- Which feature do you like the most / the least? Pros: I always have it with me, the quality of the integrated mics is ok.
I especially like the shock mount of the mics. With all other products I tried out (Microtrack, Zoom H4 and even Nagra Ares), the mics capture handling noise, which make it difficult to use when you hold them in your hand. For me, the Edirol is perfect: the mics capture handling noise in case of shock. That's its main advantage compared with competitor products (and, funny enough, almost nobody mentions anything about it).
Cons: signal-to-noise ratio (although all similar products have nearly the same signal-to-noise ratio with their original mics). The stereo capture of the internal mics is a bit special but practical: the sounds in the middle are easily placed (voices) without panning, and the left/right sounds are rather good reproduced in the stereo field.
- Did you try any other models before buying it? Nagra Ares M, Zoom H4, MAudio Microtrack, Marantz PMD670, Korg MR1. The Marantz sounds good but it easily distorts the sound with high-sensitivity mics, making the use of condenser mics, like the Sennheiser MKE-44, impossible unless you use an external pad. The Nagra Ares is very good if you have the HQ mic. The sound is perfect for field recording but unfortunately it is very sensitive to handling noise. The Korg MR1 is very bad for field recording: you have to use a menu to set the level on each channel separately. The input level controls of the Maudio generates a lot of noise, even with external mics. All these products are not conceived for recording when you hold the unit in your hands.
- How would you rate its value for money? Excellent.
- Based on your experience, would you buy this product again? I would buy the new model (HR) and I would test newcomers (from Marantz and Tascam).
Originally written by Doppelpat on Audiofanzine FR.