At 2:41 AM +0200 9/1/06, Klas Strandberg wrote:
>
> >And portability/small mass is a huge factor!
>>Personally, I prefer your the response curve of
>>your EM-23's to that of Senn 62's and your
>>packaging could be smaller. A separate "body
>>pack" design where the pre is separate from the
>>heads, like the MBHO 603's could be very popular.
>>A pair of me-62's are $90USD, so maybe you could
>>be competitive.
>
>I have an idea... making "raw" small amps for 9v and then let the customer
>do the job with jacks, battery holder, switches etc. Size? Two lumps of
>sugar.. or so..? With a few wires coming out.
Even better. This product would capitalize on your FET expertise!
<snip>
> > >I have made the tests similar to other "clock-tick" tests presented h=
ere.
>> >It is an easy and reliable method.
>> >"Correct" means that what you shall hear is the mic self noise.
> > >"Incorrect" means that you hear the recorder's mic amp noise.
> >
>>Understood. If you can do another test a mic with
>>12<dBA self noise or lower then we can compare it
>>to Hi-MD performance too. :-D Rob D
>
>Hmm.. I don't understand...
I was thinking of a way to put the noise of the R-09 pre in
perspective-- performing another test with an external phantom power
supply and a lower noise mic like an NT1-A. Rob D.
>
>Klas.
>
|