Customer Reviews

Edirol R-09 WAVE/MP3 Recorder-Black

5 star:		(43)
4 star:		(15)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I previously wrote an Amazon review of the main competition for the Edirol R-09 digital recorder, namely the m-Audio "Microtrack". In that review, I noted some serious reservations that I had with the Microtrack. Since that time, further experience with m-Audio and the Microtrack soured me on that company and that product, but Amazon does not allow a person to modify their reviews. I don't want to go in to the details here, but I will say that I decided the Microtrack was barely worth bothering with, and I ordered the Edirol R-09.

The R-09 is obviously targeted as a 'Microtrack killer', and in most ways Edirol has come through on all counts. In my limited experience with this very recently released product, I have yet to find any firmware bugs or disappointing functionality or performance (whereas my m-Audio's most recent firmware revision for the Microtrack, as of this writing, is still buggier than a bait shop, and shows no sign of really getting fixed properly).

The R-09 is for all practical purposes the same shirt-pocket size as the Microtrack. Where the MT used a very simple operator's interface, the R-09 instead uses something more like a conventional CD player/MP3 player/tape player interface that requires no user's manual to instantly feel comfortable with. You have the basic 4-way navigation pad that is either up/down/left/right or play-pause/stop/'rewind'/'fast forward', plus a central button that is either 'Enter' or 'Record'.

The R-09 has a tiny little LCD display, smaller than the MT, but it is superior in every way. It has all the information you caould ask for, very good level (VU) meters that actually work and respond well, elapses time, time remaining on memory card, track name, record/playback status, peak memory, special effect mode, etc. It is a monochrome LCD of high resolution and high contrast, with a bright (and adjustable) backlight. Although you need to hold the display close to your face to read it, once there everything is clear and legible.

To make sure that you know when the R-09 is recording, the Record button lights up with a large and bright red LED, and this can be seen from across the room. The LCD's level meters include peak indicatiors, but the R-09 also has a bright green LED above the keypad that lights when you have reached 0 headroom; this is handy when you are recording yourself, maybe in your own band or orchestra, and want to glance over to make sure the recording is OK....red light on, green light off, and all is well.

The R-09 takes two normal AA batteries, which can be alkalines or rechargeables. The R-09 will record or play for hours on a normal pair of batteries, and you can change them out any time. Compare this with the MT, which has a non-replaceable rechargeable battery inside; if it runs out during a session, you are in trouble, since m-Audio recommends against powered the MT from the charger while turned on. The R-09 has a menu selection for type of battery, and uses this information to properly estimate the remaining battery life for its display indicator. If you set this incorrectly, the unit will still work but the battery display will be inaccurate.

The R-09 has a decent set of mics built in, and the preamp has a Low/High selector switch that is accessible directly without going through the menu screen. This would be set to Low for most music recording, and High for capturing meetings and outdoor samples. The R-09 does not have balanced inputs like the MT, but has instead one mic and one line input jack, each using the common 1/8" diameter phone style connector. Via the menu, you can decide whether the mic jack supplies so-called 'plug-in-power' for the external mic. Many small stereo mics intended for camcorders and computers require the 'plug-in-power' to operate.

The R-09 does not have S/PDIF input or output (the MT has only input), but the intended market for this unit would most likely never use such a signal anyway. There is a single output jack, also and 1/8" stereo phone type, and it can be used for three purposes: headphones, line output, or digital output. I am not familiar with the protocol used for the digital output, but the manual suggests that some powered speakers, etc; use this type of plug and signal.

The R-09, like the MT, has a USB plug and a memory card slot. Unlike the MT, the R-09 hides these behind a sliding door on the bottom of the unit. The USB is capable of higher speeds than the USB on the MT, although you will still find it easier to remove the memory card and plug it into your computer's flash card reader for downloading.

The R-09 uses the 'SD' type flash memory card, as compared with the MT's use of the Compact Flash card. Both types are readily available and inexpensive. You can get a 2GB SD card for less than $50, and this will store 3 hours of 44.1kHz/16 bit PCM coded audio in WAV file format (i.e. CD quality).

For playback, the R-09 has a nice little digital reverb option with five choices: large hall, medium hall, room, plate, off. This works well and sounds quite good; a nice way to sweeten the recorded sound.

For recording, the R-09 has an automatic gain control (AGC) which quietly prevents clipping if the recording level is set too high for the music loudness. Normally you would not use this, and would turn it off, but sometime it can be a life saver. A big improvement of the R-09 over the MT is that the recording level can be turned all the way down to 0, meaning that both gain and attenuation are available as required by the input signal levels. One thing missing is that the R-09 cannot set the left and right channels to different levels, something the MT is able to do.

