Edirol Pro-4 better sound than Sound Devices 744t?

[Sound Chaser]

Is it possible that the Edriol Pro 4 is a sonically superior to the Sound Devices 744t?
IMHO, absolutely YES.
I just picked up a SD a few days ago and to my surprise the Pro-4 is a superior sounding unit. As I own both, I have no axe to grind…so judge for yourself.

The sample is of a U87 with a working distance of 8-10” 48K/24bit. The Pro-4 was sampled one time at a distance of under a foot—no particular care was taken, just plug it in and hit record. The Sound Devices had to be sampled 14 different times to get the absolute best recording to even come close to the Edirol. The differences are even more revealing with a full wav sample on proper monitors.
Soundchaser.ca - sample2

[boojum]

I am curious why the SD had to be retested 14 times. That implies that it does not record in a consistent manner. Is this true?

[Sound Chaser]

Not at all. It recorded fine, but I just kept on recording at different distances and sensitivity settings just to get the optimum sound, as the Pro-4 was just better.
As you can tell from the samples there is only a small difference, but IMO the Pro-4 wins.

[David Rick]

Well, I guess I don't know what this is supposed to mean. On a given day, with a given microphone, and for a given instrument, I've found the preamps in a Mackie 1202 mixer to be superior to several bespoke preamps costing five times as much. So what? Like I'm going to sell everything else and keep the Mackie? Of course not. I keep the Mackie 'cause it has its moments, but I'm still hanging on to the good stuff.

As for the Sound Devices, I don't keep it because I can't find something cheaper that sounds just as good. I keep it because no matter where I am, or what I'm doing, I push the record button and it actually records.

David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording

[Sound Sorcerer]

Originally Posted by Sound Chaser

...The Sound Devices had to be sampled 14 different times to get the absolute best recording to even come close to the Edirol. The differences are even more revealing with a full wav sample on proper monitors.
Soundchaser.ca - sample2

Just curious... are you using an oscilloscope, or an audio analyzer or other sort of audio measuring device to come to this conclusion? I mean, anyone can say I like this better than that, right?

[tapermark2006]

I had a regular R4 before my 744 and all I can say is I COMPLETELY disagree with the initial post. The 744 smokes the R4.

[loujudson]

Originally Posted by Sound Chaser

Not at all. It recorded fine, but I just kept on recording at different distances and sensitivity settings just to get the optimum sound, as the Pro-4 was just better.
As you can tell from the samples there is only a small difference, but IMO the Pro-4 wins.

Your claim is bogus, and the test is flawed. Take a pair of identical mics, place them at the identical spot and set the levels to peak exactly the same. THEN record a test.

You have only proved that you prefer the edirol. Try again!

I prefer the sound on the 744 in your sample anyway. To do a proper test see above. Then do a blind ABX test with objective parties...

PLus the posed photo looks like a sales shot - and I challenge you to walk around holding a shotgun mic with that behemoth over your shoulder for 8 hours! How long is the battery life in such a case? I can run my 744 all day on one battery, and still run to dinner...

<L>

PS - what kind of shockmount is that on the 87? Looks nice!


<L>

[leddy]

Originally Posted by loujudson

I prefer the sound on the 744 in your sample anyway.

+1

I own a standard R4. I hear a "wooliness" to the lower midrange in mine, and I hear it in your sample. I don't hear it in the SD.

I still like my R4. It's small, light and easy to use. The SD is 4x's the price. It's not 4x's the quality, but it does sound a little better than the R4 to my ears in your sample.

[MichaelPatrick]

Without leveling the gain between the two units and placing the mic equidistant from the source for both recorders, this is not a test, because the two recordings have fundamentally different setups before you ever pressed Record. At that kind of proximity 1" can make a big difference. What's more, your subjective judgment about which placement is best for the SD makes the whole test anything but scientific.

Let me suggest a nonhuman instrument and a reduced proximity effect. If you must use a singer make sure it's someone without any interest in the outcome -- psychological factors must also be removed if you want people to take this seriously.

