I'm thinking of getting a remote recording tool, and I think I've narrowed it down to one of these two.

Primary use for me will be recording line input from a mixing board, and using the built in mics to capture jams.

The Zoom H4 has too many issues and offers more options than I need. While it sounds cool, I can't see needing phantom power in a mobile recording device.

Anyone have experience with the EdirolR09 or the Zoom H2?

--David

I have an Edirol, and it works great. I wish the battery/card cover was a little easier to manipulate and not plastic, but I understand the design issues involved and why they did it that way (except for the plastic part..). As far as recording quality and controls...it is really a good little box, very intuitive, great battery life, decent mics for picking up live sound in a room. I have not A/Bed it with the ZOOM, but after talking with several friends who had one or the other, and reading reviews on the web, I went with the Edirol. Not sure you'd lose either way, but that was my choice, and I'm happ with it.

I got the Zoom H2 for Xmas, it is really easy to use and sounds fantastic. I am a real technopobe but have found this thing great. I didn't realise how nice my guitars(not my playing) sounded until I recorded them. It would be ideal for recording jams and practice sessions in truly excellent quality. I looked at the edirol but I'm glad I saved some money and went with this.

The Edirol definitely is convenient and easy to use, but it has a very audible hiss. The Marantz PMD620 is another good unit to consider, as well as the Sony PCM-D50. Here is an interesting site for comparisons:

http://www.wingfieldaudio.com/portable-recorder-reviews.html

I too have the Edirol R09. I think it is tremendously easy to use, but then I've not compared it to much.

I've used my Edirol for both 24bit and mp3 recordings, and have pulled the 24bit files into ProTools and listened to the tracks over a couple of pairs of different, but very good studio monitors--my monitors at home are DynAudio BM15As. At least with my Edirol recorded tracks, I do not detect a hiss, so whether that's the luck of the draw or something else, I can certainly get usable field recordings from it. I obviously don't track with it when I'm in my studio, and I haven't A/Bed it with the Zoom, but my experience has not, at least to date, been problematic.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: citycountryguy,

Doug Young and I did a shootout that included the Zoom and Edirol, but I'm embarrassed to say that we had the R09 set to MP3 instead of WAV and we had the lo cut filter engaged.

With that in mind, you can check the details, see some pics, and listen to clips at my Homebrewed Music blog:

http://www.fxguidry.com/pblog/index.php?entry=entry080112-121236

Be sure to turn up the gain and listen to the tails, the fade out of the last note in each clip.

Fran

Nice site, Fran. I don't know if it's the .mp3 setting or pure internal noise, but the Edirol seems to have a lot more self noise than the Zoom. In fact, the Zoom sounded dead quiet to me.

What was your final take on the whole thing?

Nice playing by the way, and a lovely guitar as well.

--David

Dave:
I opted for the new Sony PCM D50 mini field recorder. I have not used it to record at a festival or anything like that. I use it to record new ideas quickly and easily. It sounds incredible.
It's pricey, but well worth the quality you get.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Randy Bauer,

quote:

Originally posted by emandnatesdad:
Nice site, Fran. I don't know if it's the .mp3 setting or pure internal noise, but the Edirol seems to have a lot more self noise than the Zoom. In fact, the Zoom sounded dead quiet to me.

What was your final take on the whole thing?

Nice playing by the way, and a lovely guitar as well.

--David

My final take is to wonder why I spent a bundle on the Fostex and associated gear . I thought the Fostex showed very very well in comparison to the much pricier Sound Devices, but for my uses, the H2 really covers the job.

Fran