Sound Devices 788 vs. Edirol R44

[A3rd.Zero]

Originally Posted by Ozpeter

I've not heard of such problems from others using the "stock" R44 so it sounds like the Oade mods are to blame.

It's a well documented problem over on tapperssection. At high spl you need the outer ring at noon and then you get about 1/3 of the center pot before you have problems (EDIT: I swapped these, it's inner ring at noon outer used for level control, it's been a while). With vocal sources, bg recording, and other sub 100dbl sources it's not an issue but at least half of my work is above 100dbl. Notes on level here, and here (there are many more discussing the same topic). This doesn't make the R44 unusable, far from it, but it does make it something you have to constantly check and mess with. Compared to the 7 series which you almost can't set wrong. It's preamps are so quiet you can gain a low recording up in post no problem and it clips without sonic dramatics.

Charles, thanks. Good to here about the 302. I used a few on a shoot last year and loved them but never did hard ab tests between them and the on on board mic pres. I have subsequently learned that the mixers use transformers on the inputs while the recorders do not.

No matter what I throw at the 722 it sounds good. There is no other recorder that I have used where this is true. It's as source proof as I've ever found.

[rcrowley]

I will have to admit that I don't even understand the question or the discussion. These two pieces are not even in the same league, and the prices would appear to quite convincingly represent that notion. Why would anyone who can afford Sound Devices even consider the Edirol (as good as it may be for its class.)?

And how could "a new small low budget film" afford something like a SD788? "Sound Devices" and "low budget" just seem completely antithetical. Living far from Hollywood, perhaps I don't know what "low budget" means? Maybe it means "only $3million"?

[A3rd.Zero]

Sure they are very different but I actually bought an R44 instead of a 788 because I couldn't afford the 788. A lot of reality shows use R44s or pairs of R44s and their episode budgets are around 1mill each. For dialog work, and for personal work the R44 can be fantastic.

[Arthur Stone]

An important factor is whether (and in which way) the OP wants to progress; if it's a one-off or lo-fi project then perhaps a less-costly means of achieving that would suffice...but if it's regular work in higher-quality then the extra investment makes sense.

From my prosumer perspective, the SD preamps are incredible...crystal-clear and plenty of gain...great for field work or tricky situations.

Perhaps it makes more sense to hire a quality recorder for the project?

[valterj]

Originally Posted by apple-q

1) No Timecode (means no post-conform options later, no jam syncing with camera or smart slates)

1a) No pull-up/down sampling-rates (in case you need that)

2) Limiters are post ADC which makes them completely pointless.

3) Cheap plastic feel.

4) No MS monitoring

5) Bad mic-pres (phantom only supplies 20mA total for all 4 inputs. With power-hungry mics like Schoeps or Neumanns this won´t be enough when you have 4 mics connected. Actually P48 specs require 10mA per channel. Better try before the shoot if all your mics work to specs when connected to the R44)

6) Powering is via AA-batteries which is pointless on a stressfull shoot. So you need external 12V NP1 or other type powering (which will probably cost more that the entire unit when you buy 2-3 NP1 plus charger)

6a) Even worse than 6 is the position of the battery compartment. It´s on the bottom which is again stupid in a bag (unless it´s custom made and has an opening). On the cart it´s even more silly because you have to lift and turn the thing around to change the batteries which means your cables need to be either unplugged or tangled up. So again you need external powering to avoid that.

7) Controls are also on the top which is pretty stupid when you use it in a case over the shoulder. AFAIK, the top panel can not be locked so you really have to be carefull that you don´t stop the recording when moving around.

8) No meta-data support of any kind.

9) It simply does not compare to a 788.

10) It IS cheaper but definitely not the same.

and to make it go to 11:

11) You get what you pay for.

NICE. my thoughts exactly

[Rolo 46]

This post is a mystery to me
Wither 788 or R44?
Two tracks are sufficient for for any FX tracks
SD pres are better than any plastic Edirol.
A SD 702 is more than sufficient .

Pyro and Gunfire needs headroom and good technique
Disable limiters,pad mikes, and peak with sensible headroom as ever
Listen on good iso cans.
Gunfire /cannon fire needs a close proximity omni and a directional shotgun for slap and reverb.
MS shotgun with the back lobe on the cannon /gun,front directed at slap source is excellent too
Other fx ,MS shotgun (Shoepes CMIT 5U +CCM8) very effective.
Spaced omnis very effective also but time consuming unless DPA 4060 mounted on a head worn array, excellent.
I have really enjoyed recording ordnance ,pyro and explosive in my dark past...
Once recording WWI Passchendaele Drama, I placed a Senny 441 next to a big pyro pot.
Excellent bang
Mike MIA
Design guys returned it to me 3 months later, found in the peat water logged trenches.
In full working order.
Still have it today.
Can any one beat that ?

Roger
Bomb proof indeed.

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by Rolo 46

This post is a mystery to me
Wither 788 or R44?
Two tracks are sufficient for for any FX tracks
SD pres are better than any plastic Edirol.
A SD 702 is more than sufficient .

Pyro and Gunfire needs headroom and good technique
Disable limiters,pad mikes, and peak with sensible headroom as ever
Listen on good iso cans.
Gunfire /cannon fire needs a close proximity omni and a directional shotgun for slap and reverb.
MS shotgun with the back lobe on the cannon /gun,front directed at slap source is excellent too
Other fx ,MS shotgun (Shoepes CMIT 5U +CCM8) very effective.
Spaced omnis very effective also but time consuming unless DPA 4060 mounted on a head worn array, excellent.
I have really enjoyed recording ordnance ,pyro and explosive in my dark past...
Once recording WWI Passchendaele Drama, I placed a Senny 441 next to a big pyro pot.
Excellent bang
Mike MIA
Design guys returned it to me 3 months later, found in the peat water logged trenches.
In full working order.
Still have it today.
Can any one beat that ?

Roger
Bomb proof indeed.

for my sessions doing weapons and explosions I tend to roll with 18 channels- typically, 4 744's and an FR2.... I have done over 40 session with that subject matter...

the 441 is an outstanding mic too.

[Rolo 46]

Charles,
I appreciate you are in Hollywood Land, but the original post was for a low budget film..
I did 15 yrs + of BBC historical docs, always with low budget, and I recorded fx on many weapons (13 th cent Turkish cannon the loudest, to Centurians and Chieftians, with many fascinating small arms in between, Lewis Guns my favourite) and never felt the need for more than 2 tracks.
I especially like Muzzle loaders and hated high velocity weapons, hearing decimators imho.
Roger

[charles maynes]

well- if one is considering a 788, they are not in the realm of low budget....


the sound shoots I do are usually for game companies and require multiple angles of coverage- it is simply more economically sensible to rent more machines to get the coverage than doing it with fewer machines. the last shoot I did for a film client was Predators last year- they are usually dead simple compared to the game sessions....