naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 1 bit recording

Subject: Re: 1 bit recording
From: "picnet2" picnet2
Date: Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:34 am ((PDT))
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
>






<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU