Jump to content

Roland R88


Maxie Mendonca

Recommended Posts

ROLAND R-88 Recorder Mixer

 

Hi everyone, my name is Christian and here are some of my overall opinions and tests, get some coffee or a few beers it goes for long.

My first impression was at NAB, I took my own SD card, barrowed a mic from Schoeps and did a few channel short recordings, played with the unit for about an hour and left.

I thought it looked ok, listened to the files, and they were quiet, but needed more input for my hungry mind and ears.

  Well after many, many frustrating months of trying to find a decent review (that wasn’t a sales pitch) on the ROLAND R-88, I was very surprised that all of us being professionals of the sound business, we request all these technical tests and yet when you do buy the piece of equipment you post 3 lines of caca, sound good to me, very quiet when I tried it, the producer liked it, as I said caca.

That does not help, is like saying I bought a New BMW, it rides nice, and the windows go up and down every time. (can you do doughnuts without losing control, can you disengage the DCS, does navigation give you the wrong directions, ETC.)

 

  Just a little on me: I have been around for a long time, I have done every possible kind of audio, music recording mix you can imagine, I started as a disco DJ when I was 12 years old and build my own gear, I tracked/mixed and worked with NEVE and Focusrite consoles, recorded on NAGRA from pilot sync resolver, to SMPTE time code, mixed on a Shure FP32 field mixer in the Salvadorian jungles, and we got shot at, in Desert Storm recording with a little PD150 DVCAM for CBS, and it all sounded great.

I have a very strong technical background, and have designed and build many pieces of equipment and facilities.

SO not being the most buss word or brand chaser Audio/Broadcast engineer in the world, I decided to buy my own unit, separate 2 weeks of time from my schedule and test the hell out of the unit, with everything I can imagine I would need in the field, cart, studio, or a crazy band that wants an 8 track record with mix of their crappy garage music in a Pasadena bar.

 

So let’s go to the ROLAND R-88 REVIEW.

 

  First I checked the Roland Sound Systems site and the unit, found that I needed the firmware update so I did, from 1.10 to 1.11.

First off I enabled every channel, boosted the +8 in the input software the cranked the gain all the way to the max on the front pots, and added the +6 DB on the second gain page so to be clear this was VERY VERY loud. With nothing in the inputs I plugged my head set and can hear some slight rain, and hiss, amplification noise, well I thought - that’s no good, there is noise-, well after a plugged in the mics ( Sennheiser MHK416, MK67,MK8070) I realized that it would probably be impossible for me to ever need this much gain it was so amplified and loud that the dog across the street barked, and me from inside the house made the channels peak immediately and the level never went down, tremendously hi. So a took all the gains out (+8,+6,+ 8) and brought everything to what would be normal use, and calibrated with tone. Very, very clean, lots of head room the Senn 67 and 66 needed a little more than the other but good, workable.

Then I plugged 8 different mikes from good to bad including some old hard SM57, measured Phantom power with and without load, it didn’t flinch, right on the nose (a lot of mixers are not efficient or provide good voltage, that also kills your levels and your sound quality, because phantom is not good enough, (just saying).

Then I plugged in 8 Wireless, 6 Lectrosonics (2 SRB, 1 CR187 at 182.500, and 1 CR 195 at 216.100), and 2 Sennheiser G3, G2. Sounded very good, normal I would say, good manageable levels, and nice ample breathy mic sound on all, including the Senn (toys) with MKE2 and some other crappy eBay mic made in china $18.00, 2 month shipping included). Passed

 

  RF Spill: Did not find any, tried everything, with the transmitters and receivers mentioned, and nothing, put all my SMQV in 250 (HI) and danced around the mixer and nothing, I also put everything in the bag and wired and nothing, except from the CR 187 which is an old unit VHF, it could of picked up some RF on the cable, but only that one and barely.

 

  Timecode:  Timecode is been an issue in the industry since everybody went nuts and decided that 78 different types of timecode make a better movie or show, well it doesn’t, and everything can be matched and framed whatever way you want later or in-between. You buy an expensive TCXO super god control timecode unit (with an atomic depleted uranium fusion core in it), but they use a red camera or a Canon (highly inaccurate) and then Pluraleyes, or some other crap afterward anyway), so why worry? Because I do, and I want it to fall on somebody else, be able to sit down and show them that my files are right on time, and sync with the Big Ben in London, and the gong of the monks in the Himalayas every sunset, every time.

