At 6:46 PM +0000 8/18/05, robleshugodaniel wrote:
>I agree with Rob. Not only very difficult to know what=B4s what these
>days recorders, but with photo cameras, celular telephones,
>computers...too.
>
>My question about battery powered pres is still almost without
>answer...What do you use for nature recordings with excelent sound
>quality ?
>
>Hugo
>
>
>--- In Rob Danielson <>
>wrote:
>> If mic preamp components are inexpensive like Klas says, why
>wouldn't
>> a more specialized manufacturer like Edirol put in a quiet pre?
>Such
>> a critical part of a recorder. The Sharp MT-90's mic pre (I just
>> tested it last night) is quite noticeably noisier than the newer
>Sony
>> NH-900 HiMD recorder. Very difficult to know what's what these days
> > with recorders. Rob D.
>
Hi Hugo--
Sorry, I didn't mean to be evasive. I'd be happy
to head out into a quiet setting with your mics
and any of the external mic preamps you list.
When I compared the Sound Devices MP2
(transformered pre) with their new 722
(un-transformered pre) in a blind test, I
couldn't consistently distinguish between them
using headphones. If noise is a concern, check
to see its above -118 EIN dBU for those mkh's.
Most of the better ones will be.
Personally, If I owned a 4 channel recorder, I'd
consider a 4 channel pre like QuadMic by RME.
Rich Peet worked out a little power ing issue you
might want to ask him about, but to my ears, this
unit is definitely on par with all of the better
pres, its small and it cost less. Rob D.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|