Roland

Introduction

Readers may remember the launch of the first Deity microphone by Aputure back in 2017, since when – with the company spinning off to become its own entity in 2018 – they have launched a range of low-priced products aimed at production sound. Following the launch of their pocket recorder – the PR-2 – in 2023, 2026 has seen the launch of the PR-4: with four inputs (two XLR P48 – which also take 6.35mm or 1/4″ TRS jacks – and a stereo 3.5mm input) all of which can be recorded at the same time along with the stereo mix, making it a six-track recorder. As one might expect in 2026, it is what is described as a dual-ADC 32-bit float recorder. Some of the features reflect Deity’s focus on production sound gear: the timecode, AES3/AES42 inputs, and automix are the most obvious examples. Indeed, the company’s web page for the PR-4 assumes (dare one say, a little optimistically!) its use in professional production sound scenarios. But some features will appeal to a wider market and, of course, this non-production sound market may account for a significant proportion, if not the majority, of the recorder’s sales. Such features include dual media, small size, low power consumption, and the fact that the four inputs can be recorded as isos simultaneously. As such, it presents a viable and, on paper at least, attractive alternative to other compact recorders for the field recordist, be that for nature, ambience, sound effects or, even, simple location music recording.

Intrigued and wanting to test the recorder for such use, and to build on my exploration of the usefulness of small dual-ADC 32-bit float recorders for this type of recording, I got in touch with Deity and they kindly sent me an example, gratis. Hopefully, looking at it through this lens will interest one or two others. The aim is not to repeat the content of the plethora of reviews and vlogs, but, rather, to look at what I see the as the key things relevant to field recording that can’t be ascertained from simply reading the specifications and manual.

Physical form

OK, you can see the dimensions and weight from the Deity website, but there’s nothing like having a device in the hand to really get a grip on how it measures up – literally – to alternatives and, moreover, to get a sense of build quality. First up, here’s a few photos showing how it compares to my small stable of tiny recorders: the Sound Devices MixPre-3 and the Tascam FR-AV2.

As well as the obvious size comparisons, the photos make all the more obvious the design differences: in essence, the PR-4 is copying the vertical form of many a field recorder used for production sound (think Sound Devices, Sonosax, Zoom F series etc.), and to that end even makes a little production sound bag for it.

We all have our own likes and dislikes about ergonomics, usually based on what is familiar to us, so I won’t get into the placement of inputs, outputs etc.: certainly there’s nothing odder in this sense with the PR-4 than my much-used MixPre-3 with its third XLR input alone being on the right-hand side. Given my gripes about the fiddly battery compartment of the FR-AV2, the simple latched door on the PR-4 is a relief as is the simple catch to the Sony NPF550-style battery inside: an excellent powering arrangement and impressive in such a small unit. And nice to see a slot there for a full-sized SD card slot rather than a miniSD card. Ditto the hirose input for external DC supply, which is reminiscent of professional recorders, such as my Sound Devices 788Ts. After the fiddly buttons of the FR-AV2, I was looking forward to the PR-4’s use of three knobs (two for the channel controls – switchable between channels 1 and 2, and 3 and 4 – and the select knob) on the front, but, sadly, these feel precariously wobbly and are a far cry from the similarly small but metal knobs (in that case for input trim/gain) on the 788T and, at a much lower price point, the plastic knobs on the MixPre recorders: at a lower price still, the Zoom F8’s knobs are superior. The PR-4’s wobbly knobs and, indeed, the plastic casing (which feels less robust than that of the FR-AV2, though I haven’t done a drop test!) are far from reassuring, and the latter is presumably why Deity has designed (and included in my case) a chunky aluminium cage that can be bolted on. The cage addresses some of the concerns about the case, though it leaves the bottom rear corners exposed, and raises the question, why on earth didn’t Deity give the recorder an aluminium case/chassis? It is not as if this is out of reach of budget recorders: the Zoom F8, F6, F4 and, most relevantly, the little F3 are all substantially cased in aluminium, as indeed is the Tascam FR-AV4. I also note that Deity’s upcoming PR-8 seems to have a metal chassis/case.