  So I setup the TC clock in RTC in the R-88, the jammed 1- Panasonic Broadcast Camera, a JVC Broadcast, a Leitch Studio master control clock, a Denecke Time code Display, and a Denecke TS3 Slate. I let it run for exactly 4 hours. I did not see a drift at all, then went for 8 hours more, total 12. The R88 was 2 frames short, but the slate was 7, the Leitch was 1 ahead and the display, was 5, The bench was cold overnight and the variation of temperature over all was between 20 and 30 degrees, so to me it’s very acceptable (by the way, I don’t go more than 2 or 3 hours without re-clocking all equipment on set, Jam slate and camera, etc., so I don’t see a problem). Then I turned the R88 off and left it off for 4 days, no batteries (AA), no backup, nothing, also a temperature swing from about 65 degrees in the day, to 25 degrees at night, on a shelf, out of the bag, in the garage. Plugged in the IDX to the 4 pin and low and behold, the clock was on time minus 2 seconds,  to me very accurate, better than the slate does sitting next to the craft table with Lithium Ultimate batteries. Also locked all the pieces of equipment to a Horita generator, and they all kept up to the frame for about 8 hours test.

  

  Limiters: The individual one on every channel responded very good and smooth, I was really surprised, because the reacted and sounded almost exactly, to all the others, Sound Devices (bla bla software magic) or Zaxcom (bla bla limiter world) and any other crap advertising scheme they sell us, over all I don’t use limiters, because it always sounded unnatural, (Eg. Shure mixers), but I was pleasantly surprised, I gained up the boom to very high and screamed at it and the peak light came on once, then I listened to the recording, and no pumping or shelving of the audio, you do notice its going down and trying to level it, but it’s very subtle, definitely will use it in yelling or loud explosion situations without a doubt. Using it on normal speech did not notice anything. All the same with the master output limiter, just like SD, ZX, AE, or any other.

 

  Frequency response: I fed a generator to the input at mic and line level, and swept through with noticeable level deflection on the display itself and the direct outputs on a scope from 16HZ to 24KHZ, which its pretty good, since most people can’t hear bubcus over 20K and most wireless don’t do very well over 16K, but if you will do music, or instruments, it becomes somewhat important, especially at higher sample rates.

 

  Bit rates and Samples: I tried them all, and passed with flying colors even the 24 bit was accurate, I put the files in the computer and did a Salomon Reed bit rate test and it was there (so I don’t know what people are saying that 24 bit was not good, and that their not all created equal, 24 bit is 24 bit, and I think Roland is using a 32 bit floating point accuracy comparator, which makes it much better (probably selectable in some future update). I did a wind recording at my backyard pine tree, with a Sanken, a Schoeps and a AT boundary mic at 192K it really sounded sweet !!!.

 

  Physical unit: Yes the buttons feel plasticky, because they are, and the pots are not attached to the face like other units so they waver a bit, and gives it that home stereo feel, of course not a NAGRA tank, but they are reliable, no noise, no sweep problems, no dead spots, they are shielded and sealed, so it works. The overall of the unit seems solid, the battery case is plastic, but the thumb screws are metal and tight, the whole assembly comes out so there might be some rechargeable battery in the works for it.

All the connectors feel solid and click right, the XLRs all lock and release perfectly. The headphone jack is a ¼” and in the front, it locks, but if you use a 90 degree right angle adapter as you move it to the side it sort of ramps up the edge and disconnects.

The connectors in the back are also good and a welcome idea to have all inputs to direct selectable outputs, can be used for many things, multiple backup records, broadcast feed mix to Sat truck, track minus talent, talent minus track, effects minus talent, Air minus talent, IFB mix, RTS mix, Secondary language mix and so on, other sub mixes, if doing stage a sub mix to monitoring, or talent, etc.) I would say useful, does not hurt to have.

 

  Features: I think it has great features, very easy access to everything, I would say you can do a variety of changes with 2 button pushes and display, everything is right there, simple interface, fast access, and easy way back with one button push (for quick changes).

File structure is good and customizable, it does not have pre build templates like SD or others, but I like the hands on approach, I easily created a Movie Title Project, a sub with the scene number and take and then 7 users prebuilt for other scenes, so 2 quick pushes I had this.

