A year of field abuse is good enough for me to recommend the machine, I saw
and heard it for myself. Antonio has been using this machine everyday for
nearly a year for monitoring soundscapes for the University of California i=
n
the Yucatan, he has just bought another for his studies, I recommend this
recorder without blinking :)
Martyn
****************************************
Martyn Stewart
Bird and Animal Sounds Digitally Recorded at:
http://www.naturesound.org
Redmond. Washington. USA
N47.65543 W121.98428
e-mail:
Tel: 425-898-0462
Make every Garden a wildlife Habitat!
*****************************************
-----Original Message-----
From:
On Behalf Of derek holzer
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 9:32 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Re: Edirol R-4 and performance
I summed up available feedback on the R-4 in this thread:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/message/20861
Have a look. The main discrepancy is that some said the preamps were too
hot, some said too quiet and noisy. I don't think the issue ever got
sorted out, so I'm interested to hear that someone has been getting good
environmental recordings with it.
best,
d.
Bruce Wilson wrote:
> Anyone know how noisy the R-4 XLR preamps are compared to the 722 or the=
> Tascam HD-P2? I think it's time to upgrade my Marantz 670, and preamp
noise
> is the thing that bothers me most about my current recorder (otherwise
it's
> a pretty good unit).
--
derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl
---Oblique Strategy # 33:
"Cluster analysis"
"Microphones are not ears,
Loudspeakers are not birds,
A listening room is not nature."
Klas Strandberg
Yahoo! Groups Links
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|