Setting the record level is down with a pair of up/down buttons on the left side of the R-09, rather like a cell phone volume control. The current setting is displayed on the LCD. Similarly, the playback level is adjusted with a pair of buttons on the right side of the unit. A minor annoyance is that the R-09 levels are set with a terranced/stepped internal circuit, which makes a very quiet click each time you ramp from one level to the next. This is useful, as you can hear the amount of change, but it is something you will hear in the recording. Best to set levels before starting the real recording, or use the AGC if you will not be able to set levels ahead of time.

For almost every application, I would recommend the R-09 over the competing Microtrack. I would only consider the MT now if I needed S/PDIF interface or the ability to set different left and right levels.

The Edirol R-09, the long awaited closest successor to the Sony M1 type of DAT recorder, arrived. The entry of small portable DAT recorders was a boon to people wanting a small, quiet, high fidelity, audio recorder that was easy to use, and had long run times. To some the M1 was limited by not having balanced mic inputs. There have now been a succession of non-mechanical recorders using flash media and I own and use three of them. The R-09 is a joy, like the M1

The unit is smaller than the M1, a little fatter than a deck of playing cards. It shipped from Full Compass in a typical small product box and when I opened it, and moved through various items, I thought they have forgot to include the recorder. But it was sitting there wrapped inconspicuously at the bottom. The cables, and power supply take up much more space. The owner's manual had a cover sheet warning about how to install the batteries, something that was also talked about in the detailed user guide. Opening the recorder to install batteries is its one Achille's heel and requires caution to not force it open. The mechanics are unusual, you slide the cover half way to get at the USB and SD card, and then have to slide a lock in the right direction to have the door pivot to open up the battery bay. Be careful here. It takes 2 AA's just like the M1 and 2500 NiMH's will power it for a very long time. I've run it for 9 hours recording with those.

The recorder has more familiar buttons and controls than it's closest competitor, the m-audio Microtrack 24/96 which is only slightly longer. The R-09 screen is small, almost junky, but it is bright and easy to read, with strong black and white letters. Without looking at the manual, you can program the date, and details with one hand. There are two built-in microphones which work very well. The Microtrack lacks internal microphones, and a T-microphone is supplied which is quite good but it is more of a hassle to use the recorder that way because it sticks out and if you wanted to just put the recorder in a pocket and record yourself, there will be much more rubbing noise. I've put the R-09 into a shirt pocket and recorded events very well without much body noise using the internal mics which sound very clean.

Unlike the rotating wheel for recording levels on the M1, there are two buttons to set the level and these appear to function like true gain controls, which are different from the 24/96 where level setting goes by three steps (only two for plug in power) with some adjustment within them. The m-audio sets right and left channels independently or they can be ganged, a feature lacking on the R-09. The Marantz PMD-660 has true concentric wheels to set recording levels, sort of like the Sony TC-D5M cassette recorder that I loved using. There is no limiter feature, but tbe automatic gain control on the Edirol works well for mic input, and does not function for line level input. There is a high-low mic sensitivity slide switch. The recording level meters appear to actually depict recording levels, unlike the m-audio. There is a peak indicator for clipping and in my limited experimenting with peak levels, the signal doesn't degrade as much as I expected. So recording is fun.

The unit has plug-in power with adequate voltage to power my Sonic Studios DSM-6S, something the m-audio can't do, and requires an external power supply for that mic. There are no balanced mic inputs with phantom power as the Microtrack and Marantz have. The Microtrack only provides about 30 volts but that is adequate to run my mics. The Marantz has XLR connectors, the Microtrack 1/4 inch TRS jacks require adaptor cables. The PMD 660 has no plug-in power, about the only limitation it has for my usage.

So recording is a joy with the R-09. The display shows recording time left, and time as well as whether plug-in power is on. All units have a hold switch, slides on the m-audio and Edirol, and requiring to push two buttons simultaneously on the PMD-660. While recording, there is a red oval light surrounding the record button indicating the status, whereas on the Marantz, indication is similarly clear from a red diode that either flashes for standby or is continuous when recording. The Marantz has true mono recording, that is recording time available is twice that in stereo. the m-audio has a mono-mode but it records two channels simultaneously and you can't have longer recording times as would be useful for meetings that last weeks.

The Edirol records 16 and 24 bit, at 44.1 and 48 kHz sampling, as well as mp3 from 320 kbps down to 64 kbps. The Marantz for mp3 has only 128 kbps or 64 for mono. The Microtrack goes down to 96. The lower transfer rates are useful for recording non-critical voice, hence my reason for going into detail here. I find one can send lengthy (1-2 hour) voice files over the internet when compressed by software to 24 kbps. It is a great way for sharing lectures and discussions.

