[Top] [All Lists]

5. Re: R-44 issue

Subject: 5. Re: R-44 issue
From: "Jez" tempjez
Date: Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:28 am ((PDT))
typo (again) !

'isn't neat the Sound Devices' should be 'isn't near the Sound Devices'

sorry !

--- In  "Jez" <> wrote:
> Hi Robin,
> the FR2LE really isn't neat the Sound Devices - its a long way off in ter=
ms of not only specs (specs on paper only say so much as we all know) & in =
terms of in the field. The pre-amps on the Fostex don't have as much headro=
om & are considerably noisier. More importantly they don't sound as good, b=
ut they are good for the price.
> As for the specs on tests this is a big subject that's been discussed on =
here a few times - the thing is that these tests only tell half the story. =
There are a few sites that, for example, specs the self noise of the DR-680=
 at lower than the R-44 but others that find the opposite. The R-44 pre-amp=
s burn-in slower than the DR & I guess that might be something to do with i=
> Much of my recording is concerned with very, very quiet sounds, most of w=
hich a recorder such as the Fostex is incapable of capturing simply because=
 the self noise is louder than the sound being recorded. Thats the reason I=
 bought a Sound Devices recorder.
> Also, the pre-amps & paths on the FR2LE don't handle non-conventional mic=
s well - I don't know the science of why, just the effect - but for example=
 when recording fence wires with the FR2LE there's a ton of frequencies tha=
t just aren't there. I once had a long discussion about this & was told tha=
t Fostex route power to their inputs differently for one thing & also that =
their pre-amp design is limited because of the way they route power. One ef=
fect of this is that, for example, some FR2LE's need phantom power on with =
contact mics & some don't - its had us scratching our heads on more than on=
e workshop.
> forgetting spec-talk for now, put simply the difference in available gain=
 between the FR & the SD is that the FR is about 60% of what the SD has & i=
n terms of self noise the FR is about 40% more than the SD has.
> The FR2LE is a good recorder, the PMD661 is a good recorder, the R-44 is =
a good recorder - all for their cost. The Sound Devices is, without any dou=
bt whatsoever a very different thing (& I speak as someone who still someti=
mes uses a minidisc too & has no beef with lower cost units per say).
> --- In  "robin_parmar_sound" <robin@> wr=
> >
> > Jez wrote:
> >
> > > thanks Robin, I knew of this test (which by the way has different res=
ults from 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 there is a knack to getting the gain & sensitivity knob in the right po=
sitions for optimum performance.
> >
> > I would like to know more about this, since I have not read much disagr=
eement with the tests I referenced. Would love to be better informed!
> >
> > I confess to being surprised that the noise would be lower than the FR-=
2LE, which is already at Sound Devices quality. Some of my recordings are a=
lready right at the limits of what is audible / possible, IMO.
> >
> > -- Robin Parmar
> >

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

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