 

BATMAN------|

                         |Scene22A_T0001—8 Channels + Mix

                         |Scene22A_T0002---8 Channels + Mix

                         |Scene22B_T0001---4 Channels + Mix

Etc., etc., etc…, you can create yet another sub under scenes, for Room tone, weird noises, farting, spiritual encounters, or some other unknown reason, as far as i tested you can have as many subs dirs. as you want, with in the FAT32 file system. Writing with the display is very easy, has all letters, caps, symbols, numbers etc., complete. I would like the Display a bit bigger, color and better definition, but as is, works perfect, accurately. I think the touch screen and the choices on it are good and a pleasure to use.

 

  Controls placement: Everything you need in a flash is there, including a hold, slate and tone, easy to switch headphone monitoring to any source or combination you like, gain right away, phantom individually controlled and a physical switch on each input (not some cumbersome, file, menus tree, and system 7 knob selections).

Record and play 1 icon on top of display, all important information on main screen, a Spectrum analyzer (pretty accurate too) Display, very visible during daylight. A good delay adjustment (if needed) on all channels. A 3 band sweepable EQ, (no other production mixer has it) the ability to gang (link) multiple things together (inputs, outs, eq, arm, levels, individual sets or sets of 4 and 4).

 

Ins and Outs: All the 8 inputs are XLR, all the direct also, 2 XLR for main mix, plus a 3.5mm mix (for Comtek, or second head set), Time code in and out on BNC (instead of Hirose, or Lemo $200.00 cables needed). Pretty solid USB connectors, (not your crappy Chinese type that fall apart). Solid springy SD card port, solid in and out. Digital in and Out, very good and noticed NO (Unusual) delays or lag in AES. (I embedded and de embedded to HDSDI and back to analog, and it was solid, with a couple of AJAS, a NANO Flash, Broadcast camera and JVC & Panasonic Broadcast/Film monitors with Audio de embedder to analog audio.

 

  Audio interface: Runs great, test it with Sonar X2-3, Reason, Protools, Sound Forge, Vegas and a few more, perfect, no noticeable delay, and it sounded good and does simultaneous no problem, with a Mac Pro and a PC.

 I ordered the UM one midi interface to test a couple of fader units see how that goes (that would be the final complement to this unit, because nobody else does that either, except, Tascam and that one looks basic too, with no options to use anything else). There is an Icon Pro (looks a little clownish in colors and under developed/basic) The J Cooper, looks like an industrial project box, and its expensive for what it is and does, there’s a Beringer, (chepo depo), basic- basic.

My goal would be the Mackie Pro Universal Midi/USB, has 8 channels plus master, none of the others do, and according to the Roland Midi assignments sheet of the unit, I could have almost everything programmed to the control surface including, EQ, gains, sends, arm/disarm, soloing, etc., etc.

 

I SMELL FEAR from the other manufacturers and there is a reason, IT’S A GOOD UNIT, not as pretty as an SD aluminum billet, or NAGRA acid washed aluminum frame, but it will definitely give everybody in the industry a run for their money.

SD rushed the NEW 633 so much that the already have 2 updates to fix it, it’s a carbon fiber body, and it’s a few dollars more than Roland, it only does 6 channels but they advertise 10, two of them you cant use for anything more than recording another stereo mix, or the conversations about women on set with the boom guy. In practice you have 6 channels, which only can be 3 mics, and 3 line unless you use line amps or the other way around. The menus are complicated and cumbersome. The display looks gorgeous, but so does the dash in my M5, neither record 10 usable channels, phantoms are only 3 and software driven, the headphone outputs are not as easy to get to, and that’s why they made favorites menu for it. It definitely doesn’t sound 700 dollar better, and you have to buy a sleuth of new cables and unusual hookups, eats batteries like crazy, at best you get 1.5 hours. Your second output on a 3.5mm (X3X4)is a duplicate of headphone out, so any selection you make goes out to Comtek (L+R,L &R,L,R, mono)-(I can hear the producer yelling, something is wrong with audio!!!). No direct outs of any input. No expansion possible (or link to other unit).

Zaxcom too, has another unit out with another array of short comings and needed extras to work properly.

Tascam, HPS 82 has become a dinosaur, and really was never a good contender.

SD 788 same thing.

I wish we had other USA made units, and better choices, a Lectrosonics of mixer/recorders ( Lectrosonics because they are well made, logically designed, normally priced, and great support), but since we don’t, we do what we can.

 

 

  Overall: I personally think it’s a great unit, it has a lot of features none other has, the only one that can be sitting in a cart fully loaded, with control surface and computer simultaneous back up, and disconnect one USB and run to the field to do a pickup, wild sound or a hero car run, comeback plug in one USB and up and running from your favorite chair chewing on a Twizzler.

