Podcast
Features
Comments
Intro from Jay Allison
Jeff Towne writes, “Anyone lugging gear around to interviews or events is always hoping for a device that’s small, sounds good and will run for long periods on batteries. It wasn’t too terribly hard to find a recorder that was two of those things, but all three has been elusive. As data storage gets faster, smaller and cheaper, those goals start seeming more achievable. But do any existing recorders actually include all of those attributes? How about inexpensive, durable, and easy-to-use?”
This week, Transom adds more reviews of portable digital recorders. Check out the Edirol R09 now, and come back in a few days for the Zoom H4, along with a comparison chart for all the recorders Jeff has tested.
From Jeff Towne
Anyone lugging gear around to interviews or events is always hoping for a
device that’s small, sounds good and will run for long periods on
batteries. It wasn’t too terribly hard to find a recorder that was two
of those things, but all three has been elusive. As data storage gets
faster, smaller and cheaper, those goals start seeming more achievable.
But do any existing recorders actually include all of those attributes?
How about inexpensive, durable, and easy-to-use?
The Edirol R-09 hits many of the targets: it’s tiny,
extremely easy to use, boasts long battery life and in many situations
sounds quite good. Unfortunately it comes up a little short on
sound quality, and lacks a few professional-level qualities that would
make it the ideal machine.
The good news
The R09 is the smallest of any of the currently
available flash-memory recorders, yet the controls are logically laid
out, and the display is easily readable and gives adequate information
despite its compact size. The best thing is that very few
controls are buried in menus, there are hardware switches and buttons
for most everything one most commonly accesses.
The machine turns on and is ready to go within
seconds (I clocked it at about 5) about the same as the Zoom H4, but
significantly faster than the M-Audio Microtrack, the Tascam HDP2 or
the Sound Devices 722. Once it’s powered-up, one press of the record
button puts the machine in record-ready, another press and you’re
rolling.
Microphone
input gain (volume) is adjusted by up or down buttons on the left side
of the unit next to the power button. Black-on-black might not be
the ideal design, but pressing the plus or minus button brings up an
input level display, so one gets immediate feedback about whether one
is hitting the right control.
The right side of the recorder has a headphone output
(which also doubles as an optical digital output, if one needs that for
some reason.) Headphone volume is controlled by increment/decrement
buttons just like the input levels, The headphone amp is a little
underpowered and doesn’t provide a lot of level even to sensitive
headphones like the standard Sony MDR-7506. This is frustratingly
common among most recorders like this, but survivable…
The
back of the recorder has hardware switches for Automatic Gain Control
(AGC), external microphone type, microphone gain (low or high) and a
low cut filter. It’s much better to have immediate access to
fixed controls for such things than to have to page through virtual
menus to make adjustments.
The
unit defaults to recording from the built-in microphones, but
automatically switches to an external mic if one is plugged into the
mini jack on the top of the recorder, or can take a line-level signal
on a separate stereo mini jack. No hardware or menu adjustments need to
be made to use external mics, just plug them in. The only mic input is
a mini jack, so this recorder cannot provide phantom power to
professional condenser mics. The unit can send “plug-in power” to
certain small electret mics. This low-level power can be turned on by
changing a menu setting.
Edirol has wisely made recording easy to start, and
hard to interfere with accidentally. If one tries to turn the power off
or press the menu button during recording, one merely gets an alert
that you are “now recording” and nothing changes. From stop,
pressing the record button once puts the machine into record-ready, and
a vivid red indicator light blinks obviously. Pressing record again
changes the record indicator to a solid red light. This may be
the best record confirmation of any of the machines. One stops the
recording by pressing the stop indicator on the four-way switch that
surrounds the record button. Play, pause, and skip forward and
backward are achieved with that same very logical control.
The
display and record indicator are easy to read even in the dark,
impressive given that the batteries last as long as they do even with
the display fairly bright. One can adjust the length of time before the
display dims, but it’s still fairly readable even at the dimmed level.
