At 9:55 AM +0000 1/9/07, Raimund Specht wrote:
>Klas Strandberg wrote:
>
>> MicroTrack 24/96 has a much better mic preamp than the Edirol, (as
>> good as the HiMD???)
>
>Yes, I agree. SONY's HiMD recorders seem to be even better than the
>MicroTrack in this regard.
>
>I just started to measure the unweighted equivalent input noise levels
>of various recorders:
>
>M-Audio MicroTrack 24/96: -113 dBu
>Edirol R-09: -106 dBu
>SONY DAT Walkman TCD-D3 (15 years old): -115 dBu
>home-made INA163-based preamplifier: -128 dBu
>
>John reported for his SONY HiMD recorder a noise level of -122 dBu.
>
>I will add the TASCAM HD-P2 and Marantz PMD 6xx recorders to the
>comparison table at http://www.avisoft.com/recordertests.htm within
>the next few weeks.=A0
>
>Regards,
>Raimund
Our independent numbers are getting more
consistent and potentially useful in grasping
significant difference in performance between the
various recorders pres/rigs. (e.g. -113 dBu for
the MT2496 and -122 dBu for the Hi-MD.) However,
its also important to remember that the noise
contributed by a mic pre has unique sonic
qualities that are important to consider--
especially when one's subject matter will have
broadband frequencies like quiet location
ambience. I haven't done a sonogram yet of
comparison of this audio file as yet:
>http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-art-tech-gallery/mediafiles/722_RollsHi-MD_=
MT2496Compare.wav
>1. NT1-A > 722 until 3.75 seconds
>2. NT1-A > Rolls PB224 > NH900 until 6.5 seconds
>3. NT1-A > MicroTracker 2496 to end
but one's ears can quickly discern that the noise
added by the MT2496's pre "roars" in comparison
to that added by the Hi-MD's pre. This is
suggestive that its noise is extending
considerably lower into the frequency spectrum
challenging spatial imaging to a greater degree
and making it harder to filter and work-around in
post. (Add this to the MT2496's much lower pre
gain (approx -20 dB less than Hi-MD) and major
performance differences become evident.)
Alternatively, the noise "hit" when jumping from
an SD 722 to Rolls/Hi-MD, though comparable dBu
separation-wise, is not nearly as audible because
the noise is concentrated primarily in the high
frequencies. One can test this for oneself with
the same .wav file. Rob D.
|