Hello Raimund,
Ive updated the entry, thank you for pointing this
out - I tend to use
"response" without indicating what it is related to. Perhaps stating spectra,
or noise floor response would be more appropriate?
BR,
Mike
--- In "Raimund Specht" <>
wrote:
>
> "picnet2" <picnet@> wrote:
>
> > In addition its hardly giving the same frequency response as
> recorders that are cheaper:-
> > I recently investigated this recorder, lots of tech below, in
> summary: reach for something
> > else...
> >
> > http://www.urlme.net/blog/?p=301
> >
> > -Mike.
>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> How exactly did you measure the frequency responses? If I understand
> your blog correctly, you used a 150 Ohm dummy termination as a
> reference. If this was true, you actually measured the spectra of the
> inherent noise floor of the recorder and not its frequency response!
>
> To precisely measure the frequency response, you should better use a
> high-level (lets say -12 dBFS) sine sweep signal.
>
> Some time ago I measured the spectral noise floor characteristics of
> the MR 1000 and the results were very similar to your diagrams (high
> noise levels at frequencies above 25 kHz). However, if I remember
> correctly, the frequency response itself was completely different
> (exhibiting a slight attenuation at higher frequencies).
>
> Regards,
> Raimund
>
|