At 5:29 PM +0100 8/24/08, John Lundsten wrote:
>I have been doing a number of tests on the R44 & other stuff to hand.
>for more details from me and others see "Edirol R44" at
><sursound%40music.vt.edu>
>
Hi John--
I saw the very extensive <sursound%40music.vt.edu>sursound
string on the R-44 lately. Are you referring to the Matchamp XTX131?
http://www.aliceshop.com/acatalog/AliceShop_Spares_7.html Are you
ganging together 4 Matchamps (mic -> line pres) for the R44?
Impressive noise performance for an under $100USD pre. How are you
powering the modules? Are you also providing phantom power? At one
time, folks were reporting that the line inputs on the R4 were
disappointingly noisy. Do you feel that has been resolved with the
R44? Rob D.
>The EIN Equivalent Input Noise of in my case a 219Ohm dummy load resistor
>and without the typically used A weighting network are:--
>
>R44 -111.25dB (at max gain, the most favourable EIN)
>Fostex FR2 -124dB
>Yamaha O2R -126dB
>Alice Matchamp +R44 (2) -128.5dB
>
>Note the input gain was such that a -45dBu signal (4.4mVolts) gives a 0dB
>Full Scale recording.
>This being max gain for the R44 & less than max for the other 3, so the R44
>fig is flattering compared to the rest.
>Re the difference A weighting may make
>The R44 has less LF noise but it also has less LF response than the other
>mic amps
>Simple filtering to get a 200Hz-24k passband improves the FR2 fig by a
>little over 1dB, I imagine the same would be true of the Yamaha & match amp
>figs.
>
>John L
--
|