Well, given my concerns about the toughness of the PR-4, we had better have a look at the aluminium add-on cage. It’s a nicely chunky affair, with a thick (7mm) top plate and a still sturdy (5.5mm) bottom half-plate (as I said, leaving the bottom rear of the PR-4 exposed), joined by standoffs in typical field recorder style. Both plates are peppered with 1/4”-20 and 3/8”-16 threaded holes, like a cheese plate, and obviously aimed at those incorporating the PR-4 into a camera rig: rest assured, the holes don’t penetrate the whole thickness of the aluminium so there is no chance of unwittingly driving a bolt into the plastic case of the PR-4. I am surprised, though, that there are 3/8″ threaded holes on the bottom plate: with only 5mm depth these give only about half the required thread engagement depth if using an aluminium screw (and about a third of the required thread engagement depth for steel into aluminium). I only noticed this when trying to mount the cage with a Rycote quick release, which seemed to have precious little engagement. Rather an unsatisfactory bit of engineering. Intriguingly there are four slots for fitting Rycote lyres or Radius Windshields hoops direct to the top plate, at what is marked up as ORTF. The website proclaims these allow ‘users to quickly mount a matched pair of microphones in the correct stereo configuration without needing separate bars or adapters’. Evidently there is nothing correct about the use of ‘ORTF’, which is an unequivocal industry standard for cardioid mics at 110° and 17cm capsule spacing, while on the PR-4 cage this is marked at – and indeed measures – 120°! As for speediness, this rather presupposes that you have pre-mounted four hoops or lyres to the top of the plate, are happy to use mics that fit into a very small range of usable body lengths (out of a large mic locker, the only mics I could seat comfortably and get the correct spacing were MKH 8040s with the XLR modules: heaven help you with anything significantly longer or shorter!), if you don’t need a foam on the mic, don’t require any form of cable grip/clamp, and don’t mind the pair facing at 60° to the face of the recorder. Obviously, it is far easier to grab an ORTF bar set up for your mics from your bag when needed and just mount this one to one of the many fixing points and have it point the right way. I know it’s trivial as nobody need use the supposed ORTF feature of the cage, but such details, like the too-shallow bottom plate 3/8″ threads, don’t engender confidence in the design and testing process. But, to the main point, provision of a cage by Deity from the off (at a price: £57 inc. VAT) gives some much needed additional protection, albeit with more weight (up from 333g bare to 531g with the cage vs the MixPre-3 at 635g, both with batteries fitted: the FR-AV2 weighs 289g, again with batteries) and bulk than if the recorder itself had been given an aluminium chassis.

If you don’t fancy the cage, Deity also provide protection in the form of a dinky sound bag designed for the PR-4, at £73.20 inc. VAT. It’s actually quite well designed and made, even down to the entirely removable clear plastic cover: obviously the pocket is too small for headphones, but I guess you can hang them off the bag along with coiled cables. It’s not really intended for field recording, though, where you would clearly be better off with a bag for all your gubbins, mics included, but perhaps an option for anyone contemplating using the PR-4 for production sound.

Functionality

This is the section where I particularly want to avoid simply re-hashing the manual or existing reviews – especially video-based ones – which run through the full functionality of the PR-4: for that, those are your obvious sources. Rather, it is probably more useful if I focus on the positive and negatives (and with the latter done in the hope of encouraging some tweaks in future firmware – just remember how Sound Devices modified the MixPre recorders in firmware updates, much in response to feedback) in relation to field recording. So this section discusses what I found as the most interesting and relevant aspects of the functionality of the PR-4.

Turning the recorder on (and the locking on-off switch seems fine), the knobs – despite their disconcerting wobbliness – are certainly functionally one-up on the FR-AV2’s buttons. The ‘skirts’ of the two channel control knobs light up a little like those of the MixPre recorders, although here not for additional metering feedback, but to show which mode you are in (yellow for basic, blue for expert). Perhaps equally usefully they ensure you can locate the knobs in poor light. A significant weakness of the Tascam FR-AV2 is its lack of backlit buttons when in using in low light, so the lit channel knobs on the PR-4 are a huge improvement on that: the unlit select knob is at least easy enough to locate in the dark and, though some backlighting and a bit more projection of the buttons would have helped (did the designers not imagine the recordist might need gloves sometimes?), the three buttons adjacent are just about OK to find. And when I say without backlighting, the record button at least goes from unlit to bright red when pressed. So, yes, there’s room for improvement both in terms of backlighting and tactile finish on the three buttons (come on, it’s 22 years since the Sound Devices 744T was introduced and nailed such matters, amongst many more!), and the basic physical controls fall well short of the MixPre-3 in the field, but the PR-4 is much less of an exercise in random fumbling and frustration than the FR-AV2 (or, I’d assume as it also lacks backlit buttons, the Zoom F3) when recording in poor light.

The AMOLED screen is small (36mm x 22mm: 456 x 280 pixels), but not impossibly so: it really isn’t very different in terms of area to that of the MixPre recorders (32mm x 26mm, but with a lower resolution of 320 x 256), and that one is used more heavily as a touch screen. The main home screen, however, seems much smaller on the PR-4 and that reflects the fact that use of the real estate of the screen is not brilliantly thought through. For example, it is nice having a display of the gain applied to any input, but a large ‘G’ and, even, a ‘+’ sign (there is no negative ‘gain’ option anyway!) in front means that it eats into the level meter area, as does the indicator, to the right of the meters, for whether an input has power (be that P48 or PIP). Black spaces between the four channel meters and above them all consume more of the available area. Deity have missed an opportunity to make better use of the limited available space for metering, I assume since the thinking is that this doesn’t matter when recording in 32-bit float! But that brings me to the real oddity on the screen: despite having room for a current frame rate indicator (in a distractingly bright blob of red), there is no room for sample rate or bit-depth display. I guess this shows their priorities, but sample rate in particular seems pretty key information to have immediately to hand, and is clearly shown on the admittedly larger (42mm x 30mm) FR-AV2 screen, and likewise on one of the selectable home screens of the MixPre-3. OK, you can get that information on the PR-4 by pushing the select knob to reveal the quickset screen, but that shouldn’t be necessary. Perhaps there are good reasons for Deity’s choices, but I hope that the firmware can be tweaked to at least give a couple of home screen options to suit different uses: there are plenty of recorders that do so.

Discussing the screen takes me neatly to a more positive side of it: while not a full touchscreen in the manner of the MixPre recorders, it has some touch functions. Swiping up gets you to last take), down to next take, right to record menu (such things as sample rate, arming channels etc.) and left to timecode mode, and tapping the screen sees the channel knobs shift from channels 1 and 2 to 3 and 4, and the same again reverses this. Given the negligible difference (5%), it is amusing to hear some commentators commending Deity for not using such a small screen as a complete touchscreen while liking the 2017 MixPre recorders for that functionality, but the PR-4 has a workable approach with this partial touchscreen approach, and a lower dependence on touch may appeal to many: equally, with the knob functionality too, it makes for any easier ride with the PR-4 than the FR-AV2.

This leads me on to menu structures and this I find very hard to assess: I have been using the MixPre-3 for nine years, so naturally it is second nature, and it is hard to compare objectively to the FR-AV2 (one year of very occasional use) or the PR-4 (fumbling my way around it still). Best watch one of the functional run throughs of the PR-4 or read the manual to get a more objective handle on it if interested. One general point, and not one very specific to the PR-4, is that I wish that the menus, derived quick menus and, indeed, user specified function buttons seen on so many cameras that offer much more customization could carry across to audio recorders: is it simply a case of sales numbers (and therefore product development budgets) that leaves many audio recorders seemingly so far behind in terms of firmware development?

Getting back on to less subjective ground, the PR-4 does a pretty good job of the most fundamental function: starting to record and, crucially, making it clear you are recording. Many a sound recorder and, indeed, camera, makes a meal of this, not realizing that operators are often working in low light, or rushed, even frantic, conditions: and, of course, the issues are exacerbated if the recordist isn’t using the gear day in day out. OK, the PR-4 isn’t as wonderfully clear as my 788Ts in this regard (but, then, it would be unforgiveable to miss pressing record on a Hollywood movie set!), but a single press of the record button causes this to light up and start the recording (with different pre-roll options) and a red border appears around the screen: a longer hold on the record button ends the recording. Contrast this with the FR-AV2 where you have to press the record button once to put the device into standby (which allows you to hear the mics and lights up parts of the screen in red) and then again to record (at which point the screen stays almost unchanged, though some, easily hidden, LEDs on the side light up): a recipe for failing to activate record properly. So a clear win for the PR-4 vs the FR-AV2 in this regard. Moreover, the PR-4 has the option for the large ‘DEITY’ on the rear to illuminate in RED when recording too: aimed at vloggers etc., I’m not sure how useful this is for field recording!

