Roger C Boughton wrote:
> Rob Danielson asked
>
> Hi Richard--
> Interesting test. Which earthworks models did you test? Some are
> spec'd at 10dB, but the models Aaron cited are much higher I think.
> Also, did you find your 105's as quiet as the 20's? How did the 4006
> compare?
>
> I presume you mean Roger?
>
> They werethe qtc 1, I think. The 105s are not as quiet as the 20s, but they
> are now 25 years oldish, and they are not that different. I still use them, I
> like their sound better than the 20s.
From my original booklet copy that includes the 105's, they are rated
at 19dBA, MKH-20 is rated 10 dBA. The MKH110's that are working me over
are rated 15 or 16 dBA depending on the source of the info. The MKH-104,
the other omni of the period is rated the same as the 105. Those two
differ in how they are powered. 105 uses a two wire system for power and
signal, the 104 uses three wire. Both are unbalanced systems.
On sensitivity, both the MKH-105 & standard MKH-110 were rated 20 mv/Pa,
the MKH-20 is rated 25 mv/Pa. I don't have a figure for the 104 in that
system. It appears like it may have been more sensitive.
My info was that these mics date from the 60's, making them even older.
> The 4006 have a very nice sound as well, but I found their sensitivity
> lacking compared with the rest of the mics tested. A friend uses a pair for
> wildlife recording and his results using his spaced omni rig are stunning.
> He works , as we all should do, at getting the mics in good position and
> bingo the result is terrific.
The 4006 is rated at a sensitivity of 10 mv/Pa, noise at 15 dBA.
I've heard that their noise floor was not a smooth hiss, but more
ragged. Any info on this?
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|