At 2:18 PM +1100 3/5/10, Paul Jacobson wrote:
>
>Hi Paul,
>
>Welcome to the list.
>
>I don't think you've made a bad choice with the PCM-M10. In common
>with most of these small recorders using phantom powered mics will
>require an external phantom power supply like the Rolls PB224
>(450gr) or Denecke P2 (226gr) are options.
Hi Pauls--
I was attracted to the smaller size of the professional-looking
Denecke P2 when I was testing phantom units a few years back but I
got a hum and additional noise when I used P2's with Sharp (MD) and
Sony (MD & Hi-MD) 3.5mm/PIP mic inputs. Performance could differ from
unit to unit, Denecki could have made some production changes since
then and PIP circuits certainly differ. Paul Jacobson or someone else
might be able to confirm P2/M10 compatibility.
>No one has confirmed if they have the same stellar self-noise
>performance as the AT-3032's as yet but even if only matched the
>specs would be a better proposition than the NT55's.
I think you're right. I let David's continuing enthusiasm about his
4022's cloud my objectivity. I listened to his comparison of a MKH-40
to a AT-4022 again and I agree that the verdict is till out:
http://bioacoustics.cse.unsw.edu.au/archives/html/naturerecordists/2009-11/=
msg00313.html
I see that the lower pricing on the 4022's we saw back in November is
no longer available. Rob D.
>There have been very positive reviews on the AT4022 sound quality
>from a studio recording perspective. The AT4022's also have lower
>self-noise and higher sensitivity than the NT55s which is a plus
>with soundscape recording.
>
>cheers
>Paul
>
>PS You might be interested in the Australian Wildlife Sound
>Recording Group ( <http://www.awsrg.org.au>http://www.awsrg.org.au )
>in case you haven't stumbled across the site.
--
|