geordi Posted September 20, 2011 Report Share Posted September 20, 2011 Ouchie. For something that can only duplicate the functionality of the Zoom H4n (2 XLR inputs, 2 inputs from minijack) the addition of the onboard mics into two more tracks does not warrant double the price. I think I might have to go with the Zoom H4n from Ebay, and sell off my own original H4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karri Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 And another contender from Tascam: http://tascam.com/product/dr-40/ This one at around half the price of the Roland. Seems to take line up to +20 dBu. They also make promises on THD. Of course, there is a "but"... this one doesn't have a minijack for the other 2 tracks, so it's two external sources + internal mics only. There is however a "safety" mode which records two copies of a stereo track simultaneously, with the other at a lesser level. I have an original H4 and am mainly looking at these devices to use with an SD302 for a lightweight rig for acquiring sound FX, atmos etc, maybe even DSLR recording of TV spots etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 and going in the other direction, sort of, <$200): " The H2n features Zoom's best microphones yet and is the only portable recorder with five mic capsules onboard. This design enables the H2n to offer four unique recording modes: Mid-Side (MS) stereo, 90° X/Y stereo, 2-channel and 4-channel surround sound. " and all in 24/96 HD digital recording Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dom Green Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Hi All Just joined! just reading on soundkit.co.uk that the roland r26 has a MS encoder!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddiepratt Posted October 28, 2011 Report Share Posted October 28, 2011 Hi, I've got my hands on a Roland R26. I've put some videos and sound samples here: http://www.youtube.com/prattarazzi Hope this is helpful. Cheers, Eddie Someone asked me about BWF format, so I did a little test: 1. Choosing BWF file format & 16bit or 24bit WAV options will record a .WAV extension filename (slightly confusing) with BWF information. 2. Examing the .WAV metadata I see the following for a recording I made just after 11am: Filename: R26_0063_1.wav Channels: 2(Poly) Start TC: 11:01:49:00 Length: 00:00:34 End TC: 11:02:23:17 Originator: ROLAND R-26 Date: 2011-10-30 Time: 11:01:49 Sample Rate: 48000 Bit Depth: 16 Samples since midnight: 1906032000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddiepratt Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 Derek, it has the same connections as the Zoom - Combo XLR/TRS and a minijack input, so you have four channels. Dont know how you'll change levels on four channels with 2 knobs though.. Hey Mark, I've got an R26. When you record multiple channels e.g. 6 channels (XY built-in, Analog 1 & 2, Plug-in Stereo 3.5mm), the left input knob is for XY mic level, the right is for analog input level (only 1 level setting for the left and right mic inputs, not one per input!), and then there is a soft on-screen level settings for the external 3.5mm input. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bash Posted October 31, 2011 Report Share Posted October 31, 2011 Hi Eddie, and thanks for your note. I believe that there is no official 'spec' for a broadcast wav file - the extension '.bwf' is not an official one. The original spec forwav files included the ability to add extra data to make it a 'broadcast' wavfile, but not for a different file extension. So - strictly speaking... a broadcast wav file with the file extension .wav is legal, and the same file, with the file extension .bwf i s not so. Kindest regards, Simon B Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solowiej Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 Hey Eddie, Thanks for the reports! There is a review on B&H complaining of hissy pre-amps and bad handling noise. What's your opinion on how clean it sounds? Best, Sean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt McGowin Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 Hey Eddie, Thanks for the reports! There is a review on B&H complaining of hissy pre-amps and bad handling noise. What's your opinion on how clean it sounds? Best, Sean It probably sounds better than a dslr cam mic but I would not use it for anything other than wild sound for personal use. I would considerate it a non- pro back up. Handling noise? do you mean if you used it on a tripod or do you mean if you mounted it on a boom pole? K-tek makes a good mount for handhelds I think Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solowiej Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 Not sure what they meant by handling noise, I assume that must be using the onboard mics. It's the report of hiss that concerns me. Here's the user's review from B&H: Roland R26 By avfreq from TX Not a bad unit, but the pre amps are not as clean as I was expecting them to be. It is extremely sensitive to handling noise, and it doesn't help that the unit is all plastic. Even the chrome on top is plastic. If you are not looking for a durable unit, and you don't mind a little hiss, this unit is for you. Your better off with the new Tascam DR40. (The quality I was looking for, I found in the Sound Devices 702, so I returned the R26 and bought the SD702 instead) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afewmoreyears Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 I have a Zoom H4N, have had it for a while.... The Senators comment about "not the target audience" is extremely accurate.... By that I mean, these are really for musicians and common folk who want to record music (usually theirs) , or bands and the like... Just look at the reviews... most are from guys playing instruments... I have used mine a bunch over the year or so i have had it... I thought it would be a good go to grab and run wild sound device... As has been noted here by a few people, the pre amps are dirty.... what can you say.... If you were to be recording a train crash, well maybe... but any REAL audio you would feel comfortable turning in with your name... I don't think so... This is so true.... I in no way feel comfortable with any of the mini handhelds... although the Sony from what I hear is one that a guy modifies in the Pac Northwest for use with pro mics and sounds stellar... He told me it was the only one to go with.... Can you use the H4N it as a backup in place of NOTHING? of course..... I feel the operation is a bit cumbersome for my taste... but functional.... I also have a FR-2 with timecode, in a very small portabrace bag with a NP-1 sled....