This is a terrific demonstration, Rob. I join you in saluting Klas!
Something in the demonstration really jumped out and surprised me,
though. Please correct me if I'm wrong, folks, but to my ear, the
different phantom power supplies seemed to affect the sound far more
than the different mic pres. Have I lost my mind?
Curt Olson
Rob Danielson wrote:
> Well, it looks like there could finally be a way to hear/assess the
> noise floor of the HiMD mic pre.=A0
>
> In the test movie, there are four tests, back to back that are so
> close in performance that you might think there's only one sound
> sample! Listen carefully, the audio changes occur at the same time as
> the change in the picture. The gear set-ups compared in the first four
> tests are:
>
> 1) NT1A-s Mics->722 Sound Devices Recorder
> 2) Same Mics-> using Rolls PB244 Phantom power supply-> 722 Sound
> Devices Recorder.
> 3) Same Mics-> Sound Devices MixPre -> Line input Sony HiMD NH900
> recorder
> 4) Same Mics-> using Rolls PB244 Phantom power supply-> 3.5mm Mic
> Input Sony HiMD NH900 recorder
>
> The next two tests include familiar PIP-compatible friends-- the Shure
> 183's and Rode NT-4's for comparison.
>
> Finally, I couldn't resist juxtaposing the $2800
> (1) package with the $700 (4) package.
>
> 4mb version with compressed sound
> http://www.uwm.edu/~type/Mic%20Preamps/RollsPB224-%3eHiMDMicPreIMA.mov
>
> 8.4 mb version - uncompressed sound:
> http://www.uwm.edu/~type/Mic%20Preamps/RollsPB224-%3eHiMDMicPreAIF.mov
>
> <snip>
>
> Think I'll go pour a single malt whiskey now. Seems more affordable.
> May I be the first to toast Klas?! Rob D.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|