There is digital output by Toslink through the headphone jack on the R-09, and no digital input, something others might find a problem. The 24/96 has SPDIF digital in and out through a phono jack. The Edirol has USB 2.0 connectability to a computer, as does the 24/96 while the Marantz has only 1.1 and you require the unit to have the AC power connected to transfer or download directly to the computer. I get around this with a CF card reader. There is no other digital in or out for the Marantz.

I really like the Edirol so far. My only concern is the battery door. It is great having replaceable AA batteries to power it. This a feature lacking in the microtrack which has a built-in lithium ion battery and when power levels drop, you can connect an external USB device with 4 AA's to power it, but this is complicated and cumbersome. The display is smaller on the Edirol but is much more readable than the bigger one on the 24/96. It is more fussy to run the buttons on the 24/96 and the slider switches are more easy to move by mistake with unrecoverable consequences, while the Edirol has smaller slide switches whose position is more difficult to change by accident.

Names of audio files can be edited in the Edirol, and not in the other two recorders. Both the R-09 and Marantz provide considerable information about the files on their screens, while this is limited in the 24/96.

If compactness doesn't matter, the Marantz PMD 660 is my favorite because it has features not available in the smaller units. These include the ability to edit files that have been recorded, that is to make smaller ones and merge several. Battery life from 4 AA's is remarkable, and the unit feels rugged. It has built in speakers which the other two lack, and you can monitor recording through them as well as with headphones. During a recording a point can be marked making it easy to return there during review, a useful feature for interviews. There is a remote recording control to start and stop recording as well as place marks, a very valuable feature in many situations.

The Microtrack 24/96 has much higher sampling rates than the other two, a feature that doesn't matter to me and it has balanced mic inputs as well as digital I/O. But I had to get 4 units replaced because of production problems and the one I have now still isn't right. Other reviews haven't mentioned such problems. It took a number of firmware upgrades to get the functions to work as depicted in the manual. I feel least confident with the battery that will require eventual replacement, a costly process.

The Roland R-09 is compact, featured, easy to use and may become the one I use the most. It is becoming accessorized to get with the iPod mania, so there is a carrying case with a tripod on the way as well as a microphone stand adaptor to put the unit in its case on a stand to use it as a complete microphone-recorder combo. We are blessed with good recorders to choose from.

Just after ordering the Edirol R-09, the Zoom H4 came out, which promised even more features at $100 less. I ordered Zoom H4, too. The Zoom went back and the Edirol stayed, despite the premium cost.

The Zoom has a huge variety of features that the Edirol lacks. The Zoom may even sound the slightest bit better (more open, slightly better high end) when both are used to record with their built in mics. However, this functionality comes with a price--a much more complicated interface.

The Zoom does everything. It records directly to wav and mp3. It's a 4 track recording studio. It serves as computer interface for your guitar. It serves as an effects box. It can emulate four different types of microphones, such as the Shure SM57 and the AKG C414. It's even got a built-in metronome and tuner!

In order to do all this, the Zoom H4's buttons and controls must necessarily be multi-function. On top of that, it adds a jog dial (like the wheel on a mouse: slide in either direction to change menu choices, push to select the current choice). It is necessary to go two levels deep in the menus to set recording levels manually. The Edirol R-09's interface is so simple and intuitive that many could use it without even looking at the manual. Since all I was looking for was a recorder, the Edirol was the easy choice for me.

The Edirol is quite rightly criticized for how awkward it is to insert and remove batteries. In theory, it's a lot easier to do with the Zoom H4. In practice, I found it just as awkward. I found the SD card much harder to swap out of the Zoom H4 than out of the Edirol R-09.

The Edirol R-09 has four very small rubber buttons on the back. They're too small to notice until someone bumps the surface the recorder is sitting on and the unit doesn't move! The Zoom unit has one rubber button on the back but it didn't seem to grip much.

As the side-by-side photo I uploaded shows, the Zoom H4 is a bit larger than the Edirol R-09. I did not find the H4 so much larger as to be a burden. I did find the Edirol's screen easier to read, however!

A Zoom plus: The Zoom has a true automatic gain control, where the Edirol's is a compressor circuit. The Zoom prevents clipping at high volume where the Edirol boosts low volumes without guarding against clipping.

A Zoom minus: Both devices have level meters. The Zoom has no peak indicator that I could find. The Edirol, in addition to its meters, has an impossible-to-miss LED that blinks when the unit peaks. This makes it very easy to adjust levels properly by using Up and Down buttons on the side of the unit, which can be done even while recording.

One final comment that won't mean much except to other die-hard MiniDisc users like me who stuck with the MiniDisc despite its shortcomings because its fidelity is so good. The Edirol R-09 is the unit that got me to finally abandon the MiniDisc!!!

Hi! Last month I purchased a R09 unit and I don't regret it. BUT, although the price-level and ability-level is somewhat right, the build-quality is NOT!

The R09 plusses are:
The best feature is its small handy size: The R09 is all about a satisfying recording quality (low added hiss and a very sensitive pair of microphones!) and a fantastic recording duration with a (extra!) 2GB SD card. Wide range of recording modes(MP3 WAV), but some rates may not be compatible with other equipment, so check out your digital file chain first. I also appreciate that it runs on just two cheap AA batteries!

A strange observation: This unit could fit four (4) batteries WITHOUT changing the size and external looks! There is room for four (4 x AA) batteries because the space next to the two AA batteries is EMPTY! Well, apart from the power-plug socket (on one side) that could easily be relocated. With a good sized SD-card memory, the batteries are the limiting time-factor (only to about four hours of continuos field recording), and that is very unfortunate. Four AA batteries would also add some welcome weight to this flimsy-feely, non-mechanical recording device. Lucky me, I found a 25 year old SONY-walkman back-up battery-box (D-size x 2!)that just needed a smaller plug to fit the R-09. Great, because now I can record for a full days lectures independently of a power socket. This SONY-box takes less room and the unit remains portable, and I got my four batteries! (2xD+2xAA=4)

The R09 negatives are a few:
The quality control is lacking and build-quality is "cheap & plastic" for this price-point, and the two excellent onboard microphones (my reason for getting the R09) are able to pick up rattle-noise from the loose (no kidding!!!) main control-switch.
I suspect someone on the assembly line forgot to drop in a soft spongy washer (like in other gadgets) for that nice professional finger-feel. If you ever so gently shake the R09, it rattles, yes the R09 rattles my friends!!!! So much for the benefits of total silence from a non-existent tape transport...

It has a tiny little info-screen, so bring strong glasses if your eyes have more then 33 years usage and you find much to see. Forget the pathetic "sound-sweetener" (reverb) that only work on the headphone socket streaming that is only sweet (useful?) if the R09 is used as an iPod with pre-recorded music!

Weird feature on a dedicated recording tool! "Ouch man, foocryingoutloud, it did not sound flat like this during my sound check, huuw?"

The many R09 connectors are all over the unit, so if you attach external power, headphones and an external source, the R09 looks like its crucified. It would be lovely if all connection was on the top of the unit, and only up there, thank you! Then you could even find/make a usable and nice protective "R09 overcoat". Now the R09 gets twice its original circumference with all those nessesary plugs connected.

Missing R09 features:
Worst gripe I have is that this baby lacks a "file-splitting" feature. Dividing existing files can be a extremely useful and space saving feature, if you (say) have a long lead-in silence to a piano recording that should be lopped off. After a finished recording (when still fresh in you mind...) you are able to immediately chop up the file in relevant sections and delete what is useless.
I also find the lack of a "sound activated rec-function" disappointing when considering the R09 ability to cover a very long lecture/talk, unfortunately now with every long and empty sound breaks.

How sweet it would be if it had a 2-3 second continuos recording buffer, and a "sound trigger" (auto & manual) that included the "pre-buffer" in the recording!

The missing camera-style tripod screw-attachment is a another oversight on this "all-in-one" field unit.

Also, my thumb desperately searches for a depression or a "rubbery area" for a sweet grip, but the R09 feels like holding an expensive shiny Chinese snuff-bottle - you can't help wonder how much it will cost you if it slips out of your grasp. So, you look for a sling inside the R09 box, but none is to be found! I got a typical camera wrist-sling in a camera store (at a whopping $7.00) and attached to the spot between the microphone and the line-in plug. Another bizarre EDIROL omission!

Final comments:
Next EDIROL R09 must not have a SD-memory slot limited (why?!) to only 2GB, or it may just as well be packed with a 2GB internal fixed memory, or (better) both. At least the meny "move" function would then make sense.

Next Edirol (wait for it if you can!) probably will be smaller and cheaper, maybe dressed in a new "friction grip" body and wrist sling packed, file-split ability, camera screw so it cane be rigged to s tripod (even a flash-shoe for a good external mono zoom-microphone!)

Next I would love a file-function like easy file-splitting, thank you very much!

I'm not going to post a self-contained, really in-depth review describing all the features, specs, and quirks of this unit, since there are enough of those out there already. I just want to step back and talk a little about how it serves my needs as a musician, and address some of the concerns I've read in other reviews.

First - I'm a professional jazz musician, and I like to record some of my gigs. I had been using a portable Tascam/Teac DA-P20 DAT recorder that had XLR inputs. It worked well enough, but the battery had long ago died, meaning I had to use AC power, and transfer of the music to my computer meant hooking up audio cables and basically re-recording in real time, as I have no digital input on my PC. It was enough of a hassle that I only did this for "special" gigs. I could have looked at finding a replacement battery, getting a digital I/O interface for my PC, and continuing to use the DAT. But still, between having to set up the mics and having to run the transfer in real time even if using digital transfer, I started to get curious about the new generation of portable recorders. And then, my DAT started to go on the blink, which kind of sealed the deal.

