Jez, what do you mean by "recording fence wires"?=0D
=0D
Peter Shute=0D
=0D
=0D
--------------------------=0D
Sent using BlackBerry=0D
=0D
________________________________=0D
From: =0D
To: =0D
Sent: Sun Jun 24 03:15:31 2012=0D
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] R-44 issue=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
Hi Robin,=0D
=0D
the FR2LE really isn't neat the Sound Devices - its a long way off in terms=
of not only specs (specs on paper only say so much as we all know) & in te=
rms of in the field. The pre-amps on the Fostex don't have as much headroom=
& are considerably noisier. More importantly they don't sound as good, but=
they are good for the price.=0D
=0D
As for the specs on tests this is a big subject that's been discussed on he=
re a few times - the thing is that these tests only tell half the story. Th=
ere are a few sites that, for example, specs the self noise of the DR-680 a=
t lower than the R-44 but others that find the opposite. The R-44 pre-amps =
burn-in slower than the DR & I guess that might be something to do with it.=
=0D
=0D
Much of my recording is concerned with very, very quiet sounds, most of whi=
ch a recorder such as the Fostex is incapable of capturing simply because t=
he self noise is louder than the sound being recorded. Thats the reason I b=
ought a Sound Devices recorder.=0D
=0D
Also, the pre-amps & paths on the FR2LE don't handle non-conventional mics =
well - I don't know the science of why, just the effect - but for example w=
hen recording fence wires with the FR2LE there's a ton of frequencies that =
just aren't there. I once had a long discussion about this & was told that =
Fostex route power to their inputs differently for one thing & also that th=
eir pre-amp design is limited because of the way they route power. One effe=
ct of this is that, for example, some FR2LE's need phantom power on with co=
ntact mics & some don't - its had us scratching our heads on more than one =
workshop.=0D
=0D
forgetting spec-talk for now, put simply the difference in available gain b=
etween the FR & the SD is that the FR is about 60% of what the SD has & in =
terms of self noise the FR is about 40% more than the SD has.=0D
=0D
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 doubt=
whatsoever a very different thing (& I speak as someone who still sometime=
s uses a minidisc too & has no beef with lower cost units per say).=0D
=0D
--- In <naturerecordists%40yahoogrou=
ps.com>, "robin_parmar_sound" <> wrote:=0D
>=0D
> Jez wrote:=0D
>=0D
> > thanks Robin, I knew of this test (which by the way has different resul=
ts from quite a few others). I've used all the other recorders & actually t=
he R-44 has a lower self noise than the FR2LE & the PMD661 for example - bu=
t there is a knack to getting the gain & sensitivity knob in the right posi=
tions for optimum performance.=0D
>=0D
> I would like to know more about this, since I have not read much disagree=
ment with the tests I referenced. Would love to be better informed!=0D
>=0D
> I confess to being surprised that the noise would be lower than the FR-2L=
E, which is already at Sound Devices quality. Some of my recordings are alr=
eady right at the limits of what is audible / possible, IMO.=0D
>=0D
> -- Robin Parmar=0D
>=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
|