Sounds like the right thing to do is save for a better mike. After
playing around with filtering for a day it's to much of a pain for an
ongoing process. Thanks for the advice.
Lets you know how things come out when I get going.
--- In Walter Knapp <> wrote:
> cgorgen wrote:
> >
> > I just got into recording of birds and picked up a Sony MZ-R37
off of
> > ebay. It was new so I went ahead and bought it. I recieved it this
> > week and have tested it out and it works fine. My first problem I
> > encountered was the noise floor when using the Audio-technica ATR-
55
> > microphone. Is there something I can do to remove the noise post
> > processing or just get a better mike? I have other microphones and
> > they do not seem to create that much noise but they are also not
as
> > sensitve as the ATR-55.
>
> Obviously getting a mic with a lower noise floor is a option, but
it's a
> expensive path. And you will find that as you go up that the preamp
on
> the MZ-R37 has it's own noise floor. So to go better than that you
would
> be in to both mic and a low noise preamp.
>
> Some of the noise can be filtered out in the computer afterwards.
This
> is usually done by filtering out selected frequency bands. Note
that if
> this is done very much, the recording will loose a lot of it's
natural
> quality, so do a lot of experimentation. And don't depend deeply on
> this. There are also noise filters that can be "trained" to the
noise
> you want removed and actively remove that. Again, overuse will take
the
> life out of a recording. You should note if recording for scientific
> purposes that it's generally considered a no-no to filter. At
minimum
> verify it's going to be considered ok there.
>
> What you find out in general is that only so much amplification is
> possible as amplification increases noise at the same time as what
you
> want. This is usually the limiting factor of what you can reach with
> your setup. Your options to get better reach involve either quieter
mics
> and pre's, more sensitive mics, or mics that have gain before the
> electronics (parabolic mics being the prime ones). Regular
directional
> or shotgun mics provide a limit on the area they are looking at,
but no
> gain advantage over non-directional mics. So they may help to cut
out
> other noise sources out there, they don't help in the balance
between
> the wanted call and the mic's self noise level. What this all comes
out
> to in practice is that your cheap way out for less noise is usually
a
> parabolic. You can get more clean gain for the money that way than
in
> going to quieter mics. The flip side being that going the route of
> shotgun mics you will spend considerable on the quieter mics, and
> additional on low noise pres. And, ultimately, even with the
quietest,
> most expensive shotguns you won't have the reach of a good
parabolic.
> You should note that you have to be careful buying parabolics. Since
> they have this extra gain, some manufacturers skimp on the mics
using
> mics that are noisier, negating much of the advantage. Noise specs
> matter on parabolics too.
>
> The other option is to try and get closer. Then you won't need so
much
> gain and there will be a larger difference between the dB level of
the
> call and the noise level of the mic. A lot of the craft of nature
> recording is learning how to position yourself for recording.
Sometimes
> it's not even a matter of getting closer, but moving around to find
> where the sound has a clearer path.
>
> In equipment, mics are the important part, where you want to choose
> carefully. We really push the limits in nature recording. Which
means as
> you progress you tie up a fair amount of money in mics. Luckily if
cared
> for well mics are a long term investment. No matter what the price
of
> your mics learn good habits of caring for them.
>
> Walt
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|