One counter-intuitive thing is that turning the display timer to “off”
means it never dims, rather than the display never being bright.
One click of the finder/menu button displays a list
of recorded files, which can be navigated and reviewed using that
four-way switch to scroll through options and clicking the record
button to select. Pressing and holding that finder/button brings up a
menu that allows making changes to basic recorder settings, such as
sample rates (44.1khz or 48khz) or recording mode (16 or 24-bt wav, or
several rates of MP3.) One can also reformat the memory card, set
the date and time (which is stamped on the soundfiles) and other
functions.
When navigating menus, the record button is used to
select items like an “enter” key would, and will not put the machine in
record until one exits the menu by pressing the menu button
again. This is pretty easy to get used to, and most functions can
be found without consulting the manual.
Transferring files to a computer is easily done by
simply connecting the USB cable to the jack hidden beneath the hatch
that covers the memory card and battery slots on the bottom of the
unit. Better yet is to remove the memory card and use an external
memory card reader, they’re inexpensive and transfer is faster.
The Edirol R-09 is powered by two double-A batteries,
and battery life is impressive. Brand-new Duracell Alkalines lasted
well over 6 hours in my tests. One will need to stop to replace
memory cards before having to replace the batteries. One can use
rechargeable batteries, but be sure to go to the power-management menu
and set the unit to either alkaline or NiMH as appropriate.
Audio
data is recorded to SD cards, the small, thin flash-memory chips that
are commonly used in digital cameras. These memory cards are
getting larger and more affordable all the time. It’s worth
noting that at this time the Edirol R-09 has a 2-gigabyte file-size
limit, and appears to only work with cards up to that size.
The built-in mics sound remarkably good, and are
especially well-suited to picking up stereo ambiences and music. It’s a
little unergonomic to get the recorder in the same position one would
hold a microphone, so the built-in mics are not ideal for interviews,
but the mics actually sound pretty good, so this can be used as a very
simple run-and-gun recorder, capable of being up and going in 5 seconds
with no wires to plug-in. One needs to be careful to avoid wind,
P-pops and other breath noises, but otherwise, the built-in mics do a
decent job.
An external mic is still better for doing interviews
and cables that adapt the XLR output of professional mics to a mini
plug have long been used with minidisk recorders, small DAT machines
and video cameras, and generally work well if one buys a good-quality
cable.
The bad news
The Edirol R-09 is hissy. The promotional
materials claim one can, “Capture source material at a crystal-clean
24-bit resolution with your choice of 44.1 or 48kHz sample rates.” But
the reality is that “crystal-clean” is a rather unrealistically
flattering description of the sound quality. There’s a rather apparent
hiss when recording with most microphones, exacerbated by the fact that
it’s hard to get much level recorded if one is doing a typical
interview at normal speaking levels with the dynamic omni mics so often
favored by reporters. Those low levels can be boosted later in the
production process, but the hiss gets boosted along with it. 24-but
recording seems a bit futile on this machine, the low-level details so
beautifully preserved by 24-bit files are likely to be awash in a sea
of hiss.
In many applications the hiss is not an issue. When
recording loud events, or even average ambiences, one doesn’t notice it
at all. But when doing an interview in a quiet space, it becomes
impossible to ignore. This is partially due to the quality of
components used in making small inexpensive devices like this, and
partly due to the orientation of most of these consumer-oriented
devices toward recording loud sources, such as live amplified music.
Regardless of the hiss, it’s difficult to get healthy levels recorded
when doing a basic conversational interview, even with the mic
sensitivity set to high. In the end it’s a personal decision, but many
users will find the level of hiss to be unacceptable.