 

  Wish List: A better definition color display, changeable  frequency of tones, 440, 1k, 10k (or anything in between), a side headphone jack, another stereo mix output, selectable assignment cross channels (e.g. Audio in 1 to 8 only with or without slate or arming track). A square footprint, instead of that triangular trapezoidal waist of space. All controls attached to front face. Separate cover for USB and SD card. Simultaneous record to SD and USB storage (SSD Drive), EXFat and/or NTSF file system choices, plastic framing to a anodized aluminum. More space or no frame, on bottom input XLR to accommodate right angle connectors.

I think that’s it for now, let’s see what Roland or Santa can do.

 

 

Reality check!!!, How many times are you really recording  8 full track plus a mix; is pretty aluminum worth 10 grand out of your pocket, or is having the overly expensive tool make the mechanic???.

A good sound guy with decent gear can do a lot, I think the manufacturers of high end gear, still think that everybody in the film and television business make 2 or 3 million a year,… I DON’T… I wish, but I still would buy the piece of equipment that gives me the best use, features and reliability. I don’t want to carry 40 pieces of gear anymore. Editing and shooting on the road in the late 80’s and early 90’s, I carried 42 cases, 2 BetaCam SP, 2 ¾ inch, a VHS, a grass valley switcher, a Sony BV900 editor, a  Chyron, BVW 400 Camera, all the cables, batteries and power supplies, with transformers for all the voltages in the world. I can do all of that with one software, one laptop, one camera, today.

 

 

 

NOTE: Guys, you talk about the quiet pre’s and bla bla, but yet the producers have us recording an important dialog at the end of the runway at MIA or LAX,(that a plane leaves every 32 seconds), or they let the talent wear the noisiest shoes or fabric that has ever been made, also, we bust our humps to record the best on location sound, and then they have a 2 year old music mixer, that uses mp3 sound effects files for the show.

  Let’s be realistic, the wheel was invented a long time ago, we do our best, and try to keep as much of the little money they want to pay for us. Even do we get paid better than McDonalds, Sound is not like the hey days, and over all we have a tremendous amount of overhead and maintenance that other departments don’t have (DP gets rentals, lighting gets rentals, electrical gets rentals, director puts nothing, producer puts less, but us we usually own our gear, yet the talent forgets to take the mic off/or IFB going to the bathroom and we lose a mic or a TX/RX in the toilet and the producer plays dumb for days, or has a high deductible and cries like a baby.)

 

 

  Remember this:  Everybody is HD and 2K, 4K, 8K allK, digital HDSDI, 1.5G, 3G, 6G, but WE humans are all analog, and not the best Actor, Singer or performer in the world can do Digital out the throat, we still have to record analog sound and reproduce to analog ears, so sound is (almost) forever, and you don’t need a lens filter or a scrim for that.

 

 

Christian S.

Christian,

 

Thank you for taking the time to post such an informative and engaging review of a recorder that doesn't cost enough for some to even have a listen to. You make some great points about a number of things and i enjoyed reading it. Overall very positive. 

 

atb,

 

dan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

xtiantv: " Timecode is been an issue in the industry since everybody went nuts and decided that 78 different types of timecode make a better movie or show, "

actually we are pretty standardised on SMPTE/EBU TC, and it doesn't affect the quality of the movie or show, but, properly implemented,  it typically improves the workflow noticeably

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Christian,

I am the first to buy a R88 in India(Mumbai) and am happy with it especially for its price. I would like to ask you, are you a sales representative of the product?  Because apart from the time code there are many things a field recordist would like to have on his recorder which can be upgraded on future update but I do not know where to write it? As far as  Sound devices is concerned I have a 744T & 664 and I am happy that I can contact their representatives when ever I need them

       Max

Mumbai India

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, thanks for the review. It sounds so very positive that I wonder too, like Maxie, if you are a Roland rep?

Especially the way you are lashing out at the competition is very unbecoming.

Yours was a very long post, so I'll only pick out a few bits that I can remember of the top of my head.

You say you are a long-time audio pro yet you confuse inputs and tracks. The 633 is 6 input mixer with a built-in 10 track recorder. That's what it claims to be. And that's what it is. And then you off-handedly dismiss the entire SD/Zaxcom/Tascam/Nagra range without really justifying it.

You don't mention much about metadata entry/editing.

Unplug one USB from the Roland to move from cart to bag? What were you recording?

