naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Edirol R-4 and performance

Subject: Re: Edirol R-4 and performance
From: Ed Anson <>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 12:49:14 -0500
On Mar 6, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Dan Dugan wrote:

>  I've always assumed that it was physical; where are you going to put
>  two more XLR connectors? And two more preamps.

Right. It's also the cost and weight of the additional mic pres. I
personally find the 744 an excellent compromise between functionality,
cost and size.

>
>  When people in the movie and TV business have three or four mics, at
>  least two of them are usually wireless. The receivers have line level
>  outputs.

That's probably the reason behind it, and a good one. I happen to have
a different reason for liking that decision.

Most of the time, I only record two channels. In fact, I nearly decided
to get a 722 for that reason. But the fact that I occasionally need
more channels made the 744 a better choice for me. Most of the time
it's a self contained, small and light two-channel recorder. When I
need a third or fourth channel, I mate it with my SD302. It's perfect
for me. [People who regularly record surround sound might make a
different choice, or might go for a smaller mic pre.]

Ed



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU