> cutting the Ohms at the Mic in half is significant.
Lower-impedance mic inputs are easier to make quieter, but otherwise low in=
put impedance is a bad thing, so there's a trade-off. You'd like a mic to b=
e feeding an input that's many times its source impedance, so there's no lo=
ading effect and you get all the signal you can out of it. Unfortunately th=
e actual source impedance of mics is often left out of the specifications s=
o it's hard to gauge the relationship of a particular mic to a particular p=
reamp's input.
> And the signal to noise ratio is significant. I knew they made it better=
, but never really knew how outside of battery life. And the difference wo=
uld be much greater if I wasn't using mics with a 28dB (A weighted) noise f=
loor.
That's pretty bad, only good for fairly close micing of fairly loud things.
> Also interesting to note a 10Hz - 100kHz range at 1-bit and only 10Hz-40k=
Hz range at 24bit / 192kHz. I didn't know that.
Planning to record insects and bats?
> I only knew that 1-bit/DSD is supposed to have slightly better dynamic ra=
nge than 24 bit. Not that I have mics, nor monitors that use that extra ra=
nge much (yet).
Not in practice. The best A/D converters in the world only give you 21-22 b=
its. A dirty little secret of digital audio.
> And with the MM-1's only a 10Hz-50kHz frequency range, so cut in half if =
I go DSD with them in use. If specs are to be trusted.
My hearing's only good to around 13K, how about yours?
-Dan
|