The expert and basic mode choice for the PR-4 is an interesting aspect of the recorder. It echoes the two modes (basic and advanced) of the MixPre recorders, but, in this case, the pros and cons are not so clear if you are an experienced sound recordist. Obviously, if you need one of the few features only available in expert mode (such as setting post-fader recording for the ISO tracks or panning) then you will need to use that mode, but the downside of doing so is that the two channel knobs become faders and not input gain controls. Yes you can push the knobs in to use them to change gain, but the change from fader to gain function isn’t instantaneous (it is all too easy to push in and start turning before the mode change has caught up), it is rather clunky to do with the tiny and wobbly knobs (this functionality really cries out for better-made knobs), and, of course, with just two XLR and two 3.5mm inputs the assumed preoccupation of ‘expert’ users with the mix seems rather unlikely to match reality: I suspect that many will mainly use the recorder for a stereo pair (either XLR or 3.5mm) and, certainly, that will apply to most field recordists. But gain/trim changes are a doddle compared to the same on the FR-AV2 where many a button push is required. Perhaps not such a big deal with only two channels on the Tascam, which is also probably likely to be used mainly in 32-bit float mode. Of course, this lack of need to change gain as much as with a more traditional preamp/recorder could justify the PR-4 design decision, and the faders’ predominance: but,even in 32-bit float mode, setting gain with such a machine is still useful to ensure that files come in to your DAW with waveforms that look vaguely normal, to be able to use the metering in a meaningful way and as part of the headphone monitoring chain. Anyway, it would seem a simple and reasonable thing to give the user the choice of the primary function of the channel knobs in the expert mode via a firmware update.

Mid-side (MS) is a staple of field recording, not least due to it allowing compact stereo rigs especially suited to windshields. The PR-4 offers MS decoding (which, for example, is not something found on the Zoom F3), although the implementation is a little basic and, given that, surprisingly confusing. The MS options – under the stereo link section within the input menu – are for ‘MS 60°’ and ‘MS 120°’: these are misleading terms – not least since the sensitivity of mid and side mics rarely match in MS – but essentially mean a wider or tighter stereo image. Once either option is selected the channel 2 knob becomes a means of adjusting width from a scale of MS18 via C to S18: C evidently represents equal gain for the mid and side mics, although, like many an implementation of MS (including that on the MixPre-3 and the FR-AV2), it is not a precise input gain adjustment to, say, match the sensitivities of the two different mics. The more significant limitation is that MS decoding is applied to the ISO tracks and the LR mix, and, in lacking the ability to record raw M and S to the ISO tracks and the stereo decode to the mix, there is no option to record M and S while using a headphone preset to decode the MS to LR. The MixPre-3 offers both, while the FR-AV2 – in keeping with being a strictly two-channel and two-track machine (i.e. there is no mix to concern the user) – allows the M and S to be recorded raw, while monitored in LR, or decoded in the recording too. And as long as your two inputs aren’t ganged on the FR-AV2 you can set yourself different input gain on the two channels in MS mode: it is handy to have such an offset set up for the different M and S mics, especially if handing on the raw M and S recording to someone else in post. Of course, with the PR-4 the decoded MS – necessary for proper monitoring – can be converted back to MS (a lossless process) in post, but this can lead to confusion, not least with recorded levels. It is frustrating how few recorders offer the ability to apply different trim/gain to the M and S inputs, so that the different sensitivities of the mics can be balanced, before the ISO tracks are recorded and before any decoding, but, of course, this is a benefit of the MS headphone preset in the MixPre-3 and more professional recorders such as the Sound Devices 6, 7 and 8 series: using a headphone for preset leaves the recordist able to change the M and S gains independently. So, to cut to the chase, the PR-4 has a basic if slightly confusing MS capability: again, hopefully this will be improved in a future firmware update.