While you say that self-noise isn't that important (and you spent a lot of time on it, almost as though it were important) on most sets, you also think the R-88 is at home in other recording scenarios, and you're probably right. But in those other scenarios (such as classical music?) the self-noise is important.

Did you say much about the actual sound of the preamps, transient response, and so on? Sorry, can't remember.

Anyway, bottom line, I for one would've enjoyed your review much better if it hadn't been for all the negative campaigning

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi everyone, I’ll try to address the questions and concerns on this response.

Sorry about the (Bla, Bla, it wasn’t meant in a demeaning or derogatory way, just lazy), it was late and I didn’t really start to make that long of a review, to be honest, I have been on the internet since 1994, and HAVE NEVER POSTED A REVIEW or a comment on anything, but this time I was so frustrated that there was nothing on a device, I thought it deserved something, I always believed that credit should be given when credit is due.

 

  First I’m, not a rep, or related to Roland in anyway, actually, the last time a touched a Roland device I think it was about 10 years ago, as everybody else I considered Roland a musical instrument, it was never in my radar for what we do, Sound, anytime anybody mentioned Roland, the first thought in my mind was a keyboardist, or a guitar player with a boss effects box.

 The idea of checking the R88 came about when my son wanted to come in to do sound, and I was looking for something he could use on smaller (lower budget projects) and still have a decent recording without dishing out 6, 7 or 8 K, because for one of those anomalies of life, when your kids need something you get stuck with the bill, LOL.

  When I purchased my first NAGRA IV-s 4.2, I mortgaged my house, now let’s be clear I have 722, 744, 788, AE, and NAGRA, etc., they are beautiful devices, and they run for ever, loved them would use them always, I have never talked against them, other than I think these companies have sat on their laurels, and for the price, are not giving us a better piece of gear, for the most part, all of them, have improved manufacturing on their end, but have not improved on features on ours, if you have a 2007 T788, and a 2013 T788 it’s about the same unit (plus or minus some firmware updates and fixes), and I know what everybody is going to say—Why change what works?--- it not the point, there should be improvements, and betterment as we move forward. Every 6 months Smartphone manufacturers give you a new device with this or the other little gadget on it, cars have special features added every year model change, I think this should have that energy too, also I understand that if you do changes, the model before drops in price, the more it stays the same the more it retains its value, but I would really like it to improve. Also if we are realistic, most manufacturers would like you to buy multiple peripherals to do EXTRA stuff, it seems TO ME that Roland decided to give you these little extra things without having to.

 

   Today’s recorders depend mostly on the electronics, and if you look inside, there is a few manufacturers of IC chips in the world, that are shared between all of them, yes they built certain things or designs to manufacturer’s  specs, but, you might find a NEC audio processor on your Sound Devices, that is also in another unit, or the output drivers are the same on a GE unit installed in a Boeing 767 radio system (this is just a general example, a wide brush stroke, don’t jump me saying you disassembled the radio in a Boeing 767 going to Qatar and didn’t find the NEC chip).

 

   Metadata entry/editing: Yes it’s very lacking, bare minimum at best, but I sat down for probably 2 minutes and with wave agent it had it all in, of course we want to run after day wrap, and a minute more on set seems a day, but it’s not said that it could not be improved, keyboard added and so on, with future models or updates (I couldn’t find out what memory capacity or eproms it has inside).

 

   Classical music is a different type of animal all together, it takes a lot of work, Very, very good mic placement, a really good set of ears, and personally if I needed to record Classical music Id use a Studer 827, or a D827.

But if I was limited to use this device, and 8 channels were enough or timecode lock 2 or 3 of them to record the music, I would do it, use a higher sample rate, and get the best mic, I could, find, rent or steal. Now if the London philharmonic is hiring you for the project, and you show up with this device, I’d probably shoot you.

 

Timecode, of course it does a good easy flow with everybody on the same page, but I can’t tell you how many times on first day, (or even a call from others) there is a huge debate, between, DP, with 24FPS and DIT and 23.976, 23.98, etc. etc. Not really my problem, because ill record any frame rate they want, ill modify the unit to do 18 frames for Charlie Chaplin movies with sound, but it is a permanently floating issue here and there.

 

 

Bottom line, I think the unit was well thought out, and this will give (as it does) other manufactures incentives to do better, cheaper and efficient.

The unit has shortcomings, but I think over all for 2500.00 you can’t beat it, and again let’s put everything in perspective. Sound devices called the 552 a production mixer/recorder for 3500.00 and does not have timecode gen, and records five channels.

 

All in all I just wanted to give everybody a overall feel for the unit and what I experienced with it, not a sales pitch, not too put down the quality of others, just that I think it can be a contender, and an eye opener for things to come.

 

 

Christian S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the R88 has a few clever features and interesting ideas. How well they work in practice remains to be seen. Just a quick note on updates: if you follow these pages you will note the "why change it when it works" is really not a doctrine for many here. It's easy for guys like Apple to release a "new" phone every 6 months, but how new are they really? But Apple have the kind of manpower that most of the companies producing for our market just don't have. It takes time for them to develop something new and they want it to be good when they release something new. But most of them release something new once a year, that's not that bad. Also, perhaps you should go through e.g. SD's firmware update list. What they could add and improve without releasing a new recorder is amazing My point regarding classical music has been somewhat lost on you, it seems. You said self-noise isn't important, I said it is to those who need their recorder for many scenarios. Again, I agree that the R88 has some nice features, but I don't think it's going to have much of an impact on our world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christian, thanks for your posts. Ya, it takes a while to get a sense of this forum's personality and expectations. No worries. But many of us are a fan of knowing whom we're chatting with. At least, I do.

 

So is this you?

https://www.facebook.com/xtiantv

Christian Santiago

 

 

Thanks and welcome.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christian said:

"All in all I just wanted to give everybody a overall feel for the unit and what I experienced with it, not a sales pitch, not too put down the quality of others, just that I think it can be a contender, and an eye opener for things to come."

 

Well, I have to say that I think you had limited success opening anyone's eyes but were quite successful in your negative characterization of just about everything else on the market.

 

I would prefer to read a review by someone using the Roland on a typical jobs that we all do, whether a feature movie or episodic TV show or something, before I would be able to translate the "feel for the unit" that you have tried to show us.

 

...and yes, it's a tough crowd here, no apologies but that's just the way it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I also have to thank Christian for his detailed review and I have the same opinion. No producer would pay you more for your Equipment if you buy a SD 788 T for 7999,-€ / 6395,-$ instead of a Roland R-88 which costs 2259,-€ / 2495,-$. Certainly not if he has the same sound quality. And he has the same quality. We have to be economically like every company.

I also tested the R-88. I´ve made different recordings with a Shoeps CMC 5 and an mk4 capsule. One with the R-88 and the same recordings with the SD 744T. Then I´ve imported the files into Pro Tools  and gave it to a very good and established postproduction studio. They could´t here a difference. One, for instance, was a quiet room, recorded with maximum gain. Another was a voice recording. No difference. I like the handling from the R-88, it is very easy and has almost a self-explanatory menu. But I don´t want to make the same detailed review like Christian.

I can't understand why a recorder must be so expensive. For instance the Aaton Cantar X (13995,- $), which has such a complicated handling. I suspect the difference is not the quality, it is the size of the companies. Roland is much bigger then Aaton, Zaxcom or Sound Devices. For them it isn´t so expensive to develop a recorder like this. And we are a small community which buy such recorders. But it is, of course, up to you, if you want to buy a SD or Zaxcom  ;) . Then I start earlier to earn money with my equipment :D .

I ´ve heard al lot people saying, such a cheap recorder can´t be a good and professional recorder. But just because thousand of people say this, it must not be the truth.  Eat shit, because thousand of flies can´t be wrong!  ;D

 

A lot of times, I´ve worked with the SD 744 and 788 T and I think he is a good recorder but not perfect. Specially with the CL-9.

 

Finally, the most important thing is, to make a good and professional work and sound quality. In the process it isn´t so important which equipment you use. Everybody has his own philosophy !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

moonman: " I can't understand why a recorder must be so expensive. "

that is a separate discussion, but it seems that many of us here not only understand, but willingly make the professional choice.

Of course products designed and produced for a larger market sector, like MI, are produced more economically (cost/unit)

 

" I ´ve heard al lot people saying, such a cheap recorder can´t be a good and professional recorder. "

not me,  some, but not many real professionals; we don't have to say it, because we recognize the differences, and they are important to us...

 

" Eat shit, because ... "

that is a poor attitude, but I have frequently said that in listening to the results, even the experienced professionals cannot tell what specific equipment was, or was not used to make a recording.  there is a lot more to our equipment selections than just how it sounds...

 

" In the process it isn´t so important which equipment you use. "

golly, gee...  I think I may have said something like that myself...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

studiomprd: often you're talking about, the real professionals don´t work with this equipment, right? Therefore, the other are not professionals? I say producers make this decision and the Postprostudios who are satisfied with the work. It is interesting that you know the opinion of all your colleagues at the world  ;) . Anyway, as I said, you can have your own opinion, but it isn´t convincing when you speak on behalf of all. To be a "real" professional is more than the right recorder to work with.

 

It has always been difficult for people who think differently. :D

 

"there is a lot more to our equipment selections than just how it sounds…"  I agree, that´s why I don´t like the Cantar X (most expensive Recorder). The sound is good, but to work with it is very complicated. The R-88 is much easier. A friend of mine worked with the Roland R-4 under the worst conditions (-20 degrees and + 37 degrees, storm, dirt) and he was absolutely reliable.

I´m not a salesman and if I had the money I could imagine to buy the sound devices 788T but for this money, i think, it is a very good recorder. Also for real professionals. In any case, it is a good solution suitable as a replacement unit.

 

studiomprd, have you ever worked with the R-88 or is this a prejudice?

 

By the way, it's a minus that he loses the TC. I don´t like it, to take a Lockit or something else. I have enough material on the cart. I hope they make a new update to clear this problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I have been working with the R-88 for almost a year now and I am very happy with the unit. If anything the unit is probably capable of more features and expansion that hopefully Roland is willing to develop in future updates. I don't feel the unit needs defending. Its a very solid, well thought out device in its price range. The R-88's price to performance makes it stand out but I don't think its going to change the industry. It would be more accurate to say that the R-88 is a reflection of the changes in the industry. 

 

Here are a few of those things I feel should be updated.

1) Simultaneous media.

Roland really needs to allow users to write to SD and USB simultaneously. In a professional setting redundancy is very important and even though I have had no issue with data loss I would prefer a "permanent" drive in the unit and a "removable" drive for clients and backup. Sure I can drop the files on a usb drive after but it would save time if they were already there. Plus the spring mechanism in the SD slot seems more likely to suffer from use than the USB slot. 

 

2) A mini fader add-on thats bag friendly.

I have had good success using different midi controllers with the R-88 but I would like to see them develop one specifically for the R-88 while in a bag. Something small and top mounted similiar to the size and placement of the Cantar X3. While not a fan of tiny faders I would prefer this to knob or touchscreen any day. 

 

3) Keyboard support and improved meta data

Pretty self explanatory. 

 

4) Software for Mono and Poly management.

I have been using Wave Agent (Sound Devices) and I think Roland needs to offer something similiar. I don't think this is too much to ask from a company the size of Roland. Judging by the fact we didn't even have poly wav until the update I doubt this was even on Rolands radar when the unit was in development.

 

5) An adapter for NP-1 batteries to mount in the existing battery bay.

Sure you can run NP-1 though the 4 pin XLR but it would be better to reduce the added cabling and weight. This is also partly because the Porta-Brace bag for the R-88 assumes you will put NP-1/Power distribution in the compartment that lies on your stomach. I don't feel comfortable having a battery that close to me. Its also not practical to place it in the front bag since many will probably fill that to the brim with wireless lavs.

 

Anyway, hopefully this helps someone who may be looking for some info on the R-88. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

5) An adapter for NP-1 batteries to mount in the existing battery bay.

Sure you can run NP-1 though the 4 pin XLR but it would be better to reduce the added cabling and weight. This is also partly because the Porta-Brace bag for the R-88 assumes you will put NP-1/Power distribution in the compartment that lies on your stomach. I don't feel comfortable having a battery that close to me. Its also not practical to place it in the front bag since many will probably fill that to the brim with wireless lavs.

 

Anyway, hopefully this helps someone who may be looking for some info on the R-88. 

 

I've been out with the R-88 only a handful of times. Mike, from Roland, was kind enough to let me work with R-88 at NAB this year, so we had it displayed in the MXC-R88.

 

I'd love to get some feedback on the Portabrace MXC-R88. If you or anyone would like to make some suggestions I'd be more than happy to make those changes to improve the bag.

 

Providing a good setup option for multiple users is what I would like to accomplish. So please do help discuss some suggestions. I will follow this topic closely.

 

Thank you.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Can you over dub on the R-88 [in the professional sense]

 

                       J.D.

You can't... as far as I know.

 

I use to forget that - a few times I planned to work with it when some overdubbing was required, but I had to bring a more cumbersome laptop + soundcard combination on location for that instead - those were some non-video, music only recording projects on location... Some live recordings on location where the musicians wanted to overdub some solos, vocal lines, etc.

 

I still like the machine very much... just finished recording sound for one short film with it... it is a breeze and pleasure to work with and just today we also recorded one choir with it - video and audio project - two stereo pairs - main ORTF and spaced omni on the sides plus some spot mics for soloists... Very nice and tidy done with R-88... I already know from what I hear that its preamps are very nice, but this article boosted my confidence that it is indeed PRO enough sounding machine... :) : http://mixonline.com/news/roland_systems_group_holophone_dts_to_demonstrate_3-d_surround_at_nab_2014_show_0404/

 

Would still be interested to hear some direct comparison clips with SD and Nagra (VI) - especially for music where Nagra is king. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I've been out with the R-88 only a handful of times. Mike, from Roland, was kind enough to let me work with R-88 at NAB this year, so we had it displayed in the MXC-R88.

 

I'd love to get some feedback on the Portabrace MXC-R88. If you or anyone would like to make some suggestions I'd be more than happy to make those changes to improve the bag.

 

Providing a good setup option for multiple users is what I would like to accomplish. So please do help discuss some suggestions. I will follow this topic closely.

 

Thank you.  

 

       Wow, its good to see Portabrace is reading these forums. I feel like the MXC-R88 is a good bag and really just a few nips and stitches away from being great. Probably the first thing I would have liked to see was a few more of those velcro dividers. Sure they are cheap and I can snag some online but it seems like something that should be standard for a bag that holds an 8 channel system (lavs, lavs, and more lavs). Second would be the side flaps. You guys almost got it right but they need to be able to be folded completely open. The top part of the stitching prevents this. Heck even making them removable would be great. Third is that compartment that is under the Roland on the outside. Just seems too low and I would of rather of had it inside the bag. And lastly is the headphone pouch. I am glad its there but it needs to be removable. I carry my headphones around with me and having to take them out just to put them in another bag seems silly. 

      All that being said I own many Portabrace products and I am happy with all of them. I would be more than happy to test out any new product ideas you guys have ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

       Wow, its good to see Portabrace is reading these forums. I feel like the MXC-R88 is a good bag and really just a few nips and stitches away from being great. 

 

Thanks for your time and input. I haven't yet had the time to review the potential changes with the MXC-R88. I'll definitely be working on improving the bag. I'll be following the posts and making a check list of all these ideas. 

 

Thanks again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Hello fellow sound recordists and mixers. Once again, now it's close to 1.5 years since R88 is out. I can definitely say that I really like the machine. Of course there certain negative sides of it, but which machine doesn't have one.

 

Anyways wanted to say, that after I've tried NP1 type batteries, currently using Frezzi-Max FNP-1MH, 13.2V-3.5AH - R88 performed with multi tracks enabled for over 9-10 hours without a siingle shutdown (I've done it for experiment specifically).

 

I'm very happy with that amount of run time on a single battery, and right now I own a pair of those. I'm not going to brag and such about SD, Zax, Nagra, Fostex, Tascam, Marantz and whatnot. but in my close to 9.5 years of working in film as a sound recordist, this machine definitely deserves a spot in history, and from the good side mostly.

 

TC bugs has being fully fixed after first update (it was resetting itself after shutdown) I run my TC on Deneke SB-2A a camera, never

had any issues after that update (had to rejam after power off all the time)

 

Poly B-wav are also work perfectly as well.

 

Wishes:

Multiple menus was added and hopefully more will be added. Also hoping in the future to get some assignable combinations of buttons, like on SD's recorders, similarly. Also would love to get a full MIDI #CC list with every single available comand  on the machine to be able map the small controllers, not just jrcooper. Would be nice to see a possibility of routing a tape out for a Return, since it's most likely made digitally, so would be nice to be able to switch that sercuit in reverse.

 

FYI: Done close to 8 features with it with 0% ADR, and multiple other works. Great machine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Done close to 8 features with it with 0% ADR, and multiple other works. Great machine.

There are many reasons for ADR. Among them:

Bad choice of location (incl lawnmowers, etc)

Other extraneous noises

Director wants to change dialogue and/or performance of the actor(s) after edit

And so on.

About none of them (that I have ever heard of) is the choice of recorder.

I am glad for you you're happy with your recorder, but it's not the reason for 0% ADR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...