BTW, I also have used my DAT using the line inputs for more "studio" type recording, using more microphones and a mixer and sending the results to the DAT. No complaints about the performance of my DAT there; I'd just want another portable recorder to do as well.

So far, I've brought the R-09 with me to four gigs. Instantly, I am *hugely* impressed. Considering how *easy* it is to record with this thing - turn it on, press the record button (twice), set it down, and you're off - it really produces remarkable recordings. I'm not ready to say they are *as* good as the ones I made with my DAT and my two semi-professional mics carefully set up in front of the band, but they aren't *obviously* much worse, either. Actually, in some ways, I'm pretty sure they are better - setting up the recorder right on the bandstand rather than 10 or 20 feet in front as I generally had to with the DAT setup gives more presence to the piano sound, and allows me to affect the "mix" somewhat in my positioning of the recorder. Unless I decide to figure out my DAT issues, I won't be able to do a real A-B test, but I'm not feeling the need. I'm perfectly happy with what I'm hearing even using the built-in mics, and am confident that if I did set up my mixer and other mics, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Transfer to the computer is, of course, also *enormously* streamlined compared to the DAT - stick the SD card in my card reader and copy the WAV files.

Between the ease of *making* the recording, and ease of *processing* the recordings, I can see I'm going use this thing a lot more than I ever did my DAT, and have no doubts that before long, I'll have enough usable material to release a live recording. I'll have no qualms about using this recorder for that purpose - even using just the built-in mics, which produce recordings that sound far better than many other live albums I own, and don't sound noticeably worse than even the better ones.

Remember, I'm a musician, not a sound engineer, so I have no doubt that there is more noise in these preamps than in a truly professional system. But still, we're not talking cheap cassette recorder levels of noise, or even four-track hi-speed cassette recorder with dbx - we're talking more than a recording professional might be accustomed to. But note that any noise going to be most noticeable in controlled tests, not in live music situations, where the ambient noise often easily masks recorder-created noise. Note there is a mic sensitivity switch on the back of the R-09. I would definitely recommend experimenting with this as well as the record levels to reasonably "hot" record levels for the situation, so that any noise you do get on the recording isn't amplified excessively during later audio processing such as normalization. If recording a solo acoustic instrument in an otherwise silent environment, you would definitely want to consider external mics and a mixer with better preamps if you're planning on a commercial release, but even in that type of recording situation, the built-in mics would be fine for producing demos or even CD-R's to sell at gigs.

I'm also sure that "real" mics have better frequency response and less distortion than the built-in mics here do. And of course, you're welcome to use them, with an external mixer or dedicated preamp. You might also want to check out a plug-in powered external stereo mic, although given that you'd still be using the built-in preamps and hence probably no less noise than the built-in mics, I'm skeptical this would be enough improvement to be worth the expense and trouble. Again, as a professional musician, I'm quite pleasantly surprised by the sound one gets right out of the box.

Now, of course, what I'm saying could potentially be said about any of the comparable units, so don't my comment as saying that the R-09 is clearly *better* than the Microtrack, Hi-MD recorders, or whatever else you might be considering. I will say that everything I'm hearing leads me to believe the actual difference in recording quality is minimal, and the differences will have more to do with usability concerns.

So, let's talk about usabilty. I have used a portable DAT and have already mentioned the convenience factor. I'd also say the controls on the R-09 are somewhat easier to deal with than those on my DAT were, but either could be called simple. I'd contrast this with the Sony Hi-MD. Unless your music is so uniform in dynamics that you don't mind using the default automatic gain control, setting levels on the Hi-MD is a cruel joke, and having to *reset* them every time you stop the recorder and restart it is, well, it's hard to believe anyone would market such a device for anything resembling professional use.

I haven't used the Microtrack, so I can't directly compare ease of use, but I'm really nervous about that proprietary battery, especially given my experience with my DAT. AA's *rule*. I am finding a set of 2 NiMH's will last me at least full 4 hours of recording, and actually, it will go 6 or more hours if I let it. Actually, even though I've set the option to tell the recorder I'm using NiMH's, it starts flashing the "Battery Low" warning after just 2-3 hours, but it's lying - it really will continue recording for several hours more.

The lack of a true built-in mic on the Microtrack is a *slight* disadvantage. I mean, how hard is it to plug in the little mic it comes with, and I'm sure it's roughly comaprable to the R-09 mic in quality. Still, it's one less thing to deal with on the R-09. Lack of phantom power or balanced mic inputs doesn't concern me about the R-09: if I'm going to the trouble of setting up "real" mics, it's not much more trouble - and it's almost certainly going to be far more effective - to set up a mixer too.

The one thing other recorders have that I wish the R-09 had was the ability to divide up a track after recording. It's not as big a deal if you've got enough SD cards to simply record everything and deal with it later, but if space is tight, being able to go through on a set break and delete an individual song you know you won't want to hear - or even just a long bit of nothing you accidentally recorded - would be great. Also, having individual trakcs right there on the recorder makes playback easier if you want to hear a specific tune right after the gig and don't want to have to fast-forward or rewind through the whole show. As it is, you'd have to be stopping and restarting the recorder during the recording to have individual tracks. If the recorder is in easy reach, this is simple enough, but why have to depend on that.

Others have raised the issue of build quality. I wanted to see the thing with my own eyes before buying, and these are still (early August 2006) in very short supply, so it took a while to find one, but when I did, my concerns were mostly alleviated. It doesn't feel any cheaper than other small electronic device I've owned. And while that battery door is indeed an odd design that seems unnecessarily fiddly, it doesn't really seem in danger of imminent breakage. Given that the Microtrack fares no better, and the actual moving parts in the Hi-MD make me far more nervous about long term reliability issues, I didn't find this a cause for concern.

Bottom line:

If you're looking for soemthing to record your own gigs, this unit, with its built-in mics, will do the job extremely well - well enough that it's really hard to justify paying much more for any marginal improvement you'd get. For my purposes, the R-09 does just what it needs to do and does so affordably enough that I could easily justify it. And frankly, the small size will mean I use it in situations where I'd be unlikely to use anything bigger. Meaning I'll be more likely to capture the really special moments. So I can honestly say I believe I'm going to be able to create a better live recording with this recorder than I would with anything else currently out there.

I am a part-time musician and am always looking for something small and portable to record practices and concerts. For many years, I used a WMD3 Sony professional walkman but flipping the tape every 45 minutes was a pain.

With the advent of digital technology, I got a Sharp mini-disc and found it to be very useful. The 80 minute discs were great and sound quality was quite good. Later, I got a Sony M1 professional DAT. It was very good, but I found the built-in mic preamps disappointing, despite getting the Oade modification. Recording time increased to 2 hours. The real drag now was transferring the recording in real-time to computer for conversion to .wav so that I could make CDs.

I recently got the R09. It is small and very light, much lighter than my DAT. It uses SD cards. A 2GB SD card, costing $25, can record 3 hours of music at 44.1khz! It will also record straight to mp3 if you have a smaller card or need to conserve space. Best of all, there is no real-time transfer hassles. Just plug in a card reader and drag and drop the file on the computer. Awesome!

Another nice thing about the R09 is that there are a variety of input options. There is a mic input and line input, and there is a lot of headroom on the input, making it difficult to overdrive it. There is a low cut filter to filter out rumble. The mic input uses 1/8" mini jacks and will supply plug-in power to mics just like the Sony WMD3 and PCM M1 do. The R09 also features built-in mics whose sensitivity can be adjusted (high or low). During a recent practice, I used the built-in mics and was pleasently surprised at the superb quality of the recording. The R09 gives me the option to use the built-in mics if I don't want to take my external mics.

Some people have complained that the R09 will take only up to 2GB SD cards. This is not true any more. Roland recently released firmware 1.10 which allows the R09 to use the new SDHC (High Capacity) cards. There are very reasonable priced 4GB ($50) and 8GB ($100) cards available.

The R09 is very easy to use as well. The interface is so intuitive that I made my first recording and played it back without ever having to look at the manual. The display is a bit small, espcially in this day and age, but perhaps Roland did it to conserve power. Because of the line-in, it is very easy now for me now to convert cassettes, minidiscs, or DATs to .wav without having to tie up my computer for hours on end. The ability to convert audio to .wav without a computer is very handy.

In summary, the R09 marks a major paradigm shift in portable recording devices. It is now so easy to tape lectures, concerts, practices, just about anything and almost immediately have it available for burning to CD for playback. The Roland R1 and M-Audio Microtrack paved the way, but this is the unit that packs the needed features and ease of use at the right price point.

Highly reccomended. If you shop around, you can get the R09 from an authorized dealer for less than $350, a bargain price when you consider what it allows you to do.

Just after ordering the Edirol R-09, the Zoom H4 came out, which promised even more features at $100 less. I ordered Zoom H4, too. The Zoom went back and the Edirol stayed, despite the premium cost.

The Zoom has a huge variety of features that the Edirol lacks. The Zoom may even sound the slightest bit better (more open, slightly better high end) when both are used to record with their built in mics. However, this functionality comes with a price--a much more complicated interface.