Self-noise

The specifications of most field recorders in recent years are such that for most use they all have low enough self-noise that, if you are using condenser mics, you are going to be fine. That said, to be thorough, of course, I should test the self-noise of the PR-4 in comparison to other small recorders: in this case the Tascam FR-AV2 and the Sound Devices MixPre 3. The latter is the original 24-bit model from 2017. One thing I wanted to explore a bit more was not just their respective self-noise using the XLR phantom-power (P48) inputs, but, also, the 3.5mm PIP inputs: all three manufacturers are disappointingly coy about the specifications of the 3.5mm inputs, but it is clear that in each case different (and lesser) preamps are in use than for the XLR inputs.

Initially I tested the different recorders with 150 ohm dummy loads, but, with the Tascam and Deity models, getting a clear grip on gain was nigh on impossible, even when feeding the recorders with a 1kHz tone before swapping to the dummy loads: only the MixPre-3 returned figures that were in line with the EIN in the specifications, which was reassuring (at least my procedure was correct!). So, instead, I turned to more real world testing. For the P48 XLR inputs I set up a very low self-noise mic (the Rode NT1: 4.5dBA) in my usual homely quiet space (buried in duvets in the airing cupboard, with mains electricity turned off) and used a three-way passive splitter (an EMO E335) to send the signal to the three recorders: a 1kHz tone was played to set the levels (both to allow for the different gain structures of the recorders and any variance arising from the splitter). And I placed a mechanical stopwatch next to the mic for a bit more interest and, of course, as confirmation that nothing odd has been done with the levels.

First off, I set the three recorders at max gain, although, of course, that only makes real sense with the 76dB of the MixPre-3: the 1kHz tone was used to match the levels of the other recorders to this in my DAW (Reaper).

Second, I set the three recorders to minimum gain, which, again, only makes sense with the 6dB minimum gain of the MixPre-3: I gave this a whopping 70dB additional gain in post to bring this up to the level of the first recording, and, again, used the 1kHz tone to match the levels of the other two recorders.

The second test might seem rather pointless since, needless to say, everyone would expect the two 32-bit float recorders to have no difference in self-noise whatever the (notional) gain setting: for these recorders gain is simply a tool for monitoring purposes and to ensure that the level and waveform looks healthy when brought into a DAW. The more astute and/or readers of this blog will know that – contrary to expectation – the 24-bit Mixpre-3 performs exactly the same: there is no difference if you record a quiet sound at 76dB max gain or if you record at minimum gain of 6dB and add 70dB in post. This doesn’t apply to all 24-bit recorders, of course (for example, drop the gain to 6dB on my 788T for a quiet sound and boost heavily in post and, as you would expect, you will hear much more hiss than if recorded with more appropriate gain in the first place), but I included this test here as another salutary reminder to those who think the irrelevance of gain is somehow intrinsically linked to use of recorders using a 32-bit float file format.

So, these real world tests confirmed the hierarchy of quietness of the three recorders is line with the specs: the MixPre-3 EIN is specified as -130dBV (-128dBU); the FR-AV2 as -127dBU; and the PR-4 as -127dBV (which equates to -125dBU). Taking a recording of near silence (rather than the stopwatch), showed slightly greater real-world differences than the specs would suggest (1.4dB more noise for the FR-AV2 and 4.2dB more noise for the PR-4, both with reference to the MIxPre-3 and all A-weighted). Of course, while the differences are demonstrable with even a condenser mic, at 4.5dBA the NT1 is an extremely quiet mic and using it to record a stopwatch with 76dB gain is not an everyday occurrence: for most use, the self-noise of the XLR inputs of all three recorders would be fine.

