[Top] [All Lists]

6. Re: R-44 issue

Subject: 6. Re: R-44 issue
From: "Peter Shute" pshute2
Date: Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:10 pm ((PDT))
Jez, what do you mean by "recording fence wires"?=0D
Peter Shute=0D
Sent using BlackBerry=0D
From: =0D
To: =0D
Sent: Sun Jun 24 03:15:31 2012=0D
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] R-44 issue=0D
Hi Robin,=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
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.=
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
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 =
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
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
--- In <naturerecordists%40yahoogrou=>, "robin_parmar_sound" <> wrote:=0D
> Jez wrote:=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
> 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
> 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
> -- Robin Parmar=0D

<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