Sound samples
- Listen: internal microphones (mp3)
- Listen: dynamic omni microphone (mp3)
- Listen: condenser shotgun microphone (mp3)
- Listen: wind sensitivity (mp3)
- Listen: city street ambience (mp3)
- Listen: environmental recording (first half Zoom H4, second half Edirol R09) (mp3)
As with most recorders, the Automatic Gain Control is
disappointing. It may be helpful when recording rock concerts or
parades, but when recording spoken voices, it’s hard to get peaks
any higher than –14dBfs when AGC is engaged. Setting levels
manually, our tests showed peaks no higher than –10dBfs when
using a dynamic omni mic. (Ideally one would like to see peaks close to 0dBfs, but not hitting zero or creating distortion by going over that level.)
Much better results were obtained with a high-output
condenser microphone. Remember, this recorder cannot provide phantom
power to condenser mics, so if the mic requires phantom power, it must
have an internal battery in order to use it with the R-09. A Rode NTG-2
short shotgun mic provided enough level that the inputs could be
turned-down enough that the hiss became much less apparent. It was
still there, but not as obvious.
The Edirol lacks one record function that field
recordists like: the ability to make new tracks without stopping
recording. The Sound Devices and Marantz recorders allow a new track to
be marked without interrupting the recording flow.
And the Edirol ONLY records in stereo, there is no
single-track mode that can double the amount of time one can store on
any given memory card. On the up-side, monitoring is always to both
channels of the headphones, even when using a single mono microphone,
but one will need additional memory cards to do long recordings. SD
cards are dropping in price, but it’s still a significant expense to
consider when totaling the price of your recording set-up.
The
biggest concern is one of construction: like most of the affordable,
small recorders, it’s plastic and therefore unlikely to do well if
dropped. More worrying is the design of the door that opens to reveal
the battery and memory card compartments. It feels especially flimsy,
with an odd latch-slide system that seems bound to get mis-aligned or
broken. I suspect we’ll see a lot of these with duct tape on them in a
couple of years!
In summary, the size and ease of use of this recorder
makes it a strong contender. The level of hiss is going to be a problem
for some users, and not at all for others. Those doing recordings of
relatively quiet sounds, such as interviews, in quiet locations, will
certainly notice it especially if those recordings will be heard in the
clear. But almost any ambient recording, whether of music or of
environmental sound, has enough random background noise to mask this
problem. Those recording very quiet sounds, such as nature recordists,
are sure to be bothered by the noise floor, and with the wind
sensitivity of the built-in mics. Using external preamps with this
recorder’s line-in jacks reduces the problem, but using external boxes
defeats the point of this small, inexpensive device.
Podcasters who are not as concerned with pristine
sound, oral historians, concert recordists, anyone recording in loud
environments, and others looking for an easy-to-use, decent-sounding
machine will likely be thrilled with the Edirol R-09. Even those
requiring cleaner sound might be well-served to toss one of these in
the bag as a back-up. The long record times on easily-found replaceable
batteries make this an excellent tool for those out in the field for
extended periods, although the lack of a single-track mono record mode
dims that excitement a bit. The dead-easy operation and bright red
record indicator make it a good choice for novice recordists. But those
looking for sonic clarity might be disappointed in this unit’s noise
floor in some circumstances.
Transom digital recorder comparison chart
Jeff’s review states that the largest useable card is 2GB. But the most recent firmware update (v1.20) for the R09 allows full use of 4GB cards, and with some limitations will also work with newly available 8GB cards. I’m now using a 4GB card in my R09. It can automatically close recordings at a specified size and continue recording to a new file without losing any data.
Note: anything larger than 2GB has to be the new SDHC "high capacity" SD cards. Caveat: there are 4GB SD cards out there on the market which are NOT SDHC, and which will not only not work with the R09, but may corrupt your computer when you try to format or use them!
Note also: if you get an SDHC card, be sure to also get an SDHC USB card reader for fast reliable transfers. A non-SDHC reader won’t work with SDHC cards. Some manufacturers are bundling SDHC readers with their SDHC cards for almost no additional cost.
Final caveat: a number of R09 users on other listservs are reporting breaking their minijack mike input jacks. Sounds like the circuit board connection of the R09′s mini jacks may be even more tenuous than the old mini disc recorders. Be sure to use right angle mini plugs or adapters to lessen the stress on the jacks if you use an external mike.
Overall, very good on-the-mark review, Jeff!
–Flawn
I’ve been researching for my first equipment purchase, and I think the PMD660 is the way to go over the R-09 and the Zoom.
The thing is, I’ve heard that dynamic mics don’t work well with the 660.
I’m looking at a few handheld mics, some of them dynamic and some condensers: the Electrovoice RE50 or 635A, the Shure SM63, the Heil PR20, and the MCE58 (though really too expensive).
Thoughts about which would best work with the 660 are more than welcome.
The M-Audio Aries is inexpensive and sounds nice with the 660.
Here’s an idea: could Jeff Towne partner with a manufacturer to develop the ultimate radio producer’s recorder. Like a pro-athlete developing a signature shoe, Jeff could work with the manufacturer to find the perfect balance between performance, durability, size and price.
I’m serious.
What do you say Jeff?
Flawn, thanks for the update on using larger SD cards, especially the tip on making use they’re SDHC! The non-standard-ness of SDHC makes me wary, but I’m glad to hear that they’re working well for you in an R-09.
The off-the shelf version that I’m using has a file size limit of 2 gigs. Does one have the option to record larger files, or as you mention, does it just close the file at 2 gigs and start a new one?
And Flawn, do you have any advice on optimizing the sound quality of this unit? I love the way it operates, but was not thrilled by how it sounds…
Hey Kerry, great idea… now if we can just find the manufacturer crazy enough to do it! I had been thinking that it might be impossible to get the good input quality that I want in something small and portable, but Sound Devices has proved that it can be done if you throw enough money at it! Even the Tascam HDP2 has pretty clean preamps and delivers noticibly better sound than the little guys. (yes a review is in the works…)
What’s surprising to me is that these little flash recorders all seem to be noisier than my little Sony Minidisc. The Sharp minidisc recorders always seemed too hissy to me, but the Sony models that I’ve used were surprisingly good for being so small, inexpensive, and running on very little power, often a single double-A. They weren’t perfect, but cleaner than the Edirol or the Zoom. And with more input gain too…
What I’d really like is something with a good pre-amp, like a Mackie-level mic preamp, not exotic or expensive, just good and clean and cheap enough. (If Mackie can stick 16 of them in a mixer for about a thousand dollars, one could get two of them in a recorder for not all that much money…)
Then, good metering, simple operation, hardware switches for most everything. I’d actually like FEWER options. Memory cards are getting large and cheap, so don’t bother with compressed recording, just give me .wav files. If the mic preamps can actually be clean enough to give me relevant signals down there, I’d like 24-bit recording.
Let me record single track soundfiles, and let me easily monitor one mic in both ears. Give me a knob for input gain.
I’m surprised to discover how much I like the built-in mics on the R-09 and the Zoom, heck I even like the little T-mic than comes with the Microtrack, so build-in a couple of decent mics for those times I just need to record something fast. If Zoom can fit XLRs in a box that small, I want XLRs too.
But that’s it, I don’t want a device that slices, dices and makes julienne fries, I just want a box that can record good clean wav files.
Manufacturers are welcome to contact me!! (Don’t hold your breath Kerry!)
Kerry: "could Jeff Towne partner with a manufacturer to develop the ultimate radio producer’s recorder. Like a pro-athlete developing a signature shoe, Jeff could work with the manufacturer to find the perfect balance between performance, durability, size and price."
Jeff: "now if we can just find the manufacturer crazy enough to do it!"
Hey, go talk to Marantz. After the PMD670 came out I exchanged e-mails with someone at Marantz about developing a smaller unit. He was very interested in my input. I suspect he already had the idea for a smaller unit so I have no idea how much my input may have had on the development of the PMD660. If nothing else, user input helped sell the idea to the decision-makers in the company. If you are interested I can pass on the name of the person I talked to and his contact info, assuming he’s still at Marantz.
I think one issue will be that it doesn’t really make sense to pitch a cheaper recorder at a very specialized market. I think they are really looking for a nice compromise that they can sell a lot of units to a broad sections of users: churches, linguists, schools, government agencies, businesses, journalists, radio stations, etc. Part of my pitch at the time was that they needed a cheaper, smaller unit that used flash memory so they could suck up all the people who were using minidisc.
Flawn, what mic/machine combo is NPR sending out with reporters now?
Someday we will have a no-wires one-hand device, but this isn’t it. "Overwhelming hiss" should be the lead.
BTW – I’ve been using a PMD 660 for 6 months with both condenser and dynamic mics. The sound quality from both sound good to me. At least it’s about a thousand times better than the R-09
-Nathanael
I manage the technical side of things at StoryCorps and am always looking for an affordable portable recorder that is reliable, easy to use and sounds great. Most directly, we use field recorders for our StoryKits, which are DIY recording packages mailed to participants’ homes, and our Door to Door program, where we send a team to do a day of interviews with a community group or organization. For Door to Doors, where our staff will be operating the equipment, we use the Sound Devices 722, which is complicated, expensive and totally wonderful. StoryKits present the challenge of putting together a rig that someone with little or no audio recording experience can use by following a step-by-step guide and still get good results.
We’ve used a couple of R09s in StoryKits but have not been happy with them. In addition to the hissy mic inputs, we’ve noticed a latency in monitoring recordings, which makes it hard to evaluate the quality of the sound you’re getting. Even more troubling, we’ve had occasional problems with file corruption, which makes me question the reliability of SD cards as media for audio recording. We’ve had to send our R09s back to Edirol for repairs multiple times — very flimsy construction and in some cases, just plain bad design. The tech support people there are very nice and seem to have a "here we go again" attitude about problems with the the R09. From the standpoint of usability, some participants have complained that the tiny display is difficult to read and that the mechanism for changing cards is hard to figure-out.
Our workhorse for the StoryKit program has become the PMD660 with the Oade Brothers’ modified preamps. It is sturdier, sounds better and has proven to be more user friendly than the R09. We found the stock units to be a bit too noisy and prone to sudden spikes in levels. The Oade 660 has been a good performer but it would still be nice to find something a little cheaper that works well off the shelf.
Like everyone else reading this board, we dream of a basic high quality recorder hitting the market — not a lot of bells and whistles (who really wants reverb on playback?), just solid construction and good sound. We would buy them by the bushel! I’ve heard rumors about the MIT Media Lab (that did the $100 computer) putting something together for a community-based oral history NGO but no details or any substantiation.
Is anyone still using minidiscs? I have one of the early ones that worked really well and got good sound. Sadly I badly dented the lid and must squeeze it to keep it shut. I’d like to replace it so I can play my old MDs but don’t use it enough to spend a lot on a new machine. The MD’s on Transom’s Tools page are no longer available. Anyone have any advice?
Much appreciated.
I have mostly used a Marantz PMD670, which I like a lot. I use it to record research interviews for transcription so my requirements in a recorder may be less demanding than others here. Anyway, I often get to recommend gear to others doing similar work in our company. People tend to think the Marantz units are too expensive (although compared to cost of transcription they are cheap). I’m been recommending they try the little Olympus voice recorders. These type of devices were anything but high quality a few years ago but each year Olympus comes out with ever-better models. For the price they are great value.
