1 Topic by salatmensch (edited by salatmensch 2010-07-14 23:34:30)

  • Registered: 2007-05-06
  • Posts: 34

Topic: mic pre's of babyface

hi there,

will the mic pre's in the babyface be as good as the mic pre's in the quadmik?

thanks for the info.

best,
salad

  • Ulrich
  • S/Mux specialist
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2008-05-31
  • Posts: 316

Re: mic pre's of babyface

I guess they will be even better, AFAIK they will be the same as in the FF 400 / FF UC.

  • Registered: 2007-05-06
  • Posts: 34

Re: mic pre's of babyface

sounds promising.

smile
popup

4 Reply by panatrope (edited by panatrope 2010-07-21 00:16:45)

  • From: Melbourne, Australia
  • Registered: 2007-05-16
  • Posts: 495

Re: mic pre's of babyface

One difference appears to be (from current material on the RME site) that the gain is only adjustable in 3dB steps, not 1dB as per the FF400 (and presumably FFUC).

The 1dB steps in the FF400 makes it friendly in compensating mic sensitivity differences in stereo pairs or adjusting the image width of M-S pairs.  However, it is not yet clear how this might be compensated in the new TotalMix.

Overall, we all wait on the opinions of the fortunate few who will get their hands on the first production run.

De gustibus - et sonus - non est disputandum
  • Ulrich
  • S/Mux specialist
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2008-05-31
  • Posts: 316

Re: mic pre's of babyface

OK, this means that the TI PGA2505 is used, not the PGA2500. Don't know what this means regarding the audio specs. Knut?

6 Reply by panatrope (edited by panatrope 2010-07-21 08:16:10)

  • From: Melbourne, Australia
  • Registered: 2007-05-16
  • Posts: 495

Re: mic pre's of babyface

From the TI spec sheet, 5dB higher equivalent input noise and slightly higher THD (0.0006% instead of 0.0004% HeadScratch ), but of course overall performance tends to be determined by the design of its environment.

But if I end up driving the ADAT port with a Micstacy, this is unimportant ... :-D

De gustibus - et sonus - non est disputandum