Unless I missed some posts, Gus's relevant question,
>Looking through the Shure specs, I find the WL93 is less expensive,
> >has greater frequency response, lower noise level, and higher output.
> What am I missing here?
seems to go back to October of 2004 yet unanswered.
Compare:
Shure WL93 Subminiature Omni Condenser Lavalier Microphone
http://www.shure.com/ProAudio/Products/WirelessMicrophones/us_pro_WL93_cont=
ent
Output Level: -38 dBV/Pa (13 mV)
Output Noise: 18 dB typical, A-weighted / Signal-to-Noise Ratio :76
dB at 94 dB SPL (IEC 651)
Voltage: 2 to 10 V; 5 V nominal (pin 2 to pins 3 and 4)
Output Impedance: 3000 ohms
vs.
Shure Lavaliere Omni Condenser Microphones WL-183
http://www.shure.com/ProAudio/Products/WirelessMicrophones/us_pro_WL183_con=
tent
Sensitivity (1 Pa =3D 94 dB SPL)
Output Noise: -40.0 dBV/Pa
Output Impedance: 1800 ohms
$72 http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/WL93
1800 ohms vs 3000 ohms anyone? Any updates Gus? Did you get that hum
to go away?
Rob D.
=3D =3D =3D
At 9:02 PM -0700 10/27/04, Dan Dugan wrote:
>Gus wrote:
>
>>Hello, am new to the group. Thank you for being here. I have been
>>researching microphones to work with my Sharp MD-DR7 for nature sound
>>recording. I have seen a number of messages suggesting the Shure
>>WL183's to be very good, inexpensive mics-as low as $71 each.
>>
> >Looking through the Shure specs, I find the WL93 is less expensive,
>>has greater frequency response, lower noise level, and higher output.
> > What am I missing here?
>
>Thanks for the tip, I'm going to take a look at it.
>
>-Dan Dugan
>
>
>
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Rob Danielson
Peck School of the Arts
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-art-tech-gallery/
|