re H2 conclusion

[rpjazz...@gmail.com]

After a gut wrenching evaluation process I've reached the following
conclusions.

The H2 sounds pretty good with the external mic, medium sensivity, mp3
at 192, no compression or limiting. There's some hiss with the
external mic, but it doesn't bother me. Medium sensitivity doesn't
seem to produce significant clipping at jazz quintet volume (with
drums).

For those that care, the hiss is much worse in the high sensitivity
setting with the external mic. I can't hear any hiss in the low
sensitivity setting.

There's no hiss problem with the internal mics.

The internal mics don't sound as good as my Sony ECMDS70P, but they
don't suck in the medium sensitivity setting.

The H2 may be a reasonable purchase if you already have an external
mic. Otherwise, there may be better choices.

[david morley]

I found the Edirol R09-HR to be better for me.

[Phil]

On Jan 6, 8:51 am, david morley <david.mor...@spamgmx.net> wrote:

> I found the Edirol R09-HR to be better for me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

David -- can you tell us why you prefered the Edirol? I'm considering
one of these.

Thanks
-Phil

[Bobo]

Sorry to barge in but I've had some experience with this stuff.
I've used the R1, then the R09, and now the R09Hr. I have
compared them to the H2, which I find makes inferior
recordings.

Both the R09 and the R09 HR allow 24 bit recording,
which makes it much easier to set a level and then not
hit the limit. This way you don't have to run any kind of
limiter or compression (which is avail on the R09HR)
and suffer any degradation from that source. I always
run at max word width, max sample rate (highest
dynamic range and best fidelity) and then cook them
down to CD or MP3 size after moving the files to a
desktop machine. Transcribe by the way is very convenient
for carving up such rehearsal or show recordings and
converting them to CD format. I have about 7 hours
of space on the R09HR (at that rate) and at least
4 or 5 hours battery life, with a pair of
AA rechargeables.

In head to head comparison with H2 (same group, same
tune, same time) the R09 is much superior in sound
quality. The H2 sounds like a recording. The R09
sounds like a really good recording. The R09HR at the
higher sample rate (96K) sounds significantly better to me,
so I don't mind the factor of two in space that I have to
use for storage.

If you try these things out be aware of this:

AGC will squash your recordings and make it sound dead.
To be more accurate, it will make it sound like you can't
play at all.
MP3's usually subject you to serious loss unless you run at
bitrates near CD quality.
Wide word width (>16 bits) is the right way to avoid needing a
compressor to avoid a/d saturation.
Finally, try them against your own ears - all this high fidelity
stuff is really a nicer experience, assuming you've been wearing
ear condoms during all the loud stuff...

Regards,
b

[sheetsofsound]

Thanks for the great review. I put that on my short list to buy!

[rpjazz...@gmail.com]

I think that this is probably right.

I compared the Edirol 09 to my old iriver, which I thought sounded
great. The Edirol was noticeably better.

With the external mic, the H2 sounds about as good as the Iriver, but
I never did head-to-head against the Edirol 09.

This shouldn't be surprising though. The Edirol 09 costs almost double
what the H2 costs ($165 vs $320). So, if you already have an external
mic, the H2 may make sense based on price point. If you have to buy
the external mic (about $50), that could change the equation.

[Phil]

I bought an Edirol R-09HR this past weekend. So far I am quite happy
with it -- VERY easy to use and configure, internal mics seem pretty
good (not as good as my Rode NT4, of course, but...)

I'll be recording a rehearsal this Thursday -- let you all know more
then.