Hi Klas--
The best test/most telling scenario for noise that I like to consider
is recording local acoustic ambience in quiet locations. The sonic
character of the noise created when the pre gain is cranked high and
other factors that can crop up make me reserve my judgement. If the
mic pre gain on the R-1/R-4 is only 40dB, wouldn't this add 15dB more
of noise on top of what you describe as "good (low noise) enough?"
Its not easy to make quality ambient recordings and the R-1 and R-4
may not be particularly good platforms for this application. Rob D.
=3D =3D =3D
At 12:58 PM +0100 3/25/05, Klas Strandberg wrote:
>No, not too early, cause nowadays there is no reason to make a mic input
>noisy. You can presume it is good (low noise) enough.
>
>The cheapest little chip amp has a better noise performance than the best
>mic amps 10-15 years ago.
>
>The design challenge is to make a mic preamp running on 1/ low voltage, 2/
>low current consumption, still 3/ good headroom and 4/ low noise.
>
>All "walkman" size recorders that I know of sacrifices the headroom in
>favour of low noise.
>
>Klas.
>
>
>
>At 03:42 2005-03-25, you wrote:
>
> >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.
>>
>> =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D
>>
>>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 grea=
t?
>> >
> > >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 Ger=
many.
>> >>
>> >>My main interest in bying it is to make the switch away from DAT as w=
ell
>> >>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 AT303=
2),
>> >>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 us=
ers.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Volker
>> >>
>> >>
|