( I have a 744 too but it's in a medium sized rig..) now the FR-2 is a bit larger, but would MUCH RATHER grab that than any handheld... LIGHT SMALL and most important, I can feel comfortable with what I am recording... As a backup, with timecode it will do a great job if need be on any take not requiring multiple tracks.... 2 is normally OK for most run and grab stuff... If your primary recorder goes down, you could use the FR-2 and nobody would know, can't say that about a micro recorder... Mr. Solo above seems to agree with the use of a 702.... I just think that if you are doing something professional, somehow, someway get the extra money and buy something you can really feel good about... A used 702 or FR-2 (timecode) a much better option in my feeble opinion (don't worry about service or other dependability issues with the FR-2, it has been proven to be VERY reliable and sturdy.. I have not heard one instance of failure with this machine..were there, most likely, but from all I have heard people reporting, friends and in the web world, they have proven very reliable) I mean, if your going to plug in one of your nice mics, might as well plug it into a slightly larger machine that does the job nicely, the extra size and weight (unless you want it as a backup in a crowed bag) is meaningless to me. Another player in this field, the R26, with many of the same problems for almost twice the price is going nowhere for me... I'll take a 702 or FR-2 any day, any week on any show.... I did try though..... my H4N just sits now.... I rarely want to or feel like using it, it's that dirty.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 " hissy pre-amps and bad handling noise. " The rule: Generally speaking, you get what you pay for Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 I suspect all of these digital recorders sound great with a line level signal. I know the H4n digital recordings are as clean as the 702 when using a 302 as the front end, at least to the ear. I own both and have compared the recordings side by side. Obviously the H4n and 702 are in different leagues feature wise, but both sound the same when fed a quality line level signal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afewmoreyears Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 I suspect all of these digital recorders sound great with a line level signal. I know the H4n digital recordings are as clean as the 702 when using a 302 as the front end, at least to the ear. I own both and have compared the recordings side by side. Obviously the H4n and 702 are in different leagues feature wise, but both sound the same when fed a quality line level signal. I was speaking about the recorder on it's own... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddiepratt Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 Hey Eddie, Thanks for the reports! There is a review on B&H complaining of hissy pre-amps and bad handling noise. What's your opinion on how clean it sounds? Best, Sean I'm not familiar with other units to compare it to, but I've made some comparison tests for the internal XY and Omnidirectional pair, a Rode NT2000, and a Sure SM58 found at the dropbox web link below. Unzip to get the WAV files. The NT2000 has very low self-noise (or so I've heard :-), so that might give you a good indication on the amount of 'hiss'. dl.dropbox.com/u/4232261/R26-3.zip Agree that handling noise seems high. The buttons register as clunks if you're recording from the built in mikes and press during record. Also the back battery flap needs a bit of foam under it to quieten it down as it tends to amplify any finger noise like a little amplifying cavern. Hope this helps. Cheers, Eddie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solowiej Posted November 21, 2011 Report Share Posted November 21, 2011 Hey Eddie, Thanks so much for posting these samples! I'm unable to get them from the link. Do I need to install Dropbox and start an account, or should I be able to download from your link? If it's easier, I can give you ftp access and host them from a server. Best, Sean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddiepratt Posted November 21, 2011 Report Share Posted November 21, 2011 Hey Eddie, Thanks so much for posting these samples! I'm unable to get them from the link. Do I need to install Dropbox and start an account, or should I be able to download from your link? If it's easier, I can give you ftp access and host them from a server. Best, Sean Hey Sean, I've never shared with Dropbox before, so I'm not sure! Please let me know some details of the ftp and I'll upload them onto that for everyone. Cheers, Eddie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddiepratt Posted November 21, 2011 Report Share Posted November 21, 2011 Hey Sean, I've never shared with Dropbox before, so I'm not sure! Please let me know some details of the ftp and I'll upload them onto that for everyone. Cheers, Eddie I just did a quick check, and if your force your browser to http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4232261/R26-3.zip then it should begin to download. It shouldn't require any passwords or anything. If it replaces in characters in the URL, just remove them so the URL looks like the one above. Can you let me know if that works for you as an experiment? (I'll put them on your ftp too, Sean). Cheers, Eddie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.