Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Google

Results:

References: [ at3032: 620 ] [ at-3032: 64 ] [ low: 6022 ] [ noise: 9032 ] [ cost: 2255 ]

Total 38 documents matching your query.

1. Re: ME62 vs. AT-3032 (was Sennheiser MKH 418 and stereo recording (score: 412)
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 12:36:31 +1000
..and a surprise quite a few recordists have capitalized on. Some might recall that it was Eric Benjamin who suggested and later bench tested the AT-3032's after discussion on this list about the nee
/archives/html/naturerecordists/2007-11/msg00230.html (10,911 bytes)

2. Re: at3032 LF "growl" (score: 264)
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 12:36:23 +1000
Ah,.. The nose-dive in frequency response your sample shows starting at 4KHz (see green line on the right most chart) https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/type/public/media/RichAT3202_PaulAT3202.jpg suggests
/archives/html/naturerecordists/2008-03/msg00019.html (19,512 bytes)

3. Re: at3032 LF "growl" (score: 247)
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 12:36:23 +1000
Hi PhilSorry. I think I may have confused your application with the 3032's and the Mix Pre and Paul's. Phantom powering could be a factor, but Paul seems to be connecting his mics directly to the HDP
/archives/html/naturerecordists/2008-03/msg00017.html (14,502 bytes)

4. Re: at3032 LF "growl" (score: 247)
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 12:36:23 +1000
Hi Rob and Phil, The recording was made in a rural setting, but there was significant breeze in the tree canopy, so that will clearly have some effect. But that does not explain what sounds like a LF
/archives/html/naturerecordists/2008-03/msg00018.html (16,499 bytes)

5. Re: lower noise/cost omnis (was mic check (score: 228)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:36:01 -0500
Nice addition. 4 oz. and 5.5" long. Thanks! Rob D. =3D =3D =3D -- Rob Danielson Film Department University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee _____________________________________________________________________
/archives/html/naturerecordists/2005-08/msg00368.html (13,617 bytes)

6. Re: lower noise/cost omnis (was mic check (score: 228)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
Rob, I have another addition: Audio Technica AT3032 16 dBA 19.9 mV/Pa It's notable in being lower noise than any of the other low-cost microphones (excepting the large-diaphragm types), and is availa
/archives/html/naturerecordists/2005-08/msg00362.html (12,891 bytes)

7. Re: lower noise/cost omnis (was mic check (score: 220)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:35:52 -0700
Very interesting! -Dan Dugan ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
/archives/html/naturerecordists/2005-09/msg00001.html (7,075 bytes)

8. Comparison of some low-noise mics (was AudioTechnica AT4022) (score: 213)
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 12:35:44 +1000
Hi Paul-- Hi Paul-- Eric's self noise (and other) measurements have been pretty reliable thus far: http://bioacoustics.cse.unsw.edu.au/archives/html/naturerecordists/2005-11/msg00190.html By chance,
/archives/html/naturerecordists/2009-11/msg00190.html (9,911 bytes)

9. Re: Comparison of some low-noise mics (was AudioTechnica AT4022) (score: 180)
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 12:35:44 +1000
Hi Paul-- Perhaps, after they are tested, they a grouped into different lots. If we can prove that the performance of your units is substantially poorer than other 3032's, AT should be happy to repla
/archives/html/naturerecordists/2009-11/msg00192.html (9,481 bytes)

10. Re: Comparison of some low-noise mics (was AudioTechnica AT4022) (score: 169)
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 12:35:44 +1000
Hi Rob, Perhaps I'm just extremely unlucky - as you observed recently I have the noisiest AT3032 you have ever heard, and the mic I'm using in my dish is noisier again. cheers Paul "While a picture i
/archives/html/naturerecordists/2009-11/msg00191.html (9,476 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu