I have one, most of the time it sits idle since i use plug in power capsule=
s for 90% of my recordings. Noise is similar to the FR2-LE, except it has m=
ore gain. From memory an 14Ah battery was ok in the field with it - but tha=
t, the cables, weight of the battery, size of the mics meant the whole lot =
was just not very convenient. (Compared to the Sony D50 and a couple of sma=
ll mics, or in most cases my dummy head and my dummy head...)
One noise test i made a while ago is a reaper project file, in the spirit o=
f "the ticking clock test"-
Its an NT1A in my Semi-Anechoic chamber with 100 meter cable recordered wit=
h:
Message: 1.
Subject: Mic input
Fostex FR2-LE max gain.
Sony D50 via Rolls Mic power IIb
Korg MR1 via " "
Edirol R09HR via ""
ZoomH2, internal and external mic path.
Olympus LS10
M-Audio fastrack pro
Zoom R16
And using the NT1A->Quadmic -> Line in of:-
Sony D50
Korg MR1 (WSD)
Edirol R09HR
ZoomH2
Olympus LS10
Do you use reaper? if not I can render that lot to a 24bit flac or just the=
quadmic bits?
Perhaps the FR2-LE vs QuadMic?
Probably most relevant would be the Zoom R16 (8 Track lump of plastic with =
special high quality sliders that feel more at home on a childs toy), it do=
es the job running electrets via a battery box... or the QuadMic vs FR2-LE?
-Mike.
--- In Eric Benjamin <> wrote:
>
> Emil,
>
> I've had my eye on the RME Quadmic too. Unfortnately I don't own one so =
all I can give you is speculation.
>
> RME spec the Quadmic as having noise ein of -129 dB. Unfortunately they =
don't say dB with respect to what! Or at what gain setting that spec if va=
lid. Presumably it's either dBV or dBU which makes about 2.3 dB of differe=
nce. Why am I focusing in on that? Because noise is one of the primary di=
stinguishers of performance for nature recording. For example, if you use =
a Schoeps Mk2, one of my favorites, it has a sensitivity of -36 dBV and an =
SNR of 83 dBA which means that the noise is at -119 dBV. Making the genero=
us assumption that the Quadmic noise is -129 dBV, it's 10 dB quieter than t=
he microphone. That's good, but maybe not good enough. If you rms those t=
wo noise sources together that gives you a 2.4 dB increase in noise relativ=
e to the microphone with a 'perfect' preamplifier. OK, 2.4 dB isn't a subs=
tantial hit in performance. But you pay a lot for those quiet microphones!
>
> I have enjoyed using the Earthworks ZDT1024 in the past, and it has input=
noise of -143 dBV at a gain of 60 dB, 14 dB better than the Quadmic. On t=
he other hand, it's $3200 for four channels as opposed to $550, and that's =
a huge price penalty. And it doesn't have facilities to be battery powered=
.
>
> There's a review of the Quadmic here:
>
> http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/dec03/articles/rmequad.htm
>
> Eric Benjamin
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: emil klotzsch <>
> To:
> Sent: Thu, June 10, 2010 12:06:23 PM
> Subject: [Nature Recordists] RME quadmic
>
> hi everyone,
>
> has any of you used the rme quadmic as a pre amp for outside recording?
>
> its an interesting preamp, and sounds close to the sound devices 7
> series pre amps, and better-in my opinion- that the mix pre or mm-1
> for instance.
> and its cheap (4 pre amps for 370=E2=82=AC).
> sounds very good, but i=C2=B4m not reading about anyone using it with =
> batteries. but you can, and thats great..
> any opinion?
>
> all the best
> emil
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> "While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
> sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
|