No, I', talking about the R1. The R4 is probably very different, with very
different inputs.
Klas.
At 15:20 2005-04-24, you wrote:
>Hi Klas,
>
>thanks first of all for your report.
>
>Am I right to assume that you are talking about the EDIROL R-4 as the
>recent preamp discussion was about the R-4?
>
>I own the R-4 and recently bought four XLR FEL Mini MicBoosters.
>So far they work fine. But I must stress that I am a technical amateur, I
>can just say what pleases my ear or not.
>
>I do understand that preamps like the Mini MicBoosters reduce the
>headspace for the R-4 preamp.
>This is why I only use them where no loud signal is to be expected.
>Another possibilty would be to take advantage of the four inputs and use a
>four mic setup with one recording with the Mini MicBoosters the other one
>without them.
>
>I usually use a modified Jecklin disc quad setup (which I can recommend
>warmly for quadheads) with AKG C 480 with omni capsule and Audio Technica
>AT 3031 cardoids for the rear channels.
>
>One interesting effect with the FEL Mini MicBoostersis is that if I have
>fairly loud signal like flowing water or very close loud songbirds I
>hardly have to use the R-4s preamp. I just use it to get the input up to
>-12 dB. So the internal preamp noise hardly comes through. And I
>experienced no overrride so far. There is even a signal with the internal
>preamp turned off!!
>
>Next week I will be out among the sequoias of the Sierra Nevada in
>California, where I will give my setup a thorough practical test in an
>environment hopefully much less spoilt by manmade noise than here in
>Germany. And if anyone is interested I will put up some samples on the net
>when I come back.
>
>Klas, I would still be interested in further results of your test as for
>me the question is still pending if aquiring the R-4 for nature recording
>was worthwhile in the long run.
>
>
>
>Volker
>
>
>
>
|