Real world testing of the 3.5mm plug-in-power inputs of the recorders means, of course, that a low-noise LDC mic such as the NT1 is not feasible: indeed, the typical use of lav mics with substantial self-noise (usually around 23dBA or more) on such inputs masks the greater self-noise of the preamps used for these inputs. But, of course, for field recording frequent use is made of PIP mics with lower self-noise made using Primo EM172/272 and AOM-5024L-HD-R capsules (either as DIY projects or via small-scale mic makers such as LOM, FEL Communications/Micbooster, Immersive Soundscapes and Oaka): these omni capsules have a self-noise of 14dBA, which is into the territory of many respectable SDC mics. Taking an example of this with a Clippy mic from Micboosters (with a Primo EM172 capsule), I tested as before, albeit sequentially (I have no 3.5mm PIP splitter, should such a thing exist) so ensured nothing moved (including the 1kHz test tone source) between each test. The results were quite revealing: the PIP inputs of the PR-4 produced the lowest self noise with the MixPre-3 inputs 0.9dB (A-weighted) noisier, and the FR-AV2 very noticeably worse at 10dB noisier than the PR-4. Of course, it is hard to remove the impact of the 9.5dBA noisier mic than in the XLR tests, but, again, the dummy load approach ran into correct gaining difficulties with the two 32-bit float recorders: suffice it to say, however, that the PR-4 is substantially better than the FR-AV2 in this regard and if recording very quiet nature sounds or effects with PIP mics such as the Clippy or LOM ones with Primo EM172/272 capsules, or equivalents, you may well be better off with the Deity recorder. Of course, using P48 XLR versions of such mics will avoid the lower preamp quality for the PIP inputs and, with mics with self-noise of 14dBA, any self-noise differences between the recorders would effectively disappear.

How does the recorder sound?

Understandably, wildly cranked up recordings of stopwatches may not be your thing, and you might want to know simply how the recorder sounds. This, of course, is much trickier than with microphones, where differences tend to be much more obvious (there’s a lesson there!), but, as with my FR-AV2 vs MixPre-3 comparison, I had a bash at something relevant to field recording.

When comparing preamps or recorders, getting an accurate comparison is tricky: on practical grounds I think a passive splitter is the best, but, of course, there will be those who say the different outputs (especially the difference between the direct pass-through and the transformer-isolated outputs) will skew the readings. Having seen some very – indeed, surprisingly – positive test results of the EMO 335 when used for this purpose, I kicked off testing the three outputs of that same model of splitter on the MixPre-3, using a mic in front of a speaker playing pinknoise. I also tested my Palmer PMS-02 splitter, and both were equally excellent: given that the Palmer is not rack mounted and is more suitable for field recording, I will use this. Here at the spectrum analyzer tests for it:

OK, I know that’s a bit of an aside from the PR-4, but it’s useful to establish just how good a splitter can be, and it was a reassuring check before cracking on with some comparative field tests. Whilst still in studio, I also took the opportunity to use the same set up with pinknoise (replayed through a Vivid S1 into an MKH 8040) split into the MixPre-3, FR-AV2 and the PR-4, with the following results:

The match is very close: granted, not as close as the three different outputs from the splitter going into the same recorder (the MixPre-3), but matched well enough that one would not expect significant differences for field recording.

And, going into the field, here are three recordings from a familiar location (to those readers of this blog) – the massive belfry at Norwich Cathedral. To make things a bit more extreme, the mics (an MKH 8090 and MKH 8030 pair) were placed within the bell frame, just below one of the bells for the midday chimes. As usual, there was a little wind blowing in the belfry so I used the Mini-ALTO basket for a bit of protection. I think this is as good a field test as any, and the downloadable files mean that readers can scrutinize and play around with the tests further.

All three recorders handled the loud sound of the bells fine, and the differences between the recordings is negligible – well, at least to my ears! I cranked up the quiet section before the bells start to chime by a massive 60dB and did likewise with the tail of the final bell. and the recordings were extremely close (incidentally with no difference in self-noise discernible). That said, looking at a spectrogram of the three 96kHz recordings, you can see the ADC switching in the case of the two 32-bit recorders. The MixPre-3 looks as one would expect (the high-frequency peaks of the bells disappearing into the rising self-noise – at high frequencies – of the MKH8000 mics), while the FR-AV2 and the PR-4 show the sharp banding in the self-noise of the mics as their dual ADCs switch. Of course, there is a gulf between seeing or measuring such things – especially at such high frequencies – and hearing them, and I’ve not managed to discern anything audible, even slowed down to half and quarter speeds (with one and two octave drops in pitch respectively): the files are downloadable for anyone to have a play with. Moreover, in doing some high frequency burst tests using a shaker close to some much lower noise mics (Nevaton MC59-O at 5dBA) it was impossible to even see the switching visually: as far as I can see it is the ultrasonic self-noise in the MKH8000 mics that means the switching between loud and quiet sounds is obvious in spectrograms of the two 32-bit float recordings.

Conclusions

There are many aspects of the functionality, such as timecode, of the PR-4 that I have skipped over that likely to be fundamental to many of its potential users: this functionality – in a small and affordable package – certainly seem to be the basis of the various awards the recorder has garnered in its launch year, and, of course, may well be what drives the PR-4’s sales. For example, if you want a very affordable recorder with AES3 and AES42 inputs, the PR-4 stands alone.

My focus, as set out from the start of this post, has been somewhat different, looking at the basics of the recorder: its physical form, robustness, operability, functionality for straightforward field recording, and, of course, how it sounds. Starting with the latter, the PR-4 is competent: self-noise is entirely respectable (and much better than the FR-AV2 for the 3.5mm mic inputs) and fine for most use; max input levels are not as minimal as on many other budget recorders; and, subjectively, the preamps sound fine for much usage. With the last, I wouldn’t grab the PR-4 in preference to other options I have here to record an acoustic music performance, but there are other things that would drive that too: XLR P48 channel count, form factor, transport controls etc. But the recorder would still manage a decent job on many a simple stereo-pair music recording, and could even be useful as a simple back up (e.g. of a stereo mix). Obviously size, weight and the decent powering options make the PR-4 a more attractive proposition for field recording for nature, sound effects etc., as part of an ultra-compact rig: here it competes against the Tascam FR-AV2, Zoom F3, Sound Devices MixPre-3 and, perhaps for some, even the many hand-held recorders with in-built mics and external XLR inputs. None of these devices is remotely up there with the quality, functionality and serviceability of field recorders made for professional use (such as Sound Devices 6, 7 and 8 series, Sonosax SX-R4+, Zaxcom Nova or Nagra VII), although the MixPre-3, which is part of Sound Devices’s foray into a lower-priced market with the MixPre recorder series, comes closest. But just as it is frustrating that Sonosax have yet to add a recording capability to their exquisite and solid SX M2D2 preamp, it is frustrating that at the cheaper end of the market that Zoom, Tascam and, now, Deity have come near, but have yet to make a small two (four with 3.5mm inputs) channel recorder that is robust (i.e. an aluminium chassis/case, with well engineered knobs, buttons and latches), ergonomic (i.e. has knobs for functions best served by them, and tactile back-lit buttons otherwise), and gets the basic functionality right (e.g. displays all relevant information clearly, perhaps gives more custom display options/choices; and provides decent MS capability). The recording quality of the Tascam FR-AV2, Zoom F3 and Deity PR-4 is fine for the purposes that they are likely to be put to: if only they were a bit better engineered, more ergonomic and mastered the basic functions. Much could be done with simple firmware changes (and let’s hope Deity echo Sound Devices in that regard), but some involve improvements to the physical form of the recorders and doubtless would increase cost and, therefore, price. However, with the MixPre-3 ii priced well over twice the PR-4 there is considerable scope for getting this right at a still attractive price with a device that remains significantly smaller than the Sound Devices recorder: besides, many are likely to buy the aluminium cage for a bit more protection, and it is hard to imagine that a tougher case/chassis wouldn’t exceed the present combined price. It’s very early days for Deity in terms of making audio recorders, it is good to see another maker on the block (field recorders being a lot rarer than, say, cameras), and I’m hopeful that they are nimble and responsive enough to see that – in a future iteration – they could bring something to the market that hits the spot. And if you feel I have been a bit hard on a budget recorder (let alone its add-on cage!) and that key features – such as those AES inputs – mean it will perfectly meet your needs as it is, well good on you – I truly hope it works out: there is no denying that there’s a lot of useful functionality and performance in the PR-4, and at a price that would be unthinkable a few years ago.