If you'll make a proper test, I'll listen to samples with interest and appreciation.

[Sound Chaser]

There is nothing scientific about this test and yes this is just my opinion. I did not say that the Pro -4 is a better unit; I said I like the sound better.
btw: I tried recording the 744t multiple ways to get the best sound on a simple test, so in that way it is weighted in towards the Sound Devices.

I have no axe to grind...I OWN BOTH and for good reason.
Th SD is a better recorder for film location. Superior:
build quality
metering (Pro-4 weak mono chrome)
monitoring stereo & mono and ample gain not available in the Pro-4!
48.048 KHz sample rate for film pull down
better more extensive menu
Better power management
Status and resale value
limiting (Pro-4 sux in this department)
BUT MOST OF ALL...the Pro-4 has no user presets which could over come many of these limitations.

The Pro-4 IMO is better in the following departments:
Better sounding pre
Stand alone unit...4 independent accessable channels, plus faster access
easier menu access and simpler structure
80G drive
price

p.s. the R4 is known for having a poor pre. This was one of the things addressed in the Pro model.

[MichaelPatrick]

On the Pro-4 did you use any EQ? Was the built-in "enhancer" turned on?

It looks like the Pro-4 might be a good alternative for some since it costs half the price of a 744T.

But with only 2 hrs of recording time on battery --without phantom-- the Edirol is a prosumer piece. Film and lots of other remotesters just can't use it.

[loujudson]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

On the Pro-4 did you use any EQ? Was the built-in "enhancer" turned on?

It looks like the Pro-4 might be a good alternative for some since it costs half the price of a 744T.

But with only 2 hrs of recording time on battery --without phantom-- the Edirol is a prosumer piece. Film and lots of other remotesters just can't use it.

"Pro" in the name usually mean not pro.

It's less than a quarter of the price of 744T.

2 hrs battery life? AA cells? Not pro.

Glad you like it, though.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by loujudson

It's less than a quarter of the price of 744T.

Is it possible you're thinking of a different model? I checked the price twice. Who sells this for $1K USD?

[loujudson]

I dunno, I thought I saw $999,99 - my mistake. Edirol Video R-4 Pro | Sweetwater.com

[Sound Chaser]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

On the Pro-4 did you use any EQ? Was the built-in "enhancer" turned on?

It looks like the Pro-4 might be a good alternative for some since it costs half the price of a 744T.

But with only 2 hrs of recording time on battery --without phantom-- the Edirol is a prosumer piece. Film and lots of other remotesters just can't use it.

No the Pro-4 had nothing in line. Both were clean recordings. The Edirol's internal batteries are good for emergency backup only but, it does have 7 different external battery settings it will accept along with AC. But, here's the catch...By the time you buy a reliable battery pack your approaching the price of the SD not to mention 3 times the weight!

For all of the reasons mentioned, I purchased the 744t. Your right, it does not suit film work.
However, if I'm going to record the Toronto Symphony you can bet I will be taking the Edirol Pro-4 and the SD will be the backup.

[momule]

Originally Posted by tapermark2006

I had a regular R4 before my 744 and all I can say is I COMPLETELY disagree with the initial post. The 744 smokes the R4.

But you were basing that on a unit that had not had the firmware updated and running 4 channel mono if i remember right.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by Sound Chaser

No the Pro-4 had nothing in line. Both were clean recordings.

That clear that up. Comparative samples would be very interesting if the technique was identical for both units.

Originally Posted by Sound Chaser

... I purchased the 744t.

Me too, about 2 yrs ago. I like the pres.

Originally Posted by Sound Chaser

However, if I'm going to record the Toronto Symphony you can bet I will be taking the Edirol Pro-4 and the SD will be the backup.

I use ouboard pres and converters for critical stuff, outboard pres and 744T converters for next step down stuff, and the 744T alone for everything else. There seems to be alot of "everything else" and my customers are happy.

BTW, your initial post is still intriguing. I really want to know what those Edirol pres sound like in a real AB with any reference pre.