The Zoom does everything. It records directly to wav and mp3. It's a 4 track recording studio. It serves as computer interface for your guitar. It serves as an effects box. It can emulate four different types of microphones, such as the Shure SM57 and the AKG C414. It's even got a built-in metronome and tuner!

In order to do all this, the Zoom H4's buttons and controls must necessarily be multi-function. On top of that, it adds a jog dial (like the wheel on a mouse: slide in either direction to change menu choices, push to select the current choice). It is necessary to go two levels deep in the menus to set recording levels manually. The Edirol R-09's interface is so simple and intuitive that many could use it without even looking at the manual. Since all I was looking for was a recorder, the Edirol was the easy choice for me.

The Edirol is quite rightly criticized for how awkward it is to insert and remove batteries. In theory, it's a lot easier to do with the Zoom H4. In practice, I found it just as awkward. I found the SD card much harder to swap out of the Zoom H4 than out of the Edirol R-09.

The Edirol R-09 has four very small rubber buttons on the back. They're too small to notice until someone bumps the surface the recorder is sitting on and the unit doesn't move! The Zoom unit has one rubber button on the back but it didn't seem to grip much.

As the side-by-side photo I uploaded shows, the Zoom H4 is a bit larger than the Edirol R-09. I did not find the H4 so much larger as to be a burden. I did find the Edirol's screen easier to read, however!

A Zoom plus: The Zoom has a true automatic gain control, where the Edirol's is a compressor circuit. The Zoom prevents clipping at high volume where the Edirol boosts low volumes without guarding against clipping.

A Zoom minus: Both devices have level meters. The Zoom has no peak indicator that I could find. The Edirol, in addition to its meters, has an impossible-to-miss LED that blinks when the unit peaks. This makes it very easy to adjust levels properly by using Up and Down buttons on the side of the unit, which can be done even while recording.

One final comment that won't mean much except to other die-hard MiniDisc users like me who stuck with the MiniDisc despite its shortcomings because its fidelity is so good. The Edirol R-09 is the unit that got me to finally abandon the MiniDisc!!!

As amateur musicians, my better half and I use this to record workshops, rehearsals, jam sessions, etc. Over the years we've fiddled with minidisk recorders and an iRiver T-30 as well as various flash recorders, cassette recorders, etc ... and all I've wanted the whole time is to SIMPLY RECORD MP3 AUDIO AND TRANSFER IT TO MY MAC WITHOUT FUSS.

I still don't know why it has to be so daggoned unusual or expensive to want to record compressed audio ... but anyway. The R-09 is my happy answer. It's heads and shoulders above the rest in terms of audio quality and ease of use. I have a Mac, he has Windows ... the R-09 doesn't care. Just transfer the files over, doubleclick on them, and whoopee! They're opened in iTunes and I'm done except for typing in new file names.

It also records in wav and uncompressed formats, but for my purposes the mp3 mode is fine. My only two complaints are with the battery/USB access door design on the bottom of the thing -- it's so clever it's stupid -- and the rather steep price, but I guess that's what it took. At least it works, and works wonderfully.

It's also easy to use; I figured it out without the manual and even got everything set up in about 5 minutes of button-pushing. Plus, recording is brilliantly simple; reminds me of the old cassete days -- push the big button in the middle and it flashes red (standby); push it again, and you're recording.

So it's perfect for a half-blind and impatient middle-aged person like me. :-D

Oh, one more note: go ahead and spring for the 2GB card or whatever (that's what I'm shopping for right now); the included 64 MB card only buys you about an hour and a half recording time -- even at a low signal rate and fully compressed audio.

But overall, it's great. At long last, simple recording and transfer regardless of operating system. Thank you, Roland!

I like it a lot. But amid all the raves (most of which I agree with), I think some of the negatives get lost. So let me focus only on the negatives, for balance (notice I did give the item 4 stars)

1. handling noise with built-in mics (better set it down on a table, or else hold from bottom and DON'T MOVE)

2. wind noise with built-in mics (should have used better wind screens)

3. goes thru batteries like crazy (maybe there's something wrong with my deck, but it gets nowhere the rated battery length)

4. flimsy construction (the body of this thing is obviously cheap, thin plastic - and even the metal part is just about foil-like. A friend who's an audio pro tried to attach a mic pre-amp using velcro tape, and when he pulled off the tape, the whole body came off with it).

