Might be too early to conclude the R-4's mic pre quality is good
enough for the general sensitivity of "todays" mics. Of course,
Volker's thunderstorm is not a good recording situation for judging
noise. Side-by-side comparison tests with known gear can be very,
very telling. It could also be the R-4, like the R-1, is designed
more for music recording with a mic pre gain of 40dB compared to the
~55-60dB we're used to with MD's. That would be consistent with the
Oades' report. Rob D.
= = = = =
At 2:21 AM +0100 3/25/05, Klas Strandberg wrote:
>At 00:45 2005-03-25, you wrote:
>
>>It would be great if they could specify what they mean by not so great?
>
>I agree! Again: ALL mic inputs today are good enough if you use high output
>microphones!! Most microphones today are such high output mic's! What is
>the problem??
>
>Klas.
>
>
>>I actually purchased an Edirol R4 recently.
>>It was the Oade page that made me aware it existed.
>>According to my dealer I am one of only few people to have one in Germany.
>>
>>My main interest in bying it is to make the switch away from DAT as well
>>as the 4 channel opportunity.
>>
>>My (couple of days) experience so far is quite positve.
>>
>>I've done 4 channel early spring birdsong recordings with a modified 4
>>channel Jecklin disc (2 Audio Technica AT3031, 2 Audio Technica AT3032),
>>that I like very much.
>>With my mid class surround system, I feel in the middle of the forest.
>>
>>Coming from Sony DAT and Sharp MD mic preamps, I am satisfied, but I am by
>>no means short of a recording professional.
>>My main interest in recording is ambience anyway.
>>Just today I did a recording of the first spring Thunderstorm from my
>>balcony with a stereo Jecklin setup (AT3032 again).
>>And I really rocks.
>>
>>In case there is anyone who would like to have more detail about the
>>Edirol R-4 or even sound samples, just let me know.
>>I would also be interested in an exchange of experience with other users.
>>
>>
>>Volker
>>
>>
|