I think one of the reasons why there are no published figures for noise for the BR1600 is that it has noise suppression filters built in it also has a full range of pre-amps too. I wasn't aware that 16 bit or 24 bit made such a difference when recording. Then again I haven't recorded anything from my lute yet. Suppose I ought to really.
Neil -----Original Message----- From: David Tayler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 September 2008 20:27 To: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE] Re: Microphone [Scanned] The Boss is a 16 bit machine, so not really suitable for classical music recording. Although it claims 24 bit conversion, it is 16 bit, so that is pretty misleading. There are also no real published figures for noise, which is unusual to say the least. For that kind of price you can get an RME FF400 with digital preamps. Some folks really like the sound, so YMMV, but I think 24 bit is really the minimum these days, especially for lute recording. dt At 01:20 AM 9/23/2008, you wrote: >I think you ought to look at the Boss BR series. I use a BR 1600 CD. 16 >Tracks - so that's 16 mics - 256 virtual tracks and more microphone, >ambience, hall, reverb blah, blah, blah settings that you can shake a >stick at. It also allows you to produce professional grade CD's without >the need to move to another package. The 1600 has just dropped in price >too. > >To quote the american phrase....check it out. > >Neil >-----Original Message----- >From: David Tayler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: 23 September 2008 08:59 >To: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu >Subject: [LUTE] Re: Microphone > > > I have nothing against the zoom, I think it is priced about right, the > Fostex competes favorably with more expensive, professional gear. > The Fostex also has headroom, you can add a pair of Senheisers or > Schoeps to it, and viola! You have a versatile, professional, > audiophile system. > The zoom is maybe more convenient, but two mics, a stand a Fostex and > some clips takes me ten minutes. If I shave five minutes from that--or > seven, it's nice, but not worth the tradeoff in sound. > Another way to look at it is, would you buy a lute just because the > pegs worked well and you could save time tuning? > Maybe. > Then again, there may be something new that is better, there always is. > dt > At 07:49 PM 9/22/2008, you wrote: > > Dear David, > > Looking foward to hear about it. > > Actually, do you like the Zoom H2 recorder? The price is good. > 2008/9/20 David Tayler <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > tascam's stuff is not what it was. > I will be at the AES show in a few weeks and I'll post a report > of > the good lute recording stuff, > there may be a Fostex beater out there, or some new budget mics. > Always look for a noise figure of 129.5 EIN in a preamp and A > weighted 10-15 in a mic. > It won't tell you about the sound, but if it is noisy you really > can't use it for lute. > The Sennheisers have realy the best noise management, but the > Schoeps > are not far beyond. > There's some budget mics that have good noise figures, but the > capsules are not good. > The Studio Projects B1 has a good combo of a soft mylar/gold > capsule > and good electronics, > I'll have more info after the show. > dt > To get on or off this list see list information at > [2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > -- > >References > > 1. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