Check out the new DS-50. It records in the WMA format and has 1GB of memory. Highest quality record mode is stereo, samples at 44.1 KHz and is claimed to have a frequency response of 50-19000Hz. The 1GB memory is good for 17 hours 30 mins in this mode so I calculate it must be generating 128kbps WMA files. It runs on two AAAs that last around 20hrs when recording in the highest quality mode. Cost is about $220 if you look around. Cheaper models of the same recorder with less memory go for less: 512MB version is $150 (DS-40) and 256MB is around $115 (DS-30). No manual gain control but has three sensitivity settings and stereo level display. Has internal mono mic and removable stereo mic that attaches to a standard 3.5mm jack. Attaches to a PC via a USB2 cable and allows simple drag and drop transfer. It’s small and light but appears well constructed.
Olympus also as a WS series of recorders. I think the latest model WS-331M ($140-$150) which has similar specs to the DS models above but 2GB of memory. I think the major difference is that the WS series is cheaper construction and comes with less in the way of accessories. Like DS-50, an iPod Nano like device (they play back WMAs and MP3s) but with a lot of sophisticated voice recording features.
From review: "Remember, this recorder cannot provide phantom power to condenser mics, so if the mic requires phantom power, it must have an internal battery in order to use it with the R-09."
From R-09 manual: You can set Power ON, from the external mic menu for "plug-in powered condenser mics."
I assume this means that there IS phantom power, unless I have some concepts confused (always possible).
Hi Susan, you do indeed have concepts confused, but you shouldn’t feel bad, it’s perplexing to a lot of people! Phantom Power and Plug-In power are similar concepts, but they are not interchangeable, in fact the power is doing very different things in each case.
Plug-in power is a small voltage that is transmitted along unbalanced audio cables that can provide a charge to a few small electret microphones (electrets are a specific type of mic.) That power is actually used to amplify the signal of the electret mic, rather than to create the electrical differential that condenser mics use to register sound pressure levels.
The short version is that they’re different…
So the "plug-in power" that the R-09, and other small portable devices that use minijacks as mic inputs, cannot supply the standard "phantom power" required by standard condenser mics. That can only be fed down balanced cables (usually XLR) and must have a fairly specific voltage and current.
Just to make things more confusing, the M-Audio Multitrack 24/96 does provide phantom power, even though it doesn’t have XLR inputs. But it does have balanced mic-level inputs, they just used quarter-inch TRS jacks to save space. Unrelated to the type of connector, unfortunately, the M-Audio supplied a non-standard voltage, not the full 48volts that many mics require. Some condenser mics run happily on lower voltages, but others don’t. And even those that do work are likely to have a narrower dynamic range, and may distort at higher gains.
The Edirol R-09 does not provide phantom power at all, the M-Audio provides it in a way that only works with certain mics, the Zoom H4, Marantz 660 and all of the Sound Devices recorders seem to provide standard 48v phantom power.
Keep in mind that the phantom power can only be sent if all three leads of the cable are connected, so don’t ground-lift, or use an adapter cable that shorts one of the connectors.
Hope that helps…
Nick and Nathaniel, thanks for those real-world accounts of your experiences. I was thinking that one of the strong points of any of these flash recorders was that none of them have moving parts, so they’d be less likely to break down. Sorry to hear that the Edirol hasn’t been so reliable…
And yeah, I found the hiss to be pretty objectionable, except when recording relatively active ambiences. I think it could be a great tool for on-the-street vox-pop kind of things, or quick you-are-there environmental beds, or demos. But for a more controlled, quiet interview situation, I was pretty disappointed.
I did think the basic functionality of the 660 was good, my main objection was the hissy mic preamps in that machine too. The Oade Bros refurbs definitely help, so that’s a good way to go if it’s in the budget. But it’s funny, even the 660, which seemed amazingly compact when it came out, feels a little uncomfortably large now! But I do like that it’s large enough to hang over your shoulder (and still see the input meters) or place on a table without it sliding all over the place if you move the mic cable.
They’ve all got pros and cons. The Edirol is so small it’s easy to carry all the time, it’s so quick to start-up and easy to use that anyone could grab audio simply. But it doesn’t sound as good as we’d like… The ones that sound better aren’t as convenient to carry or to use.
Maybe we’ll get something that’s closer to the ideal. We’ll see…
In the meantime, thanks for the real-world reports, and please keep them coming!
Alan, thanks for the reports on the Olympus recorders. I know those are getting better and better. I may be mired in old-school thinking, but I’m still reluctant to make primary recordings in any sort of "lossy" compressed mode, even if they sound pretty good. I think I’ve related the story in various places on this site, but I’ve had audio "break" when subjected even to fairly gentle and robust schemes such as high-bitrate MP2 compression, if that compression was applied more than once.
And that’s just the thing, the end-uses of audio are so varied these days, it’s very likely to be delivered to the user in some sort of a compressed form. Current public radio transmission requires the audio to be crunched to MP2, HD radio transmission will use different (additional) codecs. Internet streaming, podcasts or downloads are increasingly becoming the mode of delivery of audio programming, and all of those tend to use lossy compression to save bandwidth.
So if one starts with the original audio subjected to lossy compression, by the time it hits the user, it may have been transcoded a few more times, and that’s where the trouble starts. One level of WMA, or mp3, or mp2, or AAC, or OGG, or whatever type of data-reduction, can sound just fine. One might even be able to squeeze it a second time without noticing too big of a problem. But at a certain point, the audio quality starts falling apart, creating nasty gurgley sounds, shrill metallic rings and other undesirable effects.
So I encourage everyone to record in the field in as robust a format as possible, not in a lossy format that has thrown away data to squeeze more space on the recording medium. Transferring and editing those files shouldn’t result in significant additional degradation, if kept in the digital domain. And then a single final squeeze into the delivery format should not have too detrimental an effect on the sound quality. But it CAN have a very bad effect if the sounds have been squeezed a few times already.
I’m willing to acknowledge that I may be too purist about this, in the end if it sounds OK, it sounds OK. There has been lots of good work done with minidisc recording which (formerly) always involved ATRAC compression.
But I’ve heard a fair amount of audio on the radio, and certainly on the web, that is outright unpleasant to listen to because it had be overly, or multiply, data-compressed.
The safest way to avoid that is to NOT record the original audio in mp2, mp3, WMA, ATRAC, or other formats that have done perceptual coding that eliminates audio data.
There are "lossless" compression schemes, but I don’t know of any recorders that implement this, I think it takes an impractical amount of processing power to render the files.
All that said, I’m sure there are circumstances in which the Olympus, and similar small recorders, are precisely the right tool, and I’m glad to know about them, and please keep updating us about them! But the compressed audio files, and the lack of fine manual control of input levels make those of limited use for broadcast, at least from my nudgey perspective!
But I’m sure they’re excellent, and very convenient, for applications where the final audio quality is not as critical.
Jeff,
The lossy issue is a big one. It doesn’t really impact me and my colleagues given that we rarely have any need to edit the original but for radio I understand that this is a huge issue.
Anyway, I think Olympus is worth keeping an eye on. As memory prices continue to drop, the amount of memory keeps getting larger in these units, record time is great, they keep adding features, etc. It’s not too much of a jump for them to add an option for uncompressed recording and manual gain control. I’m sure they’d do this if someone convinced them it would expand their market. Olympus come out with lots of new models every year so it will be interesting to see how they develop these units in the future while maintaining their $100-$300 cost. Add a few features and you start to have something that looks like a cheap AEQ PAW 120 (see http://www.aeq.es/eng/recorder120.htm) or the flash memory equivalent of a Hi-MD minidisc recorder.
Alan.
I don’t understand the fuss about not being able to use 2GB cards. As I understand it, *.WAV files have a built-in limit of 2 gigs in size, so regardless of the card you use, that is how long a single recording can go. I don’t think MP3 has a size limit (except the card) so if you needed a really long record and could live with some quality loss, go with 320kbps MP3.
