Richard Hess wrote:
>>> What I guess we need to know is the lowest setting on the line
>>> input which allows us to reach 0 dBFS in the file without preamp
>>> clipping.
>>>
>>> I solved the immediate problem with an approx 20 dB pad in a
>>> little Hammond diecast box. Set input to 100 and levels looked good.
I replied:
>> So I guess the moral of the story is to watch your levels and allow
>> plenty of headroom. By doing that, I've had pretty good results so
>> far.
Rob Danielson added:
> I think as long as the peaks at the softest moments in your
> background sounds produce -55dB saturation in your 96dBFS wave
> editor, you're taking full advantage of the H2's A-D circuit in
> producing the digital file. This might be another way to determine
> what H2 input setting will give you maximum headroom when recording
> at 16 bits without adverse impact on quality.
Thankfully, the H2 will record 24 bits. So one can be a little more
generous with headroom.
Richard again:
>>> More later when I get a chance to test. These are the subtleties
>>> that are solved better in the Sound Devices recorders and now with
>>> cost-effective 32 GB CF cards, the 702 is becoming more attractive
>>> compared with the 722 which I have. BUT, the H2 is an amazingly
>>> good device for <10% of the cost pf the 722 and the built-in mics
>>> sound as good as the Audio Technica AT822 stereo mic which may
>>> have a more ragged high end but might have a better low end.
Me again:
>> I use my H2 only as a cheap "bit bucket" to capture the output of
>> the MixPre. It seems to be reasonably good for that purpose.
>>
>> Once, out of idle curiosity, I did a listening comparison between
>> the H2 and Sony Hi-MD, using a pair of WL-183s as the source. To my
>> ear, the H2 seemed to be considerably noisier.
Rob again:
> Whoa. At ~22 dB(A) self-noise, input noise from the H2's mic pre
> audible above the self-noise of the WL-183's would not be up to
> 1990's MD mic pre noise performance standards.
Whoa indeed! You had me worried that my first impressions were hasty
and I might need to backpedal. But not so. I re-checked, and sho'nuff,
the H2 mic pres (on my unit, at least) are WAY noisier than my Sony Hi-
MD. And with a massively grainier, uglier character. I double-checked
this with both PIP-powered WL-183s and dynamic Beta 85As, and of
course the dynamics revealed the differences even more dramatically.
Interestingly, as we showed a couple weeks ago, the H2 line inputs are
on a par with those of the Fostex FR-2LE and, I would say, ever-so-
slightly cleaner than the Sony Hi-MD.
So... my 2 cents is that the H2 is a decent "bit bucket" for a good
external preamp, but pretty much useless otherwise if quality is
important.
Curt Olson
|