Raimund,
You're right. I made an arithmetic error. My apologies to all for giving =
out incorrect information. But please note that it doesn't change my recom=
mendation. I like the Quadmic just fine, especially for the price. But...
> 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...
That's not necessarily so. I didn't go far enough in my calculations. Loo=
king at just a few of the microphones that I have available:
with RME Quadmic=
Noise Penalty
Schoeps Mk2 -36 dBV - 83 =3D -119 dBV -118.6 0=
.4 dB
Rode NT1A -36 dBV -87 =3D -123 dBV -120.8 =
Message: 2.
Subject: 2 dB
Shure SM81 -45 dBV -78 =3D -123 dBV -120.8 =
Message: 2.
Subject: 2 dB
AT3032 -38 dBV
-86 =3D -124 dBV -121.2 2.8 dB
Hopefully I haven't made another arithmetic error. These are still pretty =
small differences but they are important to me! But not important enough f=
or me to take $3200 out of my wallet and purchase an Earthworks ZDT1024, be=
cause my wallet is not that deep.
The one-third octave spectrum of the noise of typical microphones is tilted=
up at both frequency extremes compared to preamp noise which causes A-weig=
hting to give a relatively poorer estimation of the loudness of the noise s=
o the audible difference may be greater than what is indicated in the 'Nois=
e penalty' column of my table.
Eric
|