I haven’t had a chance to test this, but Flawn says in the first post of this discussion that he’s successfully using 4 gig SDHD cards in his R-09 (this may require a firmware upgrade.) The recorder supposedly can be set to close the file at 2 gigs (or less) and continue recording to a new file. This could be very convenient, regardless of file size limits (which are not consistent across operating systems, and one would imagine would be subject to change as application and OS upgrades continue.)
Uncompressed wav files are always preferable to even high-rate mp3s, so the capability of recording to large cards would be great. Even if one doesn’t need especially long continuous recording, it just feels better to have fewer, larger cards floating around one’s gear bag…
I didn’t really get into that in the main review, I’m still feeling that those new cards are a little too non-standard right now, and would likely confuse many users. But I’m thrilled to know that they’re working well, and I suspect that they’ll become standard soon enough. Thanks again, Flawn.
I’ve read a lot of reviews of the Edirol but none as thorough and thoughtful as yours. Merci beaucoup.
we’ve been using a couple edirols at lawrence.com (and at our parent paper, ljworld.com) for nearly a year now. upon scanning, your review seems quite thorough and completely accurate—we’re also satisfied for the most part, but would love to see some improvements in our next device.
most notably:
-inability to track on the fly is a SIGNIFICANT flaw
-volatility of flash cards is unacceptable (we’ve been using 4gb SDHD cards, $70/ea off newegg.com when available… *possible* but not verified, that maker—not medium—is to blame. even if former, still not confident in flash storage)
in an ideal world:
-this recorder would be refashioned to also employ MINIDISCS and all their strengths (ability to track/edit/etc on device, indestructibility, long-term storage, inexpensive, reusability)
-minus the DRM b.s. that prohibits existing minidisc recorders from being able to dump en masse to other devices/computer.
also notable:
-durability of the device is indeed a significant concern; if anything, this review understates weaknesses.
-the search controls during playback are unwieldy, particularly given the lack of tracking functionality.
for smaller ops more concerned with price than pristine audio quality:
-at $400, the ONLY significant advantage this device offers over <$100 olympus models is recording without requiring proprietary software to manage audio dumps.
Edirol got so many things right (e.g., great meter display and definitive record-on button). But, what they got wrong; the line-in jack lacks anchoring and collapses easily (many, including me, have suffered from this: google "Edirol R-09 woes"). WARNING: if you use line-in, use a chord with a right-angled plug and try to protect it from any side torque.
Have any folks there who own the R-09 found any better sound quality using the Line In (with an external preamp, etc) instead of the Mic In? Will it give a usable noisefloor for quiet interview environments? Thanks!
I have the Edirol R-09 and have been really happy with it so far. It serves my needs beautifully. I am looking for the right external mic to use with it and noticed that Edirol makes a Cardiod mic for the recorder. Does anyone have any experience with that? I see that it hasn’t been reviewed on the site yet. Any insight you have out there would be appreciated.
I have the Edirol R-09 and have been really happy with it so far. It serves my needs beautifully. I am looking for the right external mic to use with it and noticed that Edirol makes a Cardiod mic for the recorder. Does anyone have any experience with that? I see that it hasn’t been reviewed on the site yet. Any insight you have out there would be appreciated.
Which portable recorder is best for recording river and creek sounds, as well as bird sounds. There may be wind noise issues to consider and relatively quiet periods too.
Hi Jeff,
I’ve found your reviews of portable MP3 recorders really helpful, thanks a lot! I have a few questions though, if you have a moment to reply!
The Edirol R-09HR is now available. Have you had a chance to find out if the new revised model hisses as badly? There are some features of the R-09 which suit my needs better than the others, but the hiss on your demos was too much. I also havent seen what additional feature it might have (
How do these recorders compare to Sony’s venerable portable minidisk recorders – especially regarding hiss and noise? My ancient MZ-R30 is still great, but I’ve always had to get a strong signal to beat the background hiss even on low sensitivity.
Cheers
Mike