8. Re: R-44 issue

Subject:	8. Re: R-44 issue
From:	"Jez" tempjez
Date:	Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:43 am ((PDT))

thanks Robin, I knew of this test (which by the way has different results f=
rom quite a few others). I've used all the other recorders & actually the R=
-44 has a lower self noise than the FR2LE & the PMD661 for example - but th=
ere is a knack to getting the gain & sensitivity knob in the right position=
s for optimum performance.

ta.

--- In  "robin_parmar_sound" <> w=
rote:
>
> Gianni Pavan wrote:
>
> > what is your opinion about its self noise ?
>
> I have no opinion, but John Lundsten actually tested the Edirol R-44 self=
-noise. He found it to be much worse than the Edirol R-44 Pro, Fostex FR-2L=
E, and other "shoulder" recorders. EIN was -109.4dB (-112.7dB A-weighted).
>
> -- Robin Parmar
>

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
8. Re: R-44 issue, Jez <= 8. Re: R-44 issue, Jez 8. Re: R-44 issue, Jez

Previous by Date:	7. Re: R-44 issue, Jez
Next by Date:	9. Re: R-44 issue, Jez
Previous by Thread:	7. Re: R-44 issue, Jez
Next by Thread:	8. Re: R-44 issue, Jez
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]

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