At 8:46 AM +1100 11/20/09, Paul Jacobson wrote:
Hi Paul--
>Going back and reading Eric Benjamin's AT3032 posts personally I
>can't see anything that supports a claim for 8dB self noise for the
>AT3032's.
Hi Paul--
Eric's self noise (and other) measurements have been pretty reliable
thus far:
http://bioacoustics.cse.unsw.edu.au/archives/html/naturerecordists/2005-11/msg00190.html
By chance, Rich Peet and I made a comparison recording in my living
room this pm with the below mics. It suggests to me to that Eric's
self-noise number is remarkably applicable.
MKH-40 -> SD722#1 (55.4 dB gain)
MKH-48 -> SD722 #1 (55.4 dB gain)
AT-3203 -> SD722#2 (55.4 dB gain)
NT2000 -> SD722 #2 (55.4 dB gain)
Zoom H2 Internal Mics -> H2 (high gain setting"100")
http://tinyurl.com/yzdj4to (4mb QuickTime Movie)
Conditions: Playback levels matched using clock ticks. Frequencies
under 240 hertz rolled off to help make the self-nose levels more
audible.
Rich uses four AT-3203's on his surround rig and we were marvelling
yesterday how well-matched the mics are for lower cost mics without
serial numbers. Rob D.
= = = =
>Eric stated that the AT3032 were slightly quieter than the MK2's so
>we are relying on the MK2's matching the manufacturers spec of 11dB
>to derive a figure a sub 11dB figure the AT3032. My experience in
>comparing with Andrew Skeoch's MKH20 SASS rig is that the MKH20 are
>a quieter mic. Walt Knapp's comparisons of the AT3032 and MKH20 in
>SASS rigs seems to indicate the same thing, and I feel this sets the
>lower limit for the AT3032 at around 11dB self noise.
>
>A side by side comparison of AT3032 and AT4022 would be something
>I'd be very interested to hear.
>
>cheers
>Paul
>
--
|