This is interesting because it tells you about the relative
performance and this can help you figure out how to use them all over
time.
Sorry about the bandwidth. Rob D.
=3D =3D=3D
At 5:39 PM +0000 9/3/06, John Hartog wrote:
> <snip snip>.
>> >Have we had anything out of AT as to how there could be such a
>> >difference? Is the low noise consistent across all examples of
>AT3032's...
>>
>> .... One recordist, Allan Haighton, mentioned he felt his pair could
>be better matched.
>
>
>When purchasing AT3032s, what is the best way to assure ending up with
>a fairly well matched pair?
>
>When I bought my NT1As, I walked into the store, asked if they had a
>pair with sequential serial numbers, they did so I bought them, and I
>have never noticed any big difference between the two.
>
>For AT3032s, I inquired with one supplier if they could provide me two
>with seqential serial numbers, but they said they couldn't because the
>numbers were not printed on the outside of the sealed box. I was
>thinking of arranging to buy three or four, keep the two lowest-noise
>and best-matched two and return the others. My challenge would be
>determining which two were best matched. Any suggestions on how I
>would go about comparing them in my fairly noisy urban home? Or any
>suggestions on how to find someone qualified to do the necessary testing?
>
>John Hartog
>
"Microphones are not ears,
Loudspeakers are not birds,
A listening room is not nature."
Klas Strandberg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|