5. very flimsy construction of battery cover (opening the cover inolves a really crappy, finicky, plasticky procedure, and while mine hasn't broken yet, it will soon, I'm sure of it, because this thing eats batteries so fast. Worse, you need to remove battery cover to retrieve memory card)

6. display is unreadable in bright light

7. display is small and poorly conceived (small little icons...I want a nice big clear level, not all this tiny, fuzzy, unreadable crap)

I purchased my Roland/Edirol R-09 a little less than a week ago. As usual, Amazon was flawless in the execution of my order and it arrived just in time for me to road test it during a rehearsal session. I selected the R-09 over offerings from M-Audio, Korg, Marantz, and Sony. My decision was based on reviews on Amazon and the "right mix" of features that I wanted: Standard AA batteries, up to 48 kHz/24bit recording quality, portability, SD memory card, ease of use and manufacturer's reputation. For my use, which is recording live music played on a wide variety of acoustic, acoustic-electric, and electronic instruments, the R-09 seemed to be the best fit.

I also ordered the carrying case/tripod package and both arrived at my office before lunch. I decided to give the R-09 a whirl at lunch. Some of the reviews mentioned a problematic battery/memory card door so I was careful and I read the quick start guide. Once you know the secret of the little slider button and the dual action of the compartment door, it really works quite well. With two fresh AA batteries (not supplied) installed, and the 512K MB memory card in place, I was ready to go in just a few minutes. I had been warned to expect a somewhat less-than-sturdy package, but the R-09 is well-designed and up to current electronic manufacturing standards. The unit is very light, which may account for the impression that some may have that it is cheaply-made in comparison to its price tag.

During my lunch hour, with my office door closed, I recorded a simple rhythm on my Ovation (unplugged). With the R-09 near the suggested neck position, I found that the "high" setting on the mic gain switch provided the best levels. Setting recording levels is very simple and the peak indicator keeps you out of trouble. Even though I used the default 44 kHz/ 16 bit recording setting, I was astounded by the quality of the sound on playback! Tonal balance was lifelike and the detail was truly amazing. Overall, even at this "medium" quality setting, the playback in Sony enclosed-type headphones, or my Altec Lansing monitors, was beyond what I expected.

Emboldened by my initial test, I took the R-09 to rehearsal that night. Instrumentation for the rehearsal road test included several acoustic and acoustic electric guitars, two guitar amplifiers, live vocals, Digitech(tm) Vocalist® vocal harmonies, and digital playback from a Digitech(tm) Jam Man® loop box. I placed the R-09 on the knuckle of my mic's boom stand using a previously-owned flexible claw-type tripod inserted into the receptacle on the R-09's optional case. The manual suggests placing the unit in the center of a rehearsal group. Amps we placed at seated head level and on the floor.

Again, setting the sound level was surprisingly easy. I still used the high mic gain setting and found that the peak led meter kept me out of trouble. The flashing "record-armed" button was easy to see, and easy to distinguish, even by feel. We recorded eight tunes before we knew what hit us and the R-09 performed perfectly. The system menus are intuitive, simple, and not so deep that you get lost. The most common functions are easy to access; though renaming the resultant recording files is a little cumbersome. This is a minor inconvenience, however, since you will probably do most of your file management later on a PC. If you are recording at medium and higher resolutions, I definitely suggest springing for a 2GB SD card.

At one point, an electrical storm interrupted our session and I grabbed the R-09 and headed for the back porch. I hit the record button, set the levels, and then recorded about six minutes of the storm. The playback, not to beat a dead horse, was truly amazing. The few peak LED spikes from nearby lightning strikes produce no audible distortion and the stereo separation between a downspout, close and distant thunder, and rain hitting a walkway was crisp and lifelike.

After the rehearsal session, I copied the resulting files to my I-Pod® and also burned the files to a CD. In both cases, I simply inserted the SD card from the R-09 into my notebook PC rather than use the USB connection. Playback of the tunes, whether using the stereo output jack on the R-09, the CD in my truck, the I-Pod®, or I-Tunes© player over my PC monitors, revealed the closest thing I've ever heard to our live performances. Each playback method colored the sound as one would expect, but overall, I am thrilled with the sound quality, and that was a huge criterion for my purchase. I am a long-term Roland customer and the R-09 only further cements this relationship. Roland should coin the term WYHIWYG, or what you hear is what you get.

Based on the sound quality, ease of use, and portability, I would highly recommend this unit to anyone who has similar requirements. I have a room full of other recording gear, but the R-09 is so simple to take along, set up, and use, that it will get the majority of my attention. You don't need to mic every instrument and struggle with the difference between what you are hearing in the room and what the microphones in your recording set up are hearing. To switch between cello, guitar, mandolin, keyboard, bass, dobro, banjo, harmonica, or any other instrument requires only that you do what you normally do. This is a major point for me; that you can create music the way that you would in a live context without getting sucked in to the vagaries of sound engineering. You don't have to manage two sound schemes; what sounds good in the room, and what sounds good in the ear of the recorder. With the R-09, they are the same.