naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 722 HiMD MicroTrack Test#2

Subject: Re: 722 HiMD MicroTrack Test#2
From: Klas Strandberg <>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:03:20 +0100
Rob, I have so bad experiences with Quick-Time messing up my pc. Can you
please make a summary in words? Or send sound files only, to yahoo?

Klas.


>Hi--
>I re-did the test comparing Rode Nt1-A mics (5.5dBA self noise)
>through the 722, HiMD & Microtrack pres/recorders.
>
>As I suspected, the whine on one segment in the first test was from a
>computer in sleep mode in the next room when the door was cracked
>open a tiny bit. The traffic rumble is at 3am on a Monday morning-
>the least I can get, basically. The playback levels are matched both
>by ear and by measurement and splitting the difference. This gives a
>lower Hz weighting which actually makes the hiss differences less
>noticeable.
>
>I added another test segment inserting an MP2 external mic preamp
>before the Microtrack's line input.
>
>The relative levels matched test #1  in terms of levels which is
>encouraging except MT's mic input was a little closer to -21dB of the
>reference NH-900's, rather than -20dB. The splkes you can see @ ~14K
>are in the Rode mics.  The spikes show much more with the 722 and the
>MP2->MT. Rob D.
>
>Two versions:
>Larger with uncompressed 48K/16 sound:
>http://www.uwm.edu/~type/Mic%20Preamps/MicroTrack_NH900_722Compare2.mov
>
>Small with compressed IMA4 sound:
>http://www.uwm.edu/~type/Mic%20Preamps/MicroTrack_NH900_722Comp2_IMA4.mov
>
>
>At 1:57 PM +0000 11/14/05, unprofildeface wrote:
> >--- In  Jim Lee
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>  Rob,
> >  > Any chance you could include the Edirol R-1 in your revised round of
> >>  testing? Klas indicates it is quieter and has a couple of other
> >>  advantages as well. A head to head comparison between the Edirol and
> >>  MicroTrack devices would really useful to people looking to get start=
ed
> >>  on a budget. Has such a comparison already been done somewhere else.
> >>  Those two devices seem to be the only real contenders at that price
> >>  point (MD excluded).
> >
> >Hello Jim
> >You can check this URL, though you'll need to register
> >(but it's free, and really worthy):
> >http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=3D50566.0;all
> >The Edirol R-1 preamp isn't really quiet, but it has
> >pretty nice A/D converters - if you can plug a good
> >external mic preamp (with phantom power if you need
> >it) in its line input, I guess you'll be happy.
> >The MicroTrack's phantom power is only 30V, not 48V
> >as one would expect..... that's pretty useless with
> >many condenser microphones. So you'd better have a
> >close look to the R-1 -- except if you're the happy
> >owner of a good preamp + A/D converter like the Lunatec
> >v3, in which situation you could use the SP/DIF digital
> >input from the MicroTrack.
> >Have a nice day!
> >Matt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >"Microphones are not ears,
> >Loudspeakers are not birds,
> >A listening room is not nature."
> >Klas Strandberg
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>Rob Danielson
>Film Department
>University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
email: 
        



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU