naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Self noise

Subject: Re: Self noise
From: Rob Danielson <>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 23:10:41 -0500
Walt--
I agree, the measurements may not  be ideal for uses where 
considerable gain (micing distance) is required but putting self 
noise and sensititivity together does seem to reveal the more 
transparent mics.  I found the below website handy when trying to 
weigh self noise and sensitivity at once.  Note you can change the 
sorting criteria.
http://www.microphonereview.com/miclist.asp?F_Sensitivity=&F_Noise=&F_SPL=&F_LLF=&F_ULF=&order=Microphones.%5BNoise+Level%5D%2C+

Wouldn't it be great to see a spec list ranking mics by transparency 
and cost-- the best mics for nature recording under $200, $500, $800? 
Of course, they'd have to be ear tested but one might be able to 
narrow it down to a couple dozen mics with the numbers.
Rob D.

  = = = = = =

Walt wrote:

>Rob Danielson wrote:
>>
>>  Thanks for the clear explanation Walter!
>
>Just remember it was pretty simplistic, I don't claim to be a expert on
>mic spec measurements. Just some rough rules I've worked out in trying
>to read specs. Once I have a mic in hand, I work out different rules for
>using it without worrying about the numbers too much. Practical ones
>from what I get when it's hooked up in my system.
>
>>  Number-wise, my simplistic understanding is that mics capable of
>>  excellent transparency (especially in low sound level environments
>>  where high-gain is common) will almost always possess sensitivity
>>  ratings higher than their self noise ratings.  For example, the
>>  Sennhesier MKH-20 has 10 dB Equivalent Noise Level (A-weighted) with
>>  a Sensitivity of 25 mV/Pa+/- 1dB. The AKG 414 is 14/12-- only 4dB
>>  more inherent noise but ~13dB less output.   The difference in
>>  transparency in field recordings made with the two mics is dramatic.
>>  Walter, know how sensitivity is measured? Something to do with the
>>  gain required to achieve a certain output,..?
>>  Rob D.
>
>I had not thought about that relationship, but I suppose it might be so.
>Or maybe the two specs just relate to other aspects of the mics.
>
>I'm not near as clear on all the methods of sensitivity measurement.
>Every time I think I understand it, some specs throw a wrench in that.
>Most of the sensitivity measurement systems are giving you some idea of
>the output of the mic when exposed to some calibrated sound level.
>Generally for most of it higher numbers are better. Though that may be
>too simplistic. You have to be real careful you are comparing the same
>measurement between two mics.
>
>Here's a few links I've got in my bookmarks connected to the subject,
>none really cover all of it:
>http://www.shure.com/support/technotes/app-sensitive.html
>http://www.audio-technica.com/using/mphones/guide/charact.html
>http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/rtp/microphone.html
>http://members.aol.com/mihartkopf/index.htm
>
>There's plenty more can be gleaned using web searchers. A lot of it
>about as clear as mud. Or incomplete. Part of the problem is that
>manufacturers consider those specs as selling points or ad copy. And
>will choose measures to show their mics of in the best light. Another
>problem is there are regional differences in testing mics. The Japanese,
>for instance will test and report in different ways from the Europeans.
>
>One thing to note is that the measurements are mostly related to the
>sound levels of voice at close distances. I'd really like to see some
>other measures, like say, how many feet out the mic could pick up a
>standardized sound signal in a usable manner. Or even just do the same
>tests but at a much lower sound level. Which would be more use for us.
>It would be much harder to standardize such a test. And would take a
>whole bunch of discussion to even agree what to test there.
>
>Probably the best source (at least by the sound of it) is the newly
>released Microphone Book which has tried to provide standardized specs
>for a large number of mics. I've not gotten a copy as it's pretty
>expensive, but it's tempting:
>http://www.microphone-data.com/
>
>Walt
>


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU