Skip to main content

TrueMatch Reference Microphone Converter

Member for

21 years 2 months
Check this one out:

 

TrueMatch® Reference Microphone Converter – Stage Tec’s high-end A/D converter for accurate and optimum sound imaging features an excellent 28-bit resolution and a dynamic range of 153 dB (A) with sample rates of up to 96 KHz (version-dependent).

Microphones are connected straight to the TrueMatch RMC – the use of conventional analog microphone preamps and A/D converters has become a matter of the past. Our patented TrueMatch conversion technology shows a lower digital noise floor than the thermal noise of any microphone: at last, it is the microphone that determines the sound – not the preamp or the converter.



[="http://www.stagetec.com/en/audio-technology-products/standalone-converter.html"]Standalone Converter[/]="http://www.stagetec…"]Standalone Converter[/]

TRUE MATCH RMC Overview:


  • no microphone-signal clipping possible at the inputs; processes a dynamic range of –131dBu…22 dBu
  • 100 % earth-free inputs, CMR 140 dB@50 Hz, so microphone splitting is feasible with no active splitter
  • automatic synchronisation to external wordclock without signal interruption
  • processing time only 0.6 ms
  • 8…24-channel versions available
  • remote control using PC-Remote, with level monitoring
  • internal input-channel routing to digital outputs using PC-Remote supported
  • all standard digital output formats available – AES/EBU, S/PDIF, MADI, ADAT, TDIF, Y2 …
  • 4 analog outputs for talkback and studio-out applications optionally available
  • also available as 8-channel 24-bit line version for surround-workstation applications
  • line-version: extra 8-channel D/A converters optional
  • optimal for installation close to the recording location as no fan is included

Check out the Concept Link:

[[url=http://="http://www.stagetec…"]TrueMatch RMC Concept[/]="http://www.stagetec…"]TrueMatch RMC Concept[/]
Attached files

Comments

Member for

21 years 2 months

audiokid Sun, 11/04/2012 - 19:28
I'm neutral on this. This lead was included in a link on the Sequoia forum.

Check this out too. I've never read any article where they actually did comparisons with real hearing via speakers and headphones. Something like this, I would expect this to be all paper specs, not real world:

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.stagetec…"]Thesis by students from the Music Academy in Detmold (Germany)[/]="http://www.stagetec…"]Thesis by students from the Music Academy in Detmold (Germany)[/]

Member for

16 years 2 months

RemyRAD Mon, 11/05/2012 - 00:59
I think this is a bunch of marketing BS? Taking a microphone into a converter still requires some type of a voltage step up. Direct transfer from microphone my ass. Talking about no thermal noise is like saying he knows how to turn lead into gold. And we know how honest that is. 153 DB is simply the digital working level that one gets from a 28 bit word. BFD. That's extremely misleading. Telling you that the microphone's internal thermal noise is more than their electronics, quite frankly, I think is poppycock? Thermal noise is based upon physics. And you can't cheat physics no matter how much you want to. Either way the output of an analog microphone still has to be converted to digital and that still means it's coming into an analog input. No thermal noise is like proclaiming " Read my lips... no new taxes ". Yeah, sure, check, you bet. That's marketing crap and so is this device. There's a sucker born every second. And this device will prove that truth again. Ya have to have some kind of anal insecurity to go with one of those things. Go ahead and keep spending your money on every tiny incremental improvement made and see how far your money goes. Their BS gizmo is so great it doesn't even do DSD. Because it's not good enough to do DSD. So what's more important? A good recording or good technical blah blah? I go for a good recording myself. I don't give a crap about much of the equipment as long as it's functional. That's all I need to make a good recording. That's all anybody needs really. What? You think you're going to outdo George Massenburg your first time out? I can't even do that after 40+ years. And I'm good. I'm better than good. I'm better than most. I'm one of the best engineers who's never had an actual hit that contain royalty contracts. But that makes no difference unless you have clientele. And I don't anymore. They're either dead, given up, broken up or split, retired. And at 57, it's really hard to make friends with all those twentysomething-year-olds, you can exploit and make money with. Besides what rock 'n roller is really going to give a crap whether you are dealing with some thermal noise or not? Like you're going to hear any thermal noise on a heavy metal jam? So let's not be ridiculous. I just want more decent and usable, more affordable, DSD. And software every bit as powerful as what we're using today with DSD capability. And that's not inexpensive software. And who's making anything DSD? Korg and Prism? Something like that? Two. Oh boy, two. And that's one of the most sensible of all digital methods of recording. It sounds real and it doesn't sound like anything PCM. I've been able to pick out the original source in double blind listening tests of 24-bit, at 192 kHz converters. Because I can hear the PCM process. It's as annoying to me as working under fluorescent lighting. I actually also have as yet to convert to DSD myself, if I ever do? It just does not look like a digital format that's going to take off? And it should. It's the best damn method of encoding digital audio I've heard to date. Along with clean transcode's, to any PCM format regardless of bit depth and sample rates. So why are we not embracing that? We're not because our computers are still really not up to the task. Not quite yet. Marginally maybe? Certainly not universally. So what's the point of all this gobbledygook when most of the releases are at 16-bit, 44.1 kHz?? Somebody's giving you a $50,000 contract? If yes? Then go for it at 24-bit, 96 kHz like George Massenburg tells us all to do. But it's just an incremental improvement that still ends up getting transcoded back to 16-bit, 44.1 kHz. So really what's the point unless somebody is handing you a lot of cash?

Thanks, I'll wait.
Mx. Remy Ann David
x