>44.1 and 48 are not twice the frequency of human hearing, that >distinction is reserved for 88.2 and 96.
The Fostex is one of the best flash recorders, it had better preamps and converters than the competition, its only drawback is that headphone amp is a little cheap, but that in no way affects the recorded sound. It is also larger, which is good for sound but bad if you want to put it in your back pocket. Converters and preamps are not the biggest factor, just one of several. And it depends on whether you can tolerate bright and hissy sounds. If you have the Edirol already, it is true you will get better sound by investing in better microphones. However, the Edirol is not designed for professional microphones, it has no microphone power (phantom power +48) nor XLR connectors. You can, however, purchase accessories that will get you there. The RME Fireface 400 is superb for laptop recording, but more expensive. The idea of mixing to 16 bit is somewhat outdated. You need to consider the use, MP3, MP4, DVD Audio, DVD video etc. We all mix to 16 bit (with noise shaping, which is a separate topic) for CDs, knowing that now people will buy MP3s, and the CDs for early music types are mostly for concert sales. Any computer can put full 24 bit audio on a DVD. Why settle for less? The main thing about 44.1 is that it is the CD standard, and it is a real pain for video, and 48 is better for MP3/MP4. If you are just going to make a CD, use 44.1 Ed is correct that the technology leapfrogs. But some of the products stand out as having good sound, due to the analog, not the digital side of the process, and these will always sound good. And Ed is absolutely correct that the mic is the main sound transformer. The internet will not provide you with an answer. Recording gear is designed for pop music, and the websites are either pop oriented, or tweak oriented, like discussing the effect of a $200 extension cord. The true classical websites are not early music oriented. My recording gear is what is called "high speed." That means that everything is operating much faster than standard gear. Once the exclusive domain of handmade equipment, RME put a lot of that stuff within reach of the amateur recorder. And the FR2LE is very good as well. You can read about the cutting edge stuff here for example http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/ These guys are great, but now the gap is smaller, and therefore the mics are more important. This all leads back to a controlled comparison, you can read about people who have AB'd the stuff, or you can hook them both up and decide for yourself. Ultimately, if you are picky about your lute, you will be picky about your recording gear. Ed's suggestions about finding a quiet place below are right on the mark. dt >Both 44.1 and 48K are more than twice the frequency of the upper >limits of human hearing of people with excellent hearing. This is >more than enough for average hearers and overkill if you are making >an MP3. The sampling rate needs to be more than double the hearing >range because of some technical reason. Just Google something called >the Nyquest frequency to find out more. > >I have an Edirol and like it a lot. If you are using the internal >mics, one or another of the several new digital recording devices may >be better than another. Manufacturers keep leapfrogging each other, >so I would guess, everything else being equal, generally the latest >thing has a better chance of being better than something a couple of >years old like the Edirol. I would look for comparisons of the >Fostex and others on tapper or audiophile sites. > >If you want a noticeable improvement to your sound, the best >investment IMO would be a very expensive microphone (or pair). >Digital recording is of such a high quality today, even with a cheap >device, it is not going to be the weak link in the chain. People will >go on and on about preamps, mics, converters, cables and even >connectors. I say find a quiet place to record, experiment with >position, edit to taste and work on getting the best performance >possible. > >PS. Mastering engineers say that if you are going to manipulate the >sound in any way, including change of gain, you should use 24 bits so >that there are plenty of bits to play with before the final mix to 16 >bits. Again, if your final destination is MP3, why worry about it? > >Read it again, I think I made a point somewhere in there. > >Ed Durbrow >Saitama, Japan >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/ > > > >-- > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
