naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re: Son of Cheap stereo, uh, bit less cheap.

Subject: Re: Re: Son of Cheap stereo, uh, bit less cheap.
From: Marty Michener <>
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 13:20:29 -0500
At 03:55 PM 4/5/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>As per Walters Advice I tested the Radio Shack stereo microphones
>under a pillow to find the self noise. Here are the results.
>
>http://www.akwebb.com/gkweather/ambient/selfnoise.html
>
>Comments and observations would be appreciated.
>
>Greg Kunkel

Dear Greg:

Good post and web display.  Looks to me a bit like the RS self-noise
challenges the incoming sounds at some frequencies, but it is a bit hard to=

tell exactly.

I have been reading for weeks everyone shooting down shotguns.  I have kept=

my mouth shut, knowing lots of real recordists just use them and don't
participate in all the mad-molecular-microphonology.  I have recently
remained uncharacteristically mum when posters have claimed that shotguns
do nothing, apparently, whatsoever, that any field recordist might ever
want. ;^)  They only shut out sound, not pick it up, etc. etc.  And you all=

know who you are, the post record has been clear. :&0))

So, Greg, in yet another attempt to silence the "spend it all" crowd,  I
have tried to mirror your terrific web page (my compliments!) using my two=

(not cheap) Sennheiser ME-67s.  Repeatedly, I have assured this group over=

years that the 67's are more quiet than is ever necessary in any real field=

setting for going out and getting a bird's sounds.  Their portability
through the puckabrush more than makes up for their inability to "gather
any sounds".

I do NOT use them for studio-quality ambience recordings, and on those
points I do not argue.  The only real argument has come from one
participant who, in retrospect, told me he has only used Sennheiser's
forerunners - the ME-80 series, before the quieter self-noise technology
occurred, and never actually heard a ME-66 or 67.

Thanks to Walt's suggestion and to your example, I am able to post somewhat=

comparable results at:

http://www.enjoybirds.com/howitworks/micCompare.htm

Please note, the "ambient" recording was with no nearby birds singing
whatever.  Bird song would be on top of the ambient levels.

While far from CHEAP, the ME-67 are far cheepier than the MKH series (USD x=

3?), and despite dire warnings that you should always upgrade to the very
best, (if necessary I suppose cancelling your car, health and house
insurance to pay for them, or (horrors, learning to cope with ebay), many
of us continue to use them to great satisfaction.   I would love a grant so=

that I could upgrade, meanwhile there are these results to look at.

BTW: As a point of reference, a sound 6 to 10 dB louder than another sound=

of similar frequency distribution, pretty well drowns it out. 12 to 20 dB
is a terrific margin.

Ok, let the torches blast . . . Compared to this winter-reversion we have
in NH, the heat may do me some good.

my best regards to all, despite the disrespectful humor,

Marty Michener
MIST Software Associates PO Box 269, Hollis, NH 03049

EnjoyBirds.com  - Software that migrates with you.    http://www.EnjoyBirds=
.com



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

<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