[Top] [All Lists]

7. Re: R-44 issue

Subject: 7. Re: R-44 issue
From: "Jez" tempjez
Date: Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:39 pm ((PDT))
Hi Peter,
whack your headphones on (computer speakers won't handle the sounds) &
take a listen to tracks 2, 4 & 6 on this:\

i've been recording fence & other found wires for years - always
interesting. The recordings on this release are, as ever, unprocessed.

  --- In  Peter Shute <>
> Jez, what do you mean by "recording fence wires"?
> Peter Shute
> --------------------------
> Sent using BlackBerry
> ________________________________
> From: 
> To: 
> Sent: Sun Jun 24 03:15:31 2012
> Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] R-44 issue
> Hi Robin,
> 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 terms 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.
> 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-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 which 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
mics 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 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 their pre-amp design is limited because of the way
they route power. One effect 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 one 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 & in 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 doubt whatsoever a very different thing (& I speak as someone who
still sometimes uses a minidisc too & has no beef with lower cost units
per say).
> --- In
om>, "robin_parmar_sound" robin@ wrote:
> >
> > Jez wrote:
> >
> > > thanks Robin, I knew of this test (which by the way has different
results 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 positions for optimum performance.
> >
> > I would like to know more about this, since I have not read much
disagreement with the tests I referenced. Would love to be better
> >
> > 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 already 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