Eric Benjamin wrote:
> Making the generous assumption that the Quadmic noise is -129 dBV, it's 10 dB
> quieter than the microphone. That's good, but maybe not good enough. If you
> rms those two noise sources together that gives you a 2.4 dB increase in
> noise relative to the microphone with a 'perfect' preamplifier. OK, 2.4 dB
> isn't a substantial hit in performance. But you pay a lot for those quiet
> microphones!
Hmmmm... Here is something wrong! If the preamp noise voltage is 10 dB lower
than the noise voltage of the microphone, then one would get an overall
increase of the noise floor by 0.4 dB only (see
http://www.rane.com/note148.html or
http://www.avisoft.com/tutorial_mic_recorder.htm). I guess that this slight
increase is inaudible and therefore irrelevant.
> 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 the
> other hand, it's $3200 for four channels as opposed to $550, and that's a
> huge price penalty.
I'm afraid that a preamp noise figure of -143 dBV does not provide a
significant advantage in conjunction with any real microphone under real-world
conditions...
Regards,
Raimund
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|