I just cancelled my Edirol R-1 order awaiting finding more
information about the Marantz 660, which sounds like it might be
worth the extra bulk to lug around.
As both units are fairly new, information at this point is a bit
scarce, but it's nice to get the first proper test results from the
R-1 I've seen online, and they've definitely made me think twice
about getting one.
If the Marantz-660, as I understand it, is a stripped-down version
of the 670, and therefore has the same quality components, whatever
test results are valid for the 670 might also be valid for the 660,
at least to some extent.
> Convenience is a factor, and the R-1 has some hope if Edirol will
> actually upgrade the firmware.=20
The Marantz is quite a heavyweight compared to the Edirol, but it's
also the weight of quality I assume in all the components and parts
that also figuratively might have become too lightweight in the
Edirol.
>Big annoyance for me is that there's
> no manual track splitting, so I tried the auto splitting, and
there's
> no threshold-level adjustment. I'm not certain, but it also seemed
> to stop recording when below the fixed level for more than a few
> seconds... anyway it did seem to startup and catch my first words
> without delay... maybe it has a bit of pre-roll buffer in that
mode?
If it is impossible to make a recording keep running when sound
level is below a certain point, this might make for annoying and
highly unnecessary editing afterwards to get the pauses right when
one is actually supposed to be there...
>
> > I understand that the problem with the internal mics is that it
> > doesn't take high sound pressure levels, but hence it should be
> > alright for acoustic work, and even for ambience recordings ...
> > Any thoughts on the sound quality when the mic is not pushed to=20
its
> > limitations?
>
> I noticed my Edmund Scientific 24" aluminum parabola, so I took it
> and the R-1 outside for a bit of urban nature recording. I've
spliced
> 3 separate passages (actually with 2 files (one auto-split) each
> in the 1st twopassages, and 3 splits in the last. The only editing
> I did was the seemless splices, fades between passages, and the
Lame
> conversion to 192 kbps mp3 format. It and a photo are at:
>
> http://feldman.gidnoy.com/audio/20041227_EdirolR1_w_dish.mp3
> http://feldman.gidnoy.com/photos/EdirolR1_and_al_dish.jpg
No sound where I am now, but will check that out when I get back
home.
> We'll see when I set up the external mics/preamp and do some studio
> music tests. I still fear that the limiting factor will prove to
be
> the analog frontend to the A/D.
Quite a limiting factor indeed.
> Well, digital out would allow taper's daisy-chains, but it's not
> clear if I'd want the R-1 to be the A/D if there were an M-1, D-8,
> or other last-gen box to be at the head of the chain. And digital
> out might be nice when there's no computer nearby. But I'd rather
> have given up some of the fluff features for both in and out. And
> maybe I'd prefer digital in to digital out ... could use external
> preamp/A-D as frontend for field.
Speaking of fluff features, I always see it as a bad sign if a
recording device offers too many digital effects, and although the
Edirol features fewer of those than other comparable units, it has
an alarming number of them that is advertised heavily.
Unless something new - again - comes along, I think I might go for
the 660 rather than the R-1. I'll consider it well until the R-1
comes back into stock where I would be shopping it from, and see
what I can get out of reviews and tests of both the 660 and R-1.
Hakon
www.HakonSoreide.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|
