantz? Can your friend record you and burn it to CD so you can listen to it on your stereo and on the best speakers you can find and see if you still like how it sounds? Possibly more importantly (if you're not really used to hearing yourself on CD) - can your friend record some other singer/guitarist whose general style and vocal range is similar to yours while you are listening to him live, then make a CD of what he recorded so you can compare that to what you heard. (Not asking much, am I?) Actually, it might work if he recorded something playing on his stereo, as long as you heard both the original and what the recorder produced - the issue is how accurate the recorder is (and, I guess, if any inaccuracies are flattering or annoying, though I prefer adding effects afterwards, not while recording). We started with decent stage mics, a computer with a decent sound card, and a small mixer to go between the mics and the computer. The mixer and the sound card probably came out to about what you'd pay for the Marantz; we already had the mics. First upgrade was to a studio-type condenser mic for vocals - and once I heard how good it made the banjo sound, I got a second one for that. If there's a chance you can try some of the mics you're interested in before buying, that's a great benefit. They all sound different, and which one is "better" is a very subjective thing. Some music equipment places rent as well as sell, and might let you deduct some of the rental fee if you subsequently bought a mic from them - the danger being that rental mics may have been used fairly hard, and I don't know what the demand for rental of studio-type mics is. Do you know what mics the people you know with home studios have? If any are on your "possible" list, would they let you try them? Best thing (assuming you go with the Marantz) would be to have them record to that, so you could see how the two work together. We've been recording for a couple of years now, and it's challenging - and I love it! Good luck with it, and let me know if you have any questions I might be able to answer. All the best, JudyB |
|
24 Nov 06 - 12:45 PM (#1892568) Subject: RE: Tech: Edirol Portable Digital Recorder From: Don Firth Thanks a million, JudyB! All good stuff. You've given me a great deal to think about. And